RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_12_03_C_Border_IssuesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CAROLYNN PETRU, AICP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGE~
DECEMBER 3, 2013
BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT i'n
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager: Ktt Fox, AICP, Senior Administrative Analys~
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• An update on the Ponte Vista project at the former Navy housing site on Western
Avenue in Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• An update on recent issues and events related to the Rancho LPG butane
storage facility in Los Angeles (San Pedro); and,
• An update on the draft Los Angeles County General Plan Housing Element for
the unincorporated County "islands" on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border
Issues" potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes. The complete text
of the current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
http://palosverdes.comlmvlplanninq/border issues/2013120131203 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm
C-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
December 3, 2013
Page2
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On November 14, 2013, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission (CPC) considered
the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and related land use entitlements for the
676-unit version of the Ponte Vista project. There were roughly sixty (60) speakers on
the Ponte Vista item, with commenters equally split between project proponents (mainly
San Pedro residents, local realtors and the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce) and
opponents (mainly Rancho Palos Verdes residents, environmental activists and some
San Pedro residents). A representative from Los Angeles 15th District City Councilman
Joe Buscaino's office attended and read a prepared statement that culminated in the
councilman's endorsement for the project.
The major topics discussed by the Commissioners included:
• The provisions of affordable housing;
• The provision an access easement for the adjacent Sea Port development to gain
access to the new traffic signal to be located at the Avenida Aprenda entrance of
the development;
• The Mary Star-of-the-Sea High School access roadway and parking;
• The development being a "gated community";
• The provision of signage along Western and throughout the development to
promote the public park/open space and trails; and,
• The height of the retaining walls in the northerly portion of the site.
The CPC ultimately adopted Staff's recommendation to approve the project, with
direction to Staff to address the following issues:
• Required maintenance of the public park (perhaps by the future homeowners
association);
• Parking for the park and parking along the street that provides access to Mary -of-
the-Sea High School;
• Signage to inform the public of the accessibility of the open space areas;
• Inclusion of an easement for the Sea Port development to the south; and,
• Requiring annual monitoring of the traffic mitigation measures identified in the
FEIR.
Attached to tonight's report are copies of Daily Breeze articles, e-mails from interested
parties and the CPC Staff report for the Ponte Vista project. The project still requires a
hearing before the Los Angeles City Council's Planning and Land Use Management
(PLUM) Committee and final action by the Los Angeles City Council. As such, Staff will
continue to monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
C-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
December 3, 2013
Page3
Rancho LPG Butane Storage Facility, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
In the past two (2) months, there has been little new to report regarding the Rancho
LPG facility. Interested parties have continued to forward items regarding the facility via
e-mail. Copies of these e-mails are attached to tonight's report. Staff will continue to
monitor this project in future Border Issues reports.
Los Angeles County General Plan Housing Element Update, Unincorporated Areas of
the Peninsula
On October 9, 2013, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission
considered and approved the Draft Negative Declaration (ND); and recommended that
the Board of Supervisors approve revisions to the County's General Plan Housing
Element (see attached Staff report). The Board of Supervisors' public hearing will be
held on Tuesday, December 3, 2013. Staff will continue to monitor and report on this
issue in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Attachments:
• Daily Breeze articles regarding Ponte Vista project (published 11/9/13 and
11/15/13)
• E-mails regarding Ponte Vista project (miscellaneous dates)
• CPC Staff report for Ponte Vista project (dated 11/14/13)
• E-mails and Late Correspondence regarding Rancho LPG facility (miscellaneous
dates)
• RPC Staff report for County General Plan Housing Element Update (dated
10/9/13)
M:\Border lssues\Staff Reports\20131203_Borderlssues_StaffRpt.docx
C-3
Daily Breeze articles regarding Ponte Vista project
C-4
http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/201311 08/los-angeles-city-planners-give-ok-to-smaller-ponte-vista-housing-development
Los Angeles city planners give OK to smaller Ponte Vista housing
development
By Donna Littlejohn, The Daily Breeze
Friday, November 8, 2013
Angeles City Cquncil.
DailyBreeze.com
Los Angeles city planners have given a thumbs up to the latest
scaled-down version of San Pedro's Ponte Vista housing
development, possibly setting the stage for final approvals after years
of failed attempts by earlier developers.
Next stop: The Los Angeles City Planning Commission, which will
take up the issue for a vote at its 9 a.m. Thursday meeting in
downtown Los Angeles. From there, the matter would go to the Los
"I think we've created a project that was thoughtfully designed from the beginning and really fits in with the
community," said Eric Shabsis, a spokesman for the project proposed for the 61.5-acre property at 26900
S. Western Ave. The land is owned by iStar Financial Inc.
The city's planning staff has posted a voluminous analysis of the latest proposal, which calls for 676 to
700 for-sale homes. The report also includes responses to the main concerns expressed by the
community, including those of density and public access.
But opponents say they'll continue to push their cause to keep the property zoned for R1 single-family
homes, which would bring the numbers down further.
"We'll amass the troops, as many as we can, to make the trip down there" for Thursday's Planning
Commission meeting, said John Stinson of San Pedro.
The planning analysis states that "traffic impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels" under
measures required by the city's Department of Transportation.
As for the R1 argument, the document states: "At the 2009 City Planning Commission meeting, the
planning commissioners commented that the property is an eyesore, and that future development should
not be R1 density but consistent with the surrounding community."
In 2009, the commission suggested home numbers range from 775 to 886.
If the latest proposal is approved, zoning would be changed for 700 homes.
On other issues, the report found:
• The plan takes into consideration public input.
• Gating the community to through traffic -with the exception of the access road leading to Mary Star of
the Sea High School and a public park on the site -is appropriate since the site doesn't connect with
Page 1 of2 C-5
http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/201311 08/los-angeles-city-planners-give-ok-to-smaller-ponte-vista-housing-development
other city streets that would be needed by the general public.
• The Rancho LPG Holdings storage tanks, which contain propane and butane, do not pose an impact on
the Ponte Vista site.
• A 2.42-acre park within the project area will be maintained privately but be open to the public.
The latest plan calls for building 676 homes -with the possibility of going as high as 700 but no higher -
on the now abandoned Navy housing site that is across the street and south of Green Hills Memorial Park.
The new proposal, rolled out this fall, reflects a 15 percent cut in size from the earlier 830-home proposal
and a full 70 percent drop from the original 2005 proposal put forth by the original developer, Bob Bisno.
Currently, the plan calls for 208 single-family homes along with 140 town houses, 140 single-and
multi-level condominium town houses and flats, and 188 one-level condominium flats.
Earlier proposals that failed to garner support included total housing numbers of 2,300, 1,950,
1,375-1,475, 1,135 and 830.
While each new rollout of the project has drawn opposition, they also have had support from many
residents and business leaders in the community who say the area needs more for-sale housing and that
the project will be a boon to the local economy.
Groundbreaking could occur in the first half of 2014 if the downsized project is approved by the city.
Page 2 of 2 C-6
http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20131114/los-angeles-planning-commission-approves-latest-ponte-vista-housing-plan-for-san-pedro
Los Angeles Planning Commission approves latest Ponte Vista
housing plan for San Pedro
By Donna Littlejohn, The Daily Breeze
Thursday, November 14, 2013 DailyBreeze.com
Los Angeles >> After nearly a full day of testimony and discussion
Thursday, the city Planning Commission unanimously approved the
downsized Ponte Vista housing plan for San Pedro.
The proposal now goes to the Los Angeles City Council.
In a packed meeting room, residents on both sides lined up to speak on what for years has been one of
the most contentious issues in the community.
Commissioners· directed dozens of questions to staff members and the developer during the course of the
9 a.m. meeting that stretched into midafternoon by the time a vote was taken.
The plan scales down the number of homes to 676 -fewer than recommended by the Planning
Commission in 2009, when an earlier proposal was turned down -that will be built on a 61.5-acre parcel
of former Navy land.
Commissioners lauded the developer, iStar Financial Inc., for taking into account community concerns in
reshaping some parts of the plan.
"I've seen and experienced (cases) where developers meet with the community, receive feedback and
then they completely ignore it, which is the height of arrogance," Commissioner Maria G. Cabildo said.
But despite the lower density, the community remains divided, with many who testified Thursday in
support of retaining the current R1 zoning for single-family housing on the land at 26900 S. Western Ave.
"It's not that we're opposed to a project being built, it's just that it needs to go on a diet," said John Stinson
of San Pedro, who heads up the R1 advocacy group that collected 16,000 petition signatures at one point.
Several speakers argued that no project should be built until the Rancho LPG Holdings storage tanks,
which contain propane and butane, are moved out of the community.
Supporters, including several Realtors, argued that the project will bring a needed mix of new housing
stock to the area.
"We're constantly getting asked what's new and exciting in San Pedro that you can show us," said Realtor
Heidi Brown. "Well, here you go, we've got it. When I pass by that site I think, 'I hope they do something
with that someday.' We're just here to say we're really excited about this and we've talked about it to a lot
of people.''
Included in the latest proposal is a 2.42-acre park, walking trails, a playground and a dog park that would
be open to the public.
Page 1 of2 C-7
http://www.dailybreeze.com/business/20131114/los-angeles-planning-commission-approves-latest-ponte-vista-housing-plan-for-san-pedro
When it was first proposed by developer Bob Bisno in 2005, the Ponte Vista project called for 2,300
homes.
Over the years, the numbers were scaled down and Bisno was moved out of the project as iStar took over
in 2010. Last year, plans were downsized to 830 homes.
That number was further reduced to 676 -with a cap at 700 -for the site.
As part of the Planning Commission motion approved Thursday, the developer would monitor the traffic
mitigation program annually and report its findings to the city Department of Transportation.
Page 2of2 C-8
E-mails regarding Ponte Vista project
C-9
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Friday, October 04, 2013 8:40 AM
To: Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd:
Kit,
Just in case you have not yet heard of this proposed change and of tomorrow's meeting about it.
Glenn
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 10:17 PM
Subject:
To: "overbid2002@yahoo.com" <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
Ponte Vista has published a new plan for 676/700 units. NWSPNC is preparing a pdf file showing it which should be
available in a day or two.
NWSPNC is having a special meeting of its Planning and Land Use Committee this coming Saturday October 5 at 9 am at
the police station on Gibson Blvd. at which the new plan will be considered. Ponte Vista will be there to present its plan
to the committee.
I suggest that anyone who wishes to make a comment to the Committee or to ask questions of Ponte Vista should plan
on attending or send a representative of their organization. If past behavior is any indication, we can expect Ponte Vista
to spend a great deal of time arguing with any comment made.
1 C-10
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Kit-
FYI
CP
Carolynn Petru
Monday, October 07, 2013 1:07 PM
Kit Fox
FW: [PossibleSpam] Ponte Vista
From: chateau4us@att.net [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:06 PM
To: CC
Subject: [PossibleSpam] Ponte Vista
Good afternoon Mayor Susan Brooks, Mayor Pro Tern Jerry Duhovic, Councilman Anthony Misetich, Councilman Brian
Campbell and Councilman Jim Knight,
I strongly believe that single family homes would be the best option for the Ponte Vista development.
As a property owner and manager for 25 years, I closely follow real estate trends. I am also a real estate agent. One
trend that is continually increasing is the demand for single family homes vs. condos or townhomes. In 2013 there were
3,020 single family homes sold in the South Bay area vs 717 condos in that same time period. The days on market were
about a week shorter for single family homes.
I have a suggestion for the Ponte Vista plan. Multi-generational style single family homes would keep the R1 zoning and
still provide homes for a wide variety of buyers. Multigenerational style single family homes also helps seniors on a fixed
income and provides a community feeling with a wide range of ages. Places like Leisure World are less desired by todays
seniors because the preference is to live among a wide variety of age groups. Leisure World in Seal Beach is a huge
senior complex. In 2003 there were 150 units sold with an average of 56 days on market for an average price of
$152,483. This year, there have been 422 sold with an average of 65 days on market for an average price of
$141,310. That seems like a very high turnover for that complex. Currently there are 69 active listings for that one
complex. My own mother-in-law who is 75 years old said she didn't like Leisure World because she "doesn't want to live
around a bunch of old people dying off'.
According to AARP in 2011, Growth of multigenerational households has accelerated during the economic downturn. In
2008, 6.2 million intergenerational households resided in the United States (5.3% of all households.) That number jumped
to 7.1 million households by 2010 (6.1% of all households.) The increase in these two years represents a faster rate of
growth than the previous eight years combined. The cost of retirement homes is prohibitively expensive. Another AARP
article supports increase demand for multigenerational homes.
http://www.aarp.org/home-family/friends-family/info-04-2013/three-generations-household-american-family.html
An article in http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/18/tp-multigenerational-households-on-the-rise/
I am representing a buyer at this time who is looking in the Torrance area for a single family house for him and his senior
mother (multigenerational home). He has seen and refuses to consider any home that is next to a condo building or
apartment building or that has more than a couple steps. Single family homes that are right next to condos typically sell
for less and are on the market longer. I cannot think of one development that is a mix of single family homes, condos and
apartments and I'm not sure how well that type of product would sell. All the complex's that I know of in the South Bay
area are just one type of home. I think this type of development is inconsistent with the surrounding community.
1 C-11
Sincerely,
Jeanne Lacombe, personally and not representing RHRHA
2 C-12
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:06 AM
b.campbell@bcurban.com; Kit Fox
Cc:
Subject:
chateau4us@att.net; Chuck Hart; gcornell6@gmail.com
Fw: ponte vista tt & sp
Brian, Kit
This fellow is a land development engineer who works for developers. In his past, he did the
adequacy reviews for Torrance for projects in that city.
Several months ago he commented to Los Angeles that the rain water estimates used by Ponte Vista
were severely understated, that no hydrologist would use them. Essentially, he said the estimates
were only one-fourth to one-third the amount shown in currently accepted hydrology tables. At first,
he assured us that Los Angeles would catch the design flaws in plan review, but after talking with City
Bureau of Engineering staff [on this and other issues] he no longer has faith that they will do anything
but rubber stamp whatever Ponte Vista presents.
The riparian area in the Ponte Vista project site drains a large area to the west of Western
Avenue. For that reason he is suggesting that perhaps RPV might want to request a hydrology
review from the County.
He did not mention it in his note below, but he and others have also noted that the new tentative tract
map has numerous cul-de-sacs serving the units, none of which have any turn around space for fire
trucks. On Western itself, emergency vehicle access remains an area of concern for residents on
both sides of Western, especially during peak hours.
Thanks.
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: Bruce Bornemann <bruce@bornemannla.com>
To: pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:12 AM
Subject: ponte vista tt & sp
PAT,
I'M REVIEWING THE TT AND SP NOW. I HA VE ABOUT 3 PAGES SO FAR AND WILL
WIND UP WITH ABOUT 6.
WHAT IS OUR DEADLINE FOR REVIEW?
IS THE REVISED SP OUT YET?
THIS CURRENT SP READS LIKE IT WAS WRITTEN BY PONTE VISTA AND HANDED TO
THE CITY STAFF.
1 C-13
DO YOU HA VE ANY CONTACTS IN RPV? WE NEED RPV TO INSIST THAT THE
DRAINAGE HYDROLOGY RECEIVE A SEPARATE REVIEW BY LA.COUNTY STAFF. IT
APPEARS THAT THE LA BUREAU OF ENGINEERING (BOE) HAS LOST ITS BACKBONE
AND MAY ALLOW THIS THRU AS SHOWN IN THE EIR.
I HA VE OTHER PROJECTS IN LA CITY AND I'VE SEEN BOE TURN TO JELLO, WHICH
THEY NEVER USED TO DO.
IF THE DRAINAGE IS BUILT LIKE PROPOSED RPV COULD BE VERY LIABLE FOR THE
MESS PONTE VISTA LEAVES BEHIND SINCE THEY CONTRIBUTE A LOT OF
WATER. RPV AND LA CITY WILL BE THE DEEP POCKETS LEFT BEHIND.
BRUCE
2
C-14
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kit
Diana Nave <diananave@gmail.com>
Sunday, October 13, 2013 2:06 PM
Kit Fox
Ray R; Raymond Regalado
Ponte Vista
I have recently received a number of documents from the !Star folks that I will forward to you. I need to send
them in separate e-mails due to the size of the files. They should also be posted on our website. Although our
Council has not yet commented on them, I anticipate that we will probably not recommend approval and will
raise a number of concerns. In addition to what I am sending to you, I have the tract maps in large format
which you are welcome to look at.
Pat and I are leaving town Tue afternoon and won't be back until Nov. 12. We understand that the Planning
Commission meeting will be held on Thurs Nov 14 in downtown Los Angeles. I will be leaving all of the
maps with our ne~ president Ray Regalado. You can contact him at 323-842-8410.
Ray is also in the process of scheduling a meeting with the Ponte Vista Civil Engineer and he has promised to
notify you of that meeting.
:tt,;d
I will also forward to you a copy of my personal comments that I am submitting to Henry Chu. I suspect that
many of these will find their way into our final letter to the Planning Commission.
Diana
1
C-15
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:39 AM
chateau4us@att.net; Lucie Thorsen; Lance Fujimoto; Chuck Hart; john stinson; gcornell6
@gmail.com; bruce@bornemannla.com; carboat65@sbcglobal.net; Steve Pingel;
alsattler@igc.org; Doug Epperhart; Sue Castillo; thorsen.rob933@gmail.com
rreg@hotmail.com
Re: ALERT -PONTE VISTA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND SUBMITTALS
I forgot one thing. There will be a meeting possibly this coming Saturday morning at the police station
with Ponte Vista's engineer to try to get information on actual lot sizes, slope fill, storm water runoff
calculations, traffic issues, etc. When the time has been finalized NWSPNC will get a notice out so
check NWsanpedro.org for the notice or contact Ray at rreg@hotmail.com.
From: pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
To: "overbid2002@yahoo.com" <overbid2002@yahoo.com>; "chateau4us@att.net" <chateau4us@att.net>; Lucie
Thorsen <luciethorsen@gmail.com>; Lance Fujimoto <casaverdenw@yahoo.com>; Chuck Hart <det310@juno.com>;
john stinson <john.stinson@cox.net>; "gcornell6@gmail.com" <gcornell6@gmail.com>; "bruce@bornemannla.com"
<bruce@bornemannla.com>; "carboat65@sbcglobal.net" <carboat65@sbcglobal.net>; Steve Pingel
<stevpingel@aol.com>; "alsattler@igc.org" <alsattler@igc.org>; Doug Epperhart <epperhart@cox.net>; Sue Castillo
<redsue12@gmail.com>; "thorsen.rob933@gmail.com" <thorsen.rob933@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:33 AM
Subject: ALERT -PONTE VISTA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND SUBMITTALS
ALERT
We learned this morning that Ponte Vista is definitely on the agenda of the Planning Commission for
Thursday morning, November 14th at City Hall in downtown Los Angeles.
Everyone who attends will be given time to speak.
Please do the following:
1. Alert your membership. Lucie, can you get Christina to send out a blast? Diana is getting one
out to NWSPNC.
2. Arrange carpools. Call Joe's office [310-732-4515] and request a parking pass [he needs to
understand there is wide interest in the matter].
2. Everyone needs to send a comment via email to two addressees: CPC@LACITY.ORG and
Henrv.Chu@lacity.org. All letters MUST be in at least ten days before the 14th but Henry has asked
specifically that they be in ASAP so that he has them before he completes and sends his hearing
officer report to the Planning Commission. This should be done even though everyone has sent one
before. There is update material available, and Henry Chu needs to see it as often as possible.
3. We are drafting a possible comment letter and should have it ready in an hour or two and will
distribute it to you soon, certainly before we leave town later today. Feel free to use it for comment
material for your letters.
1 C-16
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:59 PM
rreg55@hotmail.com; bruce@bornemannla.com; Kit Fox; gcornell6@gmail.com
engineering questions
List of engineering questions for Ponte Vista and a few that the RPV city engineer may
be able to answer.docx
Attached is a list of engineering questions for Fuscoe. Bruce, it would be great if you could add
and/or modify the list, put in engineeringese, then send it to Ray at rreg55@hotmail.com.
Glenn you may want to add water and sewerage issues, particularly capacity and routing issues.
Something also needs to be added concerning the 25' retaining walls.
Thanks everyone!
1
C-17
List of engineering questions for Ponte Vista and a few that the RPV city
engineer may be able to answer.
1. Describe the engineering for the access road opposite Avenida Aprenda.
a. What is the slope of the street down into the riparian area.
b. What is the volume of fill, what is the side slope dimension and how
much park space will the road take?
c. How much space will the parking and parking access road take from
the park?
d. How will you address the on-street parking issue along the access
road,.i.e. north side parking only.
2. Visualize for us the setbacks and three and four story single family housing,
i.e. 40' with 4' setbacks, canyon effect. Impact on fire access and lateral fire
exposure.
3. Traffic queuing issues at entrances and exits -Bruce raised this.
4. Storm water runoff detention, diversion and containment.
a. Describe the statistical basis for your computations.
b. Is there an impact on the drainage area westerly of Western Avenue?
c. What is the impact of the access road on the riparian stream? If it will
be covered over, how will you engineer the drainage furnished by the stream at
present?
5. What do you understand your design obligations to be, in order to comply with
Green Codes? Especially solar obligations? What about building orientation,
roof capacities for solar, etc.?
6. Greenhouse gasses.
C-18
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ray R <rregSS@hotmail.com>
Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:24 PM
Raymond Regalado; Ray; Diana Nave Email; Carolyn Grayson; Chuck Hart; David Rivera;
overbid2002@yahoo.com; Gordon Teuber; Laurie Jacobs; scottnwspnc@hotmail.com;
Robert Bryant; Peter Burmeister; Gary Buss; Dan Dixon; cassidyfelt@aol.com;
cagtex@msn.com; mandm8602@att.net; kmarriedvm@gmail.com;
daughter_nella@sbcglobal.net; hen4sch@cox.net; sherriljt@aol.com;
darlenezavalney@aol.com; Rob Thorsen; lucythorsen@gmail.com;
mitchell.harmatz@gmail.com; indianrider718@aol.com; jnwinkler@me.com;
alsattler@igc.org; bruce@bornemannla.com; gcornell6@gmail.com;
vncastiglione@sbcglobal.net; boysenberry63@hotmail.com; redsue12@gmail.com;
rob@katherco.com; Kit Fox; chateau4us@att.net; Kaizer Rangwala; Kristina Smith
Planning and Land Use Meeting Agenda
Planning and Land Use Agenda Oct. 19, 2013.doc
Attached you will find the agenda for the next Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council's Planning and
Land Use Committee meeting. LAPD, Harbor Area Station's community room is the location of this meeting
which will start at 9am and end no later than 11:30am. The the Ponte Vista project team, including the design
civic engineer will address issues and question raised at the last committee meeting on October 5th. For your
reveiw please see the current project document found on our website at www.nwsanpedro.org.
See you Saturday,
Ray Regalado, President
Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council
Kristina,
Can you please send to our stakeholder list and include Central and Coastal Neighborhood Council executive
committee members along with their planning committee chairs with the above message.
Thank you,
Ray
1 C-19
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Council Members:
Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Monday, October 21, 2013 12:35 AM
Jerry Duhovic; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich; Susan Brooks; Jim Knight; CC
Kit Fox
Ponte Vista
On Saturday, I attended a meeting of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council's Land Use Committee. This get
together was specially called so that representatives from !Star could answer questions that had been raised at a
previous meeting about the residential development being proposed for the old Navy housing site on Western Avenue.
Present for !Star were Eric Shabsis, an attorney named Lisa from the firm of Cox, Castle & Nicholson and the project
engineer, Andy Wilrott. (Please note that these are phonetic spellings of the individuals' names.) Although several issues
were covered, one appears to be of special interest to residents of RPV and their leaders. It concerns water runoff and
flooding.
Residents in areas which lie below the Ponte Vista site have been voicing concern that the project could increase the risk
of flooding in their neighborhood. Taper Avenue area homeowners have experienced flooding in the past and are
worried that paving over large parts of the old Navy site will permit more runoff and thereby increase the threat of
flooding in their tract.
!Star's engineer contended that runoff from Ponte Vista to the Taper Avenue area can be eliminated through the
creation of sumps, bio-swales, etc. A risk of flooding nonetheless remains in the general area of Ponte Vista's southern
boundary (that is, the area adjacent to the Seaport Village and Casa Verde condo complexes). But, in his view, it will be
due to runoff from the hundreds of uphill acres across Western Avenue --i.e., the Rolling Hills Riviera section of RPV.
IStar has changed its proposal in the last few weeks to substitute 4-story condominium structures (three stories of
residences over a ground-level garage) along the site's southern border.
Southern California has experienced below average rainfall for the last few years, but an El Nino season cannot be too
far off. If !Star is allowed to build in the area at risk and either that area's occupants or those around Taper Avenue
experience damage or loss from flooding, it is reasonable to assume they will seek legal redress.
Though IStar will be an obvious defendant, its engineer appears to have revealed to whom it will seek to transfer blame.
The City of RPV can probably expect to find itself in the cross hairs as the target defendant in any such lawsuit.
I understand that city council members are scheduled to meet with IStar representatives some time this week. I hope
this information will alert you to this issue and help you prepare to address it more effectively when the meeting takes
place.
Please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail or at {310) 831-3033 if you have questions or comments about this note
or the October 19 meeting.
Good luck and thank~
Glenn Cornell
1
C-20
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Sunday, November 03, 2013 12:29 AM
CPC@lacity.org; councildistrictlS@lacity.org; Henry.Chu@lacity.org
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; elise.swanson@mail.house.gov;
maurice.lyles@boxer.senate.gov; michael_davies@feinstein.senate.gov;
richard.vladovic@lausd.net; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net;
noelweiss@ca.rr.com; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov
PONTE VISTA HOUSING PROJECT.. .. NO MORE HOUSING UNTIL EXPLOSIVE FACILITY
REMOVED!
la_times_apr4_1977.pdf; la_timesjul16_1977.pdf; Amerigas_la_city_council_action_
OS.doc; AmerigasMotionbyJaniceHahn.doc; rancho_rail_accident_photojpg;
waxman_press_release_aug_1_2013.doc; 07.31.13_LIEU_to_SFM_Hoover_(l).pdf; 7 _10_13
_Rancho _EPA_Letter.pdf
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN .... AND HOPEFULLY THERE IS "SOMEONE" THAT IT DOES CONCERN!
Any notion that it is "okay" to bring even 1 single additional resident into the North end of San Pedro while the
extremely hazardous Rancho LPG facility is still operating .. is highly reckless and simply irresponsible!
Attached are two past Motions that were introduced by LA City Council members that clearly illustrate and confirm
the complete understanding by LA City that this facility (operating at the time under the name of "Amerigas") is not only
"inappropriate" in place, but, obviously "unsafe" to the existing residents of the San Pedro community. The proposed
housing project at Ponte Vista, is aimed at introducing an additional several hundred homes and thousands of
additional residents, at a site that is less than 1/4 mile (as the crow flies) from the grounds of the Rancho LPG facility.
City Officials and agencies with jurisdiction over this development should be reprimanded for even considering this
project in lieu of the dangers that are ever present from the high risk exposure posed by this massive 25 MILLION
GALLON LIQUID PETROLEUM GAS facility! NO FURTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSING PROJECTS IN THIS LOCATION
SHOULD BE INTRODUCED AT ALL WHILE THIS FACILITY IS STILL FUNCTIONING! IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT
MORE POTENTIAL INNOCENT VICTIMS WOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO MOVE INTO THIS BLAST ZONE!
The recent explosions in Florida from the "Blue Rhino LPG" facility caused a 1 mile evacuation of their sparse
population. Because LPG fires cannot be extinguished with water or retardants, the fire caused them to wait 2 1/2 days
for it to "burn itself out." The volume of gas involved in that disaster was approximately 1 % of the volume of liquid energy
gas stored at Rancho LPG.
Enclosed also are two archived articles from the LA Times in 1977 that exposed the City of LA's willingness during
the early 1970's to exempt the LPG facility (operating under the name of Petrolane LPG at that time) from LA City Fire
Regulations, CEQA, a proper public process, and allowed to use a fragmented permitting process. We have recently
discovered that all of this was due to the influence of the Nixon White House whose close friend and campaign supporter,
RJ Munzer, was owner of Petrolane LPG at that time.
The two largest Butane tanks at Rancho LPG sit in a LA Planning Department documented "Earthquake Rupture
Zone", on land designated by USGS as "Landslide" and "Liquefaction" areas. The active Palos Verdes Fault (per Dr. Kate
Hutton @ Cal Tech) that the tanks are sitting on has a magnitude of 7.3 while the tanks holding the ultra-hazardous gas
were built without LA City Building Permits to seismic sub-standard of 5.5-6.0! Using an EPA calculation for worst case
scenario .... the two tanks alone (there are 5 other smaller LPG tanks) have a blast radius of over 6 miles! That radius
does NOT take into consideration the "cascading failure event" potential that is guaranteed since these tanks sit directly
next to a major oil refinery, across the street from the Naval Fuel Depot (housing massive amounts of jet propellants),
above a hornet's nest of chemical and fuel pipelines, and within 1/2 mile of several marine oil terminals at the Port of LA.
Attached is a photo of a Rancho LPG railcar accident from a year ago that miraculously escaped devastating results. But,
how much longer will that luck last?
As witnessed by the recent LAX deadly attack this past Friday, "Terrorism" and acts of violence are facing a
significant rise. The tantalizing opportunity for terrorism at this facility is extraordinary. The tanks of this facility could be
easily penetrated by any rifle or rocket launched grenade and produce overwhelming death and destruction. The Ports of
LA and Long Beach rank high on the list of terrorism targets. Both of these ports could be easily decimated by an attack
on the LPG tanks. Enclosed also in this email are recent letters from Congressman Waxman to Homeland Security
regarding this facility, as well as letters from Congresswoman Hahn and Senator Lieu to other officials with
1
C-21
jurisdiction. Clearly, the jeopardy is extremely high and the nerve to contemplate additional population to this area at this
time is unfathomable. No one should even be discussing it!
Until, and unless this major threat is removed there should be no further movement toward the creation of any
additional housing. Rational minds must take hold to protect public safety!
Our City Councilman, Joe Buscaino, ran on the campaign slogan "PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST"! That is what people
·want! We call upon Councilman Buscaino to honor that pledge!! PEOPLE OVER PROFITS .... regardless of whether that
is the oil industry or real estate developers! The Councilman's commitment is to his constituency, not to his campaign
coffers. It is outrageous to realize that this project has been allowed to move this far. STOP ... AND ACT TO PROTECT
PEOPLE NOW ... BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!
Janet Gunter
(310) 251-7075
CITIZENS for RESPONSIBLE and EQUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
2
C-22
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Tuesday, November 12, 2013 2:56 PM
MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; det310@juno.com; connie@rutter.us;
marciesmiller@sbcglobal.net; dwgkaw@hotmail.com; igornla@cox.net;
chateau4us@att.net; overbid2002@yahoo.com; diananave@gmail.com;
jodyjames@sbcglobal.net; lljonesin33@yahoo.com; burling102@aol.com;
pmwarren@cox.net; Lonna Calhoun < lonna@cope-preparedness.org >
lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov;
yvette_martinez@boxer.senate.gov; elise.swanson@mail.house.gov;
rob.wilcox@lacity.org; richard.vladovic@lausd.net; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; Kit Fox
Fwd: Professor Bea's latest response to my email on Ponte Vista Housing involving
Rancho's LPG risk
I hate to always bqther him ... but, feel that I have to.The man continues to be a major hero to me ..... just wish people
would listen. I don't know what else we can possibly do.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert G. BEA <rgb251@berkeley.edu>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Nov 12, 2013 2:08 pm
Subject: Re: I don't mean to bother you ... but, I have to ask because it so important.. .. More on Rancho LPG
Hi Janet,
i have learned and continue to learn not to get angry with people ... my anger clouds my ability to think. instead, i get
frustrated. not much better than angry.
no, you are not crazy. you find yourself embedded in an environment that can help lead you there.
in my judgment, additional public infrastructure development in your immediate area should not be permitted until the
people and governments come to proper grips with the risks and then require that the risks be properly mitigated with
effective audible plans implemented to address those risks.
you have 3 choices: fight (what you have been doing), flight (move, get out of Dodge City), freeze (do nothing, hope for
the best, do the best you can to prepare). none are easy or good choices.
fighting issues like this take a strong noisy knowledgeable coalition that can help unite the public, representatives of their
governments, and commerce -industry. as you have tried, the informed media provides an instrument to help the
coalition be noisy and spread their knowledge. that is all you can hope to accomplish.
i have just finished a 1.5 hour telephone conference regarding our California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). as you
know, they unwittingly helped PG&E develop the San Bruno disaster. some within the CPUC want to change so that they
can properly address Safety. other people in CPUC want to 'fake it'. both groups are struggling with fundamental
ignorance about what Safety really is, how it can be measured, and how government can be a strong force that requires
industry to do what is right for their stockholders and for the public ... and the environment. given that the push can be
mobilized and properly resourced (knowledgeable people, money, effective legislation), they will face 1 or 2 decades of
work before they can realize the goal. the disaster clock is ticking. what will WE DO?
bob bea
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013at12:31 PM, Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com> wrote:
Hello Professor Bea-
1
C-23
I'm sorry. The last thing I really want to do is to anger you or cause you to detest me or my efforts. Please try to
understand the reason why I continue to contact you. I am not a brilliant person ... but, I "get it" in relation to the enormous
risk here from Rancho LPG. On Thursday, the LA City Council is going to vote to "approve" the development of yet
another 700 homes that fall within 1/4 mile of the Rancho LPG facility. I cannot take this inexcusable irresponsibility any
longer. My outrage is just over the top. While other residents are bantering over how much green space will be allowed
and trying to reduce the number of homes .... all I am obsessed with the sheer lunacy of bringing more innocent victims into
this area without first removing the risk!! Am I crazy??? I will be testifying on Thursday morning .... and I realize the
uselessness of my efforts ... but, I have to. Below is the analysis offered in the Ponte Vista housing development EIR. I
know you have few moments in your very busy life .... but, would appreciate your brief look at this. If you have any words of
wisdom that I could echo on this .... I would more than appreciate it. Your ardent efforts to "prevent" these disasters and to
employ precautionary methods has been well taken by many. How can I penetrate the vortex that surrounds this kind of
insanity? I would appreciate any tips from you at all.
Again, thanks so much for all you do to protect our people.
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/eir/PonteVistaProj2/FEI R/FEI R%20Sections/-FEI R%20Ponte%20Vista Compiled. pdf
Rancho LPG is addressed on Page Ill A 15 #4
Warmest regards,
Janet
Robert Bea
Professor Emeritus
Center for Catastrophic Risk Management
University of California Berkeley
Email: bea@ce.berkeley.edu
Risk Assessment & Management Services
60 Shuey Drive
Moraga, CA 94556
925-631-1587 (office)
925-699-3503 (cell)
Email: BeaRAMS@gmail.com
2 C-24
Kit Fox
From: Joel Rojas
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:58 AM
Kit Fox
Subject: FW: Ponte Vista proposal/ public health and safety concern
Fyi
From: April Sandell [hvybags@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:45 PM
To: Susan Brooks
Cc: Joe.Buscaino@lacity.org; Luciethorsen@gmail.com; chateau4us@att.net Lacombe; Planning; Henry Chu
Subject: Ponte Vista proposal/ public health and safety concern
Dear Mayor Brooks,
The project developers gave a presentation to the Rolling Hills Riveria HOA tonight. During the presentation I raised my
concern that the demolition of the age old
buildings on the project site may expose the areas' residents to asbestos.
The developers representatives were not capable to answer at this time but offered their assurance they would provide
the facts soon. I hope so.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
April L. Sandell
1 C-25
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Kit-
FYI
CP
Carolynn Petru
Thursday, November 14, 2013 10:49 AM
Kit Fox
FW: Ponte Vista Survey Results
From: chateau4us@att.net [mailto:chateau4us@att.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:37 PM
To: CC
Subject: Ponte Vista Survey Results
Good afternoon Mayor Brooks, Mayor ProTem Duhovic, Councilman Knight and Congratulations to
Councilman Misetich and Councilman Campbell!
Rolling Hills Riviera HOA board conducts surveys of our members so that we can best represent our
members. We just finished conducting a special survey of our members over the past two weeks. We
presented them with information about the new Ponte Vista plan with 676-700 units and links to websites for
additional information.
We also invited Marathon Communications to attend our HOA meeting on Nov. 12th to present their plan to
our members in person. There were 48 members in attendance, not including the speakers and
myself. Marathon Communications and the traffic engineer began their presentation at 6:45 and the meeting
ended at 9:00pm. There was also ample time for Q & A.
The survey asked members to select only one of these two statements. Yes, I support the current zoning and
only R1 housing at Ponte Vista OR Yes, I support a zoning change and the current plan of no more than 700
units.
The results were 4 members are in favor of the 700 unit plan and 90 members are in favor of Rl.
During this process, I also received lots of feedback as well. The number one concern is traffic. R1
development would have a much less significant impact on our already impacted neighborhood. According to
their traffic engineer, the traffic study was done before Westmont and Capitol were reduced to one
lane. Another concern is the potential for this or a future developer to use the density bonus under SB1818.
The attorney for IStar stated at the meeting on Nov. 12th that there is no way to prohibit this
entitlement. That would increase the unit count to 945. Many of our residents directly across the street are
very worried about the impact this project will have due to the riparian area on the property. Western
Avenue floods during heavy rains. The majority of the residents are very angry that !Star financial funded the
loans on a very bad business decision and the residents are asked to pay the price by accepting a lower quality
of life and possibly lower property values. Two ofthe members that are in favor of the plan stated they are
tired of the visual blight.
1 C-26
I hope this serves as useful information for you to use. If you would like additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me. Please support our residents and support Rl only at Ponte Vista.
Thank you for your service and dedication to our community.
Always,
Jeanne Lacombe, President
Rolling Hills Riviera HOA
(310)833-0444
2 C-27
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Monday, November 18, 2013 2:23 PM
don.holmstrom@csb.gov; dan.tillema@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov;
Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov; Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov;
elise.swanson@mail.house.gov; maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov;
yvette_martinez@boxer.senate.gov; michael_davies@feinstein.senate.gov;
jennifer.lucchesi@slc.ca.gov; jennifer.zivkovic@sen.ca.gov; robert.pullen-
miles@sen.ca.gov; rob.wilcox@lacity.org; jcynthiaperry@aol.com; jacob.haik@lacity.org;
richard.vladovic@lausd.net; Kit Fox; wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; rkim@lacbos.org
dan.weikel@latimes.com; paul_h_rosenberg@hotmail.com; ddbryan@cbs.com;
robert.kovacik@nbcuni.com; MrEnvirlaw@sbcglobal.net; noelweiss@ca.rr.com; det310
@juno.com; connie@rutter.us; rgb251@berkeley.edu
Subject: City of LA Planning just APPROVED housing project for 700+ homes next to 25 Million
Gallon LPG facility!
To Those Who May Have Concerns About Public Safety:
Our San Pedro homeowners who have been fighting the presence of this hazardous Liquefied Petroleum
Gas storage facility, located next to our homes, have just experienced even further outrage. Last
Thursday we witnessed the LA City Planning Dept approve housing to accommodate another
approximately 2,000 residents to become additional "victims" in their "new" homes
sited within 1/2 mile of Rancho LPG LLC. No muss, no fuss .... simply
"approved". The project EIR was prepared for this development by CAJA for "lstar
Financial" and the development is called The "Ponte Vista" Housing project. The EIR is
highly deficient with regard to the threat potential to the Ponte Vista Project from this
LPG facility, completely embracing the findings of the Rancho LPG facility's hired
consultant. This, in spite of the fact that there are investigations now underway from the
US Department of Homeland Security, as solicited by Congressman Waxman, and the
California State Fire Marshal, as solicited by Senator Liu. The facility is also currently
out of compliance with the EPA and has received a notice for Demand that was
supposed to have responded to by April 15, 2013. For over 1/2 year now, Rancho LPG
continues to operate in non-compliance of this finding. Responsible City government
would at minimum "wait" until the findings of such important investigations and legal
demands were met in the interest of "public safety".
The following statement of wisdom, prudence and caution with regard to this housing
project was made by Professor Bob Bea, (UC Berkeley) the government's own expert
on Risk Analysis:
''ln my judgment, additional public infrastructure development in your immediate area should not be
permitted until the people and governments come to proper grips with the risks and then require that
the risks be properly mitigated with effective audible plans implemented to address those risks. "
It is one thing to dismiss the opinions of the general public, like myself, yet quite another to ignore the
advice of such a renown expert. One must wonder why. There may be an explanation.
Last year Mayor Villaraigosa handpicked 12 insiders to sit on the Development Industry Advisory
Committee "to provide direct private sector input on development-related issues and serves(sic) as a
sounding board for process improvement proposals."
One of those select members was Chris Joseph, CEO of CAJA ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES. Yes, CAJA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES the Ponte Vista's El R
consultant. Certainly, this is a clear "conflict of interest" that should not be tolerated
1
C-28
As we witness in the devastation of the Philippines and now the ravaged destruction in
the Mid-West, we must come to grips with those catastrophes caused by mother nature
that we have little, if any, real control over. However, in the case of a situation like this
housing project in San Pedro, CA, we find that the chronic, purposeful and persistent
"invitation for disaster" is fully engaged. There is complete disregard for the most
flagrant and obvious opportunities for death and destruction. Ignoring these perceived
"obstacles" simply circumvents the inconvenience of having to deal with the serious
problems. We continue to endure governance that succumbs to the powerful financial
interests that promote their agendas under the guise of "progress" and steer our politics
and our citizens into crisis.
We have been extraordinarily lucky with regard to the small number of deaths and injuries associated with
recent explosions and fires in our country from hazardous facilities. Most of the hazardous facilities
responsible for these recent disasters have occurred in more rural areas. That is where the Rancho LPG
facility stands apart. The magnitude of disaster opportunity due to the sheer volume of 25 million gallons
of butane, combined with the density of population and the involvement of other refineries, oil terminals
and Ports of LA and Long Beach catapult this problem into another league all together.
This is a most serious problem that deserves the immediate attention of all who are
reading this. At a minimum, please investigate this issue further. The urgency of this
issue merits action BEFORE the looming catastrophe.
Thank you for your time,
Janet Gunter
(310) 251-7075
www.hazardsbegone.com
2 C-29
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Monday, November 18, 2013 3:17 PM
Kit Fox
Subject: Fwd: Ponte Vista
Kit,
Here's an exchange between Kaizer Rangwala and me about Ponte Vista and, in particular, about the traffic mitigation
measures which IStar maintains it will perform. Since RPV residents will be impacted if IStar fails to perform the
promised mitigations or if those measures fail to produce the promised reductions, it seems that our city might want to
consider how to position itself so that it easily claim redress.
I would appreciate any thoughts you might have about the idea.
Thanks,
Glenn
----------Forwarded message ----------
From: Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Ponte Vista
To: Kaizer Rangwala <rangwalaassoc@gmail.com>
Cc: pat nave <overbid2002@yahoo.com>, Diana Nave <diananave@earthlink.net>
Kaizer,
What I am seeking to do is to suggest an approach that would incentivize local officials not only to perform the
monitoring but also to easily claim redress if the mitigations do no produce the results which the developer has
promised. Inclusion of a liquidated damages provision in the city council's final approval is what has come to mind so
far. However, other ideas are more than welcome --along with ideas about how to best get them to Mr. Chu and before
the city council.
Thanks,
Glenn
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Kaizer Rangwala <rangwalaassoc@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Glenn,
>
> If only a fraction of all CEQA claims for mitigating impacts came
> through we would not have the traffic problem we have in So Cal. CEQA
>and TIA are bogus science! The biggest deficiency of CEQA is lack of monitoring.
>
> The responsibility for monitoring mitigation lies with the lead agency
>and they may delegate this responsibility to another public agency or
>to a private entity. The public agency may choose whether its program
>will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both.
>
> Reporting generally consists of a written compliance review that is
> presented to the City Council or city staff. A report may be required
> at various stages of the project --for example at final occupancy of
>each phase (or a percentage of total units).
1 C-30
>
> Monitoring is an ongoing process of project oversight suited for
> projects like Ponte Vista that are likely to be completed over a long period of time.
>
> CEQA does not give LA the authority to remedy violations of mitigation
> requirements --enforcement is typically through other legal
>enforcement procedures such as stop work order, denial of occupancy
> permit, revocation of project approval, performance bonds ...
>
> From the planning commission hearing it was evident that staff has not
>given the "who, where, when, and if not then what" of monitoring much thought.
> Prior to Council hearing, I would recommend we work closely with Henry
>to craft conditions of approval that specifically call out the
> monitoring and reporting requirements. The conditions should call out
>the public agency or private third party entity responsible for reporting and monitoring.
>
>Regards,
>Kaizer
>
>On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Glenn Cornell <gcornell6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Kaizer,
» I want to let you know how much my RPV neighbors and I appreciate all
»your work in reviewing and critiquing !Star's proposals for Ponte
»Vista. I suspect that IStar has promised far more than it can
» deliver on the traffic issue. Not only has it promised to undertake
»measures which it may well not do (or even be able to do), but it has
»stated that those measures will produce reductions which they most
» likely will not achieve. So that leaves me with a question. What
» are area residents supposed to do when they find that the promised
»mitigations remain undone or have proven inadequate? Is there
»anything we can ask our local officials to do now, before this
» project receives it final approval, that will give them or area
»residents some recourse? For example, have you ever seen such
» approval conditioned upon the inclusion of a liquidated damages
»clause, under which a developer would have to pay a municipality a
» prescribed sum if the promised mitigations fail to produce the promised results?
»Thanks,
»Glenn
>
>
2
C-31
CPC Staff report for Ponte Vista project
C-32
lns Angeles
Oepartment
nfCity Planning
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
City Planning Commission
Date: November 14, 2013
Time: After 8:30 A.M.
Place: Los Angeles City Hall
200 N. Spring Street, Room 350
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Public Hearing
Completed:
Appeal Status:
f::xpiration Date:
Multiple Approval:
July 30, 2013;
Appealable to City Council
November 28, 2013
General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Specific Plan Concurrent
Processing of Multiple Approvals
pursuant to 12.36 E.
LIMITED PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT
LOCATION:
26900 South Western Avenue
Case No.:
CEQA No.:
Incidental Cases:
Related Cases:
Council No.:
Plan Area:
Specific Plan:
Certified NC:
General Plan:
Zone:
Applicant:
Representative:
CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-
SP-CA
ENV-2005-4516-EIR
VTT-71886
None
15 -Hon. Joseph Buscaino
Wilmington -Harbor City
None
Northwest San Pedro
Low Residential and Open
Space
OS-1XL and R1-1XL
SFI Bridgeview, LLC
David P. Waite
Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP
PROPOSED
PijOJECT:
Establishment of a Specific Plan for approximately 61.5 gross acres to allow for the demolition
and removal of 245 residential units, a community center, and commercial building (all a part
of former U.S. Navy housing) for the new construction of up to 700 residential units and a
2.42 acre public park.
REQUESTED ACTIONS:
1. Pursuant to Section 21082. 1 ( c)(3) of the California Public Resources Code, recommend the
Certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), ENV-2005-4516-E!R, SCH No. 2010101082,
for the above-referenced project, and the following:
a. Adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reason and benefits of
adopting the EIR with full knowledge that significant impacts may remain.
b. Adoption of the proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the required Findings
for the adoption of the EIR.
2. Pursuant to Section 11.5.6 of the Municipal Code, a General Plan Amendment to the Wilmlngton-
Harbor City Community Plan map to:
a. change the land use designation from "Low Residential" and "Open Space" to "Low Medium II";
b. amend Footnote No. 2 to read "Maximum height of 30 feet from adjacent grade except for the PVSP
zone."; and
c. add a footnote establishing the proposed Ponte Vista at S~n Pedro (PVSP) Specific Plan as the land
use regulatory document for the project and provide correspondence of the Low Medium II
residential land use designation with the PVSP zone;
C-33
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA Page2
3. Pursuant to Section 12.32 of the Municipal Code, a Zone Change from R1-1XL and OS-1XL to the
proposed "PVSP" to reflect the establishment of the proposed Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan
zone.
