DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Mitigated Negative Declaration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (310) 253-5710 FAX (310) 253-5721 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title and Culver City File No.: Ivy Station Transit Oriented Mixed Use Development P2015-0141-CP - Comprehensive Plan P2015-0141-HTEX – Height Exception P2015-0141-TTM – Tentative Tract Map City of Los Angeles Case Nos: CPC-2015-4478-GPA-ZC-HD-CU-CUB-ZAD-SPR; VTTM 73977 Project Location: Cities of Culver City and Los Angeles (8824 National Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232) Project Sponsor: Culver Station, LLC Project Description: The project would include a stand-alone 5-story (~72 feet tall) Office Building with retail and restaurant uses on Level 1 (Ground Level) and office uses on Levels 1 to 5. In addition, two interconnected 5 to 6-story buildings atop a single-level podium are proposed that would include a 200-unit Residential Building (up to ~79 feet tall) and a 148-room Hotel Building (up to ~77 feet tall), both of which would have retail and restaurant uses on the Ground Level. The three buildings would be built over a 3-level subterranean parking structure. The buildings would be connected through a series of landscaped courtyards and open spaces at both the pedestrian and podium levels. Overall, the project would provide a total of 148 hotel rooms, 200 residential units, approximately 185,000 square feet of office use, 36,200 square feet of retail use, and 16,100 square feet of restaurant use. Only the Office Building has uses in both jurisdictions, with the Residential and Hotel Buildings being located entirely within Culver City. Environmental Determination: This is to advise that the City of Culver City, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing to adopt this FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION based on the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before this MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2. There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study, and any applicable mitigation measures, and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION may be obtained at: City of Culver City, Planning Division 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232 www.culvercity.org Contact: Susan Yun, Senior Planner (310) 253-5755 or [email protected] February 1, 2016 March 9, 2016 (revised) Table of Contents ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ................................ EC-1 ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................... A-1 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... A-1 B. Project Location and Surrounding Uses ............................................................................... A-1 C. Site Background ................................................................................................................... A-2 D. Planning and Zoning ............................................................................................................ A-5 E. Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................... A-5 F. Description of Proposed Project ........................................................................................... A-6 G. Necessary Approvals.......................................................................................................... A-26 ATTACHMENT B EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST DETERMINATIONS ........................................... B-1 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. B-1 II. Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................ B-8 III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... B-10 IV. Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... B-21 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. B-24 VI. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. B-34 VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... B-41 VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...................................................................................... B-61 IX. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. B-71 X. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... B-77 XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................. B-85 XII. Noise .................................................................................................................................. B-85 XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................................... B-102 XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................................. B-104 XV. Recreation ........................................................................................................................ B-115 XVI. Transportation and Circulation .......................................................................................... B-115 XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... B-138 XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. B-149 XIX. Earlier Analysis ................................................................................................................. B-151 References ................................................................................................................................ B-151 ATTACHMENT C - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM .............................................................. C-1 Ivy Station TOD Mixed-Use 8824 National Boulevard February 1, 2016 Table of Contents List of Figures Figure A-1 Regional and Project Vicinity Locations ................................................................................... A-3 Figure A-2 Aerial Photograph with Surrounding Land Uses ...................................................................... A-4 Figure A-3 Project Zoning/Jurisdictions .....................................................................................................A -7 Figure A-4 Building Concept Design .........................................................................................................A -8 Figure A-5 Site Plan ................................................................................................................................A -11 Figure A-6 Ground Level Plan ................................................................................................................. A-12 Figure A-7 Office Building: North Elevation (Venice Boulevard) .............................................................. A-13 Figure A-8 Residential Building: East and Interior Elevations (National Boulevard and Office Building) .. A-14 Figure A-9 Hotel Building: East and South Elevations (National Boulevard and Washington Boulevard) ............................................................................................................................. A-15 Figure A-10 Ground Level Open Space Programming .............................................................................. A-21 Figure B-1 Venice - National Corner View ................................................................................................. B-3 Figure B-2 Washington - National Corner View ......................................................................................... B-4 Figure B-3 On-site Buildings Evaluated for Historic Significance ............................................................. B-27 Figure B-4 Noise Measurement and Sensitive Receptor Locations ......................................................... B-93 Figure B-5 Project Intersection Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ................................................. B-117 List of Tables Table A-1 Proposed Project Land Use Summary ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Neighborhood Guide to Culver City Meets Venice
    A NEIGHBORHOOD GUIDE TO CULVER CITY MEETS VENICE with contributions from 826LA student writers WELCOME TO CICLAVIA Today’s route takes us from the northern tip of vibrant down- town Culver City through the community of Mar Vista to Venice and the sparkling Pacific Ocean— OUR PARTNERS a perfect route for a summer day where you can enhance your CicLAvia experience with a swim in the ocean and enjoy the SoCal beach scene. The neighborhoods you’ll pass through today are but City of Los Angeles three of the 23 that make up the region dubbed OUR SUPPORTERS OUR SPONSORS LA’s “Westside,” a place, like the rest of LA, of Annenberg Foundation Cirque du Soleil Ralph M. Parsons Foundation Sony Pictures Entertainment great diversity, rich lore and constant change. Rosenthal Family Foundation Los Angeles Department of Water David Bohnett Foundation and Power Tern Bicycles But one aspect that the area is famous for will OUR MEDIA PARTNERS Wahoo’s Fish Taco not be in effect today: automobile traffic. As The Los Angeles Times The Laemmle Charitable Foundation Laemmle Theatres Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition anyone who either lives on the Westside or Time Out Los Angeles Indie Printing LA Weekly commutes here knows, the traffic is gnarly. Two 102.3 Radio-Free KJLH of Metro’s most eagerly awaited projects, the extensions of the Purple Line subway and the Expo Line rail, will ease congestion by connect- Written by Andrea Richards ing West Los Angeles and Santa Monica to the Designed by Colleen Corcoran and Tiffanie Tran region’s growing transit network.
    [Show full text]
  • (BHC) Will Be Held Friday, September 25, 2020 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
    BALDWIN HILLS CONSERVANCY NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The meeting of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy (BHC) will be held Friday, September 25, 2020 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 17, 2020, certain provisions of the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act are suspended due to a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with the Executive Order, this public meeting will be conducted by teleconference and internet, with no public locations. Members of the public may dial into the teleconference and or join the meeting online at Zoom. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://ca-water-gov.zoom.us/j/91443309377 Or Telephone, Dial: USA 214 765 0479 USA 8882780296 (US Toll Free) Conference code: 596019 Materials for the meeting will be available at the Conservancy website on the Meetings & Notices tab in advance of the meeting date. 10:00 AM - CALL TO ORDER – Keshia Sexton, Chair MEETING AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BEFORE ROLL CALL Public Comment and Time Limits: Members of the public can make comments in advance by emailing [email protected] or during the meeting by following the moderator’s directions on how to indicate their interest in speaking. Public comment will be taken prior to action on agenda items and at the end of the meeting for non-agenda items. Individuals wishing to comment will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. Speaking times may be reduced depending upon the number of speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Into the Heart of Screenland Culver City, California