4. A Code Amendment to Sections 12.04 and 12.16.9 of the Code to establish the Ponte Vista at San
Pedro Specific Plan zone.
5. Pursuant to Section 11.5.6 of the Municipal Code, the establishment of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro
Specific Plan to provide regulatory controls and the systematic execution of the General Plan within the
Project area.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Recommend that the City Council Certify that it has reviewed and considered the information contained
in the Draft and Final Environmental lmpaet Report, and Errata, Environmental Clearance No. ENV-2005-
4516-EIR, (SCH. No. 2010101082).
a. Adopt the .Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons and benefits of adopting
the EIR with full knowledg~ that significant impacts may occur; and . .
b. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Adopt the related Environmental Findings;
2. Recommend that the City Council Approve a General Plan Amendment to the Wilmington -Harbor
City Community Plan map to:
a. change the land use designation from Open Space and Low Residential to Low Medium II Residential
land use designation;
b. amend Footnote No. 2 to read "Maximum height of 30 feet from adjacent grade except for the PVSP
zone."; and
c. add a footnote establishing the proposed Ponte Vista at San Pedro (PVSP) Specific Plan as the land
use regulatory document for the project and provide correspondence of the Low Medium 11 residential
land use designation· with the PVSP zone.
3. Recommend that the City Council Approve a Zone Change from R1-1XL and OS-1XL to the
proposed PVSP zone;
4. Recommend that the City Council Approve a Code Amendment to add the ordinance establishing the
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan;
5. Recommend that the City Council Approve the establishment of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro
·specific Plan;
6. Advise the Applicant that, pursuant to California State Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City
shall monitor or require evidence that mitigation conditions are implemented and maintained
throughout the life of the project and the City may require any necessary fees to cover the cost of such
monitoring;
7. Advise the Applicant that pursuant to the State Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, a Fish and Game
and/or Certificate of Game Exemption is now required to be submitted to the County Clerk prior to or
concurrent with the Environmental Notices and Determination (NOD) filing.
MICHAEL J. LOGRANDE
Director of Planning
Daniel M. Scott, Principal City Planner
C-34
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA Page3
ADVICE TO PUBLIC: *The exact time this report will be considered during the meeting is uncertain since there may be several
other items on the agenda. Written communications may be mailed to the Commission Secretariat, 200 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012 (Phone No. 213-978-1300). While all written communications are given to the Commission for consideration, the
initial packets are sent out the week prior to the Commission's meeting date. If you challenge these agenda items in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing agendized herein, or in written
correspondence on these matters delivered to this agency at or prior to the public hearing. ·As a covered entity under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability, and upon request, will provide
reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to this programs, services and activities. Sign language interpreters, assistive
listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or other services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability of services,
please make your request not tater than three working days (72 hours) prior. to Jhe meeting by calling the Commission Secretariat at
(213) 978-1300.
C-35
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Analysis .................................................................................................................... A-1
Project Summary
Background
Analyses
Discussion of Issues
Conclusion
Findings .................................... a ••••••......... Ill ................................... ••<I'll• 111'•11••••••w••Y••······ ........................... f ... 1
General Plan Amendment
Zone Change and Code Amendment
Specific Plan
Environmental Findings
Public Hearing and Communications .................................................................................. P-1
Exhibits:
A -Ponte Vista Booklet
B-Maps
81 Vicinity Map
82 Radius Map
83 General Plan Amendment' Map
84 Zone Change Map
85 Specific Plan Map
86 ZIMAS Report
C -Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan
D -Environmental ReviE!W (CD) . .
-Draft and Final' Environmental Impact Report, ENV-2005-4516-EIR, Errata, SCH No.
2010101082, separate Attachment contained in the Environmental Case File and sent to
City Planning Commission under separate cover
-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
-Traffic Assessment Study for 700-unit Project
E -Ponte Vista Community Outreach Statement
F -Letters Received from the Public
C-36
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-1
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Proposed Project
The Project Applicant, SFI Bridgeview, LLC, has proposed a residential project on a 61.5 acre
site at 26900 South Western Avenue in the Wilmington -Harbor City Community Plan area.
The site is the location of the former U.S. Navy San Pedro Housing complex, which is bordered
by Western Avenue (State Route 213) to the west, Fitness Drive and multi-family residential
developments to the south, the U.S. Navy's Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) to the north,
and the campus for the Mary Star of the Sea High School to the east.
The Project proposes a new Specific Plan involving the demolition of existing and abandoned
structures (former U.S. Naval Housing comprised of 122 duplexes and one single-family
dwelling for a total of 245 residential dwelling units, and other structures), and the
redevelopment of the site comprised of a maximum of up to 700 residential dwelling units,
including single-family homes, townhomes, and flats with maximum heights of four stories or 55
feet. The Project will also include recreational facilities, parks, open space and a trail along the
perimeter of the Specific Plan area. Streets within the Specific Plan area will be private, with
access to the Specific Plan area from two entrances, including one from Western Avenue at
Green Hills Drive and one new east-west road that would connect the Project from the southerly
boundary of the Specific Plan area to the Mary Star of the Sea High School campus to the east.
Vehicular access into the residential portions of the site would be restricted to residents and
guests of the development via private gates. Pedestrian entrances will not restrict access and
grant visitors access through the site. The access road to the Mary Star of the Sea High School
campus will be publicly accessible.
While the Specific Plan addresses a Project with a maximum of 700 residential dwelling units,
the Applicant has proposed a site plan and tract map for the development of 676 residential
dwelling units through a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71886. The Specific Plan identifies seven
subareas to be comprised of specific uses, development regulations, open space, and other
regulations. Table 1 summarizes the project's components by subarea by listing the residential
units and their corresponding count.
Subarea Residential Use Maximum Units Maximum Dwelling Area
Units/Acre gross acres
TOTAL 700 15.3 av 61.4
*Subarea 6, under Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71886, proposes 188 dwelling units. The Specific Plan
caps the density at 700 dwelling units, allowing a maximum 212 units in Subarea 6.
*Subarea 7 includes the 2.42 acre ark and is identified as Subarea 7 A
Figure 1 identifies the location of the Project's Specific Plan subareas. Briefly, Subarea 1 will
include single-family homes, and is located along the northwestern portion of the site. Subarea
2 will also be comprised of single-family homes and is located at the northern portion of the site
just east of Subarea 1. Subarea 3, comprised of single-family homes, is located near the north
community entrance and just south of Subarea 1 and near the center of the site. Subarea 4 will
C-37
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-2
be comprised of townhomes and is located at the eastern portion of the site. Subarea 5,
comprised of townhomes and flats, is located at the western portion of the site along Western
Avenue between the two community entrances. Subarea 6, comprised of flats, is located at the
south portion of the site. Subarea 7, comprised of open space in a variety of forms, is located
throughout the site, including the perimeter.,
............
.. .. ,._
' '''"""""'"'"""""-" ~
PONTE VISTA AT SAN PEDRO -SUBAREA PLAN EXHIBIT
Figure 1 The proposed Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan subareas exhibit.
Open Space and Amenities
Table 2 identifies the different forms of the Project's open space. A total of 24.·15 acres will be
provided internally and along the perimeter of the Project site. Open space will include most
amenities that are accessible to the public. Recreation centers will be operated privately and
intended for use by residents of the development.
The Project proposes 24.15 acres of open space throughout the site. Included in this are two
recreation centers, community open space, internal open space, perimeter open space and a
2.42-acre park. Excluding the recreation centers, all open space will be accessible to the public.
Table 2 provides a summary of the open space provided within the project.
TABLE 2 PROJECT OPEN SPACE
Open Space Acreage
Primarv Recreation Center 0.57
Secondarv Recreation Center 1.00
Communitv Ooen Soace 2.38
Internal Open Soace 12.80
Perimeter Ooen Space . 4.98
Park 2.42
Total 24.15
C-38
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-3
\')lJJln Sp!>:~\J!~~ .
• ~ri~~ ~~dii~n t.entei ··., ' .'!\7.~IC$
Figure 2 ·identifies the location of the open space areas:
The primary recreation center will be located near the center of the Project site, while the
secondary recreation center is proposed to be located at the southeast portion. The centers
will be a gathering place within the development and include features such as a swimming pool,
sun deck, club room, outdoor court, promenade deck, fitness room, restrooms, pool equipment
facilities, spa, cabana areas, outdoor fireplace and barbecue areas with dining and lounge
seating.
Perimeter open space will be located along Western Avenue, excluding the park area and
along the northern border adjacent to the DFSP property and the southern border. The western
perimeter will include buffer screen trees with a 40-foot setback of structures from the Western
Avenue roadway. The north perimeter open space, characterized with transitional slopes, will
include a perimeter trail and canopy trees, shrubs, and a perimeter fence system at the property
line. The southern perimeter open space will be the south side of the Mary Star of the Sea
access drive and consist of informal grove trees to soften the transition of the Project to the
adjacent multi-family uses.
C-39
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-4
Community open space will be in the form of larger neighborhood parks that will include
programming to promote a healthy lifestyle and a sense of community. Passive and active uses
will include activity lawns, a picnic pavilion, walks, bicycle racks, bench seating, viewing
gardens, a dog park, sand play areas and children's play structures, etc. These parks, as
identified in the Specific Plan's Design Guidelines, will be located at the center and eastern
portions of the site.
Internal open space will be located all throughout the site, and generally identified as all the
other open areas accessible to the community that will provide walkways, areas for picnicking,
plantings, and shade.
The 2.42-acre park will be located at the southernmost portion of the site along Western
Avenue and adjacent to the southern entry of the community along the community entry drive.
The park will be accessed directly from Western Avenue from the entry roundabout, and from
the school access drive. A parking area will be provided off the school access drive, providing
an emergency access link to the neighboring community to the south. The park will be
accessible to the public, and maintained privately.
Throughout the site, community walks and trails will be provided to connect guests and
residents to the parks, amenities, and adjacent off-site land uses.' Western Avenue will include
5~foot-wide sidewalk with a 5-foot parkway that includes trees along the sidewalk. Walks within
the community are located along the entry drives, a spine street, loop streets, alley streets, and
paseos, and would be separated with a planted parkway, if possible .. A trail along the perimeter
of the site will be provided as an amenity for residents and guests, and allow for circulation
around and through the site, as well as provide access to the Mary Star of the Sea High School.
Parking and Vehicular Access to Parking Areas
The project proposes 1,887 parking spaces for the 676-unit development Parking will be
provided at the following ratios: ·
-One (1) covered parking space for each dwelling unit with zero (0) or one (1) bedroom.
-A minimum two (2) parking spaces for each dwelling unit with two (2) or more
bedrooms. A minimum one space shall be covered. ·
-Guest parking spaces will be provided at a ratio of 0.25 spaces for each dwelling unit.
Guest spaces may be uncovered and are proposed to be on private streets.
Project parking for each subarea will be provic;ied at a minimum 221 spaces for each unit.
Table 3 summarizes the parking requirements and what the project provides. It should be noted
that driveway and off-site parking will be uncovered, unlike garage parking.
Subareas 1, 2, and 3 will be comprised of single-family homes and will meet LAMC 12.21.A.4.a
requirements of two spaces for each single4amily home. Single-family homes in Subarea 1 will
have their own driveways that will enable homeowners to park their vehicles on both their own
garages and driveways. Private streets In these subareas will have widths that can
accommodate parallel parking.
Subareas 4, 5, and 6 will be comprised of multi-family dwellings and provide for different parking
ratios within each subarea. Subarea 4 will be developed with 140 townhomes, and will meet the
Advisory Agency parking requirement of 2.25 parking spaces including guest spaces for each
unit throughout the subarea. Subarea 5, a combination of 140 townhomes and flats, will provide
266 covered parking spaces (1.66 spaces within each unit's garage), and 44 off-site spaces, for
C-40
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-5
a ratio of 2.21 parking spaces including guest spaces. Subarea 6 will be developed with 188
flats, and will provide 260 covered parking spaces (or 1.4 covered spaces within each unit's
garage), and 69 guest spaces, for a parking ratio of 2.28 parking spaces, including guest
spaces, for each unit. Subarea 7, which includes the open areas throughout the site and the
2.42-acre park, will provide a total of 104 spaces, including spaces along the Mary Star of the
Sea road, a parking lot adjacent to the park, and other off-site areas.
TABLE 3 REQUIRED AND PROPOSED PARKING
Subarea Number of Garage Driveway Off-Site Total Provided
Dwelling Units Parking Parking Parking Spaces Spaces
1 69 138 138 88 364 5.28
2 60 120 0 28 148 2.47
3 79 158 0 59 217 2.75
4· 140 280 0 35 315 2.25
5 140 266 0 44 310 2.21
6 188 260 0 69 429 2.28
7 0 0 30 74 104 N/A
Total 676* 1 322 168 397 1,887 2.79
Vesting Tentative Tract map proposes 676 units with 1,322 parking spaces. The Specific Plan limits the
site UP to a maximum 700 residential dwelling units.
The Project would meet the Advisory Agency's parking Policy for residential condominiums and
Code requirements for single-family homes. The Project would meet the 1,469 minimum
required number of parking spaces for the residential portion of the Project. Excluding the
driveway parking spaces within single-family lots (Subarea 1) and those spaces within Subarea
7, the Project would provide an additional 176 spaces from what is required.
Site Access
Primary access into the Project site would be from Western Avenue. The northern access road,
at the intersection of Green Hills Drive, crosses through a private gate and provides a loop to
the recreational uses and northern residential dwellings. This entrance is proposed to have
community gates approximately 85 feet into the property from Western Avenue. This access
pointwould limit vehicular access to residents and guests, while allowing for all pedestrians and
bicyclists.
The southern entrance is located on eastern side of Western Avenue between the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes' Redondela Drive and Avenida Aprenda. The southern primary access
road provides direct access to Mary Star of the Sea High School, and leads into parking for the
publicly-dedicated park and into the southern residential dwellings. All vehicles will be able to
access the parking areas of the park and the road to the high school. Vehicle entrance into the
southern residential dwelling units will be limited to residents and guests of the development,
while allowing for all pedestrian and bicyclists.
The Applicant will also provide limited access from the south portion of the property, adjacent to
the proposed park. An emergency vehicle access road and pedestrian entry is proposed to
allow an access point from the adjacent multi-family properties to the south.
It should be noted the existing site, when it was in use, was secured by gates, which restricted
access. The streets within the development were private. Presently, the abandoned site is
fenced off and restricts access into the site. It has not and currently does not provide access
through the site to connect to other public streets within the San Pedro or Wilmington-Harbor
City communities or uses, except for the access road to the Mary Star of the Sea High School.
C-41
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-6
The site is not accessible from the east and north. Both a high school (east of the site) and U.S.
Navy Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) (east and north of the site) have specific restrictions
on access, and would require fences between the subject site and these neighboring uses.
Internal Streets and Driveways
A number of roadways, consisting of private streets as well as community driveways, which
would be privately maintained, are proposed for the Project site. The Project proposes private
streets that will supersede the standard street requirements of the LAMC. The Streetscape
Plan, which includes the street dimensions, and roadWay and sidewalk widths are found in the
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan. Table 5 provides private street dimensions proposed
within the site. Street dimensions correspond to Figure 3 below Table 5.
TABLE 5 STREET STANDARDS -STREET DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Private Street Name A B c D E F
Roadway Sidewalk Parkway Parkway Sidewalk Overall
(feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Street Width
!feet)
A & B (Entry) 68 6 10 10 6 100
E (Entry) 60 6 10 10 6 92
B&C 44 6 10 10 6 76
D,E,F 36 6 6 6 6 60
0 28 6 34
0 36 6 42
M&N 28 4 32
C,E,G,H,l,J,K,L 36 6 5 5 6 58
K 20 6 4.5 4.5 6 41
Access Roadway 28 5 5 38
(Type 1)
Access Roadway 28 5 6 6 5 50
(Type 2)
Access Roadwav P 28 2 3 33
'Alley' Q 28 2 3 33
*Roadway includes a 20' wide median.
c I ..
P·
!
.. __ ... _, __ _ f'J\ l D l EI ---.. -----------~--T·~ 1
I I
Figure 3 Private street component diagram.
C-42
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-7
Bicycle, Pedestrian. and Vehicular Safety
Sidewalks would be developed along all roadways associated with the Project and would be
designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of L.ADOT to provide safe and
adequate pedestrian flow through the Project and to off-site locations, such as Mary Star of the
Sea High School. Also, all ingress/egress driveways and intersections would be developed in
accordance with design standards of the Department of Building and Safety and LADOT.
Crosswalks, caution signage, stop signs, and traffic signals would be developed at appropriate
locations throughout the Project site and at transition points to off-site locations, as identified
and guided by the Department of Building and Safety and LADOT. In addition, bicycle routes
through the site would be identified in order to allow Project residents to safely access adjacent
streets from the residential areas of the Project, which would include bicycle storage facilities.
Bicycle Parking and Circulation
The Project will promote the use of bicycles and parking. Long term bicycle parking will be
accommodated in private garages for each dwelling unit, including townhomes and flats. Short-
term parking will be provided in multi-family housing developments within Subareas 4, 5 and 6
at a rate of one space for each 10 dwelling units for buildings over three dwelling units. Short-
term bicycle parking racks will also be provided generally in five community recreation areas:
one in front of each recreation center, one near the proposed park, one at the eastern portion of
the site, and one at the open area just north of the primary recreation center".
Project Entitlements
The proposed Project will require the following entitlements:
o General Plan Amendment
1. To change the land use designation from "Low Residential'' and "Open Space" to
"Low Medium II";
2. To amend Footnote No. 2 to read "Maximum height of 30 feet from adjacent
grade except for the PVSP zone."; and
3. To add a footnote establishing the proposed Ponte Vista at San Pedro (PVSP)
Specific Plan as the land use regulatory document for the project site and provide
correspondence of the Low Medium II residential land use designation with the
PVSP zone;
o Zone Change for the project site from OS-1XL and R1-1XL to the proposed Ponte Vista
at San Pedro ("PVSP") Specific Plan zone.
o The establishment of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan. The Project
requests a Specific Plan to allow for the maximum control of the overall design and to
assure an integrated vision for the Ponte Vista community. The Specific Plan is the land
use tool that would implement the General Plan within a new community by: 1) providing
statements of planning policy that refine the General Plan policies applicable to the
Ponte Vista property; 2) directly regulating land use for the area by bringing together
detailed policies and regulations into a focused development scheme; and 3) combining
detailed development plans with environmental policies, programs and goals to create a
new community that will be functional, livable, and affordable and offers a sense of place
commonly envisioned in the creation of the General Plan. Without a Specific Plan, the
Project would need to request multiple General Plan amendments and zone changes,
which would include fewer regulatory controls and design guidelines to assure quality
development in the ultimate design of the project.
C-43
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-8
LAMC Section 13.04 allows for Residential Planned Development Districts (RPO). The
Project would require exceptions from certain standards in the Code for RPDs, including
prohibitions for use of private streets, and modifications to the open space, parking and
building separation. The Project could be zoned as an RPO, but would be subject to "Q''
Conditions and exceptions from the RPO requirements for the following regulations for
each subarea: modified heights, modified densities, modified setbacks, recreational
buildings being permitted a use within an RPO, modified heights and setbacks in open
space a:-eas. The overall site would need "Q" conditions for open space calculations to
include a certain percentage of pocket parks and recreation centers within the site and a
condition for parking calculations within each sub area to allow for parking on the streets
within other subareas.
Design Guidelines. Within the Specific Plan are Design Guidelines (Appendix 1). The
Design Guidelines were developed for the various project elements with the Department
of City Planning's Urban Design Studio. It provides the vision and objectives for the site,
site design guidelines, architectural design guidelines, and landscape design guidelines.
Also, it allows for flexibility in design by encouraging different architectural styles and
related building forms and details. The goal of providing these guidelines is to provide a
cohesive string of architectural influences that knits the community together. All projects
within the Specific Plan area will be required to comply with the Design Guidelines. In
order to provide assurances that the site would be developed in accordance with the
Design Guidelines, a mechanism is needed to ensure its implementation. The Ponte
Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan includes these guidelines.
o A Code Amendment to Sections 12.04 and 12.16.9 of the Code to establish the Ponte
Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan zone. The Code Amendment would include the Ponte
Vista at San Pedro ("PVSP") Specific Plan zone within the Zones -Districts -Symbols
section of the Code and identify it as a zone within the City of Los Angeles.
o Environmental Impact Report: The City of Los Angeles released the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) ENV-2005-4516-EIR, on June 28, 2013, detailing
the relevant environmental impacts as a result of the Project. The EIR found the
following impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance: Agricultural and Forestry
Resources; Mineral Resource; Aesthetics (Views/Light and Glare),(Shade and Shadow);
Cultural Resources (Historic Resources}; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hydrology and
Water Quality; Land Use and Planning (land Use Consistency}, (Divide Established
Community/Land Use Compatibility); Noise (Off-site Operational); Population and
Housing; Public Services (Fire Protection}, (Police Protection, Schools), (Parks and
Recreation), (Libraries); Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater), (Solid Waste)
{Energy); Air Quality (Construction); Biological Resources; Cultural Resources
(Archaeological and Paleontological Resources); Geology and Soils; Hazards and
Hazardous Materials; Transportationrrraffic (City of Los Angeles), (Other Jurisdictions);
and Utilities and Service Systems (Water).
The EIR further identified the following areas where impacts could not be mitigated to a
level of insignificance: Air Quality (Operations -NOx, ROG and CO emissions)); Noise
(Construction), (On-Site Operational). The City recognizes that significant and
unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the Project and therefore,
includes a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that the benefits outweigh and
override the significant unavoidable impacts.
C-44
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-9
The EIR identified Project Alternatives in order to provide informed decision-making in
accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR analyzed the
following alternatives: (A) No Project Alternative/No Development; (B) No Project
Alternative/Single-Family Homes; (C) Staff Recommendation/Reduced Density; and (D)
Revised Site Plan.
o Vesting Tentative Tract -Case VTT-71886 is currently on hold, and will be considered
by the Advisory Agency at a future date, in accordance with provisions of LAMC Section
17.03. The tract is comprised of 208 lots. A decision will be rendered by the Advisory
Agency at a future date pending City Council action. If the tract map is appealed, the
appeal will be presented to the City Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND
A Co~ncil Resolution (Exhibit A-Council File 05-2731) was initiated by Council District 15 on
December 13, 2005 td implement a process culminating in a Specific Plan for the future
redevelopment of the former Navy housing site, also known as Ponte Vista. The resolution
called for the Department of City Planning (DCP) to work with the developer and the
communities of San Pedro, Harbor City and Wilmington to create and process a Specific Plan.
The purpose was to address the neighborhood context for the Specific Plan, proposed uses,
development criteria, design, and community amenities.
Project site and Characteristics
The Project site is comprised of three parcels, and is located in the Wilmington-Harbor City
Community Plan area. The site is bounded by Western Avenue (State Route 213) to the west,
Fitness Drive and multi-family residential developments to the south, the U.S. Navy's Defense
Fuel Support Point (DFSP) to the north, and the campus for Mary Star of the Sea High School
to the east. The 61.5 gross acre site is approximately two miles north of downtown San Pedro
and 1.5 miles northwest of the Port of Los Angeles.
The site's elevation is characterized as being a gentle and southeast sloping· with an elevated
terrace. Elevations of the site range from approximately 101 to 249 feet above mean sea level
(msl). The highest area of the Project site occurs along a steep slope that forms the site's
northern boundary; The northwest portion of the Project site is at an elevation of approximately
190 feet above msl and the southeast portion is at approximately 120 feet above msl.
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone mapped pursuant
to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. However, the City's Zone Information and
Map Access System (ZIMAS}. does identify the site as being within the Palos Verdes Fault
zone. The General Plan Safety Element's Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones & Fault Rupture
Study Areas Map designates the site as being near a Fault Rupture Study Area. The
Department of Building and Safety identifies the subject site as requiring additional soils and
geology studies to evaluate hazards and to impose appropriate mitigation measures prior to
issuance of building permits. As such, has required additional geologic study to determine the
location and activity status of any fault traces crossing the Project site.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Report for the Project concluded that a Palos Verdes Fault trace
crosses the Project site and should be treated as a potentially active fault for the purpose of
development planning. State of California Geological Survey standard measures include a 50-.
foot wide setback zone on each side of the interpreted centerline of the projected surface
rupture. Although the Project Applicant would be required to design and construct the Project in
C-45
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-10
conformance with the most recently adopted building code design parameters in the current
version of the Los Angeles Building Code, the presence of the potentially active Palos Verdes
Fault trace on the Project site means that the Project could potentially expose people or
structures to adverse effects associated with fault rupture or displacement. As such, the
Environmental Impact Report identified fault rupture and displacement impacts as significant.
The site includes significant fill because the Navy re-graded the site and added fill to create
building pads for roads and residential construction of the former U.S. Navy San Pedro Housing
complex in the early 1960s .. The site is presently developed with 122 abandoned and vacant
attached structures (duplexes) and one single-family residential unit for a total of 245 vacant,
non-utilized units. All units are single-story. There is also a 2, 161 square-foot community
center and a 3,454 square-foot retail convenience store on the Project site that are also vacant.
Additional improvements on the Project site include landscaping, sidewalks, private streets, an
outdoor basketball court, a tot lot, utilities, and perimeter fencing. John Montgomery Drive, a
private road, runs through the property and a small portion of Taper Avenue is within the
property to the southeast.
Adjacent Uses
Immediate uses include the following:
North of the site is the 330-acre U.S. Navy Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP). The site
is federally owned and not under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. The
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan designates the site as Open Space, and a
footnote in the Plan designates the site. as an A 1 Zone. The DFSP site is mostly open
space and not accessible to the public. The property is partially developed with fuel
storage tanks both above and below ground. The property is also a known habitat for
the Palos Verde Blue Butterfly and the California Gnatcatcher.
West of the Project site, across Western Avenue in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, is
the 120-acre Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. South of Green Hills, and directly
across the street from the Ponte Vista site and within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
is a detached single-family subdivision consisting of 721 homes (Rolling Hills Riviera)
that is designated Low Density Residential.
South of the site are several. multi-family residential developments. Three parcels,
totaling 5.5 acres, are developed with 348 units at R3 densities in three-to-four story ·
above-grade buildings. The properties are designated for Medium density Residential
and Neighborhood Commercial on the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan and
zoned (T) (Q)C2-2 and R1-1. The predominant development to the south of the Project
site, and east of the R3 density buildings, is a multi-family residential complex known as
"The Gardens". This complex consists of about 1, 100 town homes in two-story buildings
with attached garages. The Gardens is located within the San Pedro Community Plan
and is designated for Low Medium II density Residential and zoned RD2-1XL. Further
south, along the eastern side of Western Avenue, is a commercial strip center zoned
[Q]C2-1XL and planned as Neighborhood Commercial.
East of the site is the Mary Star of the Sea High School. The campus is 27.5 acres and
accommodates 600 students. The school site is zoned R1-1XL and designated for Low
Density Residential. The school is currently operating under a Conditional Use Permit
that was issued by the City Planning Commission in 2001. South of the Mary Star
campus is a single-family subdivision designated by the San Pedro Community Plan for
Low Density Residential land use, and zoned R1-1XL.
C-46
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-11
Streets and Circulation
Western Avenue is a designated Major Highway (State Highway Route 213) and is a
major north/south transportation corridor that begins in Hollywood and ends its 28-mile
length at the San Pedro coastline. To the west, it separates the City of Los Angeles
from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and is the only access street to t!"le site. Western
Avenue, while a Major Highway, does not have significant transit service. The
Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) operates only one major route, Metro Line 205,
along Western Avenue which runs at 30-minute headways during AM and PM peak
hours. There is also limited AM and PM peak transit service run by local transit
operators that provide connectivity to parts of the South Bay,. There is little pedestrian
activity along this stretch of Western Avenue due to the open space formed by the DFSP
site, the Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery, and the backyards of the single-family
dwellings · in Rancho Palos Verdes. Although the nearest segment of the Harbor
Freeway (l-110) is located two miles east of the Project site, there is no direct connection
to the freeway from Western Avenue, and drivers must use Anaheim Street or the
Pacific Coast Highway north of Ponte Vista to access 1-110.
Mary Star of the Sea High School Access Road is a private street that includes a 36-foot
wide roadway with an $ ... foot wide sidewalk. As stated in the case history of this report,
CPC-2000-4712-CU-SPR, the City Planning Commission conditioned the approval of a
Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for the Mary Star of the Sea High School to obtain
vehicular access to its campus from Western Avenue. Students and staff are not
permitted to access the campus from Taper Avenue. It should be noted that the Mary
Star of the Sea High School is not part of the Ponte Vista Project and has no permanent
right to access Western Avenue across the Project site for the operation of the school.
Freeway Access and Surrounding Public Transit
The Project is located on Western Avenue, a major transit and commercial corridor. Access to
the 11 O Freeway is approximately a three-mile drive northeast of the Site with northbound and
southbound ramps at Anaheim Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Public bus transit service in
the Project study area is currently provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), LADOT, Palos Verdes Peninsula Transit Authority, and other
transit providers in the South Bay region. In particular, the Metro 205, San Pedro DASH, and
LADOT CommutE;;r Express 142 buses provide· transportation from the Site to San Pedro, the
Ports, and downtown Long Beach. A summary of the existing transit routes, destinations and
peak-hour headways on roadways is found in Table IV.N-8 of the Draft EIR.
Land Use Regulations
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan
The majority of the Project site (52.4 acres) is zoned R1-1XL and has a Low Residential
land use designation with corresponding zones of RE9, RS, R1, RU, RD6, and RD5.
The remainder of the site (9.1 acres) is zoned OS-1XL and has an Open Space land use
designation with corresponding zones of OS and A 1.
San Pedro Community Plan Update
The San Pedro Community Plan is currently in the process of being updated. This
update went to the City Planning Commission in March of 2013, and is expected to go
before the City Council in the early part of 2014. The San Pedro Community Update
references the Ponte Vista site, and states the following:
C-47
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-12
While located just outside and north of the San Pedro Community Plan Area, this
approximately 60-acre site presents an opportunity for an integrated mixed use and
mixed density neighborhood. Its size and proximity to San Pedro calls for a
development that is physically connected to the San Pedro community and provides
public facilities and amenities that serve neighboring residents.
LU4.5 Integrate Ponte Vista. New development at Ponte Vista should include a mix of
uses and densities, a range of housing types, neighborhood services and
amenities, compatible with and integrated into the adjacent San Pedro
community. Development of the Ponte Vista site should be:
• designed to provide a mix of housing types for a range of incomes;
• compatible with a Low Medium density designation;
• open and accessible to the community, and not developed as a gated
community; and developed with accessible public open space, community
facilities and other public amenities.
2010 Bicycle Plan and Surrounding Bike Lanes
The 201 O Bicycle Plan, adopted in March 1, 2011, identifies streets near the Project site as part
of the plan. Table 6 summarizes streets surrounding the Project site, and their identity as a
designated bikeway and network in the Citywide Bikeway System within the 2010 Bicycle Plan.
Earlier in 2013, LADOT installed bike lanes on Westmont Drive and Capitol Drive between
Western Avenue on the west and Gaffey Street to the east in the San Pedro area. Generally,
the bike lanes were created through the removal of one through travel lane in each direction of
Westmont Drive and Capitol Drive (i.e., reducing the number of through travel lanes in each
direction frorn two to one). LADOT reviewed the project to install bike lanes on Westmont Drive
and Capitol Drive and determined that implementation of the bike lanes would not adversely
affect vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian traffic flow.
Streets
Western Avenue
Palos Verdes Drive North Green
Westmont Avenue Part Green/Nei hborhood
Backbone
Bic cle-Friendl Street Nei hborhood
Western Avenue Vision Plan. In 2000, the Southern California Association of Governments
initiated the Compass Blueprint Growth Vision as a response to the land use and transportation
challenges facing Southern California. The City of Ranch Palos Verdes was awarded a grant to
develop a Western Avenue Vision Plan for the purpose of identifying planning· options and
sustainable economic development opportunities for the Western Avenue corridor.
A working group/vision committee, comprised of various stakeholders, including area residents,
business owners, Chambers of Commerce (Palos Verdes and San Pedro), and Staff from both
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the City of Los Angeles was assembled. The group
established guiding principles which included the following:
• Improve the public real, storefronts and the overall perception of the street
• Create diversity in retail, access and mobility
• Create amenities and destination for visitors and residents
• Create partnerships to market the Western Avenue brand and corridor.
C-48
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-13
A Draft Plan was prepared and addresses the following topics:
• Economic and demographic analyses
• Analysis of the existing corridor and conditions, including the public realm and
streetscape;
• Branding and signage;
• Recommendations for the three different segments of Western Avenue;
• Mobility recommendations, including bicycle and transit opportunities; and,
• Next steps
Applicants of City of Los Angeles properties along Western Avenue must comply with the
requirements and standards of the Department of Building and Safety and Department of
Transportation regarding sidewalk design, ingress/egress location and design, signage, and
traffic control devices to avoid potential bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular conflicts. The
proposed Ponte Vista Project improves the western edge of Western Avenue consistent with the
Western Avenue Vision Plan. Impacts of viewing the development from Western Avenue would
be softened by the planting of trees and the buffer provided between the Western Avenue
roadway and residential structures.
On-Site Related Cases
VTT-71886-GB. This is a request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 71886 for a
merger and re-subdivision of 208 parcels for the construction of up to a maximum 700
residential units comprised of 208 single-family dwellings and 492 multi-family
condominium units on a 61.5 acre site in the proposed PVSP Zone. The case is
currently on hold.
VTT-63399. On November 4, 2008, the Advisory Agency disapproved Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 63399 to subdivide the 61.5 acre property into 33 lots. The Advisory Agency
determined that the density of the proposed map was not consistent with the
surrounding residential land uses and was not suitable for this site as per the
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan since it is not a conveniently accessible
commercial center that would discourage automobile use, and not situated near a transit
corridor. The applicant filed an appeal on November 13, 2008.
Case No. ZA-2005-3412-ZV. On June 30, 2005, the Zoning Administrator approved a
request for a zone variance to allow the construction, use, and maintenance of a private
school on an R1 zoned property and to provide temporary relief from the "Transportation
Requirements" under Condition Nos. 9a, 9b 9d, and 9e of CPC 2000-4712(CU)(SPR).
Off-site Related Cases
CPC-2000-4712-CU-SPR. On July 12, 2001, the City Planning Commission approved a
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed phased development of a private
high school (Mary Star of the Sea High School) and related uses in the R1-1Xl zone.
The site is located at 2300 N. Taper Avenue.
CPC-2000-4712-CU-SPR-PA1. On December 17, 2007, the City Planning Commission
approved a Plan Approval to a Conditional Use for vehicular access for the Mary Star of
the Sea High School to take access from Westmount Drive via Taper Avenue until such
time as permanent access from Western Avenue is obtained.
C-49
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-14
Case No. ZA-2000-1349-ZV. On August 31, 2000, the Zoning Administrator approved a
request for zone variances to permit the remodeling, use and continued maintenance of
seven existing residential dormitory structures observing a 13 feet 3 inch separation in
lieu of the Code required 20-foot separation and the provision of 20 on-site parking
spaces in lieu of the required 35 parking spaces otherwise required, all as part of faculty
housing for a future high school (not part of this request). The site is located at 2300 N.
Taper Avenue.
Site History
• The federal government acquired ownership of the undeveloped site in 1942.
• In 1944, the government constructed a fire fighting training facility, which operated until
1950 and was demolished. The remaining area was utilized as a storage area for
shipping containers from 194 7 to 1962. .
• In 1962, the Navy constructe.d 245 housing units on the site to· house Navy personnel
who were stationed at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard.
• The site was annexed from unincorporated County of Los Ai:igeles to the City of Los
Angeles in 1980. The Navy housing site was closed in 1999 when the Naval Shipyard
was closed through the Base and Realignment and Closure process (BRAC). After
various legal procedures outlined in BRAG, the Navy awarded some 19.58 acres of the
property to Volunteers of America, a homeless support organization and put out to
auction the remaining 41.95 acres for sale to the public.
• The Navy housing facility was vacated and closed in 1999, and sold to private owners in
2005.
• In 2005, Bisno Development Company (BDC) successfully purchased 41.95 acres of the
site from the Navy and then purchased the remaining 19.58 acres from Volunteers of
America to complete ownership of the entire 61.53 acre site.
• In 2010, iStar Financial took ownership of the site.
City Planning Commission (2009 Bisno Project)
In April of 2009, the City Planning . Commission considered the Planning Department's
recommendation of denial of a project that was. reduced from 2,300 units to 1,950 units, and
denied BDC's Project. The City Planning Department recommended the following:
• Pursuant to the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan, the property zone be changed
from the existing Low Residential density to Low Medium I. This recommendation was
based upon the following: page 111-1 of the Wilmington-Harbor City Plan, which states
that a fundamental premise of the Plan is "limiting residential densities in various
neighborhoods to the prevailing density of development in that neighborhood". This is an
important factor in determining the appropriateness of a development at this site. The
Ponte Vista site is one of the last undeveloped parcels of this size in the area and offers
an opportunity to significantly meet the housing needs of the community.
• Pursuant the Wilmington -Harbor City Community Plan, the Low Medium I Residential
designation allows for densities of 9-18 dwelling units per net acre. Although the net
acreage of the development varies depending on the final design of the subdivision, a
general rule of thumb is that 20~30 percent of the acreage of a large property be set
aside for public improvements (streets, dedication etc.). Since the Ponte Vista site is
approximately 61.5 acres, the net acreage would allow approximately 775 to 886
residential units at this site, depending on the design, layout and other parameters laid
out in a Specific Plan.
C-50
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA
• While there are subdivisions that are exclusively single family residential near the site,
the prevailing density and scale of the development in the area is a mix of low density,
single family residences and Low Medium density multi-family residential. The largest
most comparable multifamily development is the adjacent Gardens condominium
development to the south. This condominium complex is spread over 80 acres and is
developed at 13.5 dwelling units per acre.
• The Low Medium I residential designation would allow the opportunity to add new
housing to the community while maintaining a density that is compatible with the existing
single family neighborhoods.
• The density recommended by the Planning Department would also meet another
objective of the Wilmington -Harbor City Community Plan, which is to promote the
provision of adequate housing for all people. Rezoning the property to the Low Medium
I density residential land use designation would better meet the housing needs in the
Harbor area, more so than maintaining the land use designation as low density
residential.
Additionally, CPC made the following comments:
• The property is currently an eyesore
• There should be future dialogue between the applicant and the Planning Department
• A future development should not be R1 density; however it should be consistent with the
surrounding community.
Case History After the 2009 City Planning Commission Meeting
• On November 10, 2010, a scoping meeting was held for the Draft EIR on November 10,
2010. The Project was for a 1, 135 residential dwelling unit development.
• The Draft EIR Notice of Preparation was issued on October 26, 2010.
• Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was released on November 8, 2012.
• The circulation date for the Draft EIR began November 8, 2012 and ended January 7,
2013, a 61-day review period. Subsequent to the conclusion of the public review period
for the Draft EIR, the Project Applicant formally requested the City to replace the original
Proposed Project description (1, 135 units) with a reduced density (830 units) site plan
that was evaluated as "Alternative C'' in the Draft EIR.
• The Final EIR Notice of Availability was issued on June 28, 2013.
• On July 30, 2013 a Public Hearing forVTT-71886 and CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP was
held at the Port Board of Harbor Commissioners Office at 425 S. Palos Verdes Street in
San Pedro. The Project at the time proposed 830 dwelling units (Alternative C).
• On September 4, 2013, the Applicant submits a draft Specific Plan for the Ponte Vista
project, reflecting a 700-unit development.
Public Outreach
The Applicant has stated that during the EIR process, the Ponte Vista outreach team has had
individual meetings with dozens of their neighbors in the Harbor area. The Applicant has
submitted a statement and list of meetings with community groups and neighborhood councils.
The Applicant has stated that they have had meetings with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
and the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council since the Project was revised from 830
units to 700 units.
C-51
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-16
Outreach efforts include the Northwest Neighborhood Council's Land Use Committee, Central
San Pedro Neighborhood Council, Harbor City/Harbor Gateway Chamber of Commerce, Harbor
City Neighborhood Council, Wilmington Neighborhood Council, Lomita Chamber of Commerce,
representatives from the neighboring Seaport Village and Casa Verde Estates developments,
among others. A summary of the public outreach meetings can be found in Exhibit F of this
report.
Project Revisions
Prior to the July 30, 2013 public hearing, the Applicant withdrew the application request for a
Development Agreement. Also, a secondary pedestrian/emergency vehicular access lane was
added to the Project along the site's southern boundary adjacent to the Seaport Village
development.
Since the July 30, 2013 public hearing, the Applicant has revised the Project to address issues
raised at that hearing. Some of the revisions include the following:
• Reduction of dwelling units from 830 to 676 units. A revised tract map has been
submitted for 676 units. The Specific Plan regulates a development for up to 700
residential dwelling units.
• The removal of the four-story, multi-family 218-unit apartment building located at the
south portion of the site and 124 for-sale town home units within the interior of the site.
• Create a new 2.4-acre park, publicly accessible and privately maintained, in place of the
apartment complex along Western Avenue.
• Replace the apartment complex and 124 townhome units with a new residential product
in the southern, central area of the site. The new product is a one-level condominium/flat
with floor plans ranging from approximately 950 square feet to over 1,700 square feet.
The condominium/flats will be constructed in 4 story buildings with 6 or 12 units in each
building, with private garages on the ground floor. Because the living area is confined to
one floor, with elevator access from the garage, this new product is. intended to be
attractive to seniors. The site plan proposes 188 units in this area, although the Specific
Plan will allow the flexibility for up to 218 units in. this· area, provided. a new subdivision
map is approved.
• The revision of Subarea 6 to allow for flexibilitY to develop up to 212 units (for a Project.
total of 700 units). The Proje"ct tract map will be proposing 188 units (for a Project total
of 676 units).
• Add more detailed regulations added to the Specific Plan.
• Realign residential subarea boundaries and the smaller recreational center lot to
accommodate the new residential product in a new Subarea 6 and the reduction in
overall multi-family units.
• Realign the access road to the Mary Star of the Sea High School.
ANALYSIS
Surrounding Area Analysis and Project Design
Single-family neighborhoods are located throughout the north, central, and western portions of
Wilmington. Concentrations of multi-family residential uses are located near Anaheim Street in
Wilmington, and Lomita Boulevard, Anaheim Street, Western Avenue, and Normandie Avenue
in Harbor City. Residential land uses account for 1,809 net acres. Across Western Avenue
west of the Project site is the 120-acre Green Hills Memorial Park Cemetery. South of Green
Hills, and directly across the street from the Ponte Vista site and within the City of Rancho Palos
C-52
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-17
Verdes, is a detached single-family subdivision consisting of 721 homes (Rolling Hills Riviera)
that is designated Low Density Residential. Single-family homes and a cemetery are to the east
of the site within the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Medium density multi-
family dwellings and commercial uses are located south of the Project site.
The Project's design took into consideration the site's adjacent and surrounding uses.
Along the northern boundary a permanent fence line exists and will continue to exist in order to
prevent access onto the U.S. Navy's site. Thus, the northern portion of the site was designed
with single family homes. The northern parcels have the highest natural and finished grades
and provide the best potential views of the harbor and the surrounding area. Approximately 48
percent of the developable site is devoted to single family, detached homes along the northern
portion of the Ponte Vista site plan.
The eastern boundary is contiguous to the Mary Star of the Sea High School. This boundary
includes a permanent fence line, which prevents vehicular and pedestrian access in either
direction. As such, the Project was designed to provide some measure of open space and two-
story attached residential use. The site was designed with a two-story townhouse product to
accommodate the internal transition from single-family to multi-family homes. The most
desirable multi-family units were designed to be contiguous to large portions of the open space,
which then transitions into one of the parking lots within Mary Star of the Sea High School.
The western boundary of the site abuts Western Ave, one of two major north/south streets
providing access into and out of San Pedro. This portion of the site was designed to offer a
marketing window from Western, and provide the community with a visual transition from a
highly-traveled boulevard into the mix of housing within the Project site, without creating an
unattractive dominant wall of building along Western Avenue. To accomplish this, single-family
homes were designed along the northern portion of Western, never projecting more than two
stories above the Western Avenue grade. Heading south along the property, the Project
transitions to multi-family townhomes and flats along the middle section of the Ponte Vista
property, which projects one story above the Western Avenue grade at its north edge,
transitions into two stories above grade at the middle portion of Ponte Vista, and finally three
stories of one building exposure at the southern entry way, also known as the Mary Star of the
Sea High School entry on the south.
The southern boundary includes three different developments that range in different heights,
and densities. The collective uses along the southern edge of Ponte Vista are made up of three
different residential developments, The Tennis Club, Seaport Village, and Casa Verde within 5.5
acres: The~e developments have an R3 density for an average of 63 units per acre, and
together, total 348 residential units. Seaport Village is 136 units on 1.8 acres, which translates
into 75 units per acre. Seaport Village and the Tennis Club have overall buildings heights of
205' and 190' above sea level, respectively.
Six stories of exposed building dominate the view heading south along Western Avenue. The
Project was previously designed with a multi-family apartment building at a height of 178 feet
above sea level. This was 27 feet lower than the Seaport Village building and 12 feet below the
existing Tennis Club building height. After the July 30th public hearing, the Project was revised
and included the replacement of the apartment building with a 2.4-acre publicly-accessible park.
This also led to the realignment of the Mary Star of the Sea access road. The emergency
access road and pedestrian access from the south, which borders the multi-family
developments, remain and continue to serve as an additional access point onto the site.
C-53
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA
The Project is consistent in scale with the surrounding properties. The Project redevelops a site
that contains abandoned duplex housing. The Project is not located directly adjacent to any
single-family residential neighborhood in the Wilmington-Harbor City Plan area. The Project site
is separated from a single-family residential neighborhood located in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes by Western Avenue, a State Highway carrying 35,000 vehicles per day. Properties
south of the site contain multi-family housing at densities similar to and in excess of what the
Project would develop. The Project would develop 208 single-family housing units and up to
496 townhomes and flats, and would not represent out-of-scale development in the context of
the surrounding area.
Walkability Analysis
Walkability is a measure of how interesting, inviting, and comfortable the street and sidewalk
environment is for pedestrians. The City of Los Angeles Walkability Checklist for Site Plan
Review ("Walkability Checklist")' was created by the City's Urban Design Studio of the
Department of City Planning. The Walkability Checklist consists of a list of design principles
intended to improve the pedestrian environment, protect neighborhood character, and promote
high quality urban form and is to be used by decision-makers and/or hearing officers to assess
the pedestrian orientation of a project when making the required findings for approval of a
project. The design elements are consistent with the General Plan and applicable Urban
Design Chapters of. Community Plans. Guidelines address such topics as building orientation,
building frontage, landscaping, off-street parking and driveways, building signage, and lighting
within the private realm; and sidewalks, street crossings, on-street parking, and utilities in the
public realm.
An analysis of site plans, community context, and building elevations is essential to improve and
ensure walkability. The project is consistent with many of the goals and implementation
strategies from the Department of City Planning's Walkability Checklist.
Building Orientation. Single-family homes along Western Avenue are oriented inwardly
toward the private streets. All other townhomes and flats will be oriented towards the
private streets to enable residents to walk from their homes to paved surfaces.
Building Frontage. The Applicant is proposing Mediterranean, Mediterranean Eclectic,
Early California Modern and California Modern archite.ctural sMes. Massing, roof forms
and materials, walls, architectural elements (porches and balconies), windows, door and
gates, and trim and details are described in Section 3.0 of the Design Guidelines. The
building frontages for these styles will include porches and balconies that will promote a
presence on the street interaction and help residents transition from the indoor to
outdoor experience. Garages will be located along the alleys and most front entries off
of green spaces, with some located along walkable streets. Community buildings will
also be oriented towards the private streets. Scale, massing, roof forms, materials and
architectural styles will be at a pedestrian scale that allow for the transition from street to
structure.
Buildings will have fenestrations that establish a clear pattern on the fagade and provide
depth and additional articulation. The Design Guidelines prohibit adjacent structures
from having a repetition of building styles. Each product will have at least three distinct
elevations.
C-54
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-19
Building Setbacks. Front yard setbacks for the different product types will range from 2
feet (single-family detached clusters-Product 2} 5 feet (townhomes and flats-Products 4,
5, and 6) to 8 feet (single-family detached-Product 1 and detached clusters-Product 3).
Porches and bay windows would be permitted to encroach up to two feet into both the
front and side yards. Side yards will range from 4 feet (Single-family detached, clusters
and townhomes -Products 1, 2, 3, and 4) to 5 feet (Townhomes and flats -Product 5, 6).
On-Site Landscaping. Western Avenue would be formally spaced with strong vertical
pine trees located along the back of the curb in tree wells and surrounded by a curb
adjacent sidewalk. The backdrop buffer landscape would be groupings of informally
spaced evergreen pines and eucalyptus trees that soften the transition to the community
behind a tubular steel fence. At the monument entry, enhanced paving softened by
median island planting and curb separated walks provide convenient pedestrian access
into the community. The monument court located at the north entrance will be
designed with median landscaping, and include large canopy palms which anchor the
pourt. The backdrop buffer landscape would be designed to soften the architectural
edge.
The community entry drive at the south entrance will also include a landscaped
median and continuous parkway separated walk areas. The drive is lined with broad
canopy flowering trees alternating with tall skyline palms. The community entry plaza
begins at one of three round-about features within the community. The non-signalized
intersection offers an open garden landscape feature as guests and residents arrive at
the main entry plaza. Also, the round-about intersection is landscaped. A continuously
planted parkway separated walk and enhanced paving areas define the edges of the
drive. The drive and median island are lined with tall canopy palms.
The community spine street which runs over the fault line and runs across the site is
the Project's central landscape feature where guests and residents walk and interact.
The spine street is lined with alternating broad canopy flowering trees and tall skyline
palms. A parallel walk/trail runs along the side of the school access drive. Tree
plantings would be located along the edges of the drive. The community loop street is
a walkable street and is located at the northern portion of the site and includes tree
plantings that would soften the architectural edges. Accent trees would be encouraged
at street corners, stoops, garden walk seating areas and around primary building
courtyard entries. The neighborhood loop street is a walkable street and will include a
turf parkway and formally spaced trees. Parallel parking would be provided along these
streets for guests and residents.
Building Signage and Lighting. The Specific Plan will include regulations for monument
and identification signs. Monument and identification signs shall be in accordance with
the Los Angeles Citywide Sign Ordinance. Monument signs will be prohibited from
exceeding 1.5 square feet per foot of street frontage and shall be less than 75 square
feet of total sign face. Lighting shall be encouraged for monument signs and
architectural and landscape features. Lighting will be in compliance with state and local
safety and illumination standards, and will be directed to prevent glare and direct rays
onto adjacent property.
Sidewalks. Sidewalks within private streets will range between 4 feet to 6 feet in width,
depending on the width of the street. The community entry plaza, community entry drive
and community spine street will include 5-foot wide sidewalks. The community loop
street and neighborhood loop streets will include 4-foot wide sidewalks. A private trail
running along the school access drive will be 8 feet wide.
C-55
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-20
Woonerf streets are more like walkable neighborhood lanes that will provide aqcess to
single-family homes at the northeast portion of the site. These streets provide access
for automobiles and pedestrians alike. Emphasis is placed on the pedestrian right of
way without the use of separated sidewalks. Traffic calming is created through the use
of enhanced accent paving, and concrete banding. Woonerf street trees soften the
transition to the adjacent architecture, while accent trees define the terminus.
Utilities. All new utilities for the Project are proposed to be underground, and· would
improve the pedestrian experience by removing the clutter of power lines running along
major roadway corridors.
Trail. The Project includes a recreational trail surrounding the new community. The trail
will incorporate amenities, which may include exercise stations, benches, signage and
·lighting, landscaping, gardens, rest areas and other improvements. The trail will be of
decomposed granite or something similar. It will be intended for recreational use and
also for access for maintenance of the property. Portions of the perimeter trail will be on
steep slopes and may require safety railings and warning signs of steep terrain.
Architectural Design Analysis
The Applicant stated that the selected architectural styles and their related building forms and
details are a product of cultural tastes and values that reflect the vision and history of Ponte
Vista. According to the Applicant, the site and layout were designed based on market research
with a wide range of residential types, sizes, and layouts within the San Pedro community. An
inventory of the architectural styles in the area, input from the San Pedro community members,
and Harbor area stakeholders were taken into account when considering the different
architectural styles and layout for the Ponte Vista site. In addition, the different heights of each
product type proposed within each subarea took into consideration the site's elevation and
adjacent properties. The following architectural styles are summed up as follows:
• Mediterranean architecture is typically defined by the use of low-profile tile roofs, stucco
walls, decorative wrought iron metalwork, exposed wood rafters, decorative tile accents,
and precast concrete door and window surrounds.
• Mediterranean Eclectic reflects California's modern interpretation of historic Spanish and
Mediterranean architectural forms a·nd elements. It represents the innovative and
modern spirit strongly present in L.A. culture, with subtle references to its roots.
• Early California Modern is identified by the use of flat roofs without eaves, simple
geometric massing, unity of materials, ribbon windows, light exterior wall colors to reflect
the brilliant Southern California sun, frequent use of ground level arches creating
transitional breezeways, and lack of ornamentation.
• California Modern is defined by clean and simple geometric massing, with simple
uncomplicated roofs.
Section 3 of the Design Guidelines provides a detailed description of these different styles.
C-56
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-21
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Major Issues Disclosed at July 30, 201-3 Public Hearing for the 830-unit Development
Comments at the July 30, 2013 public hearing included the following: inappropriateness of the
project at the site; the scale of the project being too big for the area; traffic and intersection
impacts; inconsistencies with the proposed San Pedro Community Plan; impacts to public
infrastructure; the proposal of gates; the project not keeping with the characteristics of the San
Pedro community; inadequacies of the EIR and the Specific Plan; and bringing in too much
density. A summary of the comments made by each speaker is provided in Section P of this
report.
The following is a summary of the key issues raised as well as a response to these issues:
Specific Plan. Comments were made stating the plan is lacking, inconsistent, and ignores
the. context of the community. It requires more specificity to provide assurances to the
community. Also, inconsistencies were pointed at the public hearing. Points were made
that the Applicant has not engaged the community. Also, the plan lacks the following:
analysis of regional and local context, an overall physical vision, a robust development code,
a sufficient infrastructure plan for transportation, streets, public and private parking, water,
sewer, and stormwater. Furthermore, comments also included the plan merely presenting
guidelines rather than standards.
Staff's Response: The Applicant took into consideration the comments made at the public
hearing as well as those by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Counc;J. The Specific
Plan was modified to include more sections and specific regulations, and capture details
from the proposed design guidelines to provide assurances to the community of the
appearance a_nd function of this development.
Gated Community. Comments were made about the Applicant's proposal to gate the
development. People commented that the development would be adding to traffic While not
allowing for access into the community. Emergency response times would be affected and
crime numbers would rise. Comments were made about the San Pedro Community Plan
Update and how it specifically states the Ponte Vista development should not be gated.
Concerns were· raised. about how this -development would not promote integration with the
rest of the community. ·
Staff's Response: While the City Planning Commission reviewed the Draft San Pedro
Community Plan Update, which specifically states that the Ponte Vista site not be gated, it
should be noted that the roads within the proposed development will be private roads and
that there are no connections to other uses. The south portion of the site includes a road
that presently allows for parents and students access into the Mary Star of the Sea High
School. The proposed development would continue to provide access without the use of
gates.
The subject site is presently gated and is fenced off from the public. It does not lead into
other uses, aside from the high school mentioned above, nor does it connect to other public
streets in the City. Thus, presently, vehicles would not be able to cut through the site to get
onto other streets. With the development, there would be no change to this since there
would be no uses or public streets within the residential development that the community
would want to access, except for the Mary Star of the Sea access road.
C-57
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-22
The Project would restrict vehicular access into the development, allowing for only residents
and their guests. However, the development allows for the community to access and utilize
the 2.42-acre park, trails, and other open areas within the gates. Generally, gated
developments keep others in the general community out of the site. The Project will allow
for the community to enjoy the open amenities it offers its residents. Pedestrian gates will
not be gated and will provide for access into the development.
The Project Applicant states that the Project can reduce the number·0f units from (830 to
700 units) and respond to the community's concerns of density only by maintaining the
gates. The Applicant states there is a market for homes behind gates, and that the removal
of gates would make the Project at the reduced number of units infeasible. The Applicant
identifies other gated developments within the San Pedro community.
R1 Zoning and Density and High Traffic on Western Avenue. Comments were made about
the increase in density in the area. The site is located in an area characterized by high
congestion and a gridlocked Western Avenue. Speakers stated that by adding a project
with this type of density, traffic would only worsen. Since appropriate improvements were
not being made to infrastructure, many opposed the increase in density and requested zone
change, and wanted to see the site remain R1.
Staff's Response: At the 2009 City Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commissioners commented that the property is an eyesore, and that future development
should not be R1 density but consistent with the surrounding community.
The Environmental Impact Report mitigates all traffic impacts for the 1, 135 unit project to a
less than significant level utilizing the mitigation measures imposed by the Department of
Transportation. The Department of Transportation has reviewed the 830 unit project known
as Alternative C in the EIR as well as a new Traffic Assessment Study for the 700 unit
residential project. Table 7 summarizes the different projects.
TABLE 7 TRIP GENERATION FORECASTS AND IMPACTS
Project Daily Trip AM Peak PM Peak No. of Significant
Ends Hour Hour Impacts (Future
Volumes Volumes Volumes 2017)
1, 135 dwelling units 7,468 571 699 20
830 dwelling units 4,850 372 466 16
700 dwelling units 5,788 445 555 16
No Project-3,684 289 389 15
Single-Family Homes
The Project (1, 135 dwelling units, comprised of 143 single family homes, 600
condominiums, and 392 apartments) the Department of Transportation reviewed was one
that created a significant impact to 20 intersections of the 56 study intersections. The 700
residential unit project (208 single family homes and 492 condominiums) resulted in 16
impacted intersections, the same as that of the 830 dwelling unit project (208 single family
homes, 404 condominiums, and 218 apartments). With mitigation measures required by the
Department of Transportation, traffic impacts would be mitigated to less than significant
levels.
Multi-family building located to the south. Some comments were made of the views and
close proximity of a proposed multi-family building. Residents of the neighboring multi-
family buildings to the south of the project commented that their views would be of the
neighboring building and that the building would be too close to theirs.
C-58
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-23
Staff's Response: After the public hearing, the Project was revised to remove the multi-
family building and create a 2.42-acre park. The removal of the mu/ti-family bu;Jding led to
the reconfiguration of units distributed throughout the south portion of the site, ultimately
leading to the reduction of 830 units to 676 units (Vesting Tentative Tract Map 71886). Also,
an emergency vehicle access road will allow pedestrians and residents from the south
property convenient access to and from the Project site.
Neighboring Rancho LPG Holdings. Comments and concerns were raised regarding the
Rancho LPG Holdings storage facility, and the potential for the release of toxic gases and
risk of explosion to the future residents of the Ponte Vista project.
Staffs Response: The Rancho LPG facility is located approximately 0. 7 mile to the east of
the Project site, adjacent to Gaffey Street. The storage facility has been in existence since
1973, and is located across the street from existing residences that are themselves closer to
the facility than the proposed Ponte Vista site. The facilities store butane and propane
gases. Comments have generally been summarized as follows: 1) the potential risk
presented to future Project residents by the Rancho LPG facility and (2) general concerns
about the Rancho LPG facility, including the inadequacy of Rancho LPG's Risk
Management Plan (RMP) and on-site safety apparatus (and, by extension, the inadequacy
of the Draft EIR's analysis of the risk posed by the Rancho LPG facility to future Project
residents). The Draft EIR analyzed this risk of upset and determined that there would be no
impact to the subject site. The Rancho LPG facility is required to submit Risk Management
Plans, which address potential hazards from operations and how it would minimize or
manage these hazards. The goal of these RMPs is to prevent accidental releases of
substances that can cause serious harm to the public and environment and to mitigate the
severity of releases. Under the RMP's offsite consequence analysis, a worst-case release
of butane would spill into an on-site containment pit and could result in a vapor cloud
explosion with an impact zone of 0.5 miles. The RMP is filed with the Los Angeles Fire
Department, and the Fire Department is charged with reviewing and approving the RMP
document, completing inspections, and enforcing compliance. Further explanation is found
in the Final EIR's Response to Comments Section in Page Ill.A 15-19.
Preservation of Open Channel. The blue line stream, or as the EIR identifies it as an open
stormwater drainage, is located near the southwest portion of the site. As proposed, the
Projeqt would build structures over the channel. Also, the slope adjacent to the D~fense
Fuel Supply Point as well as the stream, both have potential for valuable habitat restoration
and preservation of natural open space.
Staff's Response: As a result of comments made by the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG) and the Army Corps of Engineers, the Eavironmental Impact Report includes
a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 810-4 of the EIR) that requires the Applicant to
enter into a Stream bed Alteration Agreement with CDFG to provide a 1: 1 re pf acement of
suitable streambed and associated riparian habitat either on-site as an additional habitat
creation, off-site either through habitat creation or purchase of credits in an approved
mitigation bank in the Los Angeles Basin, or via a combination of these approaches. With
mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Lack of Open Space. No public park is proposed for the project. There is a lack of public
and private open space. The open spaces are not well-designed. Public open spaces
.should not be residual spaces but a defining feature of the neighborhood, integrated with
block, street, building and frontage standards.
C-59
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-24
Staffs Response: The revisions made to the Project after the July 30, 2013 public hearing
include a new 2. 42 acre park. The Applicant has had discussions with the Department of
Recreation and Parks to dedicate this to the City of Los Angeles as a turnkey park.
However, because of the City's Code requirements, the proposed park just misses what the
City requires for dedication. Regardless, the Applicant has stated that they will proceed with
the park, and will make it accessible to the public and maintain it privately. While the park is
not centrally located, the park is located at the southwest portion of the site, and is
accessible via the Mary Star of the Sea access road and the emergency vehicle access
road. The emergency vehicle access, bordering the mu/ti-family developments to the south,
road will be used solely for emergency response vehicles, but wifl conUnue to provide
access to pedestrians and guests entering from the south.
On-Site Earthquake Fault.
The City of Los Angeles adopted the 201 O California Building Code and a series . of City of
Los Angeles amendments on January 1, 2011, known as the 2011 City of Los Angeles
Building Code ("2011 Building Code'). Together, the provisions in Volumes 1 and 2 of the
2011 Building Code address issues related to site grading, cut and fill slope design, soil
expansion, geotechnical investigations before and during construction, slope stability,
allowable bearing pressures and settlement below footings, effects of adjacent slopes on
foundations, retaining walls, basement walls, shoring of adjacent properties, and potential
primary and secondary seismic effects.
In addition, the City of Los Angeles, Grading Division of the Department of Building and
Safety adopted Rules of General Application (RGA), a series of Geotechnical Standards that
supplement the requirements of the Los Angeles Building Code. The RGAs include specific
requirements for seismic design, slope stability, grading, foundation design, geologic
investigations and reports, soil and rock testing, and groundwater.
The City's Department of Building and Safety is responsible for implementing the provisions
of the Los Angeles Building Code and the RGA. In addition to the seismic regulations in the
Los Angeles Building Code and RGA, the City's primary seismic regulatory document is the
Safety Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, adopted in 1996. The City's Safety
Element includes· specific guidelines for evaluating liquefaction, tsunamis, seiches, non-
structural elements, fault rupture zones, and engineering investigation reports.
As discussed previously, the Project site is not located within an A/quist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone or a fault zone mapped by the State Geologist pursuant to the Seismic Hazard
Mapping Act. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical Report concluded that the Palos
Verdes Fault trace crossing the Project site should be treated as a potentially active fault for
the purpose of development pf anning. State of California Geological Survey standard
measures include a 50-foot wide setback zone on each side of the interpreted centerline of
the projected surface rupture. Although the Project Applicant would be required to design
and construct the Project in conformance with the most recently adopted building code
design parameters in the current version of the Los Angeles Building Code, the presence of
the potentially active Palos Verdes Fault trace on the Project site means that the Project
could potentially expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with fault rupture
or displacement. As such, the Environmental Impact Report identified this impact relating to
fault rupture and displacement as significant. The Applicant has designed the Project
observing the 50-foot setback on both sides of the projected surface rupture, and will comply
with this mitigation measure.
C-60
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-25
Based on the active and potentially active faults in the region and on-site, it is likely that
future earthquakes produced in Southern California will shake the Project site. However,
the Project site is not exposed to a greater seismic risk than other areas of Southern
California where active and potentially active faults are located. Furthermore, the Project
will be designed and constructed to withstand ground motions by adhering to the 2011 Los
Angeles Building Code Section 1613, which contains provisions relating to earthquake
loads. Also, the Project Applicant would be required to design and construct the Project in
conformance to the design parameters contained in the 2011 Los Angeles Building Code.
Modern, we/I-constructed buildings are designed to resist ground shaking through the use of
shear panels and reinforcement. · Conformance with 2011 Los Angeles Building Code
requirements would reduce the potential for structures on the Project site to sustain damage
during an earthquake event, and would ensure that the Project would not expose people or
structures to substantial adverse effects associated with seismic ground shaking to any
greater extent than other properties in the Southern California region. As such, the
Environmental Impact Report identifies impacts related to seismic ground shaking as less
than significant.
Other comments include the following:
• There have been limited opportunities for public input, and little time given to the
community to evaluate the proposal and plans.
• Streets and parking plans are deficient and substandard, especially in consideration for
emergency response vehicles within the property.
• There is a lack of facilities for senior citizens especially in the San Pedro community.
Staff's Response: The Project has gone through the entitlement process meeting all the
legal City code and State requirements, including all the legal noticing requirements and
public hearings. Exhibit H of this report is .a list and summary of the Applicant's public
outreach efforts prior to the July 30, 2013 public hearing. Planning Staff has recommended
that revisions to the Project be presented to the community, including the Neighborhood
Councils and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Based on communication with the
Applicant, efforts to present the revised project have been made to the Northwest San
Pedro Neighborhood Council and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The Fire Department reviews the site plan and tract map and issues their conditions of
approval taking into consideration emergency access, setbacks, street layout, installation of
hydrants, etc. Similar to the Fire Department, other City Departments also receive copies of
the proposed plans and maps and issue their comments and conditions of approval. The
Applicant must comply with these conditions of approval in order for their tract map to record
and to receive any building permits. The Fire Department and other City Departments were
sent copies of the most recent version of the tract map, and Planning Staff is awaiting their
comments.
With regards to the lack of senior citizen facilities, the Applicant has chosen to develop the
site without senior facilities or housing. However, the 2.42 acre park, trails, and other
recreational amenities will be made available to the public, including senior citizens, to
provide a benefit to the community.
C-61
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA
Urban Design Studio and the Professional Volunteer Program
The project was presented to the Professional Volunteer Program (PVP) by the Urban Design
Studio on August 13, 2013. The comments made by the professional architects for the original
Project of 830 residential units (Alternative C) include the following:
• The PVP reviewed the layout of the 830 unit project, and questioned what benefits were
being given to the City. The project is gated and requesting a General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change. The types of transit along Western Avenue raised concerns for the
issues of traffic that would be added on to Western Avenue.
• The PVP suggested that use on the site should be thoughtful so that it would be viable
for the next 50 years. The use/project needs to be part of the community. The project
should bring in different types of opportunities for the area.
• The PVP stated that gating the community and restricting access onto the site brings no
benefit to the City.
• The open space shown is more like leftover space. There are no gathering spaces, and
no central focus. The project should include a park for the residents and community to
enjoy.
• A' project of this size needs a pedestrian network. The open space shown provides
opportunities for the pedestrian network. The stream brings an added feature to site.
• Much thought should go into the plantings to make the site aesthetically pleasing.
• Garage doors should be designed to improve interaction between residents. Textured
paving and landscape should be included in the design to make this area vibrant and to
activate the car space.
• The site should include a park at the center of the site. This would bring a nice central
feature, while providing a safer place to play.
• Walkways fade away. There should be some pedestrian-only thoroughfares. Walkways
should link to the trails.
• This development should be careful not to cookie cut the homes.
• Small amenities (i.e., dog washing area, community garden) should be added to the
area.
• With such a large area and slope of the site, there should be permeable paving and
stormwater capture.
• Project is lacking in generosity in green space and master planning to residents and
community.
• The project needs to develop a Specific Plan that treats different features of the site
differently. For example, development along Western Avenue, slopes, and general
neighborhood, should be considered. Programming should be changed and the gaps of
outdated zoning and what's there today should be filled.
• Include more breakup or more subareas in the site planning.
• There needs to be a larger connection to the open space around the site.
• Playa Vista should be looked to as a model.
• This development needs.to be more open to the public and not be an insular community.
Proposed solutions raised by PVP:
• Increase green space areas around project for public space usage;
• Amenities might allow for opportunities for increased density;
• Reorganize open space to prioritize pedestrian network and an open space network;
• Use native and drought tolerant plants;
• Make driveways into walkways only for pedestrians;
C-62
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-27
• Hierarchy is needed;
• Create a central green space, large park;
• Make garage areas have texture, program for multiple uses; and
• Distribute open ·space differently.
Conclusion
The Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan would allow for the subject site to be redeveloped
into a residential community that meets the housing needs of the Wilmington-Harbor City and
San Pedro areas. The Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan characterizes its community
plan area as essentially built-out. Though there are large properties available for public
redevelopment and there are large underutilized properties available for educational use (for
example, Harbor City College), there are no comparably-sized private properties in the area that
are available for reuse. The site is a consolidated site comprised of 61.5 acres developed with
abandoned and dilapidated homes. In 2009, the City Planning Commission identified the site as
blighted and as an "eyesore". Indeed, the site is underutilized and in need of revitalization.
The Project that was presented to the City Planning Commission in 2009 (Bisno) was denied
with recommendations that the site not remain R1 and the site should have a density that is
compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed Low Medium II designation would allow for
opportunities to add new housing to the community that would be consistent with the Housing
Element by bringing in housing that meets the needs of different household sizes and at
different price points. The range of housing units from single family homes to townhomes to
one-story flats provide housing opportunities to families, singles and professionals, and senior
citizens as well. As noted, the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan characterizes its area
as essentially built-out, and anticipates that future growth would be accommodated by the
redevelopment and intensification of existing developed sites. Goals and objectives of the
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan would be met by providing for the housing needs in the
Harbor area. Within its proximity to the Port of Long Beach and Port of Los Angeles, the Project
has a unique potential to provide a significant amount of housing to serve existing and future
Port-related employment. Modernizing and increasing the amount of housing stock close to the
Port would support the Port's operations and growth, and, to a certain extent, could help
mitigate environmental impacts from the Port's operations related to commuter vehicle miles
traveled.
The Applicant has had conversations with the different stakeholders of the community, and the
Project was redesigned to address many of their concerns. More specifically, the following
highlights have been reasons stakeholders have supported the Project:
• the reduced density and lower unit count of the new Ponte Vista Project;
• openness and approachability of new project team;
• bringing new jobs to the area, including local-hiring initiatives;
• bringing needed housing close to existing jobs; the need for a diversity of housing types
to suit different kinds of households (young families and singles or seniors);
• high-quality on-site recreation designed for residents (including pocket parks and a
community center);
• keeping the property fenced from adjacent properties (condos and high school);
• a traffic plan that fully addresses all impacts;
• open space available to the community for walking, hiking or cycling; the dedicated road
to Mary Star of the Sea High School;
• improving the neighborhood by re-developing the Ponte Vista site and removing blighted
naval housing.
C-63
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA A-28
The Applicant identified the key issues discussed at the 2009 City Planning Commission
meeting. Meetings with the community were attended by the Applicant's team to address the
community's concerns for the site. Also, it should be noted that the July 30, 2013 public hearing
made the Applicant realize that the Project was in need of revisions to address concerns raised
at that hearing. As such, the Applicant· revised the Project by reducing the number of dwelling
units from 830 dwelling units to 676 dwelling units (with a 700 unit maximum for the Specific
Plan) as proposed in their tract map. Also, the Applicant responded to many concerns of a
multi-family bu~!ding proposed on the south portion of the site by removing this building, and
replacing it with a 2.42 acre park to be accessible to the public. Finally, the Specific Plan was
revised to bring more details and regulations to the plan to assure the community of the ultimate
product that would be built.
Since the site is presently developed, impacts on natural resources are not of concern. The
Project would be an infill development that has been designed to be compatible to the
surrounding uses and the community needs. The Project proposes abundant landscaping on
the edges and throughout the site, and takes into consideration the slope of the site and
strategically placing tall structures in specific areas of the site to offset visual impacts from
Western Avenue. There are several trails and walkways, including a perimeter trail, that
promote walkability. With regards to adjacent uses, Western Avenue, a State Highway,
generally serves as the community's walkway into and out of the development. There are some
auto-oriented features of the development leading onto Western Avenue. However, Western
Avenue is highly-traveled and serves as one of the main thoroughfares into and out of San
Pedro. The Project does address the western portion of the site by trying to design. that portion
to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Western Avenue Vision Plan. Furthermore,
pedestrian entrances would allow the public to walk through and around the site. Residents
would be able to walk onto Western Avenue and head to the commercial development to the
south to meet some of their shopping needs. The design of the Project also includes a walkway
into the development from the south multi-family property, allowing for access leading directly
into the park.
With regards to the proposed gates, the Project's gates would only allow for residents and their
guests to access their homes or to visit a resident by their vehicles. Pedestrians and community
members will not be gated out from the site, and would be able to enter the site to utilize the
publicly-accessible park and the open areas both outside and within the vehicular gates. The
2.42-acre park would bring both active and passive open space to the larger San Pedro and
Wilmington-Harbor City community, while other open areas located throughout the site,
including the proposed trails, would allow the public to enjoy the amenities of the site. Since the
site currently restricts access, and streets within the development are private, traffic does not
circulate through the site. There are also no linkages to other public streets or uses, so the
gates that restrict vehicular access would not affect traffic patterns and paths.
The Project does, however, create traffic impacts with the addition of 676 dwelling units. The
Applicant has submitted a revised Traffic Assessment Study for a development that proposes
700 dwelling units. The Department of Transportation reviewed the assessment and concurred
that all 16 impacted intersections could be mitigated to less than significant levels.
As such, the Department of City Planning staff recommends the City Planning Commission
recommend approval the proposed Specific Plan for a 700-unit residential project, as well as the
requested General Plan Amendments, zone change, and Code Amendment.
C-64
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-1
FINDINGS
General Plan/Charter Findings
1. General Plan Land Use Designation. The subject property is located within the area
covered by the Wilmington -Harbor City Community Plan, which was last updated on
July 14, 1999 the City Council (pursuant to Council File 98-1619). The Plan map
designates the subject property for Open Space with corresponding zones of OS and A 1
and Low Residential with corresponding zones of R1, RD6 and RU. The property
contains approximately 61.5 gross acres (284,078 square feet before dedications) and is
presently zoned OS-1XL and R1-1XL
The Applicant in this case, is seeking a General Plan Amendment for the Wilmington -
Harbor City Community Plan to amend the land use designations of the site from Open
Space and Low Residential to a Low Medium II Residential land use designation. This
designation allows the corresponding zones of RZ2.5, RD2, and RD1 .5.
The subject site is currently improved with a vacant and abandoned naval housing
complex, including other community structures. The Project proposes to remove all
structures and construct a new 700-unit residential development.
Although the entire site has an average density equal to Low Medium I density (11.4
units/net acre), certain lots on the site exceed this average; therefore, requiring a land
use designation of Low Medium II Residential. The proposed Specific Plan would limit
the site to no more than 700 residential dwellings.
The General Plan Amendment will lead to a Project that would replace the existing
blighted buildings on the Project site, and construct a new housing development that
would contribute to meeting the projected 2017 housing need in the area. It would also,
provide housing to meet the needs of a broad spectrum of persons desiring to live in the
San Pedro area. The General Plan Amendment would allow for a Project that would
provide residents and the public common amenities including landscaping and open
space, while invigorating the local economy. The Project mitigates its environmental
impacts to the extent feasible, and fiscally benefits the City. It provides a high-quality
development through the creation of a Specific Plan to ensure certainties in design by
establishing development standards for the Site.
2. General Plan Text. The Wilmington -Harbor City Community Plan text includes the
following relevant land use objectives, policies and programs:
Objective 1-1: To provide for the preservation of existing housing and for the
development of new housing to meet the diverse economic and physical
needs of the existing residents and project population of the Plan area to
the year 2010.
Objective 1-2 To locate new housing in a manner which reduces vehicular trips and
makes it accessible to services and facilities.
Objective 1-3 To preserve and enhance the varied and distinct residential character and
integrity of existing single and multi-family neighborhoods.
Policy 1-5.1. Promote greater individual choice in type, quality, price, and location of
housing.
C-65
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-2
Objective 4-3. To acquire and develop properties as small parks where it is not possible
to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood parks.
Objective 5-1. To preserve existing open space resources and where possible develop
new open space.
Objective 4-5. To ensure the accessibility, security, and safety of parks by their users,
particularly families with children and senior citizens.
Objective 12-1 Increase capacity on existing transportation systems through minor
physical improvements.
Housing Encourage reuse of the existing U.S. Navy housing areas at the John
Montgomery and Palos Verdes sites, in a manner that will provide needed
housing in the community without adversely impacting the surrounding
area
The Project would redevelop an underutilized and blighted site, and construct a
maximum 700-unit residential community. The Project would provide a mix of units to
accommodate households of different sizes. A total of six different housing product
types would be developed within the Project site to the development standards defined
in the proposed Specific Plan to be adopted by the City for the Site. The Specific Plan
would set design and landscaping standards to govern the Project's construction so that
a quality residential development is established and maintained. A range of housing
price points would be included in the Project, reflecting the range of housing product
types from flats to townhomes to single-family homes. The Project would develop
housing at higher densities ranging from 8 to 23 units per acre. Specifically, townhomes,
duplex/flats, row houses, and small lot subdivisions would be included in the Project's
mix of housing products. Furthermore, the Project brings housing to a site in close
proximity to the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, which are among the
region's largest employers.
The Project is consistent in scale with the surrounding properties. The Project is not
located directly adjacent to any single-family residential neighborhood in the Wilmington-
Harbor City Plan area. The Project is separated from a single-family residential
neighborhood located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by Western Avenue, a State
Highway carrying 35,000 vehicles per day. Properties to the south of the Site contain
multi-family housing at densities similar to and in excess of what the Project would
develop. The Project would develop 208 single-family housing units and would thus not
represent out-of-scale development in the context of the neighborhood.
The Project site is located on Western Avenue, a major transit and commercial corridor.
In particular, the Metro 205, San Pedro DASH, and LADOT Commuter Express 142
buses provide transportation from the Site to San Pedro, the Ports, and downtown Long
Beach. Freeway access is located approximately three miles northeast of the Site with
northbound and southbound ramps at Anaheim Street and Pacific Coast Highway.
Public services and utilities are available to accommodate the Project.
The Project will create a 2.42-acre park at the southwest portion of the site. Although
the program implementing the policies of Objective 4-3 states that park site development
is the responsibility of the Department of Recreation and Parks, the Project would
develop, landscape and maintain the public trail and adjacent green space to help meet
the needs of both future Project residents and the larger community. On-site parking for
the trail would be provided at the entrance to the Mary Star access road. In addition, the
C-66
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-3
Project would include several small parks accessible to the public and other recreational
facilities (pools, spas,. fitness center) for the private use of its residents. Thus, the
Project would contribute to serving the public recreation and park needs of its residents
and the surrounding community.
3. The Transportation Element of the General Plan will be affected by the recommended
action herein. However, any necessary dedication and/or improvement of Western
Avenue will assure compliance with this Element of the General Plan and with the City's
street improvement standards pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.05.
Objective 2 Mitigate the impacts of traffic growth, reduce congestion, and improve air
quality by implementing a comprehensive program of multi-modal
strategies that encompass physical and operational improvements as well
as demand management.
Policy 2.34 Consider the construction of new highway segments and strategic
roadway widening only after the implementation of appropriate Demand
Management and System Management measures.
The Project would mitigate all of its significant impacts on traffic through a series of
roadway and intersection improvements, as well as the institution of Transportation
Demand Measures. The Project site is located adjacent to a public transit corridor with
service to local and regional commercial and employment centers. The Project would
also be developed to accommodate bicycle access and usage as well as pedestrian
access and connectivity to adjacent streets.
Objective 10 Make the street system accessible, safe, and convenient for bicycle,
pedestrian, and school child travel.
Policy 10.5. Ensure that sidewalks along all designated major and secondary
highways are maintained at a minimum ten (1 OHoot width pending full
dedication and improvement of these streets to the standards set forth in
this Element.
The Project would result in a number of street improvements, including roadway
restriping and/or modifications. A minimum a ten foot-wide sidewalk would be provided
on any streets that are being altered by the Project. The Project would also ensure that
direct access to Mary Star of the Sea High School is provided across the Project site via
a new public street. Although portions of the Project would be gated with controlled
vehicular access, the Project would be open and accessible to bicyclists and
pedestrians. Bus stops along Western Avenue would be accessible from the Project.
The Project would promote neighborhood accessibility through its integration with the
Expo Line station and location adjacent to other existing transit services. The Project
would expand neighborhood transportation services given the Expo Line, the Big Blue
Bus "Super 7" line, the Culver City Bus line 6 and additional Metro Rapid routes planned
for the general area. The project will offer transit passes on a specified basis. In
addition, due to its central location near the San Diego and Santa Monica freeways, the
site is also accessible by car. Further, the MTA is developing a bicycle lane alongside
the Expo Line, which residents, businesses owners and employees, and visitors would
be able to utilize from the site. The Project will provide bicycle parking within each
dwelling unit garage and place community bicycle parking throughout the site.
C-67
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-4
4. Charter Findings -City Charter Sections 556 and 558 (General Plan Amendment).
Los Angeles City Charter Sections 556 and 558 and Los Angeles Municipal Code
Section 12.32(C)(7) require that any General Plan Amendment be in substantial
conformance with the. purposes, intent and provisions of the City's General Plan.
The proposed General Plan Amendment to the land use designation of Low Medium II
Residential and the proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan comply with Charter Sections
556 and 558, and are in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent and
provisions of the City's General Plan. The General Plan Amendment would address the
City's need to increase the housing supply for the City's growing population. The
Applicant's proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are compatible with
the City's General Plan Framework and the objectives and policies of the Wilmington-
Harbor City Community Plan, as detailed below.
5. The Sewerage Facilities Element of the General Plan will be affected by the
recommended action. However, .requirements for construction of sewer facilities to
serve the subject Project and complete the City sewer system for the health and safety
of City inhabitants will assure compliance with the goals of this General Plan Element.
6. Street Lights. Any City required installation or upgrading of street lights is necessary to
complete the City street improvement system so as to increase night safety along the
streets which adjoin the subject property.
7. General Plan Amendment Findings
A. The General Plan Amendments Will Further the Purposes, Intent and
Provisions of the Wilmington~Harbor City Community Plan.
The Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan was last updated in 1999. The Community
Plan states that "any subsequent action that modifies the Plan or any monitoring review
that results in changes to the Plan must make new Plan consistency findings at the time
of that decision." The Community Plan calls for monitoring and revision in light of
changing circumstances. The Community Plan provides goals, objectives and policies to
address development within the area. The Project is consistent with the following
objectives and policies that meet the Community Plan's goals:
Objective 1-1: To provide for the preseNation of exisUng housing and for the
development of new housing to meet the diverse economic and physical
needs of the existing residents and project population of the Plan area to
tl1e year 2010.
The Project would provide housing that addresses the existing housing shortfall. While
lands for multifamily housing are designated in the Community Plan, insufficient housing
supply for the growing population exists. The Community Plan recognizes that "the
residential densities, commercial intensities, and industrial intensities depicted on the
Plan map are theoretical and will not occur due to plan and zone regulations, economic
conditions, and design limitations." The Project site provides a large, well-located parcel
where multi-family housing can be planned and constructed efficiently. As discussed
earlier, the Project would provide 700 infill multi-family housing units on a Site that is
located proximate to the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, which are
among the region's largest employers.
C-68
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-5
The Project is consistent in scale with the surrounding properties. The Project would
redevelop a Site that contains abandoned duplex housing. The Project is not located
directly adjacent to any single-family residential neighborhood in the Wilmington-Harbor
City Plan area. The Project is separated from a single-family residential neighborhood
located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by Western Avenue, a State Highway
carrying 35,000 vehicles per day. Properties to the south of the Site contain multi-family
housing at densities similar to and in excess of what the Project would develop. The
Project would develop 208 single-family housing units and would thus not represent out-
of-scale development in the context of the neighborhood.
Objective 1-2 To locate new housing in a manner which reduces vehicular trips and
makes it accessible to services and facilities.
The Project complies with this objective arid provides infill housing that is located
proximate to existing commercial centers along Western Avenue, as well as to
downtown San Pedro and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are among
the region's largest employers. Further, the Project is located on Western Avenue, a
major transit and commercial corridor. In particular, the Metro 205, San Pedro DASH,
and LADOT Commuter Express 142. buses· provide transportation from the Site to San
Pedro, the Ports, and downtown Long Beach. Freeway access is located approximately
three miles northeast of the Site with northbound and southbound ramps at Anaheim
Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Public services and utilities are available to
accommodate the Project.
Objective 1-3 To preserve and enhance the varied and distinct residential character and
integrity of existing single and mum-family neighborhoods.
The Project would replace the existing abandoned and blighted former Navy Housing
Complex with a residential community that implements a cohesive design scheme and
shared character that is compatible with the surrounding environment, particularly the
existing multi-family residential development immediately to the south of the Project site.
A Specific Plan would be adopted to set design and landscaping standards to govern the
Project's construction so that a quality residential development is established and
maintained.
The Project is a single-and multi-family housing development, and, as such, is
compatible with existing residential land uses located to the west, east, and south of the
Project site.
Policy 1-5. 1. Promote greater individual choice in type, quality, price, and location of
housing.
The Project would provide additional housing options for the Wilmington-Harbor City
Plan area. The Project would provide infill single-family and multi-family for-sale
housing. A total of six different housing product types would be developed within the
Project (see above) to the development standards defined in the proposed Specific Plan
to be adopted by the City for the Site. The Specific Plan would set design and
landscaping standards to govern the Project's construction so that a quality residential
development is established and maintained. A range of housing price points would be
included in the Project, reflecting the range of housing product types from flats to
townhomes to single-family homes. The Project would develop high-quality single-and
multi-family housing at higher densities ranging from 8 to 23 units per acre. Specifically,
townhomes, duplex/flats, row houses, small lot subdivisions, and apartments would be
included in the Project's mix of housing products.
C-69
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-6
Objective 4-3. To acquire and develop properties as small parks where it is not possible
to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood parks.
Objective 5-1. To preserve existing open space resources and where possible develop
new open space.
The Project will create a 2.42-acre park at the southwest portion of the site. Although
the program implementing the policies of Objective 4-3 states that park site development
is the responsibility of the Department of Recreation and Parks, the Project· would
develop, landscape and maintain the public trail and adjacent green space to help meet
the needs of both future Project residents and the larger community. On-site parking for
the trail would be provided at the entrance to the Mary Star access road. In addition, the
Project would include several small parks accessible to the public and other recreational
facilities (pools, spas, fitness center) for the private use of its residents. Thus, the
Project would contribute to serving the public recreation and park needs of its residents
and the surrounding community.
Objective 4-5. To ensure the accessibility, security, and safety of parks by their users,
particularly families with children and senior citizens.
The trail and park would be adequately illuminated for use at various times of day and in
inclement weather. The Project will also provide 24-hour security.
Objective 12-1 Increase capacity on existing transportation systems through minor
physical improvements.
The Project will improve the western edge of Western Avenue consistent with the
Western Avenue Improvement Plan, which will include transit stops for buses, thereby
increasing the capacity of transportation.
Housing Encourage reuse of the existing U.S. Navy housing areas at the John
Montgomery and Palos Verdes sites, in a manner that will provide needed
housing in the community without adversely impacNng the surrounding
area
The Project would provide new housing closer to one of the most prominent job centers
in the region -the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Further, the Project would add
new multi-family housing stock to an area of the City (e.g., the Wilmington-Harbor City
Plan area) which has a significantly dated multi-family housing stock. The Project would
provide ownership opportunities to broader segments of the community and households
of different sizes. The Project would also provide a publicly-accessible trail and private
open space, and recreation areas to serve its own residents.
Although construction activities usually result in localized short-term disturbances, the
Project's construction would be staged almost completely on-site. Construction would
comply with all City ordinances and policies, and would be mitigated in nearly all areas
to a less than significant level. The Project would not generate unique public facility
needs, which it does not address. It would pay all applicable governmental fees, and
would contribute tax revenues to the City, which could be used to for existing and
anticipated public service needs.
C-70
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-7
B. The General Plan Amendment Will .Further the Purposes, Intent and Provisions of
the General Plan Framework
The General Plan Framework was originally adopted in 1996 and re-adopted by the City
Council in 2001. The General Plan Framework is a strategy for long-term growth in the
City of Los Angeles, and it sets a citywide context to guide development of community
plans and other General Plan elements. Implementation of the General Plan Framework
is achieved through the various updates of community plans, ordinances, standards and
guidelines, as well as through development-review procedures for projects submitted by
a private property owner or developer. Based on the following objectives and policies,
the proposed Project meets the following objectives and policies of the City's adopted
General Plan Framework: ·
Land Use
.Objective 3. 2 Provide for the spatial distribution of development that promotes an
improved quality of life by facilitating a reduction of vehicular trips, vehicle
miles traveled, and air pollution.
Policy 3.2.1 Provide a pattern of development consisting of distinct districts, centers,
boulevards, and neighborhoods that are differentiated by their functional
role, scale, and character. This shall be accomplished by considering
factors such as the existing concentrations of use, community-oriented
activity centers that currently or potentially service adjacent
neighborhoods, and existing or potential public-transit corridors and
stations. ·
Policy 3. 2. 4 Provide for tl1e siting and design of new development that maintains the
prevailing scale and character of the City's stable residential
neighborhoods and enhances the character of commercial and industrial
districts.
The proposed General Plan amendment would permit an infill. residential development
that will take advantage of existing infrastructure and be located in close proximity to
major job centers, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Project will
be located along Western Avenue, a major transportation and public transit corridor,
providing direct access to major bus lines and reducing the need to travel by automobile.
The Project will create a distinct community in scale with the surrounding development.
The proposed Specific Plan would result in a development of a total of 700 units on 47.1
net acres, an average density of 11.4 units per acre over the entire Site, corresponding
to Low Medium I Density Residential. The surrounding neighborhoods include multi-
family residential (Medium Density Residential and Low Medium II Density Residential)
as well as single-family residential. A Medium Density Residential use abuts the Site to
the south, on a 6-acre property designated for Neighborhood Commercial and Medium
Density Residential. The predominant development in the surrounding area is known as
'The Gardens" which abuts the southern boundary of the Ponte Vista Site on property
areas designated as Low Medium II Density Residential and zoned RD2-1XL. The
Gardens occupy approximately 80 acres with 1, 100 garden-style two-story town homes
with attached garages. Residential development to the west, on the other side of
Western Avenue (located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes}, and southeast of the
Ponte Vista Site (south of Mary Star of the Sea High School) is designated for Low
Density Residential and developed with single-family dwellings. The 330-acre U.S. Navy
Defense Fuel Support Point abuts the Project site to the north and is designated as
C-71
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-8
Open Space, and the adjacent Mary Star of the Sea High School, to the east, is
designated for Low Density Residential and zoned R1-1XL, operating under a
Conditional Use Permit for a school in the R1 Zone.
Based on the surrounding land uses and Plan designations, the Project is consistent
with and an extension of the prevailing scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood as identified in Policy 3.2.1. It will create a new, vibrant community of
various housing types needed to meet the area's diverse housing needs. The Project
design will incorporate architecture that compliments and enhances the surrounc:ling
communities, while providing substantial recreational, activity and open space to Project
residents and a public park and publically-accessible open space to the general public.
Policy 3.4. 1 Conserve existing stable residential neighborhoods and lower-intensity
commercial· districts and encourage the majority of new commercial and
mixed-use (integrated commercial and residential) development (a) in a
network of neighborhood districts, community, regional, and downtown
centers, (b) in proximity to rail and bus transit stations and corridors, and
(c) along the City's major boulevards, referred to as districts, centers, and
mixed-use boulevards, in accordance with the Framework Long-Range
Land-Use Diagram.
The General Plan amendment will permit a project that conserves and enhances the
stable surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Project fits within the density of the
surrounding multi-family and single family residential development. The Project will
dramatically transform a dilapidated, dangerous eyesore into a new community that will
provide new recreational opportunities for surrounding residents. The Project's location
along a Western Avenue, a major thoroughfare with substantial transit options, will
connect residents to surrounding commercial and job centers.
Objective 4.3 Conserve scale and character of residential neighborhoods.
The General Plan amendment will permit a Project that includes apartment,
condominium, townhouse and single-family buildings. The residential units will include
30 foot high single family homes, 30 and 40 foot high detached cluster homes, 35 foot
high townhomes, and 48 foot high townhomes and flats. This scale of development is
compatible with the predominant scale in the adjacent area, which is generally one to
three-story single and multi-family structures, and conserves the existing scale and
character of the residential community in substantial conformance to Objective 4.3.
Housing
Policy 4.1.1 Provide sufficient land use and density to accommodate an adequate
supply of housing units by type and cost within each City subregion to
meet the twenty-year projections of housing needs.
The General Plan Amendment will directly address Policy 4.1.1 by permitting a project
that will add needed housing to reach various income segments in the Wilmington-
Harbor and San Pedro communities. Project density is a proper balance between the
area's housing needs and the constraints of both the site and the scope and scale of
development in the surrounding neighborhood.
C-72
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-9
Open Space
Policy 6. 4. 8 Maximize the use of existing public open space resources at the
neighborhood scale and seek new opportunities for private development
to enhance the open space resources of the neighborhoods.
a. Encourage the development of public plazas, forested streets,
farmers markets, residential commons, rooftop spaces, and other
places that function like open space in· urbanized areas of the City
with deficiencies of natural open space, especially in targeted
growth areas.
b. Encourage the improvement of open space, both on public and
private properly, as opportunities a,rise. Such places may include
the dedication of "unbuildable" areas or sites that may serve as
green space, or pathways and connections that may be improved
to serve as neighborhood landscape and recreation amenities.
The General Plan amendment will be consistent with the Open Space Element of the
General Plan, as it will provide for a Project with significant open space, including
publiely-accessible open space. The Project will contain 24.15 acres of open space,
including a 2.42 acre. publicly-accessible park. Also, trails accessible to the public will
run along the perimeter of the site, while visitors will be able to access other open areas
of the site. Approximately 39 percent of the project is open space.
C. The Proposed General Plan Amendment Would Serve the Public Necessity,
Convenience and General Welfare of the City of Los Angeles.
The General Plan Amendment will serve the public necessity, convenience and general
welfare of the City of Los Angeles by making the land use designation of the Project site
consistent with an amount of residential compatible with surrounding neighborhoods that
also meets the identified housing needs of the community. The site's current General
Plan designation does not provide for an economically viable residential development,
nor does it provide for a range of housing stock that will meet the needs of residents of
with different household sizes.
8. Zone Change and Code Amendment Findings
A. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.32.C.7, and based on these Findings, the
recommended action is deemed consistent with public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practice.
The General Plan Framework was originally adopted in 1996 and re-adopted by the City
Council in 2001. The General Plan Framework is a strategy for long-term growth in the
City of Los Angeles, and it sets a citywide context to guide development of community
plans and other General Plan elements. Implementation of the General Plan Framework
is achieved through the various updates of community plans, ordinances, standards and
guidelines, as well as through development-review procedures for projects submitted by
a private property owner or developer. Based on the following objectives and policies,
the proposed Zone Change and Project meets the following objectives and policies of
the City's adopted General Plan Framework:
C-73
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-10
Land Use
Objective 3. 2 Provide for the spatial distribution of development that promotes an
improved quality of life by facilitating a reduction of vehicular trips, vehicle
miles traveled, and air pollution.
Policy 3.2.1 Provide a pattern of development consisting of distinct districts, centers,
boulevards, and neighborhoods that are differentiated by their functional
role, scale, and character. This shall f)e accomplished by considering
factors such as the existing concentrations of use, community-oriented
activity centers that currently or potentially service adjacent
neighborhoods, and existing or potential public-transit corridors and
stations.
Policy 3. 2.4 Provide for the siting and design of new development that maintains the
prevailing scale and character of the City's stable residential
neighborhoods and enhances the character of commercial and industrial
districts.
The proposed Zone Change and Code Amendment would permit an infill residential
development that will take advantage of existing infrastructure and be located in close
proximity to major job centers, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The
Project will be located along Western Avenue, a major transportation and transit corridor,
providing direct access to major bus lines and reducing the need to travel by automobile.
The Project will create a community in scale with the surrounding development. The
proposed Specific Plan would result in a development of a total of 700 units on 61.5
acres, an average density of 11.4 units per acre over the entire site, corresponding to
Low Medium I Density Residential. The surrounding neighborhoods include multi-family
residential (Medium Density Residential and Low Medium II Density Residential) as well
as single-family residential. A Medium Density Residential use abuts the site to the
south, on a 6-acre property designated for Neighborhood Commercial and Medium
Density Residential. The predominant development in the surrounding area is known as
"The Gardens" which abuts the southern boundary of the Ponte Vista site on property
areas designated as Low Medium II Density Residential and zoned RD2-1XL. The
Gardens occupy approximately 80 acres with 1,100 garden-style two-story townhomes
with attached garages. Residential development to the west, on the other side of
Western Avenue {located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes), and southeast of the
Ponte Vista site (south of Mary Star of the Sea High School) is designated for Low
Density Residential and developed with single-family dwellings. The 330-acre U.S. Navy
Defense Fuel Support Point abuts the Project site to the north and is designated as
Open Space, and the adjacent Mary Star of the Sea High School, to the east, is
designated for Low Density Residential and zoned R1-1XL, operating under a
Conditional Use Permit for a school in the R1 Zone.
Based on the surrounding land uses and Plan designations, the Project is consistent
with and an extension of the prevailing scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood as identified in Policy 3.2.1. It will create a new, vibrant community of
various housing types needed to meet the area's diverse housing needs. The Project
design will incorporate architecture that compliments and enhances the surrounding
communities, while providing substantial recreational opportunities and open space to
Project residents and a public park and publically-accessible open space to the general
public.
C-74
J
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-11
Policy 3.4. 1 Conserve existing stable residential neighborhoods and lower-intensity
commercial districts and encourage the majority of new commercial and
mixed-use (integrated commercial and residential) development (a) in a
network of neighborhood districts, community, regional, and downtown
centers, (b) in proximity to rail and bus transit stations and corridors, and
(c) along the City's major boulevards, referred to as districts, centers, and
mixed-use boulevards, in accordance with the Framework Long-Range
Land-Use Diagram.
The Zone Change and Code Amendment will permit a project that conserves and
enhances the stable surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Project fits within the
density of the surrounding multi-family and single family residential development. The
Project will dramatically transform a dilapidated eyesore into a new community that will
provide new recreational opportunities for surrounding residents. The Project's location
along Western Avenue, a major thoroughfare with transit options, will connect residents
to surrounding commercial and job centers.
Objective 4. 3 Conserve scale and character of residential neighborhoods.
The Zone Change and Code Amendment will permita Project that includes townhouse,
flats and single-family units. The residential units will include 30-foot high single family
homes, 30-and 40-foot high detached cluster homes, 35-foot high townhomes, and 48-
foot high townhomes and flats. This scale of development is compatible with the
predominant scale in the adjacent area, which is generally one to three-story single and
multi-family structures, and conserves the existing scale and character of the residential
community in substantial conformance to Objective 4.3.
Housing
Policy 4. 1. 1 Provide sufficient land use and density to accommodate an adequate ·
supply of housing units by type and cost within each City subregion to
meet the twenty-year projections of housing needs.
The Zone Change and Code Amendment will directly address Policy 4.1.1 by permitting
a project that will add needed housing for different household sizes and income
segments in the Wilmington-Harbor-San Pedro area. Project density is a proper balance·
between the area's housing needs and the constraints of both the .site and the scope
and scale of development in the surrounding neighborhood.
Urban Form and Neighborhood Design
Open Space
Policy 6.4. 8 Maximize the use of existing public open space resources at the
neighborhood scale and seek new opportunities for private development
to enhance the open space resources of the neighborhoods.
a. Encourage the development of public plazas, forested streets,
farmers markets, residential commons, rooftop spaces, and other
places that function like open space in urbanized areas of the City
with deficiencies of natural open space, especially in targeted
growth areas.
C-75
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-12
b. Encourage the improvement of open space, both on public and
private property, as opportunities arise. Such places may include
the dedication of "unbuildable" areas or sites that may serve as
green space, or pathways and connections that may be improved
to serve as neighborhood landscape and recreation amenities.
The Zone Change and Code Amendment will be consistent with the Open Space
Element of the General Plan, as it will provide for a Project with significant open space,
including publically accessible open space. The Project will contain 24.15 acres of open
space, including a 2.42-acre park and trails accessible to the public.
The Zone Change and Code Amendment will serve the public necessity, convenience
and general welfare of the City of Los Angeles by making the zoning of the Project site
consistent with an amount of residential compatible with surrounding neighborhoods that
also meets the identified housing needs of the community. The site's current zoning
does not provide for an economically viable residential development, nor .does it provide
for a range of housing stock that will meet the needs of residents of varying income
levels.
The Zone Change will provide the Project site with consistent, unified zoning that will
permit the revitalization of an abandoned residential site that is a significant eyesore that
degrades the surrounding community .. The Zone Change will permit a development that
fits within the varying densities of the surrounding residential communities, provides
significant open space, and publically-accessible park and other forms of open space,
and residential housing options for community members of varying income levels.
Absent the Zone Change, the Project site would be split into two zones that would not
permit a viable residential development.
B. The action, as recommended, has been made contingent upon compliance with the "T"
and "Q" conditions imposed herein. Such limitations are necessary to protect the best
interests of and to assure a development more compatible with surrounding properties,
to secure an appropriate development in harmony with the General Plan, and to prevent
or mitigate the potential adverse environmental effects of the subject recommended
action.
9. Specific Plan Findings
A. The Proposed Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan is in Conformance with the
Purposes, Intent and Provisions of the City of Los Angeles General Plan.
Los Angeles City Charter section 556 and LAMC section 12.32 C.2 require that prior to
adopting a land use ordinance, the Planning Commission make finds that the ordinance
is in substantial conformance with the purposes, intent and provisions of the General
Plan. The proposed Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan will be in conformance with
the purposes, intent and provisions of the General Plan in that it will conform to the
goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan Framework and Wilmington-Harbor
City Community Plan, as discussed below. The Specific Plan provides regulations for
housing types including single family housing, townhouse units, and flats. The
regulations, policies, and standards contained in the currently proposed Specific Plan
are designed to implement the applied for Low Medium II Residential land use
designation; therefore, the Specific Plan conforms to the General Plan, as amended.
C-76
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-13
B. The Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan Will Be in Conformance with the
Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan.
The Wilmington-Harbor City Community plan guides future development within the
Community Plan area. It is intended to promote an arrangement of land uses, streets
and services that will encourage and contribute to the health, safety, welfare and
convenience of the people who live and work in the Community. The Ponte Vista at San
Pedro Specific Plan will be consistent with the following objectives and policies of the
Community Plan:
Objective 1-1: To provide for the preservation of existing housing and for the
development of new housing to meet the diverse economic and physical
needs of the existing residents and project population of the Plan area to
the year 201 O.
The Project would bring in new housing units to address housing projections. While
lands for multi-family·housing are designated in the Community Plan, there is a lack of
new housing being constructed. The Community Plan recognizes that "the residential
densities, commercial intensities, and industrial intensities depicted on the Plan map are
theoretical and will not occur due to plan and zone regulations, economic conditions, and
design limitations." The Project site provides a large, well-located parcel where multi-
family housing can be planned and constructed efficiently: As discussed earlier, the
Project would provide 700 infill multi-family housing units on a site that is located
proximate to the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, which are among the
region's largest employers.
The Project is consistent in scale with the surrounding properties. The Project would
redevelop a site that contains abandoned duplex housing. The Project is not located
directly adjacent to any single-family residential neighborhood in the Wilmington-Harbor
City Plan area. The Project is separated from a single-family residential neighborhood
located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes by Western Avenue, a State Highway
carrying 35,000 vehicles per day. Properties south of the site contain multi-family
housing at densities similar to and in excess of what the Project would develop. The
Project would develop 208 single-family housing units in addition to up to 492 multi-
family dwellings. This would be compatible and consistent with the context of the
neighborhood.
Objective 1-2 To locate new housing in a manner which reduces vehicular trips and
makes it accessible to services and facilities.
The Project complies with this objective and provides infill housing that is located
proximate to existing commercial centers along Western Avenue, as well as to
downtown San Pedro and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are among
the region's largest employers. Further, the Project is located on Western Avenue, a
major transit and commercial corridor. In particular, the Metro 205, San Pedro DASH,
and LADOT Commuter Express 142 buses provide transportation from the site to San
Pedro, the Ports, and downtown Long Beach. Freeway access is located approximately
three miles northeast of the site with northbound and southbound ramps at Anaheim
Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Public services and utilities are available to
accommodate the Project.
Objective 1-3 To preserve and enhance the varied and distinct residential character and
integrity of exf sting single and multi-family neighborhoods.
C-77
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-14
The Project would replace the existing abandoned and blighted former Navy Housing
Complex with a residential community that implements a cohesive design scheme and
shared character that is compatible with the surrounding environment, particularly the
existing multi-family residential development immediately to the south of the Project site.
A Specific Plan would be adopted to set design and landscaping standards to govern the
Project's construction so that a quality residential development is established and
maintained. ·
The Project is a single-and multi-family housing development, and, as such, is
compatible with existing residential land uses located to the west, east, and south of the
Project site.
Policy 1-5.1. Promote greater individual choice in type, quality, prlce, and location of
housing.
The Project would provide additional housing options for the Wilmington-Harbor City
plan area. The Project would provide infill single-family and multi-family for-sale
housing. A total of six different housing product types would be developed within the
Project to the development standards defined in the proposed Specific Plan to be
adopted by the City for the site. The Specific Plan would set design and landscaping
standards to govern the Project's construction so that a quality residential development
is established and maintained. A range of housing price points would be included in the
Project, reflecting the range of housing product types from flats to townhomes to single-
family homes. The Project would develop single-and multi-family housing at higher
densities ranging from 8 to 23 units per acre.
Objective 4-3. To acquire and develop properties as small parks where it is not possible
to acquire sufficient acreage for neighborhood parks.
Objective 5-1. To preserve existing open space resources and where possible develop
new open space.
The Project will construct 2.42 acres of parkland. The Project would develop, landscape
and maintain a public trail and adjacent green space to help meet the needs of both
future Project residents and the larger community. On-site parking for the trail would be
provided at the entrance to the Mary Star access road. In addition, the Project would·
include several small open areas accessible to the public, as well· as other recreational
facilities (pools, spas, fitness center) for the private use of its residents. Thus, the
Project would contribute to serving the public recreation and park needs of its residents
and the surrounding community.
Objective 4-5. To ensure the accessibility, secur;ty,. and safety of parks by their users,
particularly families with children and senior citizens.
The trail and park would be adequately illuminated for use at various times of day and in
inclement weather. The Project will also provide 24-hour security.
Objective 12-1 Increase capacity on existing transportation systems through minor
physical improvements.
The Project will improve the western edge of Western Avenue consistent with the
Western Avenue Improvement Plan, which will include transit stop for buses, thereby
increasing the capacity of the existing transportation systems.
C-78
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-15
Housing Encourage reuse of the existing U.S. Navy housing areas at the John
Montgomery and Palos Verdes sites, in a manner that will provide needed
housing in the community without adversely impacting the surrounding
area.
The Project would provide new housing in a location near the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach. Further, the Project would add new multi-family housing stock to an area
of the City· (e.g., the Wilmington-Harbor City) which has a significantly dated multi-family
. housing stock. The Project would provide ownership opportunities at to broader
segments of the community. The Project would also provide a publicly-accessible trail
and private open space and recreation areas to serve its own residents.
Although construction activities usually result in localized short term disturbances, the
Project's construction would be staged almost completely on-site, would comply with all
City ordinances and policies, and would be mitigated in nearly all areas to a less than
significant level. The Project would not generate unique public facility needs which it
does not address, would pay all applicable governmental fees, and would contribute tax
revenues to the City that would enable it to meet existing and anticipated public service
needs.
C. The Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan Will Be in Conformance with the
General Plan Framework.
The General Plan Framework was originally adopted in 1996 and re-adopted by the City
Council in 2001. The General Plan Framework is a strategy for long-term growth in the
City of Los Angeles, and it sets a citywide context to guide development of community
plans and other General Plan elements. Implementation of the General Plan Framework
is achieved through the various updates of community plans, ordinances, standards and
guidelines, as well as through development-review procedures for projects submitted by
a private property owner or developer. Based on the following objectives and policies,
the proposed Specific Plan and Project meets the following objectives and policies of the
City's adopted General Plan Framework:
Land Use
Objective 3. 2 Provide for the spatial distribution of development that promotes an
improved quality of life by facilitating a reduction of vehicular trips, veMcle
miles traveled, and air pollution. ·
Policy 3. 2. 1 Provide a pattern of development consisting of distinct districts, centers,
boulevards, and neighborhoods that are differentiated by their functional
role, scale, and character. This shall be accomplished by considering
factors such as the existing concentrations of use, community-oriented
activity centers that currently or potentially service adjacent
neighborhoods, and existing or potential public-transit corridors and
stations.
Policy 3. 2. 4 Provide for the siting and design of new development that maintains the
prevailing scale and character of the City's stable residential
neighborhoods and enhances the character of commercial and industrial
districts.
C-79
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-16
The proposed Specific Plan would permit an infill residential development that will utilize
existing infrastructure and be located in close proximity to major job centers, including
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The Project will be located along Western
Avenue, a major transportation and transit corridor, providing direct access to major bus
lines and reducing the need to travel by automobile.
The Project will create a community in scale with the ·surrounding development. The
proposed Specific Plan would result in a development of a total of 700 units on 61.5
acres, an average density of 11.4 units per acre over the entire site, corresponding to
Low Medium I Density Residential. The surrounding neighborhoods include multi-family
residential (Medium Density Residential and Low Medium II Density Residential) as well
as single-family residential. A Medium Density Residential use abuts the site to the
south, on a 6-acre property designated for Neighborhood Commercial and Medium
Density Residential. The predominant development in the surrounding area is known as
''The Gardens" which abuts the southern boundary of the Ponte Vista site on property
.areas designated as Low Medium II Density Residential and zoned RD2-1XL. The
Gardens occupy approximately 80 acres with 1, 100 garden-style two-story townhomes
with attached garages. Residential development to the west, on the other side of
Western Avenue (located in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes), and southeast of the
Ponte Vista site (south of Mary Star of the Sea High School) is designated for Low
Density Residential and developed with single-family dwellings. The 330-acre U.S. Navy
Defense Fuel Support Point abuts the Project site to the north and is designated as
Open Space, and the adjacent Mary Star of the Sea High School, to the east, is
designated for Low Density Residential and zoned R1-1XL, operating under a
Conditional Use Permit for a school in the R1 Zone.
Based on the surrounding land uses and designations, the Project is consistent with and
an extension of the prevailing scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood as
identified in Policy 3.2.1. It will create a new, vibrant community of various housing
types needed to meet the area's diverse housing needs. The Project design will
incorporate architecture that compliments and enhances the surrounding communities,
while providing substantial recreational, activity and open space to Project residents and
a public park and publically-accessible open space to the general public.
Objective 4. 3 Con~erve scale and character of residential neighborhoods.
The Specific Plan will permit a Project that includes townhouse, flats, and single-family
buildings. The residential units will include 30-foot high single family homes, 30-and 40-
foot high detached cluster homes, 35-foot high townhomes, and 48-foot high townhomes
and flats. This scale of development is compatible with the predominant scale in the
adjacent area, which is generally one to three-story single and multi-family structures,
and conserves the existing scale and character of the residential community in
substantial conformance to Objective 4.3.
Housing
Policy t/.. 1. 1 Provide sufficient land use and density to accommodate an adequate
supply of housing units by type and cost within each City subregion to
meet the twenty-year projections of housing needs.
The Specific Plan will directly address Policy 4.1.1 by permitting a project that will add
needed housing at to reach various income segments and household sizes in the
Wilmington-Harbor and San Pedro areas. Project density is a proper balance between
the area's housing needs and the constraints of both the site and the scope and scale of
development in the surrounding neighborhood.
C-80
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-17
Open Space
Policy 6.4.8 Maximize the use of existing public open space resources at the
neighborhood scale and seek new opportunities for private development
to enhance the open space resour~es of the neighborhoods.
a. Encourage the development of public plazas, forested streets,
farmers markets, residential commons, rooftop spaces, and other
places that function like open space in urbanized areas of the City
with deficiencies of natural open space, especially in targeted
growth areas.
b. Encourage the improvement of open space, both on public and
private property, as qpportunities arise. Such places may include
the dedication of "unbuildab/e" areas or sites that may serve as
green space, or pathways and connections that may be improved
to serve as neighborhood landscape and recreation amenities.
The Specific Plan will be consistent with the Open Space Element of the General Plan,
as it will provide for a Project with significant open space, including publically accessible
open space. The Project will contain 24.15 acres of open space, including a 2.42 acre
park and several acres of trails accessible to the public.
D. The Specific Plan Would Conform to the Public Necessity, Convenience and
General Welfare of the City of Los Angeles.
The Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan will serve the public necessity, convenience
and general welfare of the City of Los Angeles by making the zoning of the Project site
consistent with an amount of residential compatible with surrounding neighborhoods that
also meets the identified housing needs of the community. The site's current zoning
does not provide for an economically viable residential development, nor does it provide
for a range of housing stock that will meet the needs of residents of varying income
levels.
E. The Proposed Specific Plan Will Conform to Good Zoning Practice.
The Ponte Vista at San Pedro Specific Plan will provide the Project site with consistent,
unified zoning that will permit the revitalization of an abandoned residential site that is a
significant eyesore that degrades the surrounding community. The Specific Plan will
permit a development that fits within the varying densities of the surrounding residential
communities, provides significant open space, a public park and publically-accessible
open space, and residential housing options for community members of varying income
levels. Absent the Specific Plan, the Project site would be split into two zones that would
not permit a viable residential development.
10. FINDINGS OF FACT (CEQA)
I. INTRODUCTION
SFI Bridgeview, LLC (the Project Applicant), is proposing to develop a residential
development of up to 700 units on a 61.5-acre site located at 26900 South Western
Avenue in the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan Area of the City of Los Angeles.
The Project would involve the demolition and removal of all existing improvements on
the Site, which include 245 vacant residential units, a 2, 161-square foot community
C-81
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-18
center, and a 3,454-square foot retail convenience facility which were constructed in
approximately 1962 by the U.S. Navy for the purpose of housing and accommodating
personnel stationed at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The Site (formerly known as
"San Pedro Housing") was closed in the late 1990s.
The Project's residential units would be comprised of single-family, townhome, and flats
ranging in size from 600 to approximately 2,800 square feet, within buildings constructed
over and/or adjacent to residential parking garages. The Project would also provide an
access road from Western Avenue to .the off~site, private Mary Star of the Sea High
School. The Project would incorporate internal open space and recreational areas,
including a community clubhouse and pool/recreation area, a 2.42-acre publically
. accessible park, and approximately 24.15 acres of total open space. Additional
recreational amenities would be distributed throughout the site. A Specific Plan is
proposed to provide zoning, architectural, landscape, and streetscape standards to
guide the Project's development. · ·
In compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) was prepared by the Department of City Planning and distributed to the State
Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, and other
interested parties on October 26, 2010. The NOP for the Draft EIR was circulated until
November 29, 2010.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR were submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, various public agencies, citizen
groups, and interested individuals for a 61-day public review period from November 8,
2012, through January 7, 2013.
During that time, the Draft EIR was also available for review at the City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning, various City libraries, and via Internet at
http://cityplanning.lacity.org. The Draft EIR analyzed the effects of a reasonable range
of alternatives to the Project. Following the close of the public review period, written
responses were prepared to the comments received on the Draft EIR. Comments on the
Draft EIR and the responses to those comments are included within the Final EIR (Final
EIR).
The Final EIR is comprised of: an Introduction; List of Commenters; Responses to
Comments; Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR; a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program; and Appendices. The Final EIR, together with the Draft EIR and
Supplemental Analysis, makes up the Final EIR as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section
15132 (the Final EIR).
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
the City of Los Angeles' CEQA findings are based are located at the Department of City
Planning, 200 Spring Street, Room 750, Los Angeles, CA 90012. This information is
provided in compliance with CEQA Section 21081.6(a)(2).
Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines require a public agency, prior to approving a project, to identify significant
impacts of the project and make one or more of three possible findings for each of the
significant impacts.
C-82
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-19
A. The first possible finding is that "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
B. The second possible finding is that "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or
can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, subd. ( a)(2))
C. The third possible finding is that "specific economic, legal, social, technological,
or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091,
subd. (a)(3))
The findings reported in the following pages incorporate the facts and discussions of the
environmental impacts that are found to be significant in the Final EIR for the Project as
fully set forth therein. Although Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines does not require
findings to address environmental impacts that an EIR identifies as merely "potentially
significant," these findings will nevertheless fully account for all such effects identified in
the Final EIR. For each of the significant impacts associated with the Project, either
before or after mitigation, the following sections are provided:
Description of Significant Effects - A specific description of the environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR, including a judgment regarding the significance of the impact.
Mitigation Measures -Identified mitigation measures or actions that are required as part
of the Project.
Finding -One or more of three specific findings in direct response to CEQA Section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
Rationale -A summary of the reasons for the finding(s).
Reference -A notation on the specific section in the Draft EIR or Final EIR, which
includes the evidence and discussion of the identified impact.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Project site is located within the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Planning Area
of the City. The Project site consists of approximately 61.5 acres of land and is located
at 26900 South Western Avenue in the City of Los Angeles, approximately two miles
north of downtown San Pedro, and 1.5 miles northwest of the Port of Los Angeles. The
Project site is the location of the former U.S. Navy San Pedro Housing complex and is
bordered by Western Avenue (State Route 213) to the west, Fitness Drive and multi-
family residential developments to the south, the U.S. Navy's Defense Fuel Support
Point (DFSP) ·to the north, and Mary Star of the Sea High School to the east.
The Project proposes the development of a residential community of up to 700 units
featuring single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes, and flats. Streets within the
Project would be both private and public, with access to the Project site provided through
two entrances from Western Avenue, at Green Hills Drive and at a new east~west road
near the southerly boundary line of the Project site that would intersect Western Avenue
at Avenida Aprenda. Gross residential densities developed within the Project would
range from 8 units per acre to 23 units per acre. The average density for the Project
would be 11.4 DU/acre (gross).
C-83
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-20
The Proposed Project would be comprised of a combination of dwelling units within the
following categories:
• Two-and three-story detached single-family homes with street-loaded private
garages
• Two-story buildings containing townhomes with driveway-loaded private garages
• Two-story townhomes and flats with driveway-loaded private garages
• Four story buildings containing flats with elevators over a secured common
basement garage containing flats
The dwelling units would range in size from approximately 600 to 2,800 square feet and
would be housed within Mediterranean, Tuscan, and contemporary-style buildings built
over and/or adjacent to residential parking garages. Residential buildings along Western
Avenue would be two to three stories in height (between 30 and 48 feet) and would be
buffered by trees and landscaping and set back from the street by approximately 18-80
feet, depending on the location and product type. Residential buildings throughout the
rest of the Project site would vary in height, with buildings averaging three stories, but
not exceeding four stories (approximately 55 feet) in the interior of the site near its
southern boundary. Based on data provided by the Project Applicant, the weighted
average sale price for all for-sale units would be $489,474 (2011 dollars).
Vehicular access to the Project would be from Western Avenue at the two existing
signalized intersections with Green Hills Drive and Avenida Aprenda on the north and
south, respectively. The proposed southerly Project entrance at the Western
Avenue/Avenida Aprenda intersection would feed into a new east-west road crossing the
southern portion of the Project site that would provide access to the Mary Star of the Sea
High School campus adjacent to the site on the east.
With the exception of the east-west road described above providing access across the
Project site to Mary Star of the Sea High School, all other streets would be private and
vehicular access would be provided through two gated entrances: one from Western
Avenue at Green Hills Drive and a second off of the new public east-west road near the
southerly boundary line of the Project site that would intersect Western Avenue at
Avenida Aprenda. The new access road for Mary Star of the Sea High School would
terminate at the eastern edge of the Project site, from which a private driveway would
extend off-site to the east providing access to the Mary Star of the Sea campus.
When completed, the Project would redevelop 100 percent of the Project site. The
Project would incorporate a seismic setback area along a splay of the Palos Verdes
Fault crossing the center of the site. The proposed Project would incorporate over 24
acres of total open space, consisting of outdoor recreational amenity space (including
primary and secondary recreation centers with adjacent community clubhouses and
pool/event lawn areas for project residents), dedicated park area (including an open
space/trail network around the perimeter of the Project site and a publically-accessible
park near Western Avenue), landscaped common areas throughout the Project, and
other open space. The open space/trail network and publically-accessible park areas
would be accessible to both Project residents and the general public. Additional indoor
recreational amenities (e.g., rec rooms, fitness centers, etc.) would be distributed across
the site for the private use of residents.
A Specific Plan is proposed for the Project to provide zoning, architectural, landscape,
and streetscape standards to guide the Project's development. At residential densities
ranging from 8 dwelling units per acre to approximately 23 dwelling units per acre, the
C-84
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-21
Project would fall within the City of Los Angeles' Low, Low-Medium I, and Low-Medium II
General Plan Land Use Designations.
Although a maximum of 212 residential units would be permitted under the Specific Plan
within Subarea 6, only 188 units are currently being proposed. In order to provide
additional housing within Subarea 6 exceeding the currently proposed 188 units but not
more than 212 units, a new subdivision map would be required, although no Specific
Plan Amendment would be required.
Construction of the Proposed Project is estimated to begin in late 2013 and continue
over a five-year period. The existing slope along the northeastern boundary of the
Project site would be modified to support the construction of the residential dwelling units
along its toe. However, following completion of construction and landscaping, the re-
engineered slope would be fully vegetated with a .variety of native plant and tree species.
The entire Project site would be densely landscaped with a variety of ornamental and
native plant and tree species. As individual phases of the development are completed,
associated landscaping would be installed on an incremental basis.
As part of Project construction, the existing surface drainage course crossing the
southwestern corner of the Project site would be removed and buried beneath this
portion of the Project as a subterranean storm drain. This storm drain would serve the
same purpose as the existing surface channel by conveying the off-site stormwater
runoff from the culvert at Western Avenue across this portion of the Project site. After
accepting additional drainage from the Project site, this storm drain would discharge
runoff to the City storm drain system in the same general location as at present along
the Project site's southern boundary.
Site preparation for Project construction would involve conventional cut and fill grading
techniques. A significant amount of existing fill is present on the Project site and would
be either removed or consolidated and recompacted prior to the grading of building
pads. Site grading would be required to prepare the proposed building pads for
construction. Grading would also be required in order to construct the proposed roads,
parking areas, and drainage improvements, and to install utilities. The combined
grading operations would affect the entire site (or approximately 61.5 acres) and would
involve a total earthwork quantity of approximately 1,225,000 cubic yards (cy), including
approximately 350,000 cy of cut and fill for surface grading and an additional 875,000 cy
of remedial grading for over-excavation and other requirements. No fill material would
be imported to or exported from the Project site. However, the removal of debris
resulting from the demolition of existing structures on the Project site would be required.
Construction staging, laydown areas, and all construction equipment would be
positioned on-site and would be moved from area to area on the Project site, consistent
with the sequence of construction.
The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning is the Lead Agency for the Project.
In order to construct the Project, the Project Applicant is requesting approval of the
following discretionary and ministerial actions from the City of Los Angeles and/or other
agencies:
• General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation in the Wilmington-
Harbor City Community Plan for the Project site from Low Residential and Open
Space to Low Medium II Residential;
• Zone change to change the zoning designation for the Project site from R1-1XL and
OS-1XL to a new Specific Plan Zone;
C-85
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-22
• Specific Plan adopted for Ponte Vista establishing project-specific development
standards and guidelines;
• Vesting Tract Map for the development of 676 residential dwelling units on the 61.5-
acre Project site;
• Haul Route Permit for the removal of demolished structures and associated materials
from the Project site;
• B-Permit for necessary street, sewer, storm drain, and lighting improvements;
• Grading Permits;
• Building Permits;
• Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1603 of the California Fish &
Game Code;
• Permits pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act;
• Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans);
and
• Any other necessary discretionary approvals or ministerial permits required for the
construction or operation of the Project.
Other reviewing departments within the City may include:
• Los Angeles Police Department (Site Plan Review).
• Los Angeles Fire Department (Site Plan Review, Hydrants Unit Sign-Off).
• Los Angeles Department of Transportation (Traffic Study Review, Site Plan Review
for Driveway Access and Pedestrian Safety).
• Los Angeles Department of Public Works (B-Permit)
• Building and Safety (Site Plan Review, Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy).
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT/NO IMPACT
The City of Los Angeles Planning Department prepared an Initial Study for the Project, in
which it determined that the Project would not have the potential to cause significant
impacts in the areas of Agricultural and Forestry Resources and Mineral Resources.
Therefore, these issue areas were not examined in detail in the Draft EIR or the Final
EIR. The rationale for the eonclusion that no significant impact would occur is also
summarized below:
A. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The Project would not result in the conversion of either designated farmland to
non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use because there is no
agricultural land or forest land located on the Project site or in the vicinity of the
Project site. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or forest use because the Project site is not zoned for agricultural use or
forest use. Finally, because the City of Los Angeles does not currently
participate in the Williamson Act, the Project would not conflict with or result in
the cancellation of a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, the Initial Study
determined that the Project would have no impact on agricultural or forestry
resources.
B. Mineral Resources
The Project site is not known to be a likely source for any mineral resources of
value to the region, residents, or the State. The Project site i~ not located within
a locally important mineral resource recovery area delineated on a local general
C-86
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-23
plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Furthermore, the site is currently
developed, precluding "the availability of any resources that might have been
present. Therefore, the Project would not alter the status of the site with respect
to the availability of mineral resources. For these reasons, the Initial Study
·determined that the Project would have no impact on mineral resources.
11. IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT PRIOR TO MITIGATION (No
Mitigation)
Measures Required to Reduce Impacts)
The following effects associated with the Project were analyzed in the Draft EIR and
found to be less than significant prior to mitigation and no mitigation measures are
required:
A. Aesthetics (Views/Light and Glare)
Replacement of the existing abandoned development with a new residential community
would introduce a land use to the site that is consistent with the single-family and multi-
family residential visual character of areas to the east, west, and south of the Project
site. As a result, the Proposed Project would improve the existing visual character of the
site. Project impacts on visual character and views would be less than significant, as
detailed below.
From Viewshed A (looking west from the east side of the Project site), Project
development would reduce the available field of view and block a portion of the view of
the Palos Verdes Hills from the vicinity of the Mary Star of the Sea High School athletic
fields and parking lots, as well as block most of the limited view of Green Hills Memorial
Park. Such changes in views would be less than significant, as the City of Los Angeles
does not consider changes to private views to be significant. From locations farther to
the east within this viewshed area, these scenic views would be blocked by the Project
to a substantially lesser degree.
From Viewshed B (looking north from the south side of the Project site), at specific
exterior locations where a relatively unobstructed view northward onto the Project site is
available, as well as from the interior of the units facing the Project site, the Project
flats/townhomes buildings would be visually prominent in the foreground and would
constitute a change in the visual character of the Site. Most views of the riparian
corridor would be blocked, with ·the exception of specific locations adjacent to gaps
between the proposed on-site residential buildings. Similarly, most views across the
Project site to the DFSP property would also be blocked by the proposed on-site
residential buildings. Residences adjacent to the southwestern corner of the Project site
would have a view of the publically-accessible park.
From Viewsheds C and D (looking east onto the Project site from Western Avenue and
from Green Hills Memorial Park, respectively), Project landscaping would shield most
Project buildings from view and would create a type of visual "greenbelt" along the
Western Avenue frontage. These trees and landscaping would replace the existing
chain-link fence along the Western Avenue frontage of the Site as the principal on-site
visual element visible from this viewshed area. In addition, a wide field of view would
remain visible from vantage points in this area, and therefore, the Project would not
create a substantial impact to the overall coverage of the available view, nor would it
represent a change in overall visual character. Existing views towards the harbor across
the central portion of the Project site from higher elevations along Western Avenue
C-87
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-24
would not be affected by Project buildings due to the difference in elevation between the
street and the proposed single-family homes. Project development would potentially add
additional height and mass to the existing skyline of views of the Project site. However,
while Project structures would have the potential to alter view lines somewhat, Project
development would not be tall enough or close enough to this area to alter the existing
background views of the harbor area.
From Viewshed E (looking east toward the Project site from Avenida Aprenda), views
toward the Site are only partially available. Where views do exist towards the Project
site, they would be at least partially obstructed by neighboring homes and existing trees
and vegetation. Views toward the harbor area (where the tops of some harbor cranes
are partially visible) from some portions of Avenida Aprenda would continue to be
available from elevations above the Project site. However, the width of these views from
lower elevations just west of the intersection of Avenida Aprenda and Western Avenue
would be reduced by the presence of Project buildings as well as the existing residential
units located to the south of the Project site. Project trees and landscaping would
screen most of the interior views of the Project site.
With adherence to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) regulations, light resulting from
Project construction activities would not significantly impact off-site sensitive uses,
substantially alter the character of off-site areas surrounding the construction area, or
interfere with the performance of an off-site activity. Implementation of the Proposed
Project would introduce new sources of light, including multi-story buildings with interior
and exterior building lighting, low-level security/courtesy lighting for parking areas and
parks, street lighting, and vehicle headlights. However, views into the Project site would
be limited by topography, surrounding buildings, and the Project's own buildings,
landscaping, and fencing. Project lighting impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed Project residences would have stucco, wood, stone and/or brick and block
facades. Windows would consist of non-highly reflective glass. Other prominent objects
in vicinity viewsheds are illuminated (e.g., nearby refineries, roads, bridges, and harbor
cranes}. All new light generated by the Project's operation would be similar to that
generated by typical single-and multi-family communities already existing in the area
and would not significantly affect light-sensitive land uses by introducing new sources of
light or glare that-could have substantial adverse effects on day or nighttime views in the
area. Thus, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact related to
operational glare.
No "natural" open space currently exists on the Project site. The entire site has been
modified and graded at one point or another in its history. However, portions of the site
are currently undeveloped and are thus characterized by unmaintained, somewhat
overgrown open space and riparian vegetation. Development of the Project would
convert this un-maintained open area to a combination of maintained open space (both
public and private) and residential development. The entirety of the site would be
landscaped. Proposed Project buildings would be integrated into the overall aesthetic
context of the Site through the connective landscaping and tree placement surrounding
the Site's perimeter. Given the current blighted condition of the Site, this impact would
not be adverse.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to aesthetics (views/light and glare), prior to mitigation.
C-88
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-25
B. Aesthetics (Shade and Shadow)
Due to the location of the Project site and the proposed height of structures, shade and
shadow impacts are not considered relevant. Shadow impacts are typically greatest
during the winter months due to the sun's low position in the sky, with the resultant
longer shadows stretching roughly from the northwest to the northeast during daytime
hours. Because shadows in the Northern Hemisphere trend to the north during the
winter, shading caused by Project buildings would not affect any adjacent off-site
residences during the wintertime. As a result, and due to the areas north of the Project
site being at a higher elevation, no impact resulting from shadows cast onto adjacent off-
site properties by Project buildings is expected to occur.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to aesthetics (shade and shadow), prior to mitigation .
. c. Cultural Resources (Historic Resources)
The former San Pedro Naval Housing complex located on the Project site is not currently
listed as a landmark at the national, state, or local levels, and has not been identified as
potentially significant in any historic resources surveys of the area. The complex was
evaluated for its potential as a historic district because the complex consists of a group
of residential duplexes that were planned and constructed at the same time, in 1964.
None of the buildings were evaluated for individual eligibility, as they are alike and part
of a larger tract. Based on the research and field inspection conducted for this report,
the complex is ineligible for listing at the national, state, or local levels because the
complex lacks historical significance or architectural distinction. The recommended
evaluation code is '6Z, ineligible for designation at the national, state, or local levels
through survey evaluation. lherefore, because the complex is not a historic resource
subject to CEQA, the Project would have no impact on historical resources.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to cultural resources (historic resources), prior to mitigation.
D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project construction emissions represent an episodic, temporary source of GHG
emissions. Emissions are generally associated with the operation of construction
equipment and the disposal of construction waste. The Project is expected to generate
4,850 trips during a typical weekday and 4,887 trips during a typical Saturday. Motor
vehicle trips are the primary source of daily operational GHG emissions associated with
the Project. The GHG emissions resulting from operation of the Project, which involves
the usage of on-road mobile vehicles, electricity, natural gas, water, landscape
equipment, hearth combustion, and generation of solid waste and wastewater, were
calculated with the net increase in GHG emissions generated by the Project estimated at
9,687.08 C02e MTY (metric tons per year). Although the Proposed Project would emit
GHGs, implementation of Compliance Measures and Project Design Features (including
consistency with the City's Green Building Code) would reduce GHG emissions to the
maximum extent feasible. Further, the Proposed Project would be consistent with all
feasible and applicable strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in California and
the City of Los Angeles. As such, the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases. The Project's impacts associated with GHG emissions would therefore be
considered less than significant.
C-89
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-26
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to greenhouse gas emissions, prior to mitigation.
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Project proposes redevelopment of the entire site with a combination of single-and
multi-family residential uses, private and public recreation facilities, and interior
circulation and landscaping. Under future conditions, drainage patterns on the Project
site would remain substantially the same as under existing conditions. The Project
would not have an adverse impact with respect to storm drain capacity and no mitigation
measures are required. Similarly, development of the Project would have a less than
significant impact on storm drainage infrastructure and flooding resulting from the
alteration of existing drainage patterns and the increase in overall site imperviousness.
Development of the Project would neither reduce nor increase the amount df surface
water in any water body to a substantial degree.
Because the developed site would generate slightly more runoff than under existing
conditions, the amount of runoff contributed by the site to the West Channel of Los
Angeles Harbor would be increased by a slight amount, on the order of 18-20 cfs (cubic
feet per second) under 50~year storm conditions. This impact would be less than
significant.
Development of the Project would not result in a permanent, adverse change to the ·
movement of surface water sufficient to produce a substantial change in the current or
direction of water flow. The source and destination, as well as the general pattern of
surface water flow both within the watershed and across the Project site would remain
the same as under existing conditions with Project development, although the existing
drainage channel crossing the site would be covered and the existing riparian vegetation
removed.
The nearest body of water to the Project site is the Palos Verdes Reservoir, located
approximately 0.75 mile west of the Project site. According to the Safety Element of the
General Plan of the City of Los Angeles {"General Plan"), the Project site is not located
within any potential inundation area. The Palos Verdes Reservoir is not a flood control
facility. As such, there is no hydrologic connection between the reservoir and the
drainages that either cross or impact the Project site. However, the remote, speculative
and hypothetical event of a complete and instantaneous failure of the Palos Verdes
Reservoir could, due to the intervening topography, potentially result in flooding across
portions of the Project site. However, the failure of the reservoir is considered a remote
and speculative event. Additionally, development of the Project Would not introduce
persons or structures into an area where they might be subject to inundation risks not
experienced by both previous residents of the site and current residents in surrounding
areas. With respect to storm-caused flooding, the Project site is not located within a
designated floodplain or area subject to flood hazards. The Project site ls located in a
dense urban area that is completely surrounded by existing urban uses. The proposed
storm drainage facilities to be constructed on the Project site as part of the Project would
provide sufficient capacity to convey the excess street flow from Western Avenue
resulting from the undersized reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) conveying drainage from
Watershed A onto the site.
Implementation of the best management practices (BMPs) in the Project's Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and compliance with the City's discharge
requirements (listed as Compliance Measures) would ensure that the Project
construction would not violate any water quality standards or discharge requirements or
C-90
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-27
otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Thus, Project impacts would be less than
significant.
Based on the incorporation of site design, source control and treatment control/low
impact design (LID) BMPs as required under the City of Los Angeles' Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP} and as identified as Compliance Measures and
Project Design Features, water quality standard exceedances are not anticipated, and
pollutants are not expected in Project runoff in amounts that would adversely affect
beneficial uses in downstream receiving waters. Thus, Project impacts would be less
than significant. With respect to groundwater, proposed LID BMPs and treatment control
BMPs would not cause or contribute to impairments to groundwater quality. Thus,
impacts would be less than significant.
Although the overall imperviousness of the Project site would increase due to higher
density development as compared to existing conditions1 the increase would be offset by
the implementation of LID features for water quality. No groundwater wells are proposed
nor would the Proposed Project affect any existing wells. Therefore, redevelopment of
the Project site is not anticipated to reduce groundwater recharge opportunities or lower
groundwater tables as compared to existing conditions, and may in fact slightly increase
groundwater recharge throughout the area with the implementation of LID features for
water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to hydrology and water quality, prior to mitigation.
F. Land Use and Planning (Land Use Consistency)
The Project would require a General Plan amendment to change the land use
designation in the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan for the Project site from Low
Residential and Open Space to Low Medium II Residential. The Project would also
require a zone change to change the zoning designation for the Project site from R1-1XL
and OS-1 XL to a new Specific Plan Zone. The Project's density would range from 8
units per acre to 23 units per acre, with the average density being 11.4 DU/acre (gross).
Also, the Project would locate a range of new housing options proximate to the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are major employment centers within southern
California.
The Project is consistent with and would assist in the implementation of applicable
regional plans and policies; specifically those which encourage the reduction of regional
congestion through infill housing development (e.g., AQMP, Compass Growth Vision,
Regional Transportation Plan [RTP], Regional Housing Needs Assessment [RHNA],
etc.), as well as policies to address the community's and City's housing crisis. The
Project's proposed 700 dwelling units would provide 57 percent of the units forecast to
be needed in the Wilmington-Harbor City CPA by 2017. The Project also represents 1.1
percent of the growth in SCAG's household forecast for the City of Los Angeles
Subregion between 2010 and 2017. The Project's provision of housing units would
occur without the displacement of any existing households and without the demolition of
any existing housing stock.
The Project site is currently served by public transit (buses) and is immediately adjacent
to a public transit route along Western Avenue. The Project would incorporate sidewalks
on primary streets and would provide a network of pathways throughout the master-
planned community that would create opportunities for residents to walk to local
destinations and transit stops. In addition, the Project would provide bike parking for
C-91
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-28
residents and visitors, thereby promoting alternate transportation. Further, the Project
incorporates urban design standards that would make Western Avenue a more attractive
street, which could promote its use by pedestrians, bicyclists with bike parking
amenities, and users of public transit. The Project would be consistent with applicable
portions of the City's Urban Design Principles and elements of the Walkability Checklist.
The Project is consistent with and would assist in the implementation of relevant Air
Quality Management Plan and Regional Transportation Plan strategies to attain and
maintain compliance with federal and state ambient air quality and greenhouse gas
. standards.
The Project would be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Noise
Element, Housing Element, Air Quality Element, Transportation Element, and
Conservation Element of the General Plan. The Project would comply with applicable
hillside area grading regulations. The Project site contains no trees subject to the City's
Protected Tree Ordinance. The Project would be required to comply with the Methane
Mitigation Standards in LAMC section 91.7102 and as directed and approved by LADBS
and the LAFD as they apply to the portion of the site that is included within a City-
identified Methane Buffer Zone.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to land use and planning (land use consistency), prior to mitigation.
G. Land Use and Planning (Divide Established Community/Land Use
Compatibility) ·
The Project would not physically divide an established community, conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
Project (including but not limited to the General Plan or a specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect; or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. While
functional compatibility is a subjective matter, the Project, as a residential . use, is
compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity since similar land uses exist immediately
to the east, west, and south of the Project site, including higher density developments to
the south. The Project's proposed residential uses would be compatible with and largely
buffered from adjacent residential uses by proposed landscaping. The Project would not
create any significant land use and planning impacts and therefore no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to land use and planning (divide established community/land use compatibility),
prior to mitigation.
H. Noise (Off-Site Operational)
Upon buildout of the Project, new periodic sources of noise would consist of stationary
sources (such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] systems for
the proposed uses). The design of these on-site HVAC units and exhaust fans would be
required to comply with the regulations under Section 112.02 of the LAMC, which
prohibits noise from air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, pumping, and filtering
equipment from exceeding the ambient noise level on the premises of other occupied
properties by more than five decibels. Thus, the on-site equipment would be designed
such that it would be shielded and appropriate noise muffling devices would be installed
on the equipment to reduce noise levels that affect nearby noise-sensitive uses.
Implementation of Compliance Measures would ensure that all new mechanical
C-92
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-29
equipment associated with the Project would adhere to Section 112.02 of the LAMC.
This impact would be less than significant.
Operational noise would also result from vehicular traffic utilizing local roadways. The
Project's maximum local noise increase level at any off-site roadway segment would be
0.7 dBA CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). Because this maximum and all
lesser noise increases are below the 3 dBA threshold, this impact would be less than
significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to noise (off-site operational), prior to mitigation.
I. Population and Housing
Due. to the employment patterns of construction. workers in Southern California and the
operation of the market for construction labor, construction workers are not likely, to any
significant degree, to relocate their households as a consequence of the job
opportunities presented by the Project. Thus, there would not be any adverse housing
impacts associated with construction of the Project.
The Project's direct impact would be a maximum of 700 housing units. The total
households/housing unit impact of the Project at the Subregion level would be 938
households/housing units (i.e., 700 direct + 238 indirect/induced). The Project's direct
plus indirect/induced households would represent about 0.06% to 0.07% of the
households estimated for 2010 and forecasted for 2017 and 2027 in the City of Los
Angeles Subregion, about 1.1 percent of 2010-2017 household growth, and about 0.5
percent of 2010-2027 household growth. Within the Wilmington-Harbor City Community
Plan area, the Project would represent about 2.5 to 3.5 percent of households in 2010,
2017 and 2027; about 57 percent of 2010-2017 household growth; and about 25 percent
of 2010-2027 household growth. When cumulative projects are added, the total
cumulative impact of the Project would constitute about 102 percent of 2010-2017
household growth, which can be considered a temporary exceedance as the Project's
cumulative impact would only constitute about 46 percent of 2010-2027 household
growth within the Wilmington-Harbor City CPA. Therefore, the Project would not induce
substantial housing growth, because it would meet a portion of forecasted housing need
rather than exceed the housing growth forecast for the City of Los Angeles Subregion by
2017.
The "jobs-housing balance" in the City of Los Angeles Subregion --i.e., the numerical
ratio of 1.34 jobs to households --was very close to the ratio for the SCAG region as a
whole in 2010 ( 1.37), and is therefore considered close to "balance." By adding 413
indirect/induced jobs related to Project household spending and 700 direct households,
the Project would have no impact on the Subregion's 2010 jobs-housing balance in that
it would not change its 1.34 ratio estimated for that year.
Overall, the Project would assist the City in meeting its fair share of regional housing
need, provide new housing opportunities a broad range of potential residents, and
conform with new City policy direction supporting higher density, compact, infill housing
development that adds to the City's housing supply and encourages the improvement of
air quality and the reduction of regional congestion. Impacts would be less than
significant.
C-93
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-30
The 700 dwelling units would accommodate a population of 2,079 persons. Assuming
further that the indirect dwelling units associated with the Project, are occupied at the
same persons-per-household factor as for the City of Los Angeles Subregion as a whole
in 2010 (i.e., 2.99), this implies Subregion-level indirect/induced population impact of 763
persons, for .a total population impact of 2,842 persons. The Project's direct plus
. indirect/induced population would represent about 0.065% of the population estimated
for 2010 and forecasted for 2017 and 2027 in the City of Los Angeles Subregion, about
2.8 per~ent of 2010-2017 population growth, and about 1.1 percent of 2010-2027
population growth. Within the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan area, the Project
would represem: about 2.6 percent of population in 2010, 2017 and 2027; about 107
percent of 2010-2017 population growth (which can be considered . a temporary
exceedance); and about 43 percent of 2010-2027 population growth. When cumulative
projects are added, the total cumulative impact of the Project would constitute about 190
percent of 2010-2017 population growth, which can be considered a temporary
exceedance as the Project's cumulative impact would only constitute about 80 percent of
2010-2027 population growth within the Wilmington-Harbor City CPA
The Project would not induce substantial population growth in this area, because it
would meet a portion of forecasted population rather than exceed the population growth
forecast in the Subregion by 2017 and, in the case of the Wilmington-Harbor City CPA,
by 2027.
For the reasons described above with respect to housing, no adverse population impacts
are predicted as a result of Project construction, since construction workers would not be
expected to relocate their households as a consequence of working at the Project.
In addition to being generally consistent with applicable growth forecasts, the Project
would also be consistent with housing policies in the City's General Plan Framework,
Housing Element, and Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan. For example, by
adding new units to the City's housing supply, the Project would make an important
incremental contribution to meeting the City's "fair share" of regional housing need in the
new RHNA that would apply to the next update of the City's Housing Element. Impacts
would be less than significant.
Therefore,· Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to population and housing, prior to mitigation. ·
J. Public Services (Fire Protection)
Construction and operation-related impacts of the Project on fire protection and
emergency services would be less than significant. Specifically, with regard to response
distance, the Project would not be within the LAFD's required response distance of 1.5
miles for residential land uses, with the closest responder to the Project site at Station
No. 36, approximately two miles driving distance away. Thus, the installation of
automatic fire sprinkler systems is required pursuant to LAMC Section 57.09.07, and the
proposed structures would be equipped with sprinklers.
Upon completion of the Project and implementation of the proposed traffic mitigation
measures, potential impacts to all studied intersections, including the intersections of
Western Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway and Western Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North
would be mitigated to a less than significant level, even taking into account cumulative
growth.
C-94
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-31
With regard to access, it is anticipated that the Project's proposed access plan would
provide adequate access to and from the Project site in the event of an emergency.
Nonetheless, as a Compliance Measure, the Applicant is required to submit the
proposed plot plan for the Project to the LAFD for review for compliance with applicable
Los Angeles Fire Code, California Fire Code, City of Los Angeles Building Code, and
National Fire Protection Association standards, thereby ensuring that the Proposed
Project would not create a fire hazard. Project impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to public services (fire protection), prior to mitigation.
K. Public Services (Police Protection)
The Project is expected to generate a direct population of 2,079 persons plus the
indirect/induced population of 763 persons, yielding a total Project generated population
of 2,842 persons. As a result, an increase in the number of police service calls from the
Project site would be expected. Although the LAPD does not maintain minimum officer-
to-population ratio objectives, the data is a useful metric for gauging the effect a
Proposed Project might have on service levels and response times. The increase in
population created by the Project, corresponding to an approximately two percent
increase in LAPD Harbor Area residents, would reduce existing officer-to-population
ratios in the Harbor Area to 1. 76 officers per 1 ,000 residents, a change of 0. 03 officers
as compared to existing conditions, which would be a minimal decrease. This analysis
is likely conservative, as a substantial percentage of future Project residents may
already be living elsewhere in the Harbor Area. The Proposed Project's impact on the
officer-to-population ratio at the Harbor Area would not be substantial and the impact
would be less than significant.
The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of or need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives of the LAPD,
and impacts associated with Project operation would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to public services (police protection), prior to mitigation.
L. Public Services {Schools)
Taper Elementary, Dodson Middle, and Narbonne High Schools serve the Project site.
The Project would increase the number of school-aged children living within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the abovementioned schools. Based on Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD) demographic analysis, there would be approximately 91
elementary students, 44 middle school students, and 55 high school students living at
the Project at any one time. With the addition of Project-generated students to existing
school enrollments, Taper Elementary School would operate under capacity by 133
students, Dodson Middle School would operate under capacity by 346 students, and
Narbonne High School would operate under capacity by 172 students.
As a Compliance Measure, the Project would be required to pay school facilities fees
pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 50, which would be used to construct facilities which,
according to LAUSD, are necessary to serve overall student enrollment growth district-
wide associated with new development. Payment would provide "full and complete
C-95
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-32
mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act ... on the provision of
adequate school facilities." Impacts would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to public services (schools}, prior to mitigation.
M. Public Services (Parks and Recreation)
Approximately 39 percent of the Project's post-development acreage (or 24.15 acres)
would consist of a combination of open space, landscaped common areas, recreational
amenities, and parks. The majority of this acreage would be accessible to the general
public. The Project includes a 2.42-acre publically accessible park, within which various
recreational activities could occur. Thus, the Project would exceed its generated
neighborhood park demand.
The Project is required to comply with the City's Quimby Ordinance and Dwelling Unit
Construction Tax (DUCT) payment requirements. If the park and recreational facilities
proposed by the Project do not fully meet the requirements of these ordinances, the fees
paid would make up the difference. As a result, the Project would not require the
construction or expansion of additional off-site recreational facilities, the construction of
which might have an adverse physical environmental effect In addition, the provision of
on-site park and recreational amenities would reduce the likelihood that future Project
residents would travel to other existing parks and recreational facilities in the area, thus
increasing usage to the point that substantial physical deterioration of those facilities
would occur or be accelerated. When all of this is combined with recognition of the
existing extent of parks and recreational facilities available within the Project area and
region, the Project would have a less than significant impact upon park and recreational
facilities.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to public services (parks and recreation), prior to mitigation.
N. Public Services (Libraries}
Development of the Project would increase demand for library services by directly
increasing the permanent residential population in the Wilmington-Harbor City
Community Plan Area by approximately 2,079 persons. Given that the San Pedro
Regional Branch Library would continue to meet its service population criteria per the
Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) standards and the lack of any current capacity
problems at this facility, it is expected that an increase of approximately three percent in
its service population could be accommodated without the need for new or physically
altered library facilities. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered library facilities, or need for new or physically altered library facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives for library services, and
impacts to library service would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to public services (libraries), prior to mitigation.
C-96
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-33
0. Utilities and Service Systems (Wastewater)
The majority of the Project site is currently located within the boundaries of LACSD
District No. 5. A portion of the site is located within the sewer service area boundaries of
the City's Bureau of Sanitation system. Thus, the Project would have two ultimate sewer
service connection options: (1) service by the City's Bureau of Sanitation; or (2) service
by the LACSD. Under the first option, the Project would connect to the existing City
sewer facility located in Taper Avenue, adjacent and to the east of the Project's eastern
property boundary. Under the second option, the Project would connect via a new
sewer lateral to the existing LACSD facilities located across and adjacent to the site's
southwest corner, within the Western Avenue right-of-way.
The Project Applicant's preferred option is to deliver all Project wastewater to the City
Bureau of Sanitation's sewer system for conveyance and treatment. However, in order
to connect to the City's sewer system, the Project Applicant must first pursue and perfect
a de-annexation from the :LACSD service area for the majority of the Project site and,
subsequently, annexation to the City Bureau of Sanitation service area. This process
requires approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) as well as by
the two wastewater service agencies. Although the Project Applicant has initiated this
process, it is not estimated to be completed until late 2013. Both the LACSD and City
Bureau of Sanitation have opined that adequate conveyance and treatment capacity
exists with which to serve the Proposed Project.
Assuming that Project wastewater is delivered to the City's system, wastewater would be
generated at the Project by long-term operation of the· single-family residential units,
townhomes, condominiums, and apartments. The Project would generate approximately
137,908 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity
to serve the anticipated Project sewage generation exists at the Terminal Island
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, impacts with respect to wastewater treatment
capacity would be less than significant.
The City Department of Public Works analyzed the existing sewer system and
determined that sufficient residual conveyance and treatment capacity exists in the
sewer lines to which the Project is proposing to discharge. Consequently, the City
issued a SCAR response in essence committing to serve the Project. Therefore, Project
impacts with regard to wastewater conveyance. would be less than significant.
Construction impacts resulting from wastewater infrastructure installation/improvement
would be less than significant as no impacts to existing traffic flow on streets surrounding
the site would occur.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to utilities and service systems (wastewater), prior:, to mitigation.
P. Utilities and Service Systems (Solid Waste)
The Project is predicted to generate a total of approximately 33,982 tons of solid waste
over the five-year construction period, including approximately 31,428 tons of demolition
waste generated during the first year of construction and 2,555 tons of construction
waste generated during the subsequent four years. With Compliance Measures,
approximately 16,991 tons of the demolition/construction waste would be disposed of in
Sunshine Canyon or Chiquita Canyon Landfills, including 15,714 tons of demolition
waste and 1,277 tons of construction waste. Assuming that construction of the Project
would occur 22 days each month for five years and that demolition activities would be
completed within the first year, the Project would dispose of an average of 8.5 tons of
C-97
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-34
solid waste per day during the first year of the construction phase, and an average of
0.69 tons of solid waste per day during each year thereafter. As such, the landfills would
have adequate capacity to accommodate the average daily construction waste
generated by the Project over its multi-year construction period, and construction-related
solid waste impacts would be less than significant.
The Project would generate approximately 2.1 tons (4,265 pounds} of solid waste per
day during its operation. Assuming that at least 30 percent of the solid waste generated
by the Project would be diverted from the landfill waste stream, the ·Project would result
in a net generation of 1.5 tons (2,986 pounds) of solid waste per day. The remaining
combined daily intake capacity of the Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill and the
Chiquita Canyon Landfill is 7,329 tons per day. As such, these facilities would have
adequate capacity to accommodate the daily operational waste generated by the
Project. Compliance Measures and Project Design Features would further reduce the
Project's contribution to landfills. The Project's impact on solid waste and disposal
.would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to utilities and service systems (solid waste), prior to mitigation.
Q. Utilities and Service Systems (Energy)
The LADWP would supply the entire Project site from the existing 34.5-kV (kilovolt)
system. Electrical conduits, wiring and associated infrastructure would be brought from
existing LADWP lines in the surrounding streets to the Project site during construction.
The Project would require a line extension from the existing off-site lines to the premises,
on-site transformation facilities, and conduit and cable throughout the property. The
Project itself would not require new (off-site) energy supply facilities and distribution
infrastructure. Rather, the on-site transformation is typical of new construction and
changes in site layout.
The conservatively estimated Project-related annual electricity consumption of 3.94
MWh would represent a fraction of one percent of citywide forecasted electricity
consumption in 2030. Therefore, it is anticipated that LADWP's existing and planned
electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the Project's
electricity consumption. The Project would not require the acquisition of additional
electricity resources beyond those that are anticipated by LA DWP.
Further, the Project would be in compliance with the City's Green Building Code and
would therefore exceed the energy efficiency standards in Title 24 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR). Therefore, because 'of energy efficient design features,
compliance with the Green Building Code, and the obligation and ability of LADWP to
serve development within the City, impacts related to electricity would be less than
significant
The Project would also increase natural gas consumption over existing conditions at the
site by approximately 3.27 million cubic feet per month, which is a fraction of the existing
citywide demand served by SoCalGas. SoCalGas would provide natural gas service.
Given the Project's energy efficient design features, compliance with the Green Building
Code, and the obligation and ability of SoCal Gas to serve the site, impacts related to
natural gas would be less than significant.
Therefore, Project impacts and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with
respect to utilities and service systems (energy), prior to mitigation.
C-98
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-35
POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVELS
A. Air Quality (Construction)
Description of Effects
Construction of the Project would result in daily air emissions, including but not
limited to airborne dust from demolition, grading, and site preparation, as well as
gaseous emissions from the use of heavy equipment, delivery and hauling
trucks, employee vehicles, and paints and coatings. Specifically, the Project's
unmitigated regional NOx (nitrogen oxides) and ROG (reactive organic gases)
construction emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management
District's (SCAQMD) regional significance thresholds, resulting in a significant
impact before mitigation. In addition, the Project's unmitigated on-site NOx, PM10
and PM 2.5 (particulate matter) construction emissions would exceed the
SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds, resulting in a significant impact
before mitigation. Unmitigated construction-related SOx (sulfur oxides) and CO
(carbon monoxide) emissions would not exceed regional or localized significance
thresholds and would therefore constitute a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
AQ"1 The following equipment specifications shall be implemented for
construction activity, consistent with recent SCAQMD recommendations.1
lf these exact specifications cannot be feasibly attained, the Project
Applicant shall include a comparable measure demonstrating an
equivalent effectiveness at reducing construction related air quality
emissions.
• Three excavators shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards;
• One grader shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards;
• Two scrapers shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards; and
• Six rubber-tired dozers shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards
and Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) Level 2. 2
AQ-2 The Project Applicant shall ensure that construction contractors use
super-compliant architectural coatings as defined by the SCAQMD (VOC
standard of less than ten grams per liter).3
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
ElR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. {a)(1))
1 Based on a review of SCA QMD Project-level comment fetters published in 2011;
• http:llwww.aqmd.gov/ceqa!letters.html, accessed April 13, 2011.
2 SCAQMD off-road mitigation measures; http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbooklmitigationloffroad/
Tab/ell.xis; and http:/lwww.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/mitigationloffroad!Tablellf.doc; accessed
April 13,
• 2011.
3 SCAQMD, Super-Compliant Architectural Coatings Manufacturers and Industrial Maintenance
Coatings List, http:/lwww.aqmd.gov/prdas!Coatings/super-compliantlist.htm.
C-99
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-36
Rationale for Findings
Implementation of Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-
2 would reduce the Project's construction-related regional and localized air
quality emissions to a less than significant level.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Air Quality impacts, see Section IV.C of the Draft
EIR.
B. Biological Resources
Description of Effects
No known populations of special-status plant species have been reported at the
site or were encountered in systematic surveys and no such populations are
suspected to occur on the site. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse
impacts to special-status plant species.
Protocol surveys during 2009 did not observe the California Gnatcatcher (CAGN)
at the Project site. The Project would re-engineer the slope along the site's
northern boundary, as required by City of Los Angeles grading standards,
removing approximately 0.09 acres of existing disturbed coastal sage scrub
(CSS) vegetation. However, the disturbed CSS does not represent high value for
the CAGN, due to the species composition, and the large component of non-
native grassland (NNG) and invasive ornamentals displacing the small patches of
CSS. Although site preparation work would involve the temporary removal of
existing vegetation on the slope, the Project Applicant proposes to re-vegetate
the re-engineered slope in part with CSS appropriate to the site, including
species favored by the CAGN, as a Project Design Feature. Upon successful
revegetation of this slope, the existing vegetation, which is poorly suited for
CAGN, would be replaced with more extensive and higher functioning CSS
habitat for both CAGN and the Palos Verdes Blue Butterfly (PVB). Thus, impacts
to the CAGN would be less than significant.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that the Project site does
not support sufficient stands of Lotus scoparius or Astragaf us trichopodus to
support any population of the PVB and that the remaining PVB occurrences on
the adjacent DFSP are sufficiently remote from the Project site that PVB is
unlikely to occur even casually on the Project site. This conclusion is further
supported by the lack of PVB observations on southern portions of the adjacent
U.S. Navy Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) generally during base-wide
surveys -in spite of some Lotus presence in these areas. Although Lotus
retains a token presence on the Project site, an additional (year 2011) survey for
the PVB was not deemed warranted. Thus, impacts to the PVB would be less
than significant.
Several species of birds occupy the Project site. All nesting birds are protected
under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Title 33, United States Code,
Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 10) and
Section 3503 of the California of Fish and Game Code. Thus, Project impacts on
nesting birds associated with tree removal would be potentially significant.
C-100
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-37
Eleven of the existing buildings on-site were given a high potential to support
roosting bats, 60 buildings were given a moderate potential to support roosting
bats, and 55 buildings are unlikely to support roosting bats. Additionally, it is
possible that bats could roost in some of the palm trees located on the site.
Thus, it is possible that roosting bats could exist at the Project site. As a result,
demolition activities at the Project site could potentially result in a significant
impact on roosting bats.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction associated with the Project
site totals approximately 0.25 acre of waters of the United States, none of which
consists of jurisdictional wetlands. All areas of Corps jurisdiction are associated
with the open water channel that traverses the southwest corner of the site. The
boundaries of Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction under
Section 401 are the same as depicted for Corps jurisdiction under Section 404.
Also, California Departmt?nt of Fish and Game (CDFG} jurisdiction. associated
with the Project site totals 0.86 acre of jurisdictional streambed, of which 0.37
acre consists of native riparian species associated with the bed, banks, and
terraces of the open channel.
The Project would require that the existing drainage channel crossing the
southern portion of the site be replaced and covered. However, due to the need
to reconfigure the site plan to allow for the seismic setback, no opportunity to re-
create riparian habitat along the channel would exist. Thus, impacts associated
with the Project would be significant before mitigation. In addition, the Project
Applicant would be required to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with
the CDFG under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. As a Compliance
Measure, the Project· Applicant must provide evidence of the required
authorization from the USFWS, RWQCB, and the Corps, as required by federal
and state law, relating to the proposed relocation and modification of these
jurisdictional resources prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the Project.
Proposed development would alter existing wildlife habitat values of the Project
site and opportunities for wildlife movement in the vicinity. Smaller resident
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects would be eliminated from the
approximately 61.5-acre Project site by grading, and birds and larger mammals
would be at least temporarily displaced as development plans are implemented.
Species that are highly sensitive to human activity and disturbance, particularly
predatory mammals and birds, would avoid the developed portion of the Project
site even after construction. The previously disturbed Project site contains no
on-site waterways capable of supporting migratory fish. The closest native
wildlife nursery to the Project site is located in the DFSP to the north, where CSS
habitat has been restored for the PVB and CAGN. The Project would not impede
the use of this site. Further, the Project site does not connect two otherwise
natural areas. Therefore, no substantial impediment to wildlife movement or
gene flow could occur as a result of Project implementation and impacts would
be less than significant.
No trees protected under the City of Los Angeles' Protected Tree Ordinance are
present on the Project site. The Project would remove all of the 330 trees on the
Project site that meet City of Los Angeles reporting criteria, and would replace
the removed trees with approximately 3,500 new trees. Therefore, Project
impacts to trees, including protected trees, would be less than significant.
C-101
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-38
Proposed development on the Project site would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation
policies or ordinances. Thus, the Project would not conflict with any local policies
or· ordinances protecting biological resources, and no impact would occur. The
previously disturbed Project site is zoned for residential use and is not located
within an area covered by an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural
community conservation plan (NCCP}, or other approved HCP. Therefore, no
impact would occur to adopted conservation plans.
Mitigation Measures
BI0-1 Potential impacts to nesting birds, migratory birds, and raptors shall be
avoided either by scheduling grading, vegetation removal and demolition
during the non;.nesting period (August 301h through February 14th), or if
this is not feasible, ·by conducting a pre-construction survey for raptor
nests and avoiding disturbance of active nests. Provisions of the pre-
construction survey and nest avoidance, if necessary, shall include the
following:
• If grading or vegetation removal is scheduled during the active nesting
period (February 15th through August 31st), a qualified wildlife biologist
shall conduct a pre-construction raptor and nesting bird survey no
more than 30 days prior to initiation of grading to provide confirmation
on presence or absence of active nests in the vicinity.
• If active nests are encountered, species-specific measures shall be
prepared by a qualified biologist in consultation with the CDFW and
implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. At a
minimum, grading in the vicinity of the nest shall be deferred until the
young birds have fledged. A nest-setback zone of at least 300 feet for
all raptors and 100 feet for loggerhead shrike and other non-raptors
shall be established within which all construction-related disturbances
shall be prohibited. The perimeter of the nest-setback zone shall be
fenced or adequately demarcated with staked flagging at 20-foot
intervals, and construction personnel restricted from the area.
• If permanent avoidance of the nest is not feasible, impacts shall be
minimized by prohibiting disturbance within the nest-setback zone
until a qualified biologist verifies that the birds have either a) not
begun egg-laying and incubation, orb) that the juveniles from the nest
are foraging independently and capable of independent survival at an
earlier date.
• A survey report by the qualified biologist verifying that the young have
fledged shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of grading in
any nest-setback zone.
BI0-2 Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit, the Project Applicant
shall have a qualified biologist conduct Phase 3 entry surveys within the
interior of all buildings at the Project site identified as having a high to
moderate potential to provide bat roost habitat. These surveys shall
involve accessing the attic and other areas (if warranted) to look for
evidence of bats and utilizing heterodyne-style bat detectors to aid in the
acoustic detection and identification of potentially roosting bats.
C-102
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-39
If bats or bat sign are not encountered during the Phase 3 surveys, the
buildings shall be daylighted prior to demolition. Daylighting includes
removal of substantial portions of the roof to create a well-lit, well-
ventilated attic preventing bats from establishing in these buildings.
Daylighting shall occur under the supervision of a qualified biologist at
least 48 hours prior to building demolition. If bats are encountered during
daylighting, all disturbance activities within the structure and within 200
feet shall be halted until: (a) the roost is vacated, or (b) a qualified
biologist has coordinated with CDFW to develop alternative impact
avoidance meas.ures, up to and including bat removal.
If bats or bat sign are encountered during Phase 3 Surveys, the qualified
biologists shall leave the building immediately to avoid further disturbance
to roosting bats' and conduct an emergence survey.' Emergence surveys
shall be conducted at dusk to determine where bats. are exiting the
building. Emergence surveys shall be conducted to determine the
ingress/egress location, estimate the approximate number of bats using
the roost, and identify the species occupying the roost using an ultrasonic
bat detector. Demolition of occupied roosts shall be postponed until
appropriate exclusion and mitigation measures have been determined in
consultation with CDFW. Examples of exclusion measures include one-
way barriers installed at the ingress/egress site that allow bats to exit the
roost but not return.
BI0-3 Palm .trees at the Project site shall have the dead frond skirts removed
between October 1 and March 31 before being felled to avoid impacts to
roosting Southwestern Yellow Bats. A qualified arborist shall supervise
removal of palm frond skirts in a systematic manner beginning with the
top fronds and working towards the base of the tree. If bats are
encountered during this process, trimming should halt and remain halted
until (a) the roost is confirmed to have been vacated by a qualified
biologist, or (b) a qualified biologist has coordinated with CDFW to
develop alternative measures up to and including bat removal from the
trees.
BI0-4 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall enter into
a Streambed Alteration Agreement or other documentation (satisfactory
to CDFW) with CDFW to provide a 1 :1 replacement of 0.86 acre of
suitable streambed and associated ·riparian habitat either on-site as
additional habitat creation, off-site either through habitat creation or
purchase of credits in an approved mitigation bank in the Los Angeles
Basin, or via a combination of these approaches.
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
C-103
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-40
Rationale for Findings
With implementation of Mitigation Measure BI0-1, requmng either pre-
construction nesting bird surveys or construction outside of the nesting season,
impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant. With
implementation of Mitigation Measures BI0-2 and BI0-3, requiring pre-demolition
bat presence entry surveys in the existing structures on-site and palm frond
removal from the on-site palm trees, impacts related to bats would be less than
significant. Wfth implementation of Mitigation Measure 810-4 and the
Compliance Measures, requiring the replacement of jurisdictional waters and
habitat area pursuant to CDFG and Corps permit conditions, impacts related to
jurisdictional waters would be less than significant.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Biological Resources impacts, see Section IV.D of
the Draft EIR.
C. Cultural Resources {Archaeological and Paleontological Resources)
Description of Effects
Although no cultural resources were identified during the archaeological field
survey of the Project site, the literature search indicates that the site is situated in
a geographic location that was sensitive for prehistoric human occupation.
Fifteen prehistoric sites have been previously recorded within one mile of the
Project site in all directions. The preliminary geotechnical report indicates that
the original ground level of the site was graded and leveled to accommodate the
existing buildings. Fill was placed in the central portion of the site and cuts were
made along the north-northeast sides of the property. Although there are no
surface indicators of cultural resources, it is possible that intact archaeological
deposits are present below the original layer of fill material. However, the depth
at which the strata with the potential to contain archaeological material varies
greatly across the property and could be found as shallow as two feet below the
current grade. For these reasons, the Project site should be treated as
potentially sensitive for cultural resources.
No human remains are known to occur at the Project site. However, given the
cultural resources sensitivity of the Project site, it is possible that human remains
could occur at the site and Project impacts could be potentially significant.
Geologic units at the Project site are considered paleontologically sensitive. If
proper care is not taken during any ground-disturbing activities of the Project,
paleontological resources at the site could be damaged or destroyed. Thus,
Project impacts are considered to be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
CULT-1:A qualified archaeologist shall be present to monitor all ground-disturbing
activities associated with the Project.
C-104
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-41
CULT-2:Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the archaeological
monitor shall conduct a brief awareness training session for the benefit of
all construction workers and supervisory personnel. The training, which
could be held in conjunction with the Project's initial on-site safety
meeting, shall· explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection
of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the
proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human
remains/burials are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These
procedures .include work curtailment or redirection and the immediate
contact of the site supervisor and the archaeological monitor. It is
recommended that this worker education session include visual images of
artifacts that might be found in the Project vicinity.
CULT-3:ln the event that cultural resources are exposed during construction, work
in the immediate vicinity of the find shall stop until a qualified
archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction
activities may continue in other areas.
CULT-4:Prior to ground disturbance, the vertebrate fossils observed at locality
JLD102210-02 (see Draft EIRAppendix IV.E-2) shall be collected. A bulk
sample of the matrix (approximately 2,000 pounds) containing the
invertebrate specimens shall also be collected and screened. Following
matrix sampling, this area shall be closely monitored during construction
grading to ensure the recovery of any additional scientifically significant
fossil specimens.
CULT-5:Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to.
produce a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan for the Project
and to supervise monitori.ng of construction excavations. Paleontological
resource monitoring shall include inspection of exposed rock units during
active excavations within sensitive geologic sediments. The monitor shall
have authority to temporarily divert grading away from exposed fossils to
professionally and efficiently recover the fossil specimens and collect
associated data.
CUL T-s:All Project-related ground disturbance that could potentially affect the San
Pedro Sand and Palos Verdes Sand shall be monitored by a qualified
paleontological monitor on a full-time basis. Part-time monitoring shall be
conducted in all Project-related ground disturbances affecting younger
Quaternary alluvium.
CULT-7:At each fossil locality, field data forms shall be used to record pertinent
geologic data, stratigraphic sections shall be measured, and appropriate
sediment samples shall be collected and submitted for analysis.
CULT-s:Recovered fossils shall be prepared to the point-of curation, identified by
qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and reposited
in a designated paleontological curation facility.
CULT-9:The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation
report to be filed with the City, the Project Applicant, and the repository.
C-105
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-42
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
Rationale for Findings
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1 through CULT-3, ensuring
the monitoring, identification, recovery, and analysis of any archaeological
resources encountered during site preparation work and further ensuring that
important history regarding California history or prehistory would not be lost,
impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
With implementation of the Compliance Measure, ensuring the identification,
recovery, and appropriate treatment of any human remains encountered during
site preparation work, impacts related to human remains would be less than
significant.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-4 through CUL T-9, ensuring
that any paleontological resources encountered at the Project site during site
preparation work are properly identified, recovered, evaluated, and curated,
Project impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than
significant.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Cultural Resources impacts, see Section IV.E of the
Draft EIR.
D. Geology and Soils
Description of Effects
The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a
fault zone mapped by the State Geologist pursuant to the Seismic Hazard
Mapping Act. However, the Preliminary Geotechnical Report concluded that, due
to the. lack of definitive evidence of the date of the last movement of the identified
Palos Verdes Fault A trace, the EIR analysis treats the fault trace crossing the
Project site as a potentially active fault for the purpose of development planning.
Although the Project Applicant would be required to design and construct the
Project in conformance to the most recently adopted building code design
parameters in the 2011 Los Angeles Building Code, the presence of the
potentially active Palos Verdes Fault trace on the Project site means that the
Project could potentially expose people or structures to adverse effects
associated with fault rupture or displacement. Accordingly, impacts related to
fault rupture and displacement would be significant.
Based on the active and potentially active faults in the region and on-site, it is
likely that future earthquakes produced in southern California will shake the
Project site. However, the Project site is not exposed to a greater seismic risk
than other areas of southern California where active and potentially active faults
C-106
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-43
are located. Furthermore, the Project would be designed and constructed to
withstand ground motions by adhering to the most recent version of Los Angeles
Building Code Section 1613, which contains provisions relating to earthquake
loads, and the Project Applicant would be required to design and construct the
Project in conformance to the design parameters contained in the most recent
version of the Los Angeles Building Code. Modern, welkonstructed buildings
are designed to resist ground shaking through the use of shear panels and
reinforcement. Thus, impacts would be considered less than significant.
The liquefaction potential at the Project site is very low and represents no
constraint on development As part of site preparation, the fill and recent
alluvium present on the Project site would be removed and recompacted.
Pursuant to existing law and applicable regulations, design and construction of
the Project would be required to incorporate measures to protect against
liquefaction risks. These measures include compliance with the most recent
version of the Los Angeles Building Code, the Rules of General Application of the
Grading Division of the Department of Building and Safety, the City's building
permit requirements, and site~specific engineering recommendations based upon
the recommendations of a licensed geotechnical engineer and a geotechnical
report approved by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.
These general site grading and earthwork recommendations are listed as
Compliance Measures.
The Preliminary Geotechnical Report concluded that the liquefaction potential at
the site is very low based on the site-specific conditions revealed through on-site
boring investigations. Because there are no continuous liquefiable soils
underlying the site, lateral spreading is not a hazard at the Project site and
impacts related to lateral spreading would not occur.
While the Project site is characterized by hillside terrain and is located within a
Hillside Area as defined in the Seismic Safety Plan for the City of Los Angeles,
the majori~y of the site is relatively gentle in slope, and no significant landslide
hazards have been found to exist on-site. Therefore, the potential for landslides
is considered low, and there are no landslide risks that cannot be mitigated by
compliance with the above-referenced engineering and construction
requirements. ·
The Project site is not located where oil~drilling activities presently occur, or have
occurred in the past. The proposed improvements associated with the Project
would not require the withdrawal of oil or water, and the Project is not located in
an area where such activity is occurring. Further, based on the preliminary
Project schemes, no significant dewatering is anticipated during construction to
the extent where subsidence would pose a substantial risk.
Based on the results of soil testing, the expansive potential of the soil at the site
is low. In addition, as part of site preparation, the fill and recent alluvium present
on the Project site would be removed and recompacted. Pursuant to existing law
and applicable regulations, design and construction of the Project would be
required to incorporate the above-referenced Compliance Measures to protect
against risks associated with expansive soils.
The Project site is not located in an area of Los Angeles that has been identified
by the City as being susceptible to inundation due to water storage facility failure.
However, the Palos Verdes Reservoir Dam, a regulating reservoir operated by
C-107
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-44
the Metropolitan Water District, is located approximately 0. 75 miles northwest of
the Project site. Storing an average of 1, 100 acre-feet of water, it is the second
smallest reservoir in the Metropolitan Water District. The potential for complete
and instantaneous failure of the Palos Verdes Reservoir is considered to be
remote. However, if it were to occur, flooding could result across portions of the
Project site. If a seiche were to be generated in the Palos Verdes Reservoir, it
could breach the confines of the reservoir. Given the intervening distance
between the dam and the Project site, partial releases of reservoir water
associated with seiche would not likely reach the site but instead would infiltrate
· en route and/or pond in the vicinity of culvert inlets along the west side of
Western Avenue. The Project site is not located in an area of Los Angeles
susceptible to inundation by tsunami. Thus, impacts would be less than
significant.
In contrast to the majority of the Project site, the cut slope along the northern
boundary of the site is steeply sloping and could potentially produce mudflows;
however, the trajectory of such flows would only affect other areas on the Project
site as opposed to off-site locations. In addition, this slope would be completely
reconfigured and reengineered as part of the Project. Therefore, the· potential for
mudflows is considered low, and there are no mudflow risks that cannot be
mitigated by compliance with the above-referenced Compliance Measures.
Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
A total of approximately 1,225,000 cubic yards of earth would be moved at the
site in the course of site preparation work. Cut and fill material would be
balanced on-site, with no soil import or export anticipated. The Project could
result in increased levels of erosion and sedimentation that could include
transport of soil materials off-site. However, required compliance with the BMPs
prescribed in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared prior
to the start of site-disturbing activities would serve to reduce this impact to the
maximum extent practicable. Compliance with applicable City and State
regulations would ensure that this impact is less than significant.
The southern portion of the Project site contains a 940-foot-long, channelized
drainage. This manmade drainage ditch is not a natural landform and is in a
degraded state, and as such, does not constitute a significant water body or
streambed for purposes of assessing landform alteration impacts. Even so, this
drainage is associated with jurisdictional biological resources that are protected
by the Corps, the RWQCB, and the CDFG (see above discussion under
"Biological Resources"). There are no wetlands on the Project site. Therefore,
the Project would not destroy, permanently cover, or materially and adversely
modify any distinct or prominent land features and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
GE0-1 A 50-foot wide structural setback zone shall be designated on each side
of the interpreted centerline of the surface projection of Fault A (100-foot
total width), as shown in Figure IV.F-4 of the Draft EIR. No habitable
structures shall be located within this setback zone.
C-108
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-45
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
Rationale for Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GE0-1, which has already been
incorporated into the Project site plan, is required to reduce the significant impact
of the Proposed Project related to surface rupture to a less than significant level.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Geology and Soils impacts, see Section IV.F of the
Draft EIR
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Description of Effects
The Project would entail demolition of all existing structures and improvements,
excavation and grading, and construction of new buildings, improvements,
utilities, and landscaping. Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based
paint (LBP) have been identified in the structures currently located on-site.
Without oversight, approval, and follow-up, implementation of the Project could
result in potentially significant impacts from the potential exposure of construction
workers involved in the demolition and removal of these structures from the site
to ACMs and LBP.
No soil gas or groundwater samples from the site were found to contain any
hydrocarbon contaminants above laboratory detection limits. No gasoline-range
hydrocarbons were detected in any of the soil samples taken from the site. Low-
level heavier-range petroleum impacts in the diesel fuel and oil range were
detected in soil in four of the five borings taken at the site in 2011. These
petroleum products were likely present in the fill soil imported to the site prior to
the construction of the Navy housing complex in the early 1960s, or were the
result of oil production and storage activities historically conducted in the vicinity.
Without oversight, approval, and follow-up, implementation of the Project could
result in potentially significant impacts from potential chemical exposures to
construction workers and nearby residents and workers during soil grading and
excavation activities.
The mandatory utilization of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel in all Project
construction equipment would reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions
to a level that is consistent with that permissible for construction equipment
operation under the current regulatory framework. In addition; the short-term and
sporadic, episodic nature of DPM emissions at the site during Project
construction would not result in the exposure of nearby residents to the type of
concentrated, long-term elevated levels of DPM that characterize operations at
the nearby Ports and industrial facilities within the Project vicinity. Thus, Project
impacts would be less than significant.
C-109
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-46
A small portion of the Project site is located within a City of Los Angeles Methane
Buffer Zone. Without oversight, approval, and follow-up, implementation of the
Project could result in potentially significant impacts from the potential
accumulation of methane above explosive concentrations in structures to be
constructed as part of the Project. Compliance with the City's Methane
Ordinance (2004), which requires compliance with the Methane Mitigation
Standards in Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 91. 7102, and as
directed and approved by the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety
(LADBS) and Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD), would ensure that potential
risks from methane accumulation are reduced to a less than significant level
within· the portion of the site designated as a Methane Buffer Zone.
The types of hazardous materials associated with routine, day-to-day operation
of the Proposed Project would include landscaping chemicals that would .be used
in quantities typical for landscaped residential developments and typical, cleaning
solvents used for janitorial purposes. The transport, use, and disposal of these
materials would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Estimated levels of cancer risk that would be experienced at the Project site by
future Project residents as a result of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions from
the ConocoPhillips refinery, DFSP, and Rancho LPG (formerly Amerigas)
facilities were evaluated and were determined to present a less than significant
risk, well below any applicable regulatory threshold.
The Project site is not identified in any existing emergency response plan as a
physical evacuee location or other location of public congregation or
equipment/personnel mobilization. The Project's emergency response plan,
required as a Project Design Feature, would address the occupancy, number,
location, and design of the structures approved for the Project and would require
mapping of emergency exits, evacuation routes for vehicles and pedestrians
within and from the Project site, and location of nearest hospitals and fire
departments. The Project Applicant must also consult with neighboring land
uses, including but not limited to the DFSP and the ConocoPhillips Refinery. The
plan must be completed and approved based on final building plans before
building permits for the Project's structures are issued. Once completed and
approved by the Fire Department, this required plan would be integrated with the
regional emergency response plans by the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) and LAFD and the other agencies responsible for emergency response
measures. All of these requirements, policies, and mitigation measures provide
a mechanism for developing an integrated emergency response plan for the
Project and the surrounding community. Project impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
HAZ~1 Hydrocarbon-impacted soils encountered during grading and excavation
work at the Project site shall be characterized. Any soils containing
hydrocarbons at levels of concern shall be either remediated on-site prior
to reuse or removed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations, including those promulgated by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). All necessary
approvals shall be obtained from the lead enforcement agency including,
but not limited to, the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health and
Hazardous Materials Division.
C-110
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-47
HAZ"2 Prior to demolition activities, an investigation for asbestos containing
materials (ACMs) shall be conducted and identified asbestos shall be
abated in accordance with the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)'s Rule 1403, as well as all other applicable City, state,
and federal regulations.
HAZ-3 Prior to demolition activities, an investigation for lead-based paint (LBP)
shall be conducted and identified LBP shall be abated in accordance with
applicable City, State, and federal regulations. Construction workers shall
be properly trained in lead-related construction in order to avoid exposure
of such workers to lead-containing material.
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
Rationale for Findings
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 and HAZ-3 will assure that ACMs
and LBP in the existing on-site structures are properly abated and that potential
risks from ACMs and LBP are reduced to a less than significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is required to ensure that
petroleum-impacted soils are characterized during Project excavation and
grading activities and are either remediated on-site or, if necessary, transported
to an appropriate facility for disposal, thus reducing the Project impact to a less
than significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3, in conjunction with
the Compliance Measures and Project Design Features presented in the Draft
EIR, would reduce all Project-specific impacts related to human health hazards,
the release of hazardous materials, and risk of upset to a less than significant
level.
With respect to cumulative impacts, cumulative projects may also present
dangers associated with hazards and hazardous materials. However, each
cumulative project would also be required to evaluate for potential threats and
impose mitigation necessary to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Further,
local municipalities are required to follow local, state, and federal laws regarding
hazardous materials and other hazards. Therefore, with implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures both Project-specific and cumulative impacts for
hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts, see
Section IV.H of the Draft EIR.
F. Transportation/Traffic (City of Los Angeles)
Description of Effects
The Project's construction-related traffic would cause a less than significant
impact at all of the 56 study intersections during the weekday morning peak hour,
C-111
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-48
weekday afternoon peak hour, and the Saturday mid-day peak hour. Application
of the threshold criteria to the Near-Term-Cumulative-With-Project-Construction
and Future-Cumulative-With-Project-Construction scenarios yields the same
conclusion. Based on the results of the impact analyses, traffic impacts
associated with construction of the Project would be less than significant, and
mitigation is not required.
The Project is expected to generate 76 inbound trips and 296 outbound trips
during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the
Project is expected to generate 304 inbound trips and 162 outbound trips. Over
a 24-hour period, the Project is forecast to generate 2,425 inbound trips and
2,425 outbound trips during a typical weekday. The Project is expected to
generate 227 inbound trips and 197 outbound trips during the Saturday mid-day
peak hour. Over a 24-hour period, the Project is forecast to generate
approximately 2,444 inbound trips and 2,443 outbound trips during a typical
Saturday.
Traffic impact analyses were prepared for the 56 study intersections using the
LADOT CMA methodology and application of the City of Los Angeles significant
traffic impact criteria. The traffic impact analyses were prepared for the Existing
With Project, Near-Term Cumulative With Project, and Future Cumulative With
Project conditions. Summaries of the traffic impact analyses for the Project are
provided below:
• Existing With Project Condition: Application of the City's threshold criteria to
the "Existing With Project" condition indicates that the Project is expected to
create a significant impact at 12 of the 56 study intersections during the
weekday AM peak hour, weekday PM peak hour and/or the Saturday mid-day
peak hour:
o Western Avenue/Lomita Boulevard
o Western Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
o Western Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North
o Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive
o Western Avenue/Westmont Drive
o Vermont Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North/Gaffey Street/Anaheim Street
o Gaffey StreetNVestmont Drive
o Gaffey Street/Summerland Avenue
o Figueroa Place/Anaheim Street
o Figueroa Street/Pacific Coast Highway
o Figueroa Street/1-110 Freeway NB On-Ramp (north of Anaheim Street)
o Figueroa Street/Anaheim Street
Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at the remaining study
intersections.
• Near-Term Cumulative With Project Condition: Application of the City's
threshold criteria to the "Near-Term Cumulative With Project" scenario
indicates that the Project is expected to create a significant impact at 11 of
the 56 study intersections during the weekday AM peak hour, weekday PM
peak hour and/or the Saturday mid-day peak hour:
C-112
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-49
o Western Avenue/Lomita Boulevard
o Western Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
o Western Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North
o Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive
o Western Avenue/Westmont Drive
o Vermont Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North/Gaffey Street/Anaheim Street
o Figueroa Place/Anaheim Street
o Figueroa Street/1-110 Freeway NB On-Ramp (north of Pacific Coast
Highway)
o Figueroa Street/Pacific Coast Highway
o Figueroa Street/1-11 O Freeway NB On-Ramp (north of Anaheim Street)
o Figueroa Street/Anaheim Street
Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at the remaining study
intersections.
• Future Cumulative With Project Condition: Application of the City's threshold
criteria indicates that the Project is expected to create a significant impact at
16 of the 56 study intersections during the weekday AM peak hour, weekday
PM peak hour and/ or the Saturday mid-day peak hour:
o Crenshaw Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North
o Western Avenue/Lomita Boulevard
o Western Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
o Western Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North
o Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive
o Western Avenue/Westmont Drive
o Western Avenue/Capitol Drive
o Vermont Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North/Gaffey Street/Anaheim Street
o Gaffey Street/Westmont Drive
o Gaffey Street/Summerland Avenue
o Vermont Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway
o Figueroa Place/Anaheim Street
o Figueroa Street/l-110 Freeway NB On-Ramp (north of Pacific Coast
Highway) .
o Figueroa Street/Pacific Coast Highway
o Figueroa Street/1-110 Freeway NB On-Ramp (north of Anaheim Street)
o Figueroa Street/Anaheim Street
Incremental but not significant impacts are noted at the remaining study
intersections.
As discussed above, the Project is expected to create a significant impact at 16
of the 56 study intersections during the weekday AM peak hour, weekday PM
peak hour and/or the Saturday mid-day peak hour in the year 2017 Future With
Project condition. All 12 study intersections forecast to be significantly impacted
by the Project under the "Existing With Project" scenario are included in the
intersections forecast to be significantly impacted in the year 2017 Future With
Project conditions based on City of Los Angeles threshold criteria. Thus, the
Existing With Project analysis did not result in the identification of any impacts
that were not previously disclosed. All 11 study intersections forecast to be
significantly impacted by the Proposed Project under the "Near-Term Cumulative
With Project" scenario also are included in the intersections forecast to be
significantly impacted in the year 2017 Future With Project conditions based on
C-113
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-50
City of Los Angeles threshold criteria. In summary, the Near-Term With Project
analysis did not result in the identification of any impacts that were not previously
disclosed. ·
Based on the results of travel time studies, Project-generated motorists would
likely travel along major arterials rather than cut through local neighborhood
roadways. Thus, impacts related to neighborhood intrusion would be less than
significant. The intersections that would provide primary access to the Project
site are Western Avenue and Northerly Project Access-Green Hills Drive and
Western Avenue and Southerly Project Access-Avenida Aprenda. Both of these
intersections would operate at least at LOS C during the AM peak hour and LOS
B during the PM peak hour under the Cumulative-Plus-Project (2017) condition.
Therefore, impacts related to access would be less than significant. Through
coordination with City departments and compliance with requirements· City
department requirements/standards, the Project would not result in any
significant impacts related to bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular safety. Given the
relatively few number of transit trips generated during the peak hours using the
CMP methodology, no significant impacts on existing or future transit services in
the Project area would occur. Impacts associated with the construction of off-site
traffic mitigation and roadway improvements would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
TRANS-11Prior to the generation of 151 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall widen the south side of Anaheim Street west of Vermont
Avenue by approximately 12 feet to accommodate a 180-foot long turn
pocket and install a right-turn only lane at the eastbound approach to the
intersection.
TRANS-12Prior to the generation of 151 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Widen Gaffey Street north of Westmont Drive to accommodate
installation of a right-tum only lane at the southbound approach to
the intersection;
b. Relocate the existing southbound near-side Metro bus stop on
Gaffey Street to the far side of the intersection (i.e., south of the
intersection) where a full bus pad is to installed in the street;
c. Modify the existing traffic signal to provide a southbound right-tum
signal phase on Gaffey Street that would overlap with the
eastbound left-turn signal phase on Westmont Drive at the Gaffey
Street intersection; and
d. Enhanced signage shall be provided as needed to guide the right-
turn motorists from the eastbound Anaheim Street approach to
Gaffey Street and Palos Verdes Drive North.
It is noted that the southbound approach on Gaffey Street can be
modified to include continuation of the existing bicycle lane and the
southbound right-turn only lane.
C-114
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-51
TRANS-13Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Restripe the southbound approach on Gaffey Street at
Summerland Avenue to accommodate the installation of a right-
turn only lane, and
b. Modify the existing traffic signal to provide a southbound right-turn
signal phase on Gaffey Street that. would overlap with the
eastbound left-turn signal phase on Summerland Avenue at the
Gaffey Street intersection.
TRANS-20 Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the
Project Applicant shall widen the westbound approach on Anaheim Street
at Figueroa Street by approximately 10 feet to accommodate a 120-foot
long turn pocket and install a right-tum-only lane.
TRANS-25 Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for each residential
building within the Project, the Project Applicant shall perform, to the
satisfaction of LADOT, a trip generation analysis for the units to be
constructed. The results of these studies shall indicate which of the
intersection improvements shown above in Mitigation Measures TRANS-1
through TRANS-20 must be operational prior to the occupancy of the
subject residential units.
TRANS-26The Project Applicant shall coordinate with local and regional transit
operators, including Metro and LADOT, to develop and implement
strategies to increase transit utilization by Project residents. These
transportation demand management (TDM) strategies could include, but
would not be limited to, providing bus schedules and transit route
information to residents, providing bicycle racks and information regarding
optimal bike routes to local destinations to residents, and a carpooling
information exchange.
TRANS-271n conjunction with the street widening of Western Avenue adjacent to
the Project site, the Applicant shall provide a bus turnout lane and bus
stop facilities (shelter, bench and schedule information) at bus stops
adjacent to the Site.
TRANS~28The Project Applicant shall coordinate with LADOT to potentially extend
the existing San Pedro DASH route northerly on Western Avenue to
serve the Project site. If deemed necessary, the Project Applicant shall
provide appropriate turnaround facilities to allow the DASH vehicles to
utilize the Project site as an end point on the route.
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
C-115
Case No. CPC-:2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA
Rationale for Findings
The recommended transportation mitigation measures for the Proposed Project
would mitigate the forecast Project impacts based on the CMA intersection
analysis methodology and significance thresholds of the Lead Agency {City of
Los Angeles), as well as using the ICU intersection analysis methodology and
the significance thresholds of the nearby adjacent jurisdictions, as applicable.
Further, the recommended mitigation measures would mitigate the forecast
Project-related traffic impacts for each of the three analysis conditions: Existing
With Project, Near-Term With Project, and Future With Project. As a result of
implementing the above-listed mitigation measures, Project impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Transportation -Traffic impacts, see Section IV.N
of the Draft EIR.
G. Transportation/Traffic {Other Jurisdictions)
Description of Effects
Several study intersections that are forecast to be significantly impacted by
Project-generated traffic are within other jurisdictions, as detailed below. All of
these intersections are included in the list presented above under
Transportationrrraffic (City of Los Angeles).
Mitigation Measures
TRANS-1Prior to the generation of 451 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Restripe the southbound approach and median islands on Crenshaw
Boulevard at Pacific Coast Highway to accommodate a second left-
turn lane; and
b. Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the installation of the second
southbound left-turn lane.
TRANS-2Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of
Crenshaw Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive North to provide a
northbound right-turn signal phase on Crenshaw Boulevard that would
overlap with the westbound left-turn signal phase on Palos Verdes Drive
North. To accommodate this signal phasing, U-turn movements on the
westbound approach of Palos Verdes Drive North shall become
prohibited.
TRANS-3Prior to the generation of 151 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Restripe the southbound approach on Western Avenue at Lomita
Boulevard to accommodate installation of a right-turn only lane; and
C-116
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-53
b. Modify the existing traffic signal at Western Avenue and Lomita
Boulevard to provide a southbound right-turn signal phase on Western
Avenue that would overlap with the eastbound left-turn signal phase
on Lomita Boulevard.
TRANS-4Prior to the generation of 1 PM peak hour trip at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Modify the southbound approach on Western Avenue at Pacific Coast
Highway to install a second left-turn lane and a third through lane; and
b. Modify the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Western Avenue
and Pacific Coast Highway to accommodate the modification to the
southbound approach.
TRANs.sPrior to the generation of 1 PM peak hour t~ip at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Modify the westbound approach on Palos Verdes Drive North at
Western Avenue to install a second left-turn lane;
b. Modify the existing median on Palos Verdes Drive North and the
existing traffic signal at the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive
North and Western Avenue to accommodate the modification to
the westbound approach;
c. Modify the existing median and restripe the northbound approach
on Western Avenue at Palos Verdes Drive North to install a right-
turn only lane;
d. Restripe the southbound approach on Western Avenue at Palos
Verdes Drive North to install a right-turn lane.
TRANS-6Prior to the generation of 1 PM peak hour trip at the site, the Project
Applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Western Averiue
and Peninsula Verde Drive.
TRANS-7Prior to the generation of 451 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of Western Avenue
and Fitness Drive.
TRANS-sPrior to the generation of 151 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Modify the northbound approach on Western Avenue at Westmont
Drive to install a right-turn only lane; and
b. Restripe the eastbound approach on Westmont Drive at Western
Avenue to provide one left-turn lane.
TRANS-9Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall restripe the northbound approach on Western Avenue at
Capitol Drive and modify the raised median to install a right-turn only
lane.
C-117
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-54
TRANs-10Prior to the generation of 451 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall modify the existing traffic signal to provide a westbound
right-turn signal phase on Summerland Avenue that would overlap with
the southbound left-turn signal phase on Western Avenue cit the
Summerland Avenue intersection.
TRANS-14Prior to the generation of 451 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Modify the westbound approach on Sepulveda Boulevard to
accommodate the installation of a second left-turn lane at the
Vermont Avenue intersection;
b. Remove the existing raised median island on Sepulveda
Boulevard, east of Vermont Avenue, to accommodate installation
of the second westbound left-turn lane; and
c. Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the installation of the
second westbound left-turn lane.
TRANS-15Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Widen the north and south sides of Pacific Coast Highway east
and west of Vermont Avenue to provide up to a 42-foot half
roadway on the 50-foot half right-of-way;
b. Install a second left-turn lane at the westbound approach; and
c. Modify the existing traffic signal and roadway striping at the
intersection as needed.
TRANS-16Prior to the generation of 1 PM peak hour trip at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Modify the existing traffic signal at Figueroa Place/Anaheim Street
to provide a southbound right-turn signal phase on Figueroa Place
that would overlap with the eastbound left-turn and through phase
sufficiently long enough to accommodate the southbound right-
turn volumes; and
b. Install a new traffic signal at Figueroa Place/1-11 O Southbound
Off-ramp (north of Anaheim Street).
TRANS-17Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall do the following:
a. Modify the southbound approach on Figueroa Street at the Harbor
Freeway Northbound On-ramp (north of Pacific Coast Highway) to
accommodate the installation of a right-turn-only lane;
b. Adjust the median to accommodate the right-turn-only lane; and
C-118
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-55
c. Modify the traffic control equipment as needed.
TRANS-18Prior to the generation of 301 PM peak hour trips at the site, the Project
Applicant shall modify the westbound approach on Pacific Coast Highway
at Figueroa Street to accommodate a fourth through lane.
TRANS-19Prior to the generation of 1 PM peak hour trip at the site, the Project
Applicant shall install a traffic signal at the Figueroa Street/Harbor
Freeway Northbound On-ramp intersection (north of Anaheim Street). In
addition, the existing roadway striping at the northbound approach to the
intersection would be adjusted based on direction from LADOT.
TRANs-21 Prior to completion of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair-share payment toward the installation of the County's traffic signal
synchronization system for the Normandie Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard
intersection.
TRANs-22Prior to completion Qf the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair-share payment toward the following:
a. Modify the northbound approach on Normandie Avenue to
accommodate the installation of a second left-turn lane at the
Lomita Boulevard intersection; and
b. Remove the raised median island on Normandie Avenue, south of
Lomita Boulevard, to accommodate the installation of the second
northbound lefHurn lane.
It is noted that the northbound approach on Normandie Avenue can be modified
to include continuation of the existing bicycle lane and the second northbound
left-turn lane.
TRANS-23Prior to completion of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair-share payment toward the following improvements:
a. Modify the northbound and southbound approaches on Vermont
Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard to accommodate the installation
of a second right-turn only lane; and
b. Remove the existing raised median island on Vermont Avenue,
south of Sepulveda Boulevard, and modify the existing raised
median island on Vermont Avenue, north of the intersection, to
accommodate the installation of the second right-turn lane.
TRANS-24Prior to completion of the Project, the Project Applicant shall make a
fair-share payment toward the following improvements:
a. Modify the eastbound approach on Lomita Boulevard, west of
Vermont Avenue, to accommodate the installation of a second
left-turn lane;
b. Remove the existing raised median island on Lomita Boulevard,
west of Vermont Avenue, and modify the striping on the east leg
of the intersection as needed; and
C-119
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-56
c. Modify the traffic signal to accommodate the installation of the
second southbound left-turn lane.
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding B, which states that "[s]uch changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(2))
Rationale for Findings
Mitigation Measure TRAN.S-1 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Crenshaw Boulevard/Pacific Coast Highway intersection to less than significant.
However, this intersection is located in the City of Torrance and therefore, is
outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Also, Pacific Coast Highway is
situated within Caltrans' jurisdiction and therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of
the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Crenshaw Boulevard/Palos Verdes Drive North intersection to less than
significant. However, this intersection is located in the City of Rolling Hills
Estates and therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Western Avenue/Lomita Boulevard intersection to less than significant. This
mitigation measure is consistent with the recommended transportation
improvements outlined in the Western Corridor Improvement Project report
issued by Caltrans for the Western Avenue Task Force. However, it is noted that
Western Avenue is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and therefore, implementation of
the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS~4 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Western Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway intersection to less than significant. This
mitigation measure is consistent with the recommended transportation
improvements outlined in the Western Corridor Improvement Project report
issued by Caltrans for the Western Avenue Task Force. However, it is noted that
Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway are within Caltrans' jurisdiction and
therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction
of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-5 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Western Avenue/Palos Verdes Drive North intersection to less than significant.
This mitigation measure is consistent with the recommended transportation
improvements outlined in the Western Corridor Improvement Project report
issued by Caltrans for the Western Avenue Task Force and would be
implemented by the Project Applicant as a condition of Project approval.
However, it is noted that a portion of this intersection is located in the City of
Lomita and is, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Also, it is
noted that Western Avenue is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and is therefore outside
the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
C-120
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-57
Mitigation Measure TRANS-6 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive intersection to less than significant.
However, it is noted that the Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive intersection
is located within Caltrans' and City of Rancho Palos Verdes jurisdiction and
therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction
of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-7 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
· Western Avenue/Fitness Drive intersection to less than significant. However, it is
noted that the Western Avenue/Fitness Drive intersection is located within
Caltrans' and partly within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' jurisdiction and
therefore implementation of the traffic mitigation may be outside the jurisdiction of
the Lead Agency. ·
Mitigafion Measure TRANS-8 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Western Avenue/Westmont Drive intersection to less than significant. This
mitigation measure is consistent with the recommended transportation
improvements outlined in the Western Corridor Improvement Project report
issued by Caltrans for the Western Avenue Task Force and would be
implemented by the Project Applicant as a condition of Project approval.
However, it is noted that a portion of this intersection is located in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes and therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of the Lead
Agency. Also, Western Avenue is situated within Caltrans' jurisdiction and
therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-9 would reduce the significant impact identified at the
Western Avenue/Capitol Drive intersection to less than significant. This
mitigation measure is consistent with the recommended transportation
improvements outlined in the Western Corridor Improvement Project report
issued. by Caltrans for the Western Avenue Task Force and would be
implemented by the Project Applicant as a condition of Project approval.
However, it is noted this intersection is located in the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Also,
Western Avenue is situated within Caltrans' jurisdiction and is therefore outside
the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-10 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Western Avenue/Summerland Avenue intersection to less than significant.
However; it is noted that this intersection is located partially in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and therefore, is outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency. Also,
Western Avenue is situated within Caltrans' jurisdiction and therefore, is outside
the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-14 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Vermont Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard intersection to less than significant.
However, this intersection is located in the County of Los Angeles and therefore,
is outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-15 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Vermont Avenue/Pacific Coast Highway intersection to less than significant.
However, it is noted that Pacific Coast Highway is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and
therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction
of the Lead Agency.
C-121
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-58
Mitigation Measure TRANS-16 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Figueroa Place/Anaheim Street intersection to less than significant.
However, it is noted that the Harbor Freeway Southbound Off-Ramp intersection
at Figueroa Place is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and therefore, implementation of
the voluntary installation of a traffic signal at the Figueroa Place/Harbor Freeway
Southbound Off-Ramp intersection could be outside the jurisdiction of the Lead
Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-17 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Figueroa Street/Harbor Freeway Northbound On-Ramp intersection to Jess
than significant. However, it is noted that the Harbor Freeway Northbound On-
Ramp at Figueroa Street (north of Pacific Coast Highway) is within Caltrans'
jurisdiction and therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be
outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-18 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Figueroa Street/Pacific Coast Highway intersection to less than significant.
However, it is noted that Pacific Coast Highway is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and
therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction
of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-19 would reduce the significant impact identified at
the Figueroa Street/1-110 Northbound On-Ramp intersection to less than
significant. However, it is noted that the Harbor Freeway Northbound On-Ramp
at Figueroa Street (north of Anaheim Street) is within Caltrans' jurisdiction and
therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction
of the Lead Agency.
Mitigation Measures TRANS-21 through TRANS-24 (respectively) would reduce
the significant impacts at the following intersections to less than significant:
Intersection No. 32: Normandie Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard
Intersection No. 33: Normandie Avenue/Lomita Boulevard
Intersection No. 44: Vermont Avenue/Sepulveda Boulevard
Intersection No. 45: Vermont Avenue/Lomita Boulevard
These intersections are within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County and thus
implementation of the traffic mitigation would be outside the jurisdiction of the
Lead Agency.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-4, Project impacts related to
CMP freeway monitoring stations would be less than significant. As discussed
previously, Mitigation Measure TRANS-4 is consistent with the recommended
transportation improvements outlined in the Western Corridor Improvement
Project report issued by Caltrans for the Western Avenue Task Force. However,
it is noted that Western Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway are within Caltrans'
jurisdiction and therefore, implementation of the traffic mitigation would be
outside the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Transportation /Traffic impacts, see Section IV.N of
the Draft EIR.
C-122
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA
H. Utilities and Service Systems (Water)
Description of Effects
F-59
The Project would generate a net demand for approximately 143 acre-feet per
year (AFY) of water (approximately 127,160 gpd). The Water Supply
Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Project and adopted by the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP) on September 20, 2011 concluded
that the water demand generated by the Project falls within the available and
projected water supplies for normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years through
2025, and within the water demand growth projected in LADWP's Year 2010
Urban Water Management Plan. As a result, the LADWP found that it would be
able to meet the water demand of the Project, in addition to existing and planned
future uses of LADWP's system. As such, no new or expanded water
entitlements or resources would be necessary for the operation of the Project
and a less than significant impact would occur.
The Los Angeles /Xqueduct Filtration Plant (LAAFP) has the ability to. treat an
additional 125 million gallons per day (mgd) of water. As such, it has adequate
capacity to treat the water needed for the Project and no new or expanded water
treatment plant facilities would be required. Impacts to water treatment capacity
would therefore be less than significant
The Project Applicant would fund the replacement of the existing on-site water
system with new water lines that would be built to LADWP, Los Angeles City
Plumbing Code, and LAFD fire flow standards. Construction of this infrastructure
could adversely impact the flow of traffic on Western Avenue during the required
water main upgrade activities.
Mitigation Measures
UTIL-1 In the event of full or partial public street closures, the Project Applicant
shall employ flagmen during the construction of new water lines, to
facilitate the flow of traffic.
Findings
The Cfty adopts CEQA Finding A, which states that "[c]hanges or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subd. (a)(1))
Rationale for Findings
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 is required in order to reduce the potential
construction-related impact associated with the extension of the LADWP water
infrastructure in Western Avenue to a less than significant level.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Utilities and Service Systems -Water impacts, see
Section IV.0.1 of the Draft EIR.
C-123
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-60
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AFTER MITIGATION
MEASURES
I. Air Quality (Operations)
Description of Significant Effects
Implementation of the Compliance Measures and Project Design Features would
reduce the Proposed Project's operational air quality emissions. Specifically, these
measures would reduce the emissions associated with energy use as a result of the
Proposed Project. Nonetheless, the regional operational emissions associated
with Project-generated traffic under the 201 O Traffic Study Scenario would
exceed the established SCAQMD threshold levels for ROG, NOx and CO during
the summertime (smog season) and wintertime (non-smog season). Additionally,
the regional operational emissions associated with Project-generated traffic
under the 2017 Traffic Study Scenario would exceed the established SCAQMD
threshold levels for ROG and NOx during both the summertime (smog season)
and wintertime (non-smog season). The regional operational emissions
associated with the Project would not exceed the established SCAQMD
threshold levels for SOx, PM 10, or PM 2.5 during either the summer (smog season)
or winter (non-smog season).
Although the Project would exceed certain SCAQMD thresholds, it is consistent
with and would further the policies of the AQMP, which assume emissions from
housing and employment operations within the Basin, while guiding the Basin
into compliance with State and federal air quality standards. These emissions are
primarily associated with the operation of mobile vehicles, are typical for a
residential project of this size, and there .is no feasible mitigation to reduce these
emissions to a less than significant level. It is neither within the Project Applicant's
nor the City's authority to impose vehicle performance restrictions on vehicles
producing on-road NOx and ROG emissions; such restrictions on vehicle
emissions are governed by the state. As such, regional operational emissions
would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigati.on Measures
AQ-3 The Project shall provide electric outlets on residential balconies and
common areas for electric barbeques to the extent that such uses are
permitted on balconies and common areas per the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions recorded for the property.
AQ-4 The Project shall use electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers, and electric
or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters, for maintenance of the
Project.
C-124
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-61
Findings
The City adopts CEOA Finding C which states that "specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, subc:t (a)(3})
Rationale for Findings
Mitigation Measures TRANS-25 through TRANS-28 (see discussion under
Transportationffraffic [City of Los Angeles]) would require the Project Applicant
to coordinate with local and regional transit operators to develop and implement
strategies to increase transit utilization by future Project residents. A bus turnout
lane and bus stop facilities (shelter, schedule information) would also be installed
to serve the Project Reducing the number of vehicle trips generated by the
Project as well as mitigating the Project's significant impacts on roadway
congestion would reduce the amount of CO emissions generated by Project
traffic. No other mitigation measures to reduce regional mobile air emissions
from Project-generated traffic are feasible.
Also, Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 would reduce the use of charcoal grills
and property maintenance equipment to reduce the NOx and ROG emissions.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Air Quality impacts, see Section IV.C of the Draft
EIR.
J. Noise (Construction)
Description of Significant Effects
During Project construction, three basic types of activities would be expected to
occur and generate noise at the Project site: demolition and removal of the
existing vacant residential uses; preparation, excavation, and grading to
accommodate building foundations and infrastructure; and construction of the
proposed structures. Construction activities associated with the Proposed
Project would comply with the noise regulations established in Sections 41.40
and 112.05 of the LAMC. Nevertheless, because construction noise levels
associated with the Proposed Project are likely to exceed the existing ambient
noise levels at all of the identified off-site sensitive locations by more than 1 O
dBA for more than one day, Project construction activities would generate a
substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity and these construction noise impacts would be potentially significant.
Similarly, the vibration levels forecasted to occur at the off-site sensitive
receptors would exceed the Federal Transportation Administration's (FTA)
threshold for residences during construction of the Proposed Project. As such,
vibration impacts associated with human annoyance would be potentially
significant. Vibration impacts associated with building damage at sensitive
receptors would be less than significant.
C-125
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-62
Mitigation Measures
N0-1 Noise and groundborne vibration-c.onstruction activities whose specific
location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of
compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall
be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise-and vibration-
sensitive land uses.
N0-2 When possible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid
operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high
noise levels.
N0-3 Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed around all drilling
apparatuses, drill rigs, and jackhammers when in use.
N0-4 The Project contractor shall use power construction equipment fitted with
the best available technology in noise shielding and muffling devices.
N0-5 Barriers such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains
extending eight-feet high shall be erected around the Project site
boundary to minimize the amount of noise on the surrounding noise-
sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible during construction.
N0-6 All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by
the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, which shall
avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent
feasible. Prior to the commencement of construction at the Project site, a
meeting shall be held with appropriate representatives of the Cities of
Rancho Palos Verdes, Torrance, and Lomita. The purpose of the
meeting will be to designate truck routes for off-site load hauling vehicles
and other construction-related vehicles.
N0-7 Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction ~t the Project site,
notification shall be provided to the immediate surrounding cities and off-
site residential, school, and memorial park .properties that discloses the
construction schedule, including the various types of activities and
equipment that would be occurring throughout the duration of the
construction period.
N0-8 Equipment warm-up areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas
shall be located a minimum of 45 feet from abutting sensitive receptors.
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding C which states that "specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, subd. (a)(3)).
Rationale for Findings
With implementation of the Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures N0-1
through N0-8 listed above, which would require the implementation of noise
C-126
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-63
reduction devices and techniques during construction at the Project site,
construction-related noise impacts associated with the Proposed Project would
be reduced to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, because construction
noise levels are likely to exceed existing ambient noise levels by more than 1 0
dB(A) for more than one day at the identified noise-sensitive receptors,
construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Further
reductions in construction related noise levels are considered technically
infeasible.
With implementation of the Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures N0-1
through N0-8 listed above, groundborne vibration impacts associated with the
Proposed Project would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible.
Nevertheless, because construction vibration levels at the identified residences
located south of the Project site would exceed the FTA's 72 VdB threshold for
residences during construction of the proposed Project, construction
groundborne vibration impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Further
reductions in construction related vibration levels are considered technically
infeasible.
With implementation of the Compliance Measures and Mitigation Measures N0-1
through N0-8 listed above, off-site sources of noise and groundborne vibration
impacts associated with the Proposed Project would be reduced to the maximum
extent feasible. With respect to Mitigation Measure N0-2, implementation may
not always be possible, depending upon the specific activity occurring at the site.
Nevertheless, because off-site construction noise and vibration sources could
exceed the identified thresholds at or near noise-sensitive uses, off ..:site
construction noise and groundborne vibration impacts would be significant and
unavoidable. With respect to Mitigation Measure N0-6, while the Project
Applicant proposes the least impactful haul route possible, the final haul route is
subject to the approval of the Department of Building and Safety. Thus, the final
haul route may result in significant and unavoidable short-term impacts on
sensitive uses located along and adjacent to the route. No additional mitigation
measures are available that could feasibly avoid or further reduce these impacts.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Noise impacts, see Section IV.K of the Draft EIR.
K. Noise (On-Site Operational)
Description of Significant Effects
With respect to future Project residences fronting Western Avenue, future
roadway noise levels at distances of 50 feet from the Western Avenue centerline
could reach up to 73.1 dBA CNEL. While most residential uses would be at least
75 feet from the Western Avenue centerline, proposed residential uses may be
exposed to noise levels that exceed 70.0 dBA CNEL, which falls within the City of
Los Angeles Noise Element's normally unacceptable category for residentia.1 and
open spaces uses. Thus, the Project would result in generally unacceptable
exterior noise levels for the proposed residential units fronting Western Avenue.
It should be noted that while the Proposed Project is not generating excessive
roadway noise levels, the Project would result in the placement of noise sensitive
land uses in an area with generally unacceptable existing ambient noise levels.
Implementation of Compliance Measures would require that interior residential
C-127
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-64
noise levels would be below a CNEL of 45 dBA in any habitable room. As such,
impacts associated with interior noise levels at these proposed residential units
·on-site would be reduced to a less than significant level. However, exterior noise
levels (e.g., at balconies and patios) would remain unacceptable at Project
residential units adjacent to the Western Avenue frontage and these impacts
would be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Findings
The City adopts CEQA Finding C which states that "specific economic, legal, ·
social, technological, or other .considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures
or project alternatives identified in the final EIR" (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091, subd. (a)(3)).
Rationale for Findings
Implementation ·of the Compliance Measures would require that interior
residential noise levels be below a CNEL of 45 dB(A) in any habitable room. As
such, impacts associated with interior noise levels at the proposed residential
uses on-site would be reduced to a less than significant level. Construction of a
sound wall along the Project's Western Avenue frontage would not appreciably
reduce noise levels at exterior living spaces in these future residential units and
would degrade the Project's visual appearance along Western Avenue. No
feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce exterior noise levels on-site
to acceptable levels along the Western Avenue frontage.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Noise impacts, see Section IV.K of the Draft EIR.
Ill. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
State CEQA Guideline Section 15126.6(a) requires an EIR to: (1) describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the Project: and (2) evaluate the comparative
merits of the alternatives. Sections 11.E and VI of the Draft EIR describe the objectives
that have been identified for the Project, which are also listed in detail below:
1. To remove the abandoned improvements currently present on the site, in
accordance with the contractual conditions of sale required by the U.S. Navy.
2. To provide new housing on unutilized land that will meaningfully contribute to
meeting the projected 2017 and 2027 housing need in the Wilmington-Harbor City
Community Plan area, as projected by the City's General Plan Framework and
Southern California Association of Governments, without requiring the demolition of
existing market-rate or rent-controlled housing stock.
3. To provide new housing that meets the housing needs of a broad spectrum of
persons who desire to live in the San Pedro community. ·
C-128
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-65
4. To provide a residential project with substantial common amenities, landscaping, and
open space for the use of its residents.
5. To provide a project that will invigorate the local economy, employment, and
business opportunities through project construction, and through the expenditures of
its future residents.
6. To mitigate potential significant environmental impacts, to the extent feasible .
. 7. To develop a project that fiscally benefits the City of Los Angeles.
8. To provide a project that ensures high-quality development and maintenance through
the creation and adoption of a specific plan that will set land use, architectural,
landscaping, streetscaping, and lighting standards.
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the EIR evaluated a
reasonable range of six alternatives to the Project: four in the Draft EIR and two
additional alternatives in the Final EIR. . The six alternatives analyzed in the EIR include
a variety of uses and would reduce some, but not all; t;ignificant impacts of the Project.
Since publication of the Draft EIR, Alternative C tias replaced the original Proposed
Project as the Project Applicant's preferred alternative.
The Alternatives discussed in detail in the Draft El R include:
• Alternative A:
• Alternative B:
• Alternative C:
• Alternative D:
No Project Alternative/No Development
Single-Family Homes
Staff Recommendation/Reduced Density
Revised Site Plan
The Alternatives discussed in the Final EIR are:
• Existing Zoning Alternative Site Plan
• Mixed Use Alternative Site Plan
In accordance with CEQA requirements, the alternatives to the Project include a No
Project alternative and alternatives capable of eliminating most of the significant adverse
impacts of the Project. These alternatives and their impacts, which are summarized
below, are more fuHy described in Section VI of the Draft EIR and in Section Ill.A of the
Finaf EIR. .
A. Alternative A: No Project Alternative/No Development
Description of the Alternative
Under Alternative A, the Project would not be developed on the Project site.
However, the Project site would not remain in its current condition. Under the
conditions of the ownership transfer from the U.S. Department of Defense to the
previous owner of the Project site, all existing improvements on the Project site
must be removed: Accordingly, the existing vacant former Navy housing
complex and associated roadways and other infrastructure would be demolishe<;J
and all debris removed from the Project site under this alternative. Under the
current land use designation in the Wilmington~Harbor City Community Plan, the
Project site is designated for Low Density Residential ( 4 to 9 dwelling units per
acre) and Open Space land uses. The Planning and Zoning Code (Los Angeles
Municipal Code [LAMCJ, Chapter 1), zones the Project site R1-1XL (One-Family
Zone, Extra Limited Height District No. 1) and OS (Open Space). Single-family
dwellings, among other specified land uses, are permitted within the R1 zone.
C-129
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-66
The Extra Limited Height District No. 1 limits the height of buildings to two stories
or 30 feet. Duplex dwelling units, such as those that presently exist on the
Project site, are not consistent with the current R 1 zoning of the site.
Alternative A assumes that the Project site would remain undeveloped following
the demolition and removal of existing structures. In addition, the access road
across the southern portion of the Project site connecting Western Avenue to the
l\~ary Star of the Sea High School campus would not be provided under this
alternative. Alternative A assumes that Mary Star of the Sea High School would
take vehicular access from Taper Avenue, which fronts the Mary Star of the Sea
High School site. As Mary Star of the Sea High School is a separate property
owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, responsibility for modifying the
development permits of the High School in order to obtain vehicular access from
Taper Avenue would belong to the Archdiocese.
Impact Summary of the Alternative
Because no development of the site would occur, Alternative A has the potential
to reduce or avoid the following significant impacts of the Proposed Project:
• Regional and local construction-associated air emissions
• Regional operational air emissions
• Potential impacts on nesting birds during construction
• Impacts to jurisdictional waters
• Potential impacts to archaeological resources/human remains
• Potential impacts to paleontological resources
• Impacts associated with fault rupture and displacement and other seismic
related ground failure at the Project site
• Potential impacts relating to hydrocarbon-impacted soils which may be
present on-site
• Exterior noise at Project units fronting Western Avenue associated with street
traffic
• Project-related traffic impacts at intersections within the Project area
• Traffic impacts associated with installation of water service infrastructure
Alternative A does not have the potential to reduce or avoid potential impacts to
rooi;;ting bats which may be present within the existing abandoned structures on
the site. Similarly, Alternative A does not have the potential to avoid the
disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP)
that are present in the existing abandoned structures. Noise and vibration
impacts association with the Proposed Project would be reduced but not avoided
due to the demolition of existing abandoned structures that would occur under
Alternative A. Due to the elimination of access to Mary Star of the Sea High
School through the Project site, Alternative A would produce residual traffic
impacts within the Taper Avenue neighborhood to the southeast of the site
resulting from traffic utilizing Taper Avenue as the sole means of access to the
school.
Findings
Some, though not all, of the significant impacts that would occur with the Project
would not occur with Alternative A However, it is found pursuant to Section
21081 (a)(3) of the California Public Resources Code that spe~ific economic,
C-130
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-67
legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations·
identified in Section X (Statement of Overriding Considerations), below, make
infeasible Alternative A.
Rationale for Findings
With Alternative A, many, although not all, of the environmental impacts
projected to occur in connection with the Project would be avoided. However,
Alternative A would fully attain only one of the Project objectives -removal of the
existing buildings on the Project site. Alternative A would not fully or partially
attain any of the other seven Project objectives because it would involve no
economic use of the Project site.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Alternative A, see Section VI of the Draft EIR.
B. Alternative B:Single~Family Homes
Description of the Alternative
Under Alternative B, the Project would not be developed on the Project site.
However, the Project site would not remain in its current condition. Under the
conditions of the ownership transfer from the U.S. Department of. Defense to the
previous owner, all existing improvements on the Project site must be removed.
Accordingly, the existing vacant former Navy housing complex and associated
roadways and other infrastructure would be demolished and all debris removed
from the Project site under this alternative. Under the current land use
designation in the Wi/m;ngton-Harbor City Community Plan, a majority of the
Project site is designated for Low Density Residential (4 to 9 dwelling units per
acre) land uses. The Planning and Zoning Code (Los Angeles Municipal Code
[LAMC], Chapter 1), zones all but 9.3 acres of the Project site R1-1XL (One-
Family Zone, Extra Limited Height District No. 1 ). Single-family dwellings, among
other specified land uses, are permitted within the R1 zone. The Extra Limited
Height District No. 1 limits the height of buildings to two stories or 30 feet. The
remaining 9.3 acres of the site is zoned and designated Open Space.
If a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment were approved to remove the
9.3 acres of Open Space zoning from the Project site, the land use and zoning
designations of the Project site would permit up to 429 single-family homes. In
addition, if a single-family project were to include below-market (moderate, low,
and very-low income units), a potential density bonus of 35 percent under the
City's existing rules and regulations, or 579 single-family units, might be
developed on the Project site. Because of the significant site acquisition and site
preparation costs related to the Project, the Applicant indicates that it is unlikely
that a single-family project with below-market units would be developed.
Under City of Los Angeles zoning criteria, R1 zoning requires that each lot have
a minimum area of 5,000 square feet, a minimum width of 50 feet, front yards of
not less than 20 percent of the depth of the lot, and rear yards of not less than 15
feet, with resulting dwelling unit densities of approximately six units per acre
(taking streets into account). Due to high land prices in infill locations within the
City of Los Angeles, fewer and fewer new subdivisions are being developed in
accordance with R1 zoning. Instead, homebuilders seeking to develop single-
C-131
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-68
family homes in infill locations routinely propose homes on smaller lots at
significantly higher densities.
In addition, the requirement to incorporate a seismic setback zone across the site
would eliminate approximately 44 potential lots from a single-family residential
site plan, reducing the total number of potential home lots from 429 to 385.
While infill housing in areas like the Project site is not typicallv being developed in
accordance with traditional R1 zoning criteria, this alternatives analysis assumes
that, under Alternative B, the Project site would be developed as a single-family
home project in accordance with R1 zoning with approximately 385 single-family
homes and that a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment would be
approved to remove the current Open Space zoning/land use designation from
the northerly 9.3 acres of the site. The number of homes ih Alternative B is
below the maximum density that could be developed under the R1 zoning in
order to provide a street and lot plan consistent with a move-up/high-end home
plan as well as to, as described above, incorporate the required seismic setback
zone.
All of the homes under Alternative B would be developed for sale at market rates.
Due to the same significant site acquisition and site preparation costs discussed
previously, the Project Applicant indicates that it would be necessary to develop
the Project site with the maximum reasonable number of move-up/high-end
single-family homes at the highest supportable prices in the market area (Los
Angeles/Wilmington-Harbor City/San Pedro) that could be achieved. The Project
Applicant estimates that such homes would range between 2,000 and 3,000
square feet and would need to sell for an average price approaching $1 million.
Given the current housing market and state of the local and regional economy,
there is uncertainty that such prices could be realized. However, retaining the
existing 9.3 acres of zoned Open Space on the site under Alternative B would
eliminate approximately 81 additional single-family home lots from the site plan,
which would likely make the alternative development economically infeasible to
develop. For this reason, Alternative B proposes to eliminate the 9.3 acres of
Open Space zoning from the Project site.
The access road across the southern portion of the Project site connecting
Western Avenue to the Mary Star of the Sea High School campus would not be
provided under this alternative due to the additional number of home lots that
would be lost through the provision of this access. Instead, the area comprising
the park and road would be used to accommodate the reduced number of single-
family homes to be developed under Alternative B. Alternative B would satisfy
public recreation requirements through the payment of Quimby Fees in
accordance with the City's existing policies and regulations, but would not include
the dedication of public park area. Alternative B assumes that Mary Star of the
Sea High School would take vehicular access from Taper Avenue, which fronts
the school site. As Mary Star of the Sea High School is a separate property
owned by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, responsibility for modifying the
development permits of the High School in order to obtain vehicular access from
Taper Avenue would belong to the Archdiocese.
Under Alternative B, all access to the Project site would be taken from Western
Avenue, as with the Project. Site access would be provided by two intersections
at Western Avenue located at Green Hills Drive and John Montgomery Drive.
C-132
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-69
Impact Summary of the Alternative
Alternative B has the potential to reduce or avoid the following significant impacts
of the Proposed Project:
• Regional operational air emissions
• Impacts associated with fault rupture and displacement at the Project site
• Project-related traffic impacts at intersections within the Project area
Alternative B does not have the potential to reduce or avoid the Proposed
Project's potential impacts involving regional and local construction-associated
air emissions, potential impacts on nesting birds and/or roosting bats during
construction, impacts to jurisdic:;tional resources on-site, potential impacts to
archaeological and/or paleontological ·resources, potential impacts relating to
hydrocarbon-impacted soils, disturbance of asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) and iead-based paint (LBP) that are present in the existing abandoned
structures on-site, construction-related noise and groundborne vibration, exterior
noise at homes fronting Western Avenue, and potential traffic impacts associated
with the installation of water service infrastructure. Due to the elimination of
access to Mary Star of the Sea High School through the Project site, Alternative
B would produce residual traffic impacts within the Taper Avenue neighborhood
to the southeast of the site resulting from traffic utilizing Taper Avenue as the
sole means of access to the school.
Findings
It is found, pursuant to Section 21081 (a){3) of the California Public Resources
Code, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations identified in Section X (Statement of Overriding
Considerations), below, make infeasible Alternative B.
Rationale for Findings
This alternative would not decrease all of the significant and unavoidable impacts
associate(:! 'J).'ith the Project to a less than significant level. · While most of the
significant . and unavoidable regional air quality impacts would be avoided,
significant and unavoidable NOx emissions will remain. Moreover, significant and
unavoidable noise {construction and on-site operational) impacts would remain.
Alternative B would achieve six of the Project objectives, although some would
be achieved to a lesser extent than with the Proposed Project. Alternative B
would remove the existing buildings on the Project site; provide new housing on
unutilized land that would contribute to meeting the projected 2017 housing need
in the area; provide a project that would invigorate the local economy; mitigate its
environmental impacts to the. extent feasible; and provide a high-quality
development. Alternative B would not provide new housing to meet the housing
needs of a broad spectrum of persons desiring to live in the San Pedro
community due to the economic imperative to develop high-end, large-lot single-
family homes having a price well above the median for the region. Although
each home would have a larger amount of private open space (such as yards),
Alternative B would not provide substantial common landscaped open space or
recreational amenities due to the need to develop the maximum number of
allowable homes on the site. While Alternative B would fiscally benefit the City, it
C-133
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-70
would likely do so to a somewhat lesser degree than the Proposed Project due to
the reduced number of homes, even though the tax assessments would most
likely be greater on a per unit average basis. Similarly, Alternative B would not
contribute to meeting the anticipated need for housing in the San Pedro area to
the same .degree as the Proposed Project due to the reduced number of homes
that would be developed and the prices they would likely command.
The City finds that this alternative would not reduce all of the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the Project and would not meet the Project objectives to
the same extent as the Project. On that basis, the City rejects Alternative B.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Alternative B, see Section VI of the Draft EIR.
C. Alternative C: Reduced Density
Description of the Alternative
At the time the City Planning Department reviewed a previous development
project proposal for the Project site in 2008, Department staff recommended
establishment of a Specific Plan to develop the site at a Low Medium I
Residential density, which allows for densities of 9-18 dwelling units per acre.
Under such a Specific Plan, approximately 775 to 886 units could be built at the
site if it were to be developed to the maximum allowable density of 18 units per
net acre. For purposes of evaluating this alternative, a site plan containing 830
units (in a combination of single-and multi-family product types) has been
prepared to serve as Alternative C. When the City Planning Commission
considered the previous project proposal for the Project site, it endorsed the
preparation of a Specific Plan and advised the previous Applicant to evaluate this
Staff Recommendation as a project alternative in a new or recirculated EIR.
Alternative C would involve development of a project similar to the original
Proposed Project on the site, however the total number of residential units would
be reduced from 1, 135 to 830. A total of six different housing product types
would be included under Alternative C. Gross residential densities developed
within the Alternative C project would range from 5.5 units per acre to 55.9 units
per acre. The average density for the Alternative C project would be 13.5
DU/acre (gross).
As with the original Proposed Project, Alternative C would comprise a
combination of for-sale and rental dwelling units within the following categories:
• Two-and three-story detached single-family homes with street-and alley-
loaded private garages
• Three-story buildings containing townhomes and flats with and without
elevators and motor-court and alley-loaded private garages
• Three-story townhomes in row house buildings with alley-loaded private
garages
• Four-and five-story buildings with elevators over a secured common
basement garage containing rental apartments
C-134
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-71
The dwelling units would range in size from approximately 600 to 2,800 square
feet and would be housed within Mediterranean, Tuscan, and contemporary-style
buildings built over and/or adjacent to residential parking garages. Residential
buildings along Western Avenue would be two to three stories in height (between
30 and 48 feet) and would be buffered by trees and landscaping and set back
from the street by approximately 18-80 feet, depending on the location and
product type. Residential buildings throughout the rest of the Project site would
vary in height, with buildings averaging three stories, but not exceeding five
stories (approximately 65 feet) in the interior of the site along its· southern
boundary (apartment buildings). Based on data provided by the Project
Applicant, the weighted average sale price for all for-sale units under Alternative
C would be $489,474 (2011 dollars). Within the multi-family structures to be
developed under Alternative C, the number of dwelling units per building would
range from 5. 9 to 43. 5.
Vehicular access to the Alternative C project would be from Western Avenue at
the two existing signalized intersections with Green Hills Drive and Avenida
Aprenda on the north and south, respectively. The proposed southerly Project
entrance at the Western Avenue/Avenida Aprenda intersection would feed into a
new east-west road crossing the southern portion of the Project site that would
provide access to the Mary Star of the Sea High School campus adjacent to the
Project site on the east.
With the exception of the east-west road described above providing access
across the Project site to· Mary Star of the Sea High School, all other streets
would be private and vehicular access would be provided through two gated
entrances: one from Western Avenue at Green Hills Drive and a second off of the
new public east-west road near the southerly boundary line of the Project site
that would intersect Western Avenue at Avenida Aprenda. The new access road
for Mary Star of the Sea High School would terminate at the eastern edge of the
Project site in a cul-de-sac, from which a private driveway would extend off-site
to the east providing access to the Mary Star of the Sea campus.
When completed, Alternative C would redevelop 100 percent of the Project site.
Alternative C would incorporate a seismic setback area along the fault splay
crossing the center of the site. Alternative-C would not include the 2.8-acre
public community park that is included in the original Proposed Project.
However, Alternative C would incorporate approximately 20 acres of total open
space, consisting of approximately one acre of outdoor recreational amenity
space (including a recreation center with adjacent community clubhouse and
pool/event lawn area in the central portion of the site), approximately 7.1 acres of
dedicated park area (including the open space/trail network around the perimeter
of the Project site), 10.2 acres of landscaped common area throughout the
Project, and an additional 2.1 acres of general open space, resulting in a total
amount of open space similar to that provided by the Proposed Project (20.5
acres versus 20.6 acres). Additional indoor recreational amenities (e.g., rec
rooms, fitness centers, etc.) would be distributed across the site and are not
included in the acreages above. The walking/jogging path surrounding the
perimeter of the Project and extending through the landscaped open space
surrounding the Site would be open to the general public, and the other open
space areas of the Project would be accessible to pedestrians.
As with the Proposed Project, a Specific Plan is proposed for Alternative C to
provide zoning, architectural, landscape, and streetscape standards to guide the
C-135
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-72
Project's development. At residential densities ranging from 5.5 dwelling units
per acre to approximately 55.9 dwelling units per acre, Alternative C would fall
within the City of Los Angeles' Low, Low-Medium I, Low-Medium II, and Medium
General Plan Land Use Designations.
Construction of Alternative C would proceed similarly to the Proposed Project
and would be estimated to begin in late 2013 and continue over a five-year
period. The existing slope along the northeastern boundary of the Project site
would be modified to support the construction of the residential dwelling units
along its toe. However, following completion of construction and l~ndscaping,
the re-engineered slope would be fully vegetated with a variety of native plant
and tree species. As noted above, the entire Project site would be densely
landscaped with a variety of ornamental and native plant and tree species. As
individual phases of the development are completed, associated landscaping
would be installed on an incremental basis.
As part of Alternative C construction, the existing surface drainage course
crossing the southwestern corner of the Project site would be removed and
buried beneath this portion of the Project as a subterranean storm drain. This
storm drain would serve the same purpose as the existing surface channel by
conveying the off-site stormwater runoff from the culvert at Western Avenue
across· this portion of the Project site. After accepting additional drainage from
the Project site, this storm drain would discharge runoff to the City storm drain
system in the same general location as at present along the Project site's
southern boundary.
Site preparation for Alternative C would involve conventional cut and fill grading
techniques and would be substantially similar to that needed for the original
Proposed Project. A significant amount of existing fill is present on the Project
site and would be either removed or consolidated and recompacted prior to the
grading of building pads. Site grading would be required to prepare the proposed
building pads for construction. Grading would also be required in order to
construct the proposed roads, parking areas, and drainage improvements, and to
install utilities. The combined grading operations would affect the entire site (or
approximately 61.5 acres) and would involve a total earthwork quantity of
approximately 1 ,225,000 cubic yards (cy), including approximately 350,000 cy of
cut and fill for surface grading and an additional 875,000 cy of remedial grading
for over-excavation and other requirements. No fill material would be imported to
or exported from the Project site. However, the removal of debris resulting from
the demolition of existing structures on the Project site would be required.
As with the original Proposed Project, construction staging, laydown areas, and
all construction equipment would be positioned on-site and would be moved from
area to area on the Project site, consistent with the sequence of construction.
Impact Summary of the Alternative
Alternative C has the potential to reduce or avoid the following significant impacts
of the original Proposed Project:
• Regional operational air emissions
• Impacts associated with fault rupture and displacement at the Project site
• Project-related traffic impacts at intersections within the Project area
C-136
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-73
Alternative C does not have the potential to reduce or avoid the Proposed
Project's potential impacts involving regional and local construction-associated
air emissions, potential impacts on nesting birds and/or roosting bats during
construction, impacts to jurisdictional resources on-site, potential impacts to
archaeological and/or paleontological resources, pote.ntial impacts relating to
hydrocarbon-impacted soils, disturbance of asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) that are present in the existing abandoned
structures on-site~ construction-related noise and groundborne vibration, exterior
noise at Project homes fronting Western Avenue, and potential traffic impacts
associated with the installation of water service infrastructure.
Findings
It is found, pursuant to Section 21081 (a)(3) of the California Public Resources
Code, that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
alternative project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Rationale for Findings
Of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR, Alternative C was
considered the environmentally superior alternative, with the exception of the No
Project Alternative (Alternative A, above), although it has now been superseded
by the New Preferred Alternative (see below). Alternative C would not reduce all
of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the original Proposed Project.
Alternative C would achieve all of the Project objectives, although some would be
achieved to a lesser extent than with the original Proposed Project. Alternative C
would remove the existing buildings on the Project site; provide new housing on
unutilized land that would meaningfully contribute to meeting the projected 2017
housing need in the area; provide housing to meet the needs of a broad
spectrum of persons desiring to live in the San Pedro area; provide substantial
common amenities including landscaping and open space for future residents;
provide a project that would invigorate the local economy; mitigate its
environmental impacts to the extent feasible; fiscally benefit the City; and provide
a high~quality development through the creation of a specific plan that
establishes development standards for the site. While Alternative C would
fiscally benefit the City, it would do so to a lesser degree than the original
Proposed Project due to the reduced number of homes. Similarly, Alternative C
would not contribute to meeting the anticipated need for housing in the San
Pedro area to the same degree as the original Proposed Project due to the
reduced number of homes that would be developed, but would still provide a
range of housing opportunities.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Alternative C, see Section VI of the Draft EIR.
C-137
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-74
D. Alternative D: Revised Site Plan
Description of the Alternative
Alternative D would involve development of the site with the same 1, 135 units as
the Proposed Project; however, the site plan would be revised to accommodate
the geotechnical constraints that were identified in the process of preparing the
Draft EIR. In order to accommodate the required setbacks associated with these
constraints, the mix of product types and their respective locations within the
overall site design would be altered somewhat as compared to the original
Proposed Project site plan. In addition, the 2.8-acre public park would not be
developed under this alternative, although a similar amount of total open space
would be included in the overall development plan. The access road from
Western Avenue to Mary Star of the Sea High School would be included in this
alternative.
Alternative D would be similar to the Proposed Project. A total of six different
housing product types would be included under Alternative D. Residential
densities developed within the Alternative D project would range from 5.8 units
per acre to 55.9 units per acre. The average density for the Alternative D project
would be 18.5 DU/acre (gross} and 23.6 OU/acre (net), the same as for the
original Proposed Project.
As with the original Proposed Project, Alternative D would be comprised of a
combination of for-sale and rental dwelling units within the following categories:
• Two-and three-story detached single-family homes with street-and alley-
loaded private garages
• Three-story buildings containing flats with elevators and motor-court and
alley-loaded private garages
• Three-story townhomes (two-stories without elevators) in row house buildings
with alley-loaded private garages
• Three-and four-story buildings with elevators containing flats over a secured
common basement garage
• Four-and five-story buildings with elevators over a secured common
basement garage containing rental apartments
The dwelling units would range in size from approximately 600 to 2,800 square
feet and would be housed within Mediterranean, Tuscan, and contemporary-style
buildings built over and/or adjacent to residential parking garages. Residential
buildings along Western Avenue would be two to four stories in height
(approximately 30 to 55 feet) and would be buffered by trees and landscaping
and set back from the street by approximately 18-80 feet, depending on the
location and product type. Residential buildings throughout the rest of the
Project site would vary in height, with buildings averaging three stories, but not
exceeding five stories (approximately 65 feet) in the interior of the site along its
southern boundary (apartment buildings). Based on data provided by the Project
Applicant, the weighted average sale price for an for-sale units under Alternative
D would be $489,474 (2011 dollars). Within the multi-family structures to be
developed under Alternative D, the number of dwelling units per building would
range from 5.9 to 43.5.
C-138
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-75
Vehicular access to the Alternative D project would be from Western Avenue at
the two existing signalized intersections with Green Hills Drive and Avenida
Aprenda on the north and south, respectively. The proposed southerly Project
entrance at the Western Aven_ue/Avenida Aprenda intersection would feed into a
new east-west road crossing the southern portion of the Project site that would
provide access to the Mary Star of the Sea High School campus adjacent to the
Project site on the east.
With the exception of the east-west road described above providing access
across the Project site to Mary Star of the Sea High School, all other streets
would be private and access would be provided through two gated entrances:
one from Western Avenue at Green Hills Drive and a second off of the new
public east-west road near the southerly boundary line of the Project site. The
new access road for Mary Star of the Sea High School would terminate at the
eastern edge of the Project site in a cul-de-sac, from which a private driveway
would extend off-site to the east providing access to the Mary Star of the Sea
campus.
When completed, Alternative D would involve redevelopment of 100 percent of
the Project site. Alternative D would incorporate the seismic setback area along
the Palos Verdes Fault splay crossing the center of the site. Due to this,
Alternative D would not include the 2.8-acre public community park that is
included in the original Proposed Project. However, Alternative D would
incorporate approximately 20 acres of total open space, consisting of
approximately one acre of outdoor recreational amenity space (including a
recreation center with adjacent community clubhouse and pool/event lawn area
in the central portion of the site), approximately 7.1 acres of dedicated park area
(including the open space/trail network around the perimeter of the Project site),
and 10.2 acres of landscaped common area throughout the Project, and an
additional 2.1 acres of general open space. Additional indoor recreational
amenities (e.g., rec rooms, fitness centers, etc.) would be distributed across the
site and are not included in the acreages above. The walking/jogging path
surrounding the perimeter of the Project and extending through the landscaped
open space surrounding the Site would be open to the general public, and
pedestrian access would be provided to the other Project open space areas.
As with the Proposed Project, a Specific Plan is proposed for Alternative D to
provide zoning, architectural, landscape, and streetscape standards to guide
development. At gross residential densities ranging from 5.8 dwelling units per
acre to approximately 55.9 dwelling units per acre, Alternative D would fall within
the City of Los Angeles' Low, Low-Medium I, Low-Medium II, and Medium
General Plan Land Use Designations.
Construction of Alternative D would proceed similarly to the Proposed Project
and would be estimated to begin in late 2013 and continue over a five-year
period. The existing slope along the northeastern boundary of the Project site
would be modified to support the construction of the residential dwelling units
along its toe. However, following completion of construction and landscaping,
the re-engineered slope would be fully vegetated with a variety of native plant
and tree species. As noted above, the entire Project site would be abundantly
landscaped with a variety of ornamental and native plant and tree species. As
individual phases of the development are completed, associated landscaping
would be installed on an incremental basis.
C-139
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-76
As part of Alternative D construction, the existing surface drainage course
crossing the southwestern corner of the Project site would be removed and
buried beneath this portion of the Project as a subterranean storm drain. This
storm drain would serve the same purpose as the existing surface channel by
conveying the off-site stormwater runoff from the culvert at Western Avenue
across this portion of the Project site. After accepting additional drainage from
the Project site, this storm drain would discharge runoff to the City storm drain
system in the same general location as at present along the Project site's
southern boundary.
Site preparation for Alternative D would involve conventional cut and fill grading
techniques and would be substantially similar to that needed for the Proposed
project. A significant amount of existing fill is present on the Project site and
would be either removed or consolidated and rE?compacted prior to the grading of
building pads. Site grading would be required to prepare the proposed building
pads for construction. Grading would also be required in order to construct the
proposed roads, parking areas, and drainage improvements, and to install
utilities. The combined grading operations would affect the entire site (or
approximately 61.5 acres) and would involve a total earthwork quantity of
approximately 1,225,000 cubic yards (cy), including approximately 350,000 cy of
cut and fill for surface grading and an additional 875,000 cy of remedial grading
for over-excavation and other requirements. No fill material would be imported to
or exported from the Project site. However, the remova.I of debris resulting from
the demolition of existing structures on the Project site would be required.
As with the Proposed Project, construction staging, laydown areas, and all
construction equipment would be positioned on-site and would be moved from
area to area on the Project site, consistent with the sequence of construction.
Impact Summary of the Alternative
Alternative D has the potential to reduce or avoid the following significant impacts
of the original Proposed Project:
• Impacts associated with fault rupture and displacement at the Project site
Alternative D does not have the potential to reduce or avoid the original
Proposed Project's other potential impacts, which involve regional and local
construction-associated air emissions, regional operational air emissions,
potential impacts on nesting birds and/or roosting bats during construction,
impacts to jurisdictional resources on-site, potential impacts to archaeological
and/or paleontological resources, potential impacts relating to hydrocarbon-
impacted soils, disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs} and lead-
based paint (LBP) that are present in the existing abandoned structures on-site,
construction-related noise and groundborne vibration, exterior noise at Project
homes fronting Western Avenue, Project-related traffic impacts at intersections in
the surrounding area, and potential traffic impacts associated with the installation
of water service infrastructure.
Findings
It is found, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources
Code, that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
alternative project . which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
C-140
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-77
Rationale for Findings
This alternative would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of
the original Proposed Project, with the exception of avoiding impacts associated
with fault rupture and displacement through incorporation of a seismic setback
zone.
Alternative D would achieve all of the Project objectives, although one would be
achieved to a lesser extent than with the Proposed Project. Alternative D would
remove the existing buildings on the Project site, provide new housing on
unutilized land that would meaningfully contribute to meeting the projected 2017
housing need in the area, provide housing to meet the needs of a broad
spectrum of persons desiring to live in the San Pedro area, provide common
amenities including landscaping and open space for future residents, provide a
project that would invigorate the local economy, would mitigate its environmental
impacts to the extent feasible, would fiscally benefit the City, and would provide .a
high-quality development through the creation of a specific plan that establishes
development standards for the site. While Alternative D would provide common
amenities, including open space and landscaping, the amount of open space to
be included would be less than that contained within the original Proposed
Project.
The City finds that this alternative does not reduce the significant arid
unavoidable impacts of the Project, and, on that basis, rejects Alternative D.
Reference
For a complete discussion of Alternative D, see Section VI of the Draft EIR.
E. Existing Zoning Alternative Site Plan
Description of the Alternative
Multiple commenters on the Draft EIR requested that an alternative site plan that
is fully consistent with the Project site's existing zoning and General Plan land
use designations be evaluated. Commenters have also requested that such an
alternative site plan include the same public access roadway to Mary Star of the
Sea High School that is proposed under the original Project and under
Alternatives C and D in the Draft EIR. Commenters have also requested that this
alternative site plan contain full-sized single-family home lots consistent with R1
zoning (5,000 square feet or 50 feet by 100 feet). Under these design
constraints, a conceptual site plan was developed that would result in
development of 169 single-family homes at the Project site. This plan would also
incorporate the required seismic setback zone across the center of the site and
would include two recreation centers as well as landscaped common area. The
northernmost 9.3 acres of the Project site would remain as open space,
consistent with the current zoning and land use designation of this portion of the
property. This area could be developed to some extent with park and recreation
facilities for the use of the general public, although its configuration and
topography would likely limit its suitability for dedication to the City as a
neighborhood park.
C-141
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-78
Impact Summary of the Alternative
To summarize the impacts of the "Existing Zoning" alternative site plan in
comparison to those of the currently preferred alternative project (Alternative C in
the Draft EIR), this alternative has the potential to reduce or avoid the following
significant impacts:
• Regional operational air emissions
• Project-related traffic impacts at intersections within the Project area
The "Existing Zoning" alternative would not have the potential to reduce or avoid
the Proposed Project's potential impacts involving regional and local
construction-associated air emissions, potential impacts on nesting birds and/or
roosting bats during construction, impacts to jurisdictional resources on-site,
potential impacts to archaeological and/or paleontological resources, potential
impacts relating to hydrocarbon-impacted soils, disturbance of asbestos-
containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) that are present in the
existing abandoned structures on-site, construction-related noise and
groundborne vibration, exterior noise at homes fronting Western Avenue, and
potential traffic impacts associated with the installation of water service
infrastructure. Other impacts associated with the Project, although less than
significant, would be substantially reduced under this alternative due to the fewer
number of residences that would be developed on-site.
Findings
It is found, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the California Public Resources
Code, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations identified in Section X (Statement of Overriding
Considerations), below, make infeasible the Existing Zoning Alternative Site
Plan.
Rationale for Findings
With respect to being able to achieve most of the Project's objectives, the 169
single-family home "Existing Zoning" alternative site plan would achieve seven of
the Project objectives, although some would be achieved to a substantially lesser
extent than with the Proposed Project. The "Existing Zoning" alternative site plan
would remove the existing buildings on the Project site; provide new housing on
unutilized land that would contribute to meeting the projected 2017 housing need
in the area; provide a project that would invigorate the local economy; mitigate its
environmental impacts to the extent feasible; provide substantial common open
space along the site's northern boundary as well as two recreation centers for the
use of residents, and provide a high-quality development. The "Existing Zoning"
site plan would not provide new housing to meet the housing needs of a broad
spectrum of persons desiring to live in the San Pedro community due to the
economic imperative to develop high-end, large-lot single-family homes having a
price well above the median for the region. While development of this "Existing
Zoning" site plan would fiscally benefit the City, it would likely do so to-a ·
significantly lesser degree than the Proposed Project due to the reduced number
of homes, even though the tax assessments would most likely be greater on a
per unit average basis. Similarly, the "Existing Zoning" alternative site plan would
not contribute to meeting the anticipated need for housing in the San Pedro area
C-142
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-79
to the same degree as the Proposed Project due to the reduced number of
homes that would be developed and the prices they would likely command.
With respect to the "Existing Zoning" alternative site plan that was requested by
numerous commenters on the Draft EIR, nothing would physically prevent the
alternative from being developed at the Project site. Therefore, the determination
of its feasibility is limited to its ability to produce a positive return on investment to
the Applicant. In order to evaluate the economic feasibility of the "Existing
Zoning" alternative, a study was prepared by The Concord Group in June 2013.
The study concludes that the "Existing Zoning" alternative would be economically
infeasible to develop due to the substantial level of fixed costs associated with
infrastructure and land that remain largely the same irrespective of the total
number of lots developed at the site. The "Existing Zoning" alternative could only
become economically feasible (e.g., avoid an economic loss for the Applicant) if it
could achieve a top line home sale price of $1.57 million ($525 per square foot of
home), a level that is currently unsupported in the market. The nearest new
home project, Harbor Highlands, generates an average home price of $554,000
($300 per square foot} for a small-lot detached home. Nearby resales in Rancho
Palos Verdes, across Western Avenue from the Project site, generate an
average sale price of $721,000. In light of the comparables proximate to Ponte
Vista, any development at the Project site would not support home values in
excess of $1 million. Given the realities of the current residential real estate
market, development of the "Existing Zoning" alternative at the Project site would
result in a loss of approximately $87 million.
The "Existing Zoning" alternative would substantially reduce many of the
Project's less than significant impacts and would avoid the Project's significant,
unmitigated operational air quality impact and reduce the Project's significant but
mitigated traffic impacts. Thus, an argument could be advanced that the
"Existing Zoning" alternative could be the environmentally superior alternative.
However, CEQA requires that the range of alternatives evaluated in an EIR be
feasible to develop. As has been shown above, the "Existing Zoning" alternative
would not be economically feasible to develop at the Project site.
Therefore, the City finds that this alternative would b~ infeasible to develop and,
on that basis, rejects the Existing Zoning Alternative Site Plan;
Reference
For a complete discussion of the Existing Zoning Alternative Site Plan, see
Section Ill.A of the Final EIR.
F. Mixed-Use Alternative Site Plan
Description of the Alternative
Several commenters on the Draft EIR requested that a mixed-use
residential/commercial alternative site plan be evaluated. Commenters have also
requested that such an alternative site plan include the same public access
roadway to Mary Star of the Sea High School that is proposed under the original
Project and under Alternatives C and Din the Draft EIR. Commenters have also
requested that this alternative site plan contain neighborhood-serving retail
spac.e, limited office space intended to serve future Project residents, a six-acre
public neighborhood park, and space for development of a neighborhood branch
C-143
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-80
library. Under these design constraints, a conceptual site plan was developed
that consists of 477 residential units in a mix of housing product types ranging
from single-family homes to townhomes and flats. A total of 181 single-family
homes and 296 condominium units could be developed under this alternative. In
addition, 5,000 square feet of office space, 20,000 square feet of
retail/commercial space, and a site for a 20,000 square foot public library, as well
as a 6-acre central neighborhood park, are included in this alternative. This
alternative would provide public access across the site to Mary Star of the Sea
High School from Western Avenue. This plan would a!so incorporate the
required seismic setback zone across the center of the site and would include a
central recreation center as well as landscaped common area.
Impact Summary of the Alternative
The "Mixed Use" alternative site plan would generally result in similar impacts as
the current preferred alternative (Alternative C in the Draft EIR), with the
differences primarily due to the fewer number of homes that would be developed
at the site and/or the addition of commercial/retail and public library and park
uses.
This alternative has the potential to reduce or avoid the following significant
impacts:
• Regional operational air emissions
• Exterior noise at some Project residences
• Traffic (daily vehicle trips only)
The "Mixed Use" alternative would not have the potential to reduce or avoid the
currently preferred alternative's potential impacts involving regional and local
construction-associated air emissions, potential impacts on nesting birds and/or
roosting bats during construction, impacts to jurisdictional resources on-site,
potential impacts to archaeological and/or paleontological resources, potential
impacts relating to hydrocarbon-impacted soils, disturbance of asbestos-
containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) that are present in the
existing . abandoned structures on-site, construction-related noise and
groundborne vibration, significant traffic impacts at study intersections, and
potential traffic impacts associated with the installation of water service
infrastructure. Other impacts associated with the Project, although less than
significant, would be either equivalent or reduced to some degree under this
alternative due to the fewer number of residences that would be developed on-
site.
Findings
It is found, pursuant to Section 21081{a){3) of the California Public Resources
Code, that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations identified in Section X (Statement of Overriding
Considerations), below, make infeasible the Mixed-Use Alternative Site Plan.
C-144
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-81
Rationale for Findings
With respect to being able to achieve most of the Project's objectives, the "Mixed
Use" alternative site plan would achieve each of the Project objectives, although
some would be achieved to a substantially lesser extent than with the Proposed
Project. The "Mixed Use" alternative site plan would remove the existing
buildings on the Project site; provide new housing on unutilized land that would
contribute to meeting the projected 2017 housing need in the area; provide a
project that would invigorate the local economy; mitigate its environmental
impacts to the extent feasible; provide substantial common open space and park
area as well as a recreation center for the use of residents; and provide a high-
quality development. The "Mixed Use" site plan would provide new housing to
meet the housing needs of a broad spectrum of persons desiring to live in the
San Pedro community but to a lesser degree than the Project due to the fewer
number of units and housing product types to be developed. While development
of this "Mixed Use" site plan would fiscally benefit the City, it would likely do so to
a significantly . lesser degree than the Proposed Project due to the reduced
number of homes. Similarly, the "Mixed Use" alternative site plan would not
contribute to meeting the anticipated need for housing in the San Pedro area to
the same degree as the Proposed Project due to the reduced number of homes
that would be developed.
With respect to the "Mixed Use" alternative site plan, nothing would physically
prevent the alternative from being developed at the Project site. Therefore, the
determination of its feasibility is limited to its ability to produce a positive return
on investment to the Applicant. In order to evaluate the economic feasibility of
the "Mixed Use" alternative, a study was prepared by The Concord Group in
June 2013. The study concludes that the "Mixed Use" alternative would be
economically infeasible to develop due to the substantial level of fixed costs
associated with infrastructure and land that remain largely th~ same irrespective
of the total number of lots developed at the site. In addition, the "Mixed Use"
alternative would donate acreage on-site to the Los Angeles Public Library for
construction of a neighborhood branch library and, thus, would return no
economic value to the Applicant. Recently reviewed vacancy reports for the area
surrounding the Project site indicate that 1,073,992 square feet of available
(vacant) office space exists within a five-mile radius of the Site and that 166,675
square feet of available (vacant) retail space exists within a two-mile radius of the
Site. These figures represent a relatively large amount of vacant office and retail
space and would likely present challenges to developing economically viable
commercial and retail uses at the Project site. Given the realities of the current
residential, office, and retail real estate market, it is estimated that development
Qf the "Mixed Use" alternative at the Project site would result in a loss of
approximately $37 million.
The "Mixed Use" alternative would, as discussed above, marginally reduce some
of the Project's less than significant impacts and would reduce the Project's
significant, unmitigated operational air quality impact. Thus, an argument could
be advanced that the "Mixed Use" alternative could be the environmentally
superior alternative. However, as noted previously, CEQA requires that the
range of alternatives evaluated in an EIR be feasible to develop. As has been
shown above, the "Mixed Use" alternative would not be economically feasible to
develop at the Project site.
C-145
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-82
Therefore, the City finds that this alternative would be infeasible to develop and,
on that basis, rejects the Mixed-Use Alternative Site Plan.
Reference
For a complete discussion of the Mixed-Use Alternative Site Plan, see Section
Ill.A of the Final EIR.
G. New Preferred Alternative -Further Density Reduction
Description of the Alternative
Subsequent to publication of the Final EIR, the Project Applicant submitted a
revised Project site plan to the City featuring a reduction in the number of
residential units to be developed from 830 to a maximum of 700 units. The
changes in the revised site plan are fully discussed in the document entitled
· "Supplemental Analysis of Project Revisions", which is part of the Project's
CEQA document. However, for purposes of presenting the most current analysis
within . these Findings, the discussion below of the New Preferred Alternative
reflects the current 700-unit revised site plan rather than the former 830-unit plan
that was evaluated in both the Draft and Final EIR.
The New Preferred Alternative would involve development of a project similar to
the original Proposed Project on the site, however the total number of residential
units would be reduced from 1, 135 to a maximum of 700. A total of six different
housing product types would be included under the New Preferred Alternative.
Gross residential densities developed within the New Preferred Alternative
project would range from 8 units per acre to 23 units per acre. The average
density for the New Preferred Alternative project would be 11.4 DU/acre (gross).
The New Preferred Alternative would be comprised of a combination of dwelling
units within the following categories:
• Two-and three-story detached single-family homes with street-loaded private
garages
• Two-story buildings containing townhomes with driveway-loaded private
garages
• Three-story townhomes and flats with driveway-loaded· private garages and
elevators
• Four-story buildings containing flats with elevators over driveway-loaded
garages
The dwelling units would range in size from approximately 600 to 2,800 square
feet and would be housed within Mediterranean, Tuscan, and contemporary-style
buildings built over and/or adjacent to residential parking garages. Residential
buildings along Western Avenue would be two to three stories in height (between
30 and 48 feet) and would be buffered by trees and landscaping and set back
from the street by approximately 18-80 feet, depending on the location and
product type. Residential buildings throughout the rest of the Project site would
vary in height, with buildings averaging three stories, but not exceeding four
stories (approximately 55 feet) in the interior of the site near its southern
boundary. Based on data provided by the Project Applicant, the weighted
average sale price for all for-sale units under Alternative C would be $489,474
(2011 dollars).
C-146
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-83
Vehicular access to the New Preferred Alternative project would be from Western
Avenue at the two existing signalized intersections with Green Hills Drive and
Avenida Aprenda on the north and south, respectively. The proposed southerly
Project entrance at the Western Avenue/Avenida Aprenda intersection would
reed into a new east-west road. crossing the southern portion of the Project site
that would provide access to the Mary Star of the Sea High School campus
adjacent to the Project site on the east.
With the exception of the east-west road described above providing access
across the Project site to Mary Star of the Sea High School, all other streets
would be private and vehicular access would be provided through two gated
entrance~: one from Western Avenue at Green Hills Drive and a second off of the
new public east-west road near the southerly boundary line of the Project site
that would intersect Western Avenue at Avenida Aprenda. The new access road
for Mary Star of the Sea High School would terminate at the eastern edge of the
Project site in a cul-de-sac, from which a private ·driveway would extend off-site
to the east providing access to the Mary Star of the Sea campus.
When completed, the Project would redevelop 100 percent of the Project site.
The Project would incorporate a seismic setback area along a splay of the Palos
Verdes Fault crossing the center of the site. The Proposed Project would
incorporate over 24 acres of total open space, consisting of outdoor recreational
amenity space (including primary and secondary recreation centers with adjacent
community clubhouses and pool/event lawn areas for project residents),
dedicated park area (including an open space/trail network around the perimeter
of the Project site and a publically-accessible park near Western Avenue),
landscaped common areas throughout the Project, and other open space. The
open space/trail network and publically-accessible park areas would be
accessible to both Project residents and the general public. Additional indoor
recreational amenities (e.g., rec rooms, fitness centers, etc.) would be distributed
across the site for the private use of residents.
A Specific Plan is proposed for the Project to provide zoning, architectural,
landscape, and streetscape standards to guide the Project's development. At
residential densities ranging from 8 dwel"ling units per acre to approximately 23
dwelling units per acre, the Project would fall within the City of Los Angeles' Low,
Low-Medium I, and Low-Medium II General Plan land Use Designations.
Although a maximum of 212 residential units would be permitted under the
Specific Plan within Subarea 6, only 188 units are currently being proposed. In
order to provide additional housing within Subarea 6 exceeding the currently
proposed 188 units but not more than 212 units, a new subdivision map would be
required, although no Specific Plan Amendment would be required.
Construction of the New Preferred Alternative would proceed similarly to the
Proposed Project and would be estimated to begin in late 2013 and continue
over a five-year period. The existing slope along the northeastern boundary of
the Proj"ect site would be modified to support the construction of the residential
dwelling units along its toe. However, following completion of construction and
landscaping, the re-engineered slope would be fully vegetated with a variety of
native plant and tree species. As noted above, the entire Project site would be
densely landscaped with a variety of ornamental and native plant and tree
species. As individual phases of the development are completed, associated
landscaping would be installed on an incremental basis.
C-147
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-84
As part of New Preferred Alternative construction, the existing surface drainage
course crossing the southwestern corner of the Project site would be removed
and buried beneath this portion of the Project as a subterranean storm drain.
This storm drain would serve the same purpose as the existing surface channel
by conveying the off-site stormwater runoff from the culvert at Western Avenue
across this portion of the Project site. After accepting additional drainage from
the Project site, this storm drain would discharge runoff to the City storm drain
system in the same general location as at present along the Project site's
southern boundary.
Site preparation for the New Preferred Alternative would involve conventional cut
and fill grading techniques and would be substantially similar to that needed for
the origi.iial Proposed Project. A significant amount of existing fill is present on
the Project site and would be either removed or consolidated and recompacted
prior to the grading of building pads. Site grading would be required to prepare
the proposed building pads for construction. Grading would also be required in
order to construct the proposed roads, parking areas, and drainage
improvements, and to install utilities. The combined grading operations would
affect the entire site (or approximately 61.5 acres) and would involve a total
earthwork quantity of approximately 1,225,000 cubic yards (cy), including
approximately 350,000 cy of cut and fill for surface grading and an additional
875,000 cy of remedial grading for over-excavation and other requirements. No
fill material would be imported to or exported from the Project site. However, the
removal of debris resulting from the demolition of existing structures on the
Project site would be required.
As with the original Proposed Project, construction staging, laydown areas, and
all construction equipment would be positioned on-site and would be moved from
area to area on the Project site, consistent with the sequence of construction.
Impact Summary of the Alternative
The New Preferred Alternative has the potential to reduce or avoid the following
significant impacts of the original Proposed Project:·
• Regional operational air emissions
• Impacts associated with fault rupture and displacement at the Project site
• Project-related traffic impacts at intersections within the Project area
The New Preferred Alternative does not have the potential to reduce or avoid the
Proposed Project's potential impacts involving regional and local construction-
associated air emissions, potential impacts on nesting birds and/or roosting bats
during construction, impacts to jurisdictional resources on-site, potential impacts
to archaeological and/or paleontological resources, potential impacts relating to
hydrocarbon-impacted soils, disturbance of asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) that are present in the existing abandoned
structures on-site, construction-related noise and groundborne vibration, exterior
noise at Project homes fronting Western Avenue, and potential traffic impacts
associated with the installation of water service infrastructure.
C-148
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-85
Findings
It is found, pursuant to Section 21081(a){3) of the California Public Resources
Code, that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
alternative project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
Rationale for Findings
Of the alternatives analyzed in the Draft and Final EIR and Supplemental
Analysis of Project Revisions, the New Preferred Alternative is considered the
environmentally superior alternative, with the exception of the No Project
Alternative (Alternative A, above), and is also the Project Applicant's current
preferred alternative (replacing the original Proposed Projed in the Draft EIR).
However, the New Preferred Alternative would not reduce all of the significant
and unavoidable impacts of the original Proposed Project.
The New Preferred Alternative would achieve all of the Project objectives,
although some would be achieved to a lesser extent than with the original
Proposed Project The New Preferred Alternative would remove the existing
buildings on the Project site; provide new housing on unutilized land that would
meaningfully contribute to meeting the projected 2017 housing need in the area;
provide housing to meet the needs of a broad spectrum of persons desiring to
live in the San Pedro area; provide substantial common amenities including
landscaping and open space for future residents; provide a project that would
invigorate the local economy; mitigate its environmental impacts to the extent
feasible; fiscally benefit the City; and provide a high-quality development through
the creation of a specific plan that establishes development standards for the
site. While the New Preferred Alternative would fiscally !:>enefit the City, it would
do so to a lesser degree than the original Proposed Project due to the reduced
number of homes. Similarly, the New Preferred Alternative would not contribute
to meeting the anticipated need for housing in the San Pedro area to the same
degree as the original Proposed Project due to the reduced number of homes
that would be developed, but would still provide a range of housing opportunities.
Reference
For a complete discussion of the New Preferred Alternative, see Supplemental
Analysis of Project Revisions.
FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
G. Growth Inducing Impacts of the Project
The Project would contribute a total of approximately 2,079 net new residents to
the Project area and the City of Los Angeles. Additional indirect/induced
population growth caused by the economic activity created by the Project would
be estimated to add 763 persons to the Project area, for a total population growth
of 2,842 persons associated with the Project This growth would be largely
consistent with area-wide population and housing forecasts. The Project would
foster economic growth by increasing the number of residents at the Project site
who could patronize local businesses and services in the area. In addition, short-
term employment opportunities would be provided during the construction
phases of the Project.
C-149
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-86
While the Project's addition of new housing units is consistent with various
regional and local policies, it would not, in and of itself, foster new growth in the
area by removing impediments to growth. The property surrounding the Project
site is already developed with single-family and multi-family homes, Mary Star of
the Sea High School campus, or is reserved for uses by the federal government.
All roads planned for the Project are for internal circulation only or Mary Star of
the Sea High School access, and would not open undeveloped areas for new
use. Similarly, all utility and other infrastructure upgrades pl~nned for the Project
are intended solely to meet Project-related demand and would not support
development external to the Project site. The Project households' demand for
commercial goods and ser:vices would be met by existing retail, service, and
other resources already located within about a five mile radius of the Project site,
and no new development specifically to meet the Project's scale of household
demand would be needed. ·on the contrary, the Project's new household
demand would help support the viability of existing businesses in the Project
vicinity. The Project would redevelop a blighted site that currently contains
abandoned buildings in a state of advancing disrepair.
H. Significant Irreversible Impacts
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR address any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be involved in a project should it be
implemented (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c)). CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) indicates that "[u]ses of nonrenewable resources
during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a
large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter likely.
Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway
improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally
commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible .damage can result
from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable
commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current
consumption is justified."
The types and level of development associated with the Project would consume
limited, slowly renewable and non~renewable resources. This consumption
would occur during construction of the Project and would continue throughout its
operational lifetime. Committed resources would include: (1) building materials,
(2) fuel and operational materials/resources, and (3) resources used in the
transport of goods and people to and from the Project site.
Construction of the Project would require consumption of resources that are not
replenis.hable or which may renew slowly as to be considered non-renewable.
These resources would include certain types of lumber and other forest products,
aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt (e.g., sand, gravel and stone),
metals {e.g., steel, copper and lead), petrochemical construction materials (e.g.,
plastics), and water. Fossil fuels, such as gasoline and oil, would also be
consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment. The consumption
of these resources would be spread out over the phased five-year construction
period.
The commitment of resources to the Project would limit the availability of these
resources for future generations. However, insofar as the Project is consistent
with, or brought into consistency with, applicable land use plans and policies, this
C-150
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-87
resource consumption would be consistent with growth and anticipated change in
the Los Angeles region. Consideration of all the foregoing factors supports the
conclusion that the Project's use of resources is justified, and that the Project will
not result in significant irreversible environmental changes that warrant further
consideration.
IV. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
A. The City of Los Angeles (the City), acting through the Planning
Department, is the "Lead Agency" for the Project evaluated in the Final
EIR. The City finds that the Final EIR was prepared in compliance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently
reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR for the Project, and that the Final
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.. ·
B. The City finds that the Final EIR provides objective information to assist
the decision-makers and the public at large in their' consideration of the
environmental consequences of the Project. The public review period
provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and
individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR.
The Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to
comments made during the public review period.
C. The Planning Department evaluated comments on environmental issues
received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with
CEQA, the Planning Department prepared written responses describing
the disposition of significant environmental issues raised .. The Final EIR
and provides adequate, good faith and reasoned responses to the
comments. The Planning Department reviewed the comments received
and responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments
received nor the responses to such comments add significant new
information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR. The lead
agency has based its actions on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including
all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings,
concerning the environmental impacts identified and analyzed in the Final
EIR.
D. The mitigation measures, which have bee_n identified for the Project, were
identified in the text and summary of the Final EIR. The final mitigation
measures are described in the Complete MMRP. Each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Complete MMRP, and contained in the Final
EIR, is incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the impacts of
the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the Mitigation
Measures identified in the Complete MMRP, and contained in the Final
EIR.
E. Textual refinements and errata were compiled and presented to the
decision-makers for review and consideration. The Planning Department
staff has made every effort to notify the decision-makers and the
interested public/agencies of each textual change in the various
documents associated with the Project review. These textual refinements
arose for a variety of reasons. First, it is inevitable that draft documents
will contain errors and will require clarifications and corrections. Second,
textual clarifications were necessitated in order to describe refinements
suggested as part of the public participation process.
C-151
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-88
F. CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt an MMRP
for the changes to the project, which it has adopted or made a condition
of project approval in order to ensure compliance with project
implementation. The mitigation measures included in the Final EIR as
certified by the City and included in the Complete MMRP as adopted by
the City serve that function. The Complete MMRP includes all of the
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and has been designed to
ensure compliance during implementation of the Project. In accordance
with CEQA, the Complete MMRP provides the means to ensure that the
mitigation measures are fully enforceable. In accordance with the
requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
G. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6,
the City hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set
forth herein as conditions of approval for the Project.
H. The custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the
record of proceedings upon which the City's decision is based is the:
Department of City Planning, City of Los Angeles 200 North Spring
Street, Room 750, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
I. . The City finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every
finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR, which is incorporated
herein by this reference, or is in the record of proceedings in the matter.
J. In light of the entire administrative record of the proceedings for the
Project, the City determines that there is no significant new information
(within the meaning of CEQA) that would have required a recirculation of
the sections of the Draft EIR or Final EIR.
K. The "References" subsection of each impact area discussed in these
Findings are for reference purposes only and are not intended to
represent an exhaustive listing of all evidence that supports these
Findings.
L. The City is certifying an EIR for, and is approving and adopting findings
for, the entirety of the actions described in these Findings and in the Final
EtR as comprising the Project. It is contemplated that there may be a
variety of actions undertaken by other State and local agencies (who
might be referred to as "responsible agencies" under CEQA). Because
the City is the lead agency for the Project, the Final EIR is intended to be
the basis for compliance with CEQA for each of the possible discretionary
actions by other State and local agencies to carry out the Project.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Final EIR has identified unavoidable significant impacts, which will result
from implementation of the Project. Section 21081 of the California Public
Resources Code and Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that
when the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant
impacts which are identified in the EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated
to an insignificant level or eliminated, the lead agency must state in writing the
reasons to support its action based on the completed EIR and/or other
information in the record.
Article I of the City of Los Angeles CEQA Guidelines incorporates all of the State
CEQA Guidelines contained in title 15, California Code of Regulations, section
15000 et seq. and hereby requires, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15093(b) that the decision-maker adopt a Statement of Overriding
C-152
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA F-89
Considerations at the time of approval of a project if it finds that significant
adverse environmental effects have been identified in the EIR which cannot be
substantially mitigated to an insignificant level or be eliminated. These findings
and the Statement of Overriding Considerations are based on the record of
proceedings, including but not limited to the Final EIR, and other documents and
materials that constitute the record of proceedings.
The following impacts are not mitigated to a less than significant level for the
Project: Air Quality and Noise, as identified in the Final EIR, and it is not feasible
to mitigate such impacts to a less than significant level.
Accordingly, the City adopts the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The City recognizes that significant and unavoidable impacts
will result from implementation of the Project. Having {i) adopted all feasible
mitigation measures, (ii) rejected as infeasible alternatives to the Projects
discussed above, (iii) recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts, and (iv)
balanced the benefits of the Project against their significant and unavoidable
impacts, the City hereby finds that the benefits outweigh and override the
significant unavoidable impacts for the reasons stated below.
The below stated reasons summarize the benefits, goals and objectives of the
Project, and provide the rationale for the benefits of the Project. Any one of the
overriding considerations of economic, social, aesthetic and environmental
benefits individually would be sufficient to outweigh the adverse environmental
impacts of the Project and justify their adoption and certification of the Final EIR.
1. Implementation of the Project will create a high-quality residential
development that increases density near major employment nodes and
furthers sound planning goals, including goals set out by SCAG for
addr~ssing regional housing needs through the development of infill sites.
2. Implementation of the Project will create a vibrant residential project that
responds to the growth of the Harbor region.
3. Implementation of the Project will maximize the development potential of the
Project site in context with the area through quality design and development
·controls that ensure a.unified and cohesive development.
4. Implementation of the Project will support local and regional sustainability
goals through urban infill.
5. Implementation of the Project will generate community benefits by
maximizing land use opportunities and providing a vibrant residential
environment with new amenities, public spaces and State-of-the-Art
improvements.
6. Implementation of the Project will provide safe access for pedestrians and
vehicles to Mary Star of the Sea High School from Western Avenue.
7. Implementation of the Project will reduce vehicular trips by creating a new
residential community in close proximity to existing neighborhood-serving
retail and commercial land uses and will work to promote alternative methods
of transportation and create provisions for non-vehicular travel by providing
pedestrian pathways/linkages within the Project site and providing bicycle
parking and storage.
8. Implementation of the Project would increase the amount of tax revenue
generated by the Project site.
9. Implementation of the Project would remove a blighted, abandoned
development and would create a lushly landscaped residential neighborhood
in its place.
C-153
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA
10. Implementation of the Project will provide for logical, consistent planning
within the Project site.
Finding. The City finds that none of the public comments to the Draft EIR or subsequent public
comments or other evidence in the record, including the changes in the Project in response to
input from the community and the Council Office, include or constitute substantial evidence that
would require recirculation of the Final EIR prior. to its certification and that there is no
substantial evidence elsewhere in the record of proceedings that would require substantial
revision of the Final EIR prior to its certification, and that the Final EIR need not be recirculated
prior to its certification.
C-154
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA P-1
PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Summary of Public Hearing Testimony and Communications Received
The Public Hearing on this matter was held at Harbor Commission Building Hearing Room at
425 S. Palos Verdes Avenue.in San Pedro, CA 90731 on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 10:00 AM.
1. Present: Approximately 125 people attended: The applicant and team members, several
neighborhood council members, members of surrounding Homeowner Associations,
organizations, residents, Councilmembers from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and a
representative from Council Office 15.
2. Public Speakers: 36 public speakers. 5 in support; 21 opposed; and 10 general
comments and concerns.
3. The Applicant's Representative and other team members spoke at the hearing and
made the following statements:
• In 1962, the US Navy site developed the site as the San Pedro Naval Housing
comprised of 122 separate structures.
• The site was annexed into the City of Los Angeles in the late 1980s, and located in
the Wilmington-Harbor City Community Plan Area. Shortly after annexation, the San
Pedro Naval Housing complex, and the Navy's Defense Fuel Support Point, were
given their current zoning and land use designations (which were and are
inconsistent with the then-current uses of the property).
• The site served as naval housing for about 35 years until its closure in the late
1990s. The site presently contains vacant structures that are uninhabited.
• In 2005, the site was purchased by Bisno Development Company for the purpose of
developing a 2,300-unit project comprised of several multi-story condo towers,
dedicated senior housing, and a small amount of site-serving commercial retail, and
a public park with a little league baseball completx. The project also included a new
public street connecting Western Avenue to Mary Star of the Sea High School. The
project was reduced to 1,950 units, and was considered and denied by the City
Planning Commission in 2009.
• The Planning ·commission embraced several recommendations by the Planning
Department including a) limiting residential densities to the prevailing· density of
development in that neighborhood; b) the property zone be changed from existing
Low residential to Low Medium I; c) the density would meet the Wilmington-Harbor
City Community Plan, which is to promote the provision of adequate housing for all
people; and d) the Low Medium I designation would allow the opportunity to add new
housing to the community while maintaining a density that is compatible with the
existing single family neighborhoods.
• The Planning Commission recommended the following: a) The property is currently
an eyesore; b) There should be future dialogue between the applicant and the
Planning Department; and 3) A future development should not be R~1 density;
however it should be consistent with the surrounding community.
• Within a year of the CPC's recommended denial of the Bisno project, in 201 o', iStar
Financial took ownership of Ponte Vista and began an intensive, wholesale re-
evaluation of the project.
• Within a year of the CPC's recommended denial of the Bisno project, in 2010, iStar
Financial took ownership of Ponte Vista and began an intensive, wholesale re-
evaluation of the project.
C-155
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA P-2
• iStar studied the comments from the previous EIR and recommendations by City
Planning staff and the Planning Commission; evaluated previous public proceedings,
engaged with the then-Councilmember, met with community stakeholders -both
individuals and groups, and undertook market research to understand what the
specific residential market demands were for the Harbor area.
• In 2010 iStar announced its new plan for development and submitted an application
for a 1, 135 residential unit project, which included a public park and an access
roadway for Mary Star of the Sea High School.
• While the project and reduced density alternatives were being evaluated for the
release of the DEIR, iStar continued to seek input from the community, the Council
office, potential buyers; and furthered the review of previous Planning Department
and Commission input; and they worked directly with current Planning Department
staff to further refinement of the project.
~ iStar is seeking approval for 830 units on the Ponte Vista site, representing 305 less
units than the project application of 1135. This represents an overall decrease of
27%.
• The plan would incorporate approximately 24 acres of total open space, including: a)
approximately 4.64 acres of public park area; b) 13.36 acres of landscaped common
area, and 5.1 acres perimeter trail.
• Overall Project Amenities for residents include: a) High-quality housing in proximity
to existing jobs; b) Homes to suit a wide variety of budgets, needs and sizes; c)
Walking trails, open space and playgrounds' d) Vehicular gates that meet market
demand and buyers' tastes; and e) Proximity to existing local shops, grocery stores
and restaurants within walking distance.
• The walking/jogging path surrounding the perimeter of the Project and extending
through the landscaped open space surrounding the Site would be open to the
general public.
• Parking for the public wishing to use the trail or park space will be available along the
Mary Star Roadway
• Ponte Vista benefits all of San Pedro and the Harbor area community by: a)
Redeveloping a long blighted and dilapidated site with new high~quality housing; b)
providing new open publically accessible open designed for hiking, picnicking, family
play, and accessing Harbor views; c} boosting local business as new consumers
move to area; d) boosting for local real estate market as new homes raise property
values for area properties; e) improving traffic flow at 16 intersections; f) providing
$2.5 million in Quimby funds for local park and recreation facilities; g) building a
dedicated road to Mary Star of the Sea High School from Western Avenue; h)
Providing neighboring developments direct pedestrian access to Ponte Vista and its
publically available open space' i) Building a private driveway on the Ponte Vista site
that connects to the backside of the Seaport Village garage. This driveway will be
designed for and meant as providing emergency access to Seaport Village.
• The Ponte Vista plan responds with 48% of the site devoted to single family
residences, with the remainder devoted to multifamily in varying densities; the site
plan also is heavily designed to best co-exist with adjacent uses and densities, as
well as transition appropriately internally and externally between housing types and
densities.
C-156
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA P-3
• The project provides a variety of housing types from single family, to townhomes, to
a mix of condominium types, to flats to address the housing needs and population
growth objectives in the Community Plan.
• At 830 units, the plan meets the Low Medium I residential density recommended by
the Planning Department and Commission, as it is within the range provided.
• The project was designed to take into account the four distinct property boundaries
and adjacent uses.
• The collective uses along the southern edge of Ponte Vista are made up of three
different developments -The Tennis Club, Seaport Village, and Casa Verde --on 5.5
acres. A total of 348 units exist within the three developments at an R-3 density -an
average of 63 units per acre.
• The Applicant met with the Council Office, Urban Design Studio, and Department of
Transportation to implement the project.
• Public outreach encompassed the Council office during two different administrations,
as well as presentations and dialogue five neighborhood councils, chambers of
commerce, and nonprofit organizations. The goal has been to maintain a positive
and productive presence in the community, in order to communicate accurate
information about the project to key stakeholders, and to gather input from individual
stakeholders and groups.
4. Organized opposition, the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council was allotted the
same amount of time as the Project Applicant, and raised the following items:
• The Ponta Vista site lies right on the border of the Wilmington-Harbor City and San
Pedro Community Plan areas, and lies right at the boundaries of the Northwest San
Pedro Neighborhood Council.
• The Neighborhood Council has reviewed all aspects of the Project from its
beginning.
• The project
• Traffic remains a concern for the community. Specifically, Western .Avenue, is a
challenge to travel to and from work, pick up children from school, etc.
• Traffic studies are dated. With the implementation of bike lanes on Westmont and
Capitol Avenue, traffic patterns have changed.
• The neighborhood council recognizes the problem of this project bringing in more
traffic to the area, and requests traffic studies be updated.
• The current zoning requires open space. It is recommended that 10 to 15 acres of
fully accessible open space be required as part of the site plan with ample parking.
• A natural creekbed located on the site should be preserved.
• The gates and fences are of great concern as this development will be separated
from the Harbor community. Gates and fences do not fit into the character of the
community. There are a few examples within the community, but these are rare
examples of the community. Many state that what draws people to San Pedro and
the Harbor community is civic engagement and involvement by residents of the area.
• The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council rejects the use gates and fences
and all streets and sidewalks, proposed home designs and open space conform to
City standards and allow full public access.
C-157
Case No. CPC-2012-2558-GPA-ZC-SP-CA P-4
• The neighborhood council wishes to sit with the Applicant to share ideas on how the
project would make sense for the community.
• The City should make sure they have a complete and accurate packet before them.
There have been conflicting renderings that do not reflect updates. Adequate review
time should be given to the public. ·
• A specific plan is not appropriate for this location. The Specific Plan should comply
with Government Code 65452 and 65457, which spells out all requirements of the
Specific Plan. The Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan should be used as a model
for this specific plan.
• Planning produced a draft San Pedro Community Plan document for Ponte Vista,
and specific direction was given. The goals were spelled out, and state that the site
should be open and accessible, and not developed as a gated community.
• Civic engagement should include review of the project by all departments at an early
stage.
• Data for gated communities only keep the public safety people out of the
neighborhood.
• The context of the community has been studied for months. The riparian corridor on
the site is not visible on the site plan. Here's an opportunity to turn this corridor into
a neighborhood asset.
• The multi-family building on the southern portion of the site needs to respond to the
neighboring multi-family buildings.
• The project's traffic will create a significant environmental impact in daily trips
creating overcrowding on Western Avenue and on emergency vehicles and response
times.
• The Applicant should provide an environmentally and socially responsible project.
5. Communications Received. See Exhibit H.
• Public comments are available in the case file located at City Hall.
C-158
E-mails and Late Correspondence
regarding Rancho LPG facility
C-159
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Janet Gunter <arrianeS@aol.com>
Monday, October 14, 2013 1:59 PM
wesling.mary@epamail.epa.gov; dan.tilema@csb.gov; helmlinger.andrew@epa.gov;
don.holmstrom@csb.gov; Beth.Rosenberg@csb.gov; Rafael.Moure-Eraso@csb.gov;
Mark.Griffon@csb.gov; lisa.pinto@mail.house.gov; elise.swanson@mail.house.gov; Kit
Fox; chateau4us@att.net; sally.magnani@doj.ca.gov; rob.wilcox@lacity.org;
maurice_lyles@boxer.senate.gov; michael_davies@feinstein.senate.gov;
blumenfeldjared@epa.gov
Fwd: Response from Prof. Heaton at Cal Tech re: LA Times article Seismic building
collapse&RanchoLPG
For your immediate attention! Do you think the Professor's concern should be any less now that the tanks and
infrastructure are over 40 years old?
----Original Message-----
From: Heaton, Thomas H.<heaton@caltech.edu>
To: Janet Gunter <arriane5@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Oct 14, 2013 11 :11 am
Subject: RE: Massive Explosive Butane Tanks sitting in actual Rupture Zone of Palos Verdes Fault
Janet,
Earlier in my career I did some work about the hazards from liquefied gas tanks in San Pedro. If my memory serves me
correct, these tanks were owned by Petrolane; perhaps, they are the same tanks you mentioned. I don't remember the
details of my analysis, but I came away with the impression that failure of these tanks would indeed be truly
catastrophic. My recollection was that I was concerned about potential sloshing of the liquefied gas. There was a double-
wall Dewar configuration to the tank. If the fluid sloshed over the top of the inner tank it would contact the outer tank wall
which could cause fracture because of the extremely low temperatures. Of course, that was more than 30 years ago and
I have not had occasion to revisit this problem.
Tom Heaton
Thomas Heaton
Prof. of Engineering Seismology
Director of the Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
626 395 4232
heaton@caltech.edu
http://heaton.caltech.edu/
From: Janet Gunter [mailto:arriane5@aol.com1
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2013 10:05
To: Heaton, Thomas H.
Subject: Massive Explosive Butane Tanks sitting in actual Rupture Zone of Palos Verdes Fault
Hello Professor-
Thank you so much for your recent study of the concrete buildings and the warning of their seismic risk. My name is
Janet Gunter, and I am with a homeowners group in San Pedro that has been fighting for decades to remove an ultra
hazardous facility that poses an enormous threat in multiple ways. Please see the attached LA Times articles that reflect
grave concern from almost 40 years ago. On every level this threat has gotten only worse with time. It is a miracle that
we have escaped catastrophe. I do not suspect that our luck will last forever. The two 12.5 MILLION GALLON butane
gas tanks were built in 1972-73 to a seismic sub-standard of 5.5-6.0 on a Fault with a magnitude of 7.3. This facility (now
owned by Rancho LPG) circumvented proper permitting process due to the fact that it was being promoted by Richard
Nixon for his close friend and supporter, RJ Munzer (owner). This thing NEVER should have been built in that
1 C-160
documented "Earthquake Rupture Zone". My point is that while the concrete building collapse is certainly a concern of
major significance ...... the absence of consideration of the chemical and fuel resources located in such geologically
sensitive areas such as this one ... make our earthquake safety analysis incredibly deficient. An EPA worst case
calculation of blast radius from a single 12.5 Million Gallon butane tank is over 3 miles. Butane gas burns so hot that it will
ignite combustibles for miles and this site is surrounded by fuel storage. The cascading failure event caused from an
event here would dwarf the loss of lives from collapsed buildings. Our voices on this are simply not being heard. The
political aim is to avoid having to confront the powerful energy industry ... but, at what cost? Please try to elevate this
concern if you recognize it. It is only through professionals like yourself that we will be able to reduce these serious
risks. Professor Bob Bea from UC Berkeley has reviewed some of the details of this facility and has acknowledged his
concern in an article in the Men's Journal from last Feb. (see final
paragraph) http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/bob-bea-the-master-of-disaster-20130225
It appears that even his voice on the issue has not made the impact that we had hoped. It is more than obvious that we
need help. Meanwhile we are teetering on the precipice of this looming disaster that no one seems to want to prevent. It
is just insane.
Thank you for reading and best of luck to you.
Best,
Janet G
2
C-161
RESOLUTION NO. 2013 .. __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FINDING IN ·SUPPORT OF
THE NECESSITY OF PROMPT LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
ACTION. TO BEST PRESERVE THE HEALTH, WELFARE~ AND
SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PAL.OS VSRDES STEMMING FROM THE
OPERATIONS OF RANCHO l.PG HOLDINGS, LTD. OF THE TWO
12 .. s MIJ .. LlON GALLON ABOve .. GROUND STORAGE TANKS IT
MAINTAINS AT ITS FACILITY ON 2110 GAFFEY STREET, SAN
PEDRO, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, there is currently maintained by Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd~ a
tank farm facility Jocated at 2110 North Gaffey Stree~ in .San Pedro, California on
which there exists two above .. ground tanks which hold 12.5 Million ,gallons of butane
periank (Total: 26 mllfion gallons)'; and
WHEREAS, in October, 2011', the City Of Rancho Palos Verdes had
requested Ranoha LPG Holdings, Ltd. to provide it with a copy of itsinsuranee
coverage demonstrating that Rancho LPG Hold.ings1' Ud. could financially respond to
any damages incurred to the: citizens and property owners as a result of Rancho's
aperations at the ~ffey Str6llt faclfity; and
WHEREAS, representatives .of Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. promised to
submit to the RPV City Attomey a copy of all insurance poUcies it pQ$Se&sed
reflective of the insurance coverage it had in force to support its operations at the
Gaffey Street facility. and most particularly, the cove~9e available for the benefit of
the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shoufd an
accident oceur resulting in harm to property, or harm or death to individuals should
an explosion oocur at the faeHity; and
WHEREAS, Ranc;;ho LPG Holdings, Ltd .. later reneged on its promi$e by
way of a letterdated January 29, 2013; and
. WH!REAS, Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd, was cited bY the EPA in March,
2013, for the fotlowingsix.violations:
1. Failing to include in the rail storage area of the site in its Risk
Management Plan;
2. Failing to adequately evaluate seismic impacts upon the facility's
emergency flare;
3. Failing to address the consequences of a loss of City water forfure
suppression during· an earthquake;
4. Fai(ing to timely conduct a timely internal inspection of Tank 1 .(storing
12.5 Million gallons of butane);
5. Failing to develop an emergency response plan to protect
health, welfare, or safety; and 0 FRO
MADE A PAfff OF
-1 -OOON.Clt. MEETING Of: . . .
OFflCE OF THE CITY CLERK
CARLA MORREALE. CtTY C!..Efll<
C-162
6. Failing to include a drain pipe and value in the containment basin in the
Mechanical Integrity Program; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Susan Brooks sent letters to Councilman Joe Busciano of
the City of Los Angeles, Congresswoman Janice Hahn, and Congressman Henry
Waxman on June 18, 2013, asking them to respond to the concerns raised by
Rancho's alleged errors and omissions; and
WHEREAS, responses to the Mayor's letter were received from Congressman
Janice Hahn, Congressman Henry Waxman, along with a letter from Senator Ted
Lieu which contained specific questions directed to the State Fire Marshall; but no
written response was received from the office of Councilman Joe Busciano; and
WHEREAS, the railroad fronting Gaffey in front of the Rancho facility operated
by PHL (Pacific Harbor line) and the adjacent rail spur (leased to Rancho) are
assets of the Port of Los Angeles which are subject to the Tidelands Trust Doctrine;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains concerned about the
safety and welfare of its residents and property owners, and thus remains concerned
about the failure of the City of Los Angeles, the Port of Los Angeles, the State of
California, or the United States Congress to discuss, debate) and decide the core
issue of who, as between the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes and Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd., should bear the risk of loss of
property and human life attendant to an accident or explosion at the Rancho Facility,
regardless of the odds and risk that such an accident might occur, for whatever
reason;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERD.ES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes remains concerned about
the safety and welfare of its residents and property owners from harm or death
resulting from an accident or terrorist event at the Rancho facility;
Section 2: That the City of Rancho Palos Verdes believes the best way to
protect the citizens and property owners of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is for the
following actions to be promptly taken following a fair1 open, transparent debate and
discussion, where all of the facts are noted 1 evaluated, and a determination reached:
a. That the City of Los Angeles to enact a robust and vigorous 'Risk
Management Ordinance' fashioned and modeled off of the Risk Management
Ordinance enacted by Contra Costa County which was praised by Senator Barbara
Boxer at a hearing held in June, 2013, before the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works which Senator Boxer chairs;
-2-
C-163
b. That the Controller of the City of Los Angeles exercise the power possessed
by him under Section 217 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles to subpoena the
insurance poticy or policies held by Rancho LPG Holdings. Ltd. in connection with an
evaluation of the cost to the City of Los Angeles should police and fire have to respond
to an explosion involving one or both of the 12.5 million gallon tanks on the Rancho
property;
c. That the Mayor of Los Angeles convene a task force, backed by the power
of subpoena he possesses under Section 217 of the Charter of the City of Los Angeles
for the purpose of evaluating the facts and considering the full range of an public policy
alternatives available to fully 1 competently, and fairly protect the public health, safety!
and welfare from any damages occasioned by Rancho's operations at the Gaffey Street
facility1 including the employment of Professor Robert Bea to evaluate the risks
attendant to Rancho's operations;
d. That the City of Los Angeles direct the City Attorney of Los Angeles to do
the following:
(i) Issue a formal legal opinion on the full nature and extent of the liability
of Rancho LPG Holdings 1 Ltd. to the people of the City of Los Angeles and the City of
Los Angeles occasioned by the occurrence of any accident or terrorist event at the
Rancho facility, and whether as a matter of law the City of Los Angeles can enact an
ordinance which imposes strict liability on Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. for all damages
resulting from its operations at the Gaffey facility regardless of whether Rancho LPG
Holdings, Ltd. was negligent;
(ii) Issue a formal legat opinion on the full nature, and extent of the liability
of the Port of Los Angeles to the City of Los Angeles and its residents as a result of any
errors, omission, orfailures by the Port in how it administers or manages the current
rail-spur permit (lease) dated February 2, 2011, revocable without cause at any time on
30 days notice, granted to Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd.;
(iii) Issue a formal legal opinion on the issue of whether the Port in issuing
the rail-spur permit is in vioJatron of its obligations under the Tidelands Trust for a rental
amount which is below fair market value is impermissibly subsidizing the operations of
Rancho LPG Holdings, Ltd. and is acting contrary to law in allowing Port Assets (the
rail-line fronting the Rancho facility on Gaffey Street leased to PHL (Pacific Harbor line)
and the rail spur which are subject to the Tidelands Trust to be unlawfully used to
benefit a private entity in violation of the Tidelands Trust; and
(iv) Issue a formal legal opinion on the issue of whether the City Attorney
of Los Angeles has an ethical conflict of interest in his dual representation of the Port of
Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles in light of the claims which the City will have
against the Port should it be determined that the Port was negligent in its administration
of the Rail-Spur Permit, or otheiwise acted unlawfully by permitting Port Property to be
used to benefit a private entity in violation of the Tidelands Trust and whether either the
-3-
C-164
City Council or the Port of Los Angeles should waive the conflict of interest or retain
separate counsel;
e. That the Port of Los Angeles undertake the following measures in connection
with the rail-spur permit and its administration of the same:
(i) Conduct a thorough internal analysis and evaluation of whether its
management of the rail-spur permit is fully in accordance with the Port's Risk
Management Policies, and then report to the public on the reasons why, or why not;
(ii) Retain private outside counsel to issue a legal opinion on the extent of
the Port's liability to the citizens of Rancho Palos Verdes and the citizens of Los
Angeles for any damages occasioned by an accident which occurs at the facility
resulting in an explosion causing harm to property and harm or death to individuals;
(iii) Retain the services of Professor Robert Bea to render a risk analysis in
connection with Rancho's Gaffey Street operations and charge Rancho LPG
Holdings 1 ltd. for the costs associated with that analysis and evaluation, as part of the
Port's administration of the Rail-Spur permit;
f. That a field hearing of the Congress of the United States hold a hearing in
San Pedro for the purpose of hearing testimony about the public's concerns about the
Rancho facility, the defects in the current regulatory regime, the need for an insurance
mandate on Rancho, or some other viable financial method and means by which the
public can be assured that Rancho assumes the full cost and financial burden of all
damages to people and property occasioned by its operations, and that
Representatives Janice Hahn and Henry Waxman do all that is necessary to
effectuate the same1 including having the Port Caucus of the House of
Representatives hold its own hearing in the event the relevant Congressional
Committees do not do so;
g. That the California State Legislature immediately take steps to develop and
pass legislation which would, as has the State of New York 1 impose strict liability on
Rancho for any harm to citizens and property stemming from its operations, and to
otherwise empower cities to enact robust and competent risk management
ordinances backed by insurance, fees imposed on the operators to pay for regular bi-
yearly (every six months) inspections;
Section 3: That the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify
to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of the same to Councilman
Joe Busciano, Congressman Janice Hahn, Congressman Henry Waxman, and State
Senator Ted Lieu.
-4-
C-165
Risk Management P1an (RMI') Data .fbr North Cplcs Levee, exterided detail http:ildauutknet..orglrmp/mtp.pb,p?faeilily_id"'·l0000014314l&dalabas ...
1 nfl2
aaslt: Far:iliw :tntl:t 1
FacllitY·fP 1,00Dl\0143141
Oertiglstered ('rl\1!1/f'ro} No
F111cillt:v Nam!!!. North Coles Levee
street Address l.ine l 9224 iVIM!an Raad
Cltv Ttlptitllli
State CA
Zip Code 93i!'11i
.county Kem ci.mnw
tillh Q:in!i~l:\11111 !>l$trict Wt: tallforr11a :a
<%'lrier or Operator Name Ine!'QY .Propane, LL(::
l'ranmt Cpmr;iany foefgy l'll?illillle, LLC
l.itt!Ml.e ss.2aosss
Lomflturie ~1:is.:u:1,943
Number ot RMP SUb!nlssions S
140/l.t .. ~nt $~11Sl~IJ lbfo
ilM?tO
Submission 'l'ype
submission Date
Reason For Submlslllon
llrot:ess TDJ(t~Amount Tota) (lbs;)
Pmtess Flammable Amountrotat (lbs)
Prooess AmoUnt Total {!bsl
l\lumbll!r of Potential Off site co1111etiul!naa PrOl:e$ses
Potential Oftslte Con.s!!lluenc:e T91<1c Amount Total (lbs)
Pote11t1.a1 011'$1t~ Co!lsequente ·Ffarnm11\lle,Amwnt Tot1.1Ulb$1
Potential Offslte <.:o~iwon~ AmountTot!lt (lbs)
All Pi'oct1ss NAICS
.exet sommary submission oate
.ii •
s'lso3
revised submtssion for flfcillty
01/23/2009
son::& Crltm!• Und. <Mlmt)
Level of Petatl t•.M•th~i • GO
T\'i'C u/'JteportOutput1 hAf.HMU '.00
Newly tf!WJlattld substanl(I!! abnveTQ 111 already tovered {U'C>CeSS.fl!O CFA. 6S.190(bf(3)1
31,SSS
11 i ,1:a~,uM
ll 7;M!M.*SS
3
211il2
Ol/2~009
37,!lSS
;:i,1,o,t2,00Q
n?,Mit,955
lnergy, LP· acquired tile North Coles· Levee Fractionator on. October .1, 21ll:l3, and Is proposing to add ·a new b11Uln,1a lsomerizat1on (butam~} unit to the facility ln
2008. The ~l!ty 1$;. QWMd and l:iperal;ed b\I Inergyt l,.lf, facility oPiatatidnli llm -co\Uiih!d bV thl.\\ C~ifomla O«upal:lonlill sar.ty and Health Admini$1:r;it!on•s (Qi!
PSHA) re~ulatlo!1S fn iltle 8; ~Ufomla Code Qf Re1;11,llattons (C~), 5181J1 f>roceS11 Sllfefy Maila!JemE!nt oNltutety !{a:i:ard(lus Matmals {l'SM), Tite·fadfity l$ a~
s!lb~r:t ta tl'ic Offl~ or r::meiuent;Y,"Servlce'.s rngulatl!!!ls ln Tltla ~ g CCI\ :Z13S; qt!!Tomfa A«fd!irtbil .Release Pfe\ff!.ntlon Pt'Qgtam (C:alA\'lP), th ts ts 11 F®e"r Risi<
Managl!!metltPrograrn {.RMP) liltld.·CalMP Pr~ram level 3 prpcess.
Inergy insi<ITii!:d the Aqueoui; Ammonia Syiih!m at tne North Coles wvee. Faclllty In July 2005. The.Aqueous Ammonia System is rr.gulated bV Title 19 Callfomla
Coda of Rei;iul11t1011s vss, OJIARP l'tngram. This 15 a C'alAIW le.vial 2 p.l'tK'ie$J>. The preventtQtl pro9ram d11$cril;ied b~ow hils been lmplemellted.
Inergy ln$\11lled the Anhydrous Amm<itila Refrlgeratton systl.!m lit the North tole!! l.evlre Faclllty in 2(1oa. Tue Anhydrou.s Am.moniil Re!iigeral:f1:m S}'$tem ls
!'e!i.Ulated by Tit!e 19 Cliflforrllll Code of'Regulations 2.75.5 t:a!ARP Program. Thiii is a Cal MP Level .2 pt9cess. The prevention p~ram desaibe<I belbw bas be¢n
implemt!nted.
The facJUty processes, stores, and tn:insffirs natvral 9a51 n<11tur11! gi!SollM, propane, and butllne. IM•mllllllli iii 11 IUlll iii llill Iii 1111•1.lillm•IOllillll ll.fllll lillllllllJili
C-166
· .Risk Management Pinn (RMP) Data for North Coles Levee. extemled 4i:tail http://data,rtknet.org{m1p/m1p.php?facility _id=l 00000:14314 l&databas ..•
2of11
The North C9les l.:eVC:I'! fraci:l(lf'lab.'lf 11perlltt,1a :.2.4 l!o1.1t11 iier day re~vlng natutlltuas· trom
111.irroundin!! prooud:iorr fleld!i. Natural Ga11 llqulds (NGl..I are teaivered fri:>rrt the. 1111tu1111 gas thrnush a rE:frlgeeatlon Ptocess. Tue ~m<llt'lirtg nawral gas ls sotd to
flublic Ut!Ht.y. Comml$$11'.ll'.I {PUC) riegu!ated l.ltlllty companies for ®me. use. NGL's .ill'\1t ftaci:lonoted il!to proj:OO!e, butane; lso·llutam:, ootmal butane, and gasolfnc
c:omponent!l fut· a multitude of llld!llltry uses. This facility l!H the ablllty ttJ ~m1:1ve hydrogen wJflde that may ~ ~nt In !tl<:omlng ilqi:lld detiverles. In tlte
summer, l:f1e fac:ntbt receives and stores ltquld til'llPlllli: t(;I be used as Winte1' file! fn. rofrfgerated $l:orage tanks.
h.'lergy dlrtently operates a cugeneratlim unit: and rs. Planning to 1rtstal1 a new cageneratlon unit, both of wll!¢tt utlllite a Selective ~lytlc !WdU<:tlnn {SCA}
Syat®'! and o~ldatlnn c<itll!yst,t<,i, r!lduc:e oxld~ uf Nltrog~ {NPx:} am:I tllrbon mOrt.l!l!lde In tile exhaust ga,.,. The SY$t<fm utlJl;:e~ a11veo1.1s amrinrnla, which Is
mixed In dlitit101111ir in a vapoti2er toWet, W:lport:zed, and ttfl'.ei:.tei! tti the reactor wfiere !Us Injected. up5tream llf" the aitaly$t bet:!.
lMl'.llY al~o utiliZl?S. a lllfrtget'jitlon systtm for the treatment.and/Qr storage or natural Qali and natural gas !!quills, whfdl tontlllns apP,i:iximatel'/ !l.Sd poµnds of
ar11\ydri»Js amnionl.o. Anllydrotis ~mon111 •11> used a:> a re~s1:1rant.
Tile aci;ldentatrelea$e prevention.program l!1 l:!a$ed on ·lfle requirement$ of Title 40 C11de Qf'reaeral Re911t111lo11, Part: ~a. and Title 19 <:Cit 2735 and 27SS, Thll>
program lneludes tile fntto.w!lt$1 ele:miints: Offl;lb.t C®Se<iuence.An11lysts, Employee Pa1tlclp11tmn, P~s sarei.y tnformatfon,. ProCl!Ss Hal!ard Ana!y!ils, Operating
~c:edUnll$; 'iialr!f!'ll:lr C
ontrllctilr Eva!!Jatlon, C\'>ntr.ittors anti Vlsltor Ofientatlon, Pre~jab Start-up ll,evlew, Mec{lanical Tntegrtty, C:Wl!! of Salit Work Practices (Hok Work Permit, Confined
Space EntrY, Control 'llf Hazardous Eoetgy), Management of thange, liltlldtiifil'.l1West(gatl9n, Etn¢rge:ncy Plll1lnlng and. Ri!s1Jonse,. and compliance Audits. The
anhydrous ammonia system has been incorporated in~o the Pli11tt 1'm1:11ss Sah?ty Management Program.
!n«rgy l'M\n~ns all,e1U1.trg11n11'1 mponn plan In comP.Ul!~ Wlth ll>i:al emetve!WftClilflonsu~enci&s, ttie;gy hllS a Hazardous Mat'1J'H1!s lluWT!ittiS Plan M me
wJ!ti thli !(em CGtlnW' Ertvlroiln\l!!lltlll Hli<llth SefVIQes O~arlmenl;, whlcl:i ii.I tile C:ettffll!!I' l.lnitfed Pt'llgr001 l\geney fur l<~rt cr,iunt:y,
Training Includes employee n11$ponslbllll:!es Jn the PSM and CalARPprogt'lims, emerven~y respan$e, hat wi:irk permit proi:edUl'llS'1 CQde ol' safe work practices, ant!
operating procedures.
The p~:s:s ma!.ntaln:s mitigation ml!llSllN!$ ~ons~fng of relief valv!#i. chuck v11lllti, manual shut off 11a1W11, automatl!:: shuMfs, :startllp ;im:t Qpet11tlng
p~ures, grounding equfptlfflnt, attd "'1hl:lilnrnant 11re<1.
eXie~l\IAl EVENTS ANALYSIS'
The butamer unlt and anh't'dtouHrnmon!ll refrigeration s.ystem are new processes scheduled to :start Installation In ~OOS as part: ot an axparn;lon of the North
Co.las Levee li'acll!ty. An e11rthquakeJs a possible external event at tne fadf1ty, This faclllty restctes outside the boundaries and contours of a Near-Source l!'ault
Zone acc:ordln!! ttHl!e document: "Maps ot k'n11wn Active Fault Near•Soun:e Zones rn CaJtforrifa and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," pUblisl!e.d by lhe International
Conference of!:luildlng Officials {ICBO). ·
ln May .i99;9 art external events analyS!s canlilstlng of a preUiTilnary seismic walkthrough was conducted. This walkthrnuglr wa:s complised ofa Visual ln5ped:lon
ofthi! above ~rade pl'ooe$ fllplng and.vessels. Tlte references used forthe 1999 walkthrough were tl'1e followlns~
AP!. Standard S70 Pressure Vessel lnspeaion c;od.ll.! Maintenance Inspection, Rating ftepalr,
and. Alteration.
Pl':ocei;s11s Unlimited International, !nc; Engineered Safety Section, ClllARP Seismic Assessment Procedure, April 12, 1999,
C-167
Risk:Mauagement Plan (RMP) Data for North Coles Levee, extended detail bttp://data.rtlmetorg{nnp/nnp.php?facfilty _iw 100000 l 43141&databi:I$ ...
3 of ll
llnlfol'tll Sulldtng >Code; 1:':19:)1 Edition, Jritetnatfnnat Confl!rence of BuJld!ng CllflclaJs.
An accidental i"dease prevention and emergency respornre poHcy have bf:en established by lnettiY m1111agement anti lrnplemented by the emplf.\Yet'l$. ln the
event of"" accidentl<ll release, the facility operators e«i' tmlned to stiutl)fftlle sourteJrom a safe loClltion or aetiwlte one.of the emel'lJency shutdown devicl!S,
C(llitact Ul a11d !o\'eeute the llfeil. The 911 svsl:!!m ls used t11 not:lfy the Flt:11 D!!Partll'lent.
lner:gy malritains an em1.11'.'9ency ~fiOOse plan Jn t11111pl!arite with !t!(iP em~ncy reSPW!Se <igencles. The North Coles ~ilee Facility hm: a H~z111roqusMatt1r1a1s
Ut;1sf11e$ Ptan on tile With tile l<t!rr1 Cotif!b/ 1lin11lrorin1trtt11! Hiialth ~Meu Oepartrtti!i'lt, the C:.-;l'tl!l!!d \Jril!ll:!d Prog!'llm Agency for Kern County.
aased nil the criteria set:forth 111 iltte '19 ®II, 2735.4, this l'ili:Jllty ha$ not had lll'f ai:t:lden:tal release. Thl!i lnfarmi!tlan was verlfled by the mv~ng ot records
from the !<em .COuiify Erwlronmi!rital 1i11alth SeMt:es t>epartnient.
ll It ill 11 I . lll
Ttte to:dc.: worst•t:$iucenarlO.used aqullOUS 111tnnM111 ail the modeled $tlbslllrn;e. The .wors~Stl rel~i!ie af 37,000 pw11d$ Qf anlwelmYs ammqnfll indh::!ltas a
ttll(lC: en~llolnt drstanee pf \A miles, This distance t!Ji.es not impact: any publli:: ~tors. The pa!;;Sl\le mitlgatlon considered fi:!tl:tttnnalysl!i includes endosures
and ,berms. This sten11rib is hlllll!<I upon t~ II.MP Comp V~$iol'l l.d7 llM:Wlte,
II II 1811111
C-168
Name of Respondent
Plains LPG Services, LP
Thls Is:
(1) Orlgloal
{2} ubmisslon
Daw 01 Al\lP<l!t (Mo, Da, Yr' -.
04'15120
Year/Period or Report
Endof ~
1.) Give particulars {details) of the various affiliated company debtors and the character of the transactions involved ln the current
asset Account No. t3, ReQQlvables from Affiliated Companies.
2.} In column (a}, list every item amountlng to $500,000 or more. For debtors whose balances were less than $500,000, a sing!t! entry
be made under a an 00,000."
Name ol Qeb!or
(al
FERC FOAM No. 616-0 (ED.1M>O)
OeSll:fiption of A$Sels or of Transaction
(b)
Totaf
C-169
CHARTEROF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
217. Investigations and Proceedings.
(a) Administration of Oaths• The Ma'{.tJr, Controller, Treasurer, the Zoning
Administrator, Md eiJ&IJ, m,eme1rofthe Qouapil and oftacll goard 1rovidedfor in the
Charter, and the secretary ofeach of those boards, shsfl.have tlJe power to adJninif"1l
oaths and atfirflJ#tl.ons .in,~lf~ {lJVt!StiQ-Onpl' m:.oo_,aill,Q~ngms J:fefi!rf4, aftl! Of tho§.!
officers or bodies. or concerning any demand on the City Treasury, and the City Clerk shall
have the power to administer all oaths and affirmations required by the Charter.
(b) Witnesses and Subpoenas. ihe Ma.gor1 Ct:mtroller, Treasurer. the Zoning
Administrator, Council, and each board provided for.in the Charter §hfl,11 have the e.ower
,nd agthoritr, to examine wltnes1u UfJder oath end com9el .the attendance of
w1tpesses aad ihe g,ropuction of evidegt;.e be;fore them. Upon the request of the MaJi!or,
Controller, Treasurer, Presldt,nf'of the Courn::il, or fb.e g,rufll/JJll ofllnr. of an·y board, th!
Cl · of: the Ci 1 attested with the corporate seal,
requiring the attendance testimony of the witness or production of documents at a
specified time and place before the Mayor, Controller, Treasurer, Council, or board requesting
the subpoena. Nothing in this section shall require Council, any board or officer1 or the
Zoning Administrator to provide far examination of witnesses under oath in any particular
proceeding.
(c) Penalties llnd Procedure. The. Chief of Police, or other officer designated by
ordinance1 shalt cause alt such subpoenas to be served. The Council shall prescribe by
ordinance suitable penalties for disobedience of subpoenas, and the refusal of witnesses to
testify or produce evidence.
(d) Board Examiners. Under procedures prescribed by orcfinance:
(1) E:ach btHWdt>l!f.mmiafon~ ma:.r a11.rs.lnt oae or more exam.inert. or may
designate one or more of its members to serve as examiners 1 whenever, under thtJ Gharmr
W:IWBRJ! lawt a rght of.am<ml or amt.est to tb!J. lmfrd is .liv@n; or wlmf~ It fl liflJJir!fl
ta tonduat111r:. fnyfd6Qatlon orhearin4;
(2) Each board may adopt, reject or modify the report of any examiner in whole or in
part, or may reconsider the matter in whole or in part;
(3) Each examiner shall have power to administer oaths and require the City Clerk to
issue subpoenas; and
(4) Reference to an examiner shall not extend or curtail the time within which the action
of any board must be taken, as required by the Charter, any other law or by ordinance.
C-170
Comments summary on <Rancho (Plains) Oescrlptlon of California Activities (circa 200) on Use of Facility to Aid in p 1 Speculation in Butane and Butane Futures.pdf> age
Notes
Cru1h1 oil activity
•..e30.n~~rd-~
h•ftO ~;d Fotti'Qn'
•!lii!!<lf.,.OI Utt<>f '"'ll'IV•
lilff11i
I
• Hedge lo protect and opthnlte margins I
•Ahi!llylp <;<1jllut•. qvablv/
r~tkm.at'bltf'19f:l-i0d
.U.tr.m« 0111dtii
• P11rchasi111 are lndttx related; mi ®trigllt price rl&k I
• Mar9imr. lmpa~tod by quali!y, loe<1tloo and h1tct·m11rtth lltn• <1vfu1<111til!ls:
• Provide l111tlstlcal l!Oti adminlslrntlV<!' Hrvk:es to our <atstortib"'
• ~a.sml!non bamli\oftal!k~gi.!$itjlpottlll~s<icactlilllie$ I fiiiiiiiii9--·1·. ;;;~~;;;;;;;;;;;111\ll-lil;;10:153~;;;~~il~~·;;;;;;t;;;.7i;&;··
• ll>••d on lllllY••• i®ll!l•i<!>M~ m•nlfltwl vi>l l'mmM~"" ··~t?413~1,,%
4a
,f
I
. !lei
Slof!llle of Jilulllne ~fl'f11ncho a·11per.ufa!ivc
activity.,. Nl>lit reter1mca lo 'ft!llllltial
~·and rnw1inrJ< to '11nggfn1l' r1rbutane
culltrae!l\ o,11 NYMEX •••
T!liS f& l1lnit tlj!lll.'Ullltioll ill ll!lltlffll l'UIUl!eil. ,
"Wllatis;UQll>u en is ltull:Ri1nt:hC1 buya{or
$ll'llll) SUlsnc In !hi.I S(lllng ;al'ld l!Ummer
Whi!ll ilili ~p'and (ftll
C-171
RPG Staff report for
County General Plan Housing Element Update
C-172
LOS ANGELES COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT NO.: RADV 2012-02607 /CASE NO.: RADVT 201200011/RENVT201200284
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT, 2014-2021
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Element outlines the County's goals and policies for appropriately guiding housing
development and preservation in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. It includes
an analysis of the County's existing and projected housing needs, and an assessment of the
County's ability-through adopted land use policies, existing procedures and resources and
proposed programs-to accommodate its fair share of the regional housing need. As shown in
Table 1, -the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has determined that the
regional housing need, or the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), for the
unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County is 30, 145 units over the period January 1, 2014 -
October 15, 2021.
Table 1 RHNA for Unincorporated Los AnQefes Count-. Januarv 1, 2014-October15, 2021
Very Low Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total Units
(S 50% AMI) (S 80%AMI) (S 120% AMI) (> 120%AMI)
RHNA 7,584 4,650 5,060 12,581 30,145
The Draft Housing Element and Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration are included as
Attachments 1 and 2.
BACKGROUND
State Housing Element Law
The State of California requires every local jurisdiction to prepare and regularly update the
Housing Element, which is one of the seven mandatory Elements of the General Plan. Prior to
adoption, as required by §65585(b) of the Government Code, the State Department of Housing
and Community Development (HCD) is required to review and respond to the Draft Housing
Element with findings of compliance with the State Housing Element Law, within 60 days of
receipt. Upon adoption by the Board of Supervisors, the Housing Element must be submitted to
HCD for certification. The statutory deadline to submit adopted Housing Elements to HCD,
which applies to all local jurisdictions in the region covered by SCAG, is October 15, 2013. If the
Housing Element is adopted after February 15, 2014, the County will be required to update the
Housing Element in four years rather than eight.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
The State Housing Element Law prescribes the general contents of the Housing Element. The
Draft Housing Element includes the required analyses, organized into five sections; Goals and
Policies; Programs; Housing Needs; Housing Constraints; and Resources. The following
summarizes the major findings of these sections:
1
C-173
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
Goals and Policies
Below are the goals and policies of the Draft Housing Element, organized by topic:
HOUSING AVAILABILITY
Goal 1: A wide range of housing types in sufficient supply to meet the needs of current and future residents,
particularly for persons with special needs, including but not limited to low income households, seniors, persons with
disabilities, large households, single-parent households, the homeless and at-risk of homelessness, and
farmworkers.
Policy 1.1: Make available through land use planning and zoning an adequate inventory of vacant and underutilized
sites to accommodate the County's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
Policy 1.2: Mitigate the impacts of governmental regulations and policies that constrain the provision and preservation
of housing for low and moderate income households and those with special needs.
Policy 1.3: Coordinate with the private sector in the development of housing for low and moderate income households
and those with special needs. Where appropriate, promote such development through incentives.
Policy 1.4: Assist housing developers to identify and consolidate suitable sites for developing housing for low and
moderate income households and those with special needs.
Policy 1.5: Advocate legislation and funding for programs that expand affordable housing opportunities and support
legislative changes to State housing programs to ensure that the criteria for the distribution of funds to local
governments are based, in part, on the housing needs as reflected in the RHNA.
Goal 2: Sustainable communities with access to employment opportunities, community facilities and services, and
amenities.
Policy 2.1: Support the development of housing for low and moderate income households and those with special
needs near employment and transit.
Policy 2.2: Encourage mixed use developments along major commercial and transportation corridors.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Goal 3: A housing supply that ranges broadly in housing costs to enable all households, regardless of income, to
secure adequate housing.
Policy 3.1: Promote mixed income neighborhoods and a diversity of housing types throughout the unincorporated
areas to increase housing choices for all economic segments of the population.
Policy 3.2: Incorporate advances in energy and cost-saving technologies into housing design, construction, operation,
and maintenance.
Goal 4: A housing delivery system that provides assistance to low and moderate income households and those with
special needs.
Policy 4.1: Provide financial assistance and ensure that necessary supportive services are provided to assist low and
moderate income households and those with special needs to attain and maintain affordable and adequate housing.
2
C-174
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOUSING PRESERVATION
Goal 5: Neighborhoods that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and enhance public and private
efforts to maintain, reinvest in, and upgrade the existing housing supply.
Policy 5.1: Support neighborhood preservation programs, such as graffiti abatement, abandoned or inoperative
automobile removal, tree planting, and trash and debris removal.
Policy 5.2: Maintain adequate neighborhood infrastructure, community facilities, and services as a means of
sustaining the overall livability of neighborhoods.
Policy 5.3: Enforce health, safety, building, and zoning laws directed at property maintenance as an ongoing function
of the County government.
Goal 6: An adequate supply of housing preserved and maintained in sound condition, and located within safe and
decent neighborhoods.
Policy 6.1: Invest public and private resources in the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing to prevent or
reverse neighborhood deterioration.
Policy 6.2: Allocate federal and state resources toward the preservation of housing, particularly for low income
households, near employment and transit.
Policy 6.3: Inspect multifamily rental housing (with five or more units), contract shelters, and voucher hotels on a
regular basis to ensure that landlords are maintaining properties, and not allowing them to fall into disrepair.
Policy 6.4: Maintain and improve community facilities, public housing services, and infrastructure, where necessary,
to enhance the vitality of older, low income neighborhoods.
Goal 7: An affordable housing stock that is maintained for its long-term availability to low and moderate income
households and those with special needs.
Policy 7.1: Conserve existing affordable housing stock that is at risk of converting to market-rate housing.
Policy 7.2: Preserve and, where feasible, provide additional affordable housing opportunities within the coastal zone.
EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY
Goal 8: Accessibility to adequate housing for all persons without discrimination in accordance with federal and state
fair housing laws.
Policy 8.1: Support the distribution of affordable housing, shelters, and transitional housing in geographically diverse
locations throughout the unincorporated areas, where appropriate support services and facilities are available in close
proximity.
Policy 8.2: Enforce laws against illegal acts of housing discrimination. These include housing discrimination based on
race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, familial status, age, disability,
source of income, or any arbitrary reason excluding persons from housing choice.
Policy 8.3: Promote equal opportunity in housing and community development programs countywide.
Policy 8.4: Encourage housing design to accommodate special needs. Designs may include units with multiple
bedrooms; shared facilities; universal design; onsite child care; health clinics; or onsite job training services.
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
Goal 9: Planning for and monitoring the long-term affordability of adequate housing.
Policy 9.1: Ensure collaboration among County departments and other agencies in the delivery of housing and
related services.
Policy 9.2: Enforce and enhance the housing monitoring system to ensure compliance with funding program
regulations and compliance with local, state, and federal laws.
3
C-175
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
Programs
The housing programs outlined in the Draft Housing Element are designed to increase the
supply of housing, especially affordable housing; preserve existing units; and provide equal
access to housing opportunities. Nearly half of the programs included are previously adopted
ongoing regulatory and funding programs. The following is a summary of new programs:
Program 2 General Plan Update
The Los Angeles County General Plan Update provides the policy framework for how and
where the unincorporated areas will grow through the year 2035, while recognizing and
celebrating the County's wide diversity of cultures, abundant natural resources, and status as an
international economic center. The General Plan Update accommodates new housing and jobs
in anticipation of population growth in the unincorporated areas and the region.
The Draft Housing Element includes an analysis that demonstrates that with the proposed land
use changes and zones changes in the General Plan Update, the County will continue to
maintain an inventory of sites that meet the RHNA for the 2014-2021 planning period.
Program 6Transit Oriented Districts (TODs)
Transit Oriented Districts (TODs) are areas that will be established by the General Plan Update,
within a 1 /2 mile radius from a Metro transit stop, with development and design standards, and
incentives to facilitate transit-oriented development. Eleven TODs will be located along the
Metro Blue Line, Green Line, Gold Line, Gold Line Extension and near the Metro Silver Line.
In the General Plan Update, major corridors within a proposed TOD will be given a mixed use
zoning and land use designation. These new regulations will allow by right mixed use and
residential development, with densities of up to 150 dwelling units per acre. All TODs will be
implemented by TOD specific plans, with standards, regulations, and infrastructure plans that
are tailored to the unique characteristics and needs of each community, and address issues
such as access, connectivity, pedestrian improvements, and safety.
Program 9 Air Quality and Housing
Studies indicate that residences near sources of traffic pollution are associated with adverse
health effects. While siting residences further from a pollution source reduces these adverse
health impacts, it also reduces the potential for housing development.
Given the association between traffic pollution and health, the California Air Resources Board
and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health recommend that residences be sited
at least 500 feet from freeways, in particular. In addition, the Community Development
Commission requires a minimum 500 foot distance from freeways as part of its funding
requirements for new affordable housing development and affordable housing rehabilitation.
In an effort to improve health and provide an adequate housing supply, the County will continue
to assess the impacts of siting residences next to freeways from a health and housing
development perspective.
Program 25 Best Practices for Accessible Housing
Developing and managing an accessible housing stock is an important affordable housing
consideration. Best practices are needed to ensure that accessible affordable housing units are
developed and managed to provide the most benefit to persons with disabilities. While all newly
constructed residential buildings must comply with California Building Code in regards to
4
C-176
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
building accessibility, this section focuses on the requirements and incentives related to the
adaptability and accessibility of residential units within affordable housing developments that
receive financing assistance provided through County agencies. Although accessible units have
long been required in publicly-assisted affordable housing, the County hopes to improve on best
practices to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and fair housing requirements,
while also taking steps to help match the accessible units with income-eligible persons or
households that are seeking such housing.
Program 27 Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance
On November 28, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Reasonable Accommodations
Ordinance, which creates an administrative procedure for persons with disabilities to request
reasonable accommodation from land use and zoning standards or procedures, when those
standards or procedures are a barrier to equal housing access, pursuant to state and federal fair
housing laws. Codifying the procedure was a critical step in raising awareness of the County's
reasonable accommodations request procedures. As a next step, the County can review current
practices ·and application forms, and increase public awareness through the use of signage and
other information materials. In addition, the County will refine the Reasonable Accommodations
Ordinance through the Technical Update of the Zoning Code to clarify and simplify the definition
of "individual with a disability" and remove any outdated application requirements. Furthermore,
the County will consider amendments to the notification and appeals provisions of the
Ordinance to ensure the protection of privacy rights of individuals with disabilities.
Program 28 CEQA Streamlining
Analyzing the impacts of a project is a valuable part of the development process. However,
when not performed correctly, environmental review also adds some additional cost, processing
time, and uncertainty for developers.
The County will consider approaches to designing planning documents within urbanized areas
near employment and transit, such as TOD specific plans, to allow development with a
streamlined environmental review, to the extent possible. The County will also develop tools to
facilitate the use of applicable exemptions and streamlining provisions for infill projects and
affordable housing projects in CEQA.
Housing Needs
The housing needs assessment in the Draft Housing Element indicates that many of the
housing needs and population characteristics of the unincorporated areas are consistent with
the entire County. The 2010 unincorporated population was 1,057,088 or roughly 11% of the
Countywide population.
The population of the unincorporated areas is largely young, with the 19 and younger age group
equaling 31 % of the population. In contrast, those 65 and older equal 9% of the unincorporated
population.
The housing needs assessment also reveals that in 2013, the number of homeless within Los
Angeles County increased to 58,423 people, or 16% in the past two years. The largest increase
was seen in the Antelope Valley, where an additional 5,545 homeless were counted.
Some of the unique features of the unincorporated areas in comparison to the County as a
whole include a higher homeownership rate and a predominantly single-family housing stock.
5
C-177
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
Over 50% of commuters living in the unincorporated areas drive at least 30 minutes to get to
work, with 15% driving more than an hour.
The unincorporated areas also have a higher rate of overcrowding in comparison with the
County as a whole. Our analysis also indicates that nearly half of households in the
unincorporated areas are overpaying for housing costs.
Housing Constraints
An analysis of governmental constraints to housing development indicates that land use
regulations for the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County are comparable to other local
jurisdictions in California and do not significantly inhibit housing development. Development
standards, such as parking requirements, setbacks, and height limits generally are not
restrictive. However, the lack of certainty for some permit processing procedures may be an
impediment to housing development in the unincorporated areas. Furthermore, the uncertainty
of impact. fees and unanticipated requirements may impair the feasibility of a project. Another
governmental constraint identified is the definition of "family" in Title 22, which limits persons
per household to be related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
An analysis of nongovernmental constraints to housing development indicates that the
unincorporated areas consist of an environmentally diverse landscape, with physical hazards,
as well as valuable resources. The analysis points to steep slopes, fire and flood hazards, and
biological resources as some of the environmental factors that render much of the
unincorporated areas undevelopable, as well as to limited infrastructure and access to public
services, especially in rural areas.
Market-driven factors are also identified as nongovernmental constraints that significantly
contribute to the cost of housing and housing development. With the shortage of vacant,
developable land in the unincorporated areas, land costs are high, which discourages market-
provided affordable housing.
Housing Resources
The Draft Housing Element concludes that there are adequate sites in the unincorporated areas
to accommodate the RHNA of 30, 145 units. The County's residential sites potential consists of
the following:
• Capacity of specific plan areas that have been comprehensively pre-planned to
accommodate a range of housing types and densities; and
• Vacant and underutilized residential and mixed use sites that allow multifamily and mixed
use residential developments administratively.
The methodology for determining the County's capacity includes a number of assumptions,
including identifying vacant and underutilized sites as adequate sites and using multifamily units
of at least 30 units/acre as a proxy for meeting the RHNA for very low and lower income
households. Sites identified for multifamily housing are located in the urban unincorporated
communities. Table 2 compares the County's adequate sites capacity with the County's RHNA,
by affordability level.
Table 2: County Adequate Sites Capacity and RHNA Comparison
6
C-178
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
Very Low Lower
(S50% AMI) (S80%AMI)
RHNA 12,504
Adequate Sites Inventory 17,167
7
Moderate Above Total Moderate (S120%AMI) (>120%AMI) Units
5,060 12,581 30,145
7,161 24,215 48,543
C-179
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The State law requires the Elements of the General Plan to be consistent. Section 65583(c)(7)
of the Government Code requires that a local jurisdiction's Housing Element describe "the
means by which consistency will be achieved with other General Plan Elements and community
goals." The County has established procedures toward ensuring internal consistency between
the Housing Element and other General Plan Elements. The Housing Element is consistent with
all of the other Elements of the General Plan, in that it does not require any significant changes
to the other Elements of the General Plan, modify or relocate density, and recommend policies
or action programs that would create housing at the expense of goals and policies within the
General Plan.
Housing Element policies are shaped by other General Plan policies, with particular focus on
hazard avoidance (i.e., fire hazard areas, hillside management areas, flood zones, seismic
zones, etc.); resource protection (i.e., Significant Ecological Areas and major recreational areas,
such as the Santa Monica Mountains); avoidance of irritating noise sources; and the cost of
providing and maintaining additional infrastructure, such as for water and sewers, to
undeveloped areas. Therefore, several Elements of the General Plan may affect housing
development strategies because they govern environmental or man-made factors that impact
the County's ability to accommodate housing.
The County of Los Angeles is currently undertaking a comprehensive update to the Los Angeles
County General Plan and anticipates completion by 2014. The County is committed to ensuring
that the policies of the General Plan Update are consistent with the Housing Element. At the
time of adoption of the General Plan Update, the County shall amend the Housing Element, as
needed, to demonstrate the continued ability to accommodate the RHNA under the updated
General Plan Land Use Element.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
The staff has prepared a Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Draft Housing
Element in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
environmental reporting procedures of the County of Los Angeles.
The Housing Element serves as a policy guide for meeting the existing and future housing
needs of all economic segments of the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. It analyzes
adopted land use policies to ensure that Los Angeles County properly plans for its fair share of
the regional housing need. For these and other reasons, the Initial Study determined that there
is no substantial evidence that the adoption of the Draft Housing Element will have a significant
effect on the physical environment, and therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The staff distributed the notice of public hearing and availability of the Draft Housing Element
and Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration to over 2,900 individuals and organizations. In
addition, an e-mail notice was sent to over 1,200 addresses. Furthermore, the Draft was made
available on the DRP web site, in all County libraries, DRP field offices and other suggested
locations. The notice was also published in 16 newspapers, including one Spanish language
newspaper, of general circulation in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County between
September 6· 2013 and September 19, 2013. The notice was also posted in the Los Angeles
County Register-Recorder/County Clerk's office.
8
C-180
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
As of the date of this staff report, the staff has received one comment letter expressing concern
over safety with regards to natural disasters and new development in Marina Del Rey (see
Attachment 3).
To develop the Housing Element, the County implemented a broad outreach strategy, which
included both traditional community outreach and online media resources. The end result was
an inclusive process that informed the preparation of the Housing Element. The County's staff
reached all socio-economic segments of the community by utilizing online outreach, facilitating
community forums, reaching out to developers, and soliciting input from housing advocates.
County staff developed a media outreach campaign that included the Housing Element Update
website, email notifications, postcard mailings, an online survey, and announcements on
Facebook and Twitter. By utilizing these outreach tools, the staff connected with a wide range of
community members, while expanding opportunity for feedback.
The County staff also made presentations and solicited input from various stakeholder groups
and organizations, including for-profit and non-profit housing developers in coordination with the
Community Development Commission and their Consolidated Plan Update efforts.
STATE REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a draft of
the Housing Element on June 11, 2013. On August 9, 2013 staff received comments from HCD
indicating the following two changes are required for State certification (see Attachment 4 for
the entire HCD comment letter):
1) Analyze the adopted reasonable accommodations ordinance to demonstrate compliance
with state and federal fair housing laws.
2) Provide specific implementation timeframes for Program 9 Air Quality and Housing and
Program 25 Best Practices for Accessible Housing.
To address the first comment, the staff added additional information on the reasonable
accommodations ordinance and added Program 27 Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance.
To address the second comment, the staff added specific milestone dates for Programs 9 Air
Quality and Housing and Program 25 Best Practices in Accessible Housing.
RECOMMENDATION
Revised Draft Housing Element
The staff recommends the following revisions to the Draft Housing Element ("Revised Public
Review Draft September 2013"), which was circulated for public review [see redlined edits in
Attachment 5]:
Housing Needs and Resources for Persons with Disabilities
9
C-181
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
Based on recent discussions with Disability Rights CA, the staff made a number of edits,
including clarification that the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities should
be integrative and inclusive, and that persons with developmental disabilities can live and work
independently or with support within a conventional housing environment (p. 61-62). In addition,
the staff made edits to the analysis of the Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance with
additional considerations for assessing the Ordinance and current practices to ensure the
protection of the privacy rights of persons with disabilities (p. 111). In addition, the staff made
edits in the discussion of zoning regulations to ensure consistency with state and federal laws,
such as fair housing. Furthermore, the staff made changes to Program 3 Zoning Ordinance
Update Program (p.19), Program 25 Best Practices in Accessible Housing (p. 42), and Program
27 Reasonable Accommodations Ordinance (p.44) to address these issues.
Air Quality and Housing
Based on recent discussions with South Coast AQMD, the staff made a number of changes to
address the issue of assessing the impacts of siting residences next to freeways from a health
and housing development perspective. The staff made an additional edit to Program 9 Air
Quality and Housing (p. 116) to address a concern that the effectiveness of design or mitigation
measures require additional research.
Additionally, the staff made non-substantive revisions for consistency to the Draft Housing
Element.
Staff recommends that the Regional Planning Commission approve the Draft Housing Element
as revised and presented today for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors ("Board") for
its consideration and approval, and to direct staff to transmit the Draft Housing Element to the
Board for their consideration at a public hearing, by approving a resolution to that effect in the
form of the attached draft resolution (see Attachment 6).
Recommended Motion
I move that the Regional Planning Commission close the public hearing and find that the
Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, and
approve the resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing to
consider and adopt the Negative Declaration and find that the Draft Housing Element, as
revised and presented today, will not have a significant effect on the environment.
I also move that the Regional Planning Commission approve the resolution recommending that
the Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing to consider and adopt the Draft Housing Element
as revised and presented today, and determine that it is compatible with and supports the goals
and policies of the Los Angeles County General Plan.
Attachments:
1. Draft Housing Element, Revised September 26, 2013
2. Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
3. Public comments received after September 9, 2013
4. HCD 60-Day Review Letter, August 1, 2013
5. Draft Housing Element, Revised September 26, 2013, redlined version
6. Draft Resolution
10
C-182
Regional Planning Commission
Housing Element Update Staff Report
October 9, 2013
Prepared by: Troy Evangelho, Regional Planning Assistant II, General Plan Development and
Housing Section
Reviewed by: Connie Chung, Supervising Regional Planner, General Plan Development and
Housing Section
MC:CC:TE
11
C-183