    INTO THE HEART OF SCREENLAND CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA AN INEXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION OF URBAN CONTENT THE CENTER FOR LAND USE INTERPRETATION CENTER E FO H R T L A N N O I D T U A S T E RE INTERP THE HEART OF SCREENLAND “The Heart of Screenland” is the official city motto for Culver City, an incorporated city of 40,000 people in the midst of the megalopolis of Los Angeles. “All roads lead to Culver City,” its founder, Harry Culver, once said. All roads indeed. Culver built the city from scratch starting in 1913, selecting a location that was halfway between downtown Los Angeles and the beach community of Venice, at the crossroads of a now long-gone regional public trolley system. Culver City quickly became home to several movie studios, some of which disappeared, others which still dominate the scene. Hal Roach’s Laurel and Hardy comedies, shot on Main Street, captured the town in the 1920s, and Andy Griffith’s everytown of Mayberry was broadcast from the city’s backlots to screens across America. In the 1950s, the city modernized. Its original Main Street was upstaged by a new Culver Center shopping area, a few blocks west. The studios turned to television, and the 1950s became the 1960s. In the 1970s the studio backlots were filled in with housing and office parks, as homogenization flooded the Los Angeles basin, turning Culver CIty into part of the continuous urban suburb. In the 1990s, the city’s efforts to restore its identity and its downtown Into the Heart of Screenland: Culver City, California An Inexhaustive Investigation of Urban Content came together, beginning a rebirth of the Heart of Screenland.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study
    (310) 253-5710 • FAX (310) 253-5721 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 INITIAL STUDY Project Title: 11111 Jefferson Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Preliminary Project Review Number: PPR P2019-0242 Project Location: The Project Site is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard to the east, Machado Road to the north and Sepulveda Boulevard to the west in the Studio Village community. Generally located at 11111 Jefferson Boulevard, Culver City, California, 90230. Project Sponsor: Jefferson Park LLC Project Description: The 3.43-acre (149,553 square feet [sf]) Project Site, is located at the southern corner of the Studio Village neighborhood of Culver City (City). The Project Site is currently developed with three single-story commercial buildings, surface parking, a parking lot that serves the proximate Exceptional Children’s Foundation (ECF), and landscaping. The Project would construct 230 residential dwelling units, 19 of which would be affordable to very low income households, for a total of 244,609 sf of residential area (including the residential lobby and amenity room); 55,050 sf of ground floor retail area, including a 38,600 sf market, 10,600 sf of restaurants and café, 3,900 sf of retail spaces, and a 1,950 sf gym; and 11,450 sf of second floor office uses within a five story building. The building would be constructed atop one level of subterranean vehicular parking, with parking also provided on the first and second floor of the building. There would be a total of 653 parking stalls (308 stalls for residential, 311 stalls for commercial, and 34 spaces for an off-site use, the ECF).
    [Show full text]
  • Tapping out in Culver City: Re-Envisioning the Inglewood Oil Field
    TAPPING OUT IN CULVER CITY: RE-ENVISIONING THE INGLEWOOD OIL FIELD A comprehensive project submitted in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the degree Master in Urban and Regional Planning Report by: Lingjing Angel Chen and Erika Pinto June 2020 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Urban and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Urban Planning (“Department”) of the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and the City of Culver City as a planning client for the comprehensive project. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Urban Planning, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client. Any errors or omissions are those of the authors. Photo credit for cover page: The Los Angeles Times, January 2019. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 BACKGROUND 6 Overview of Study Area Overview of Oil Fields in Los Angeles Considerations by Culver City Community Support and Opposition RESEARCH ON THE IMPACTS OF URBAN OIL FIELDS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR REUSE 16 Health Environmental Brownfield Redevelopment Housing Market CASE STUDIES OF FORMER BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT 26 Case Study 1: Larry Itliong Village Case Study 2: The Grove Shopping Center Case Study 3: Pacific City Case Study 4: Villages at Heritage Springs DATA ANALYSIS: REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF CULVER CITY’S OIL FIELD 33 Scope of Study Legislation Health Environment Economic Impact Remediation Potential Funding Sources for Remediation Amortization Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) FINDINGS 45 Cross-Jurisdictional Cooperation Legislative Capacity Remediation Liability Strong Community Sentiments Site Specific Constraints RECOMMENDATIONS 51 APPENDIX A 55 APPENDIX B 60 GLOSSARY 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 65 INTERVIEW REFERENCES 71 Aerial view of the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook and Culver City’s portion of the Inglewood Oil Field below.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions and Issues
    EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ISSUES UNIT SUMMARY EXISTING LAND USES OVERVIEW Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (KHSRA or the park) comprises approximately 387 acres of parkland set in the midst of urban Los Angeles. The existing park is managed by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and includes 319 acres native coastal sage scrub habitat, scenic overlooks, interpretive facilities, lawns and landscaped areas, picnic sites, tot lots, a fishing lake, lotus pond, community center, day-use parking, and five miles of trails. There are six restrooms within the park. The community center has four administrative offices and a small meeting room. A small maintenance yard and native plant nursery is maintained on-site. Activities within the park include but are not limited to hiking, biking, walking, running, fishing, picnicking, play, and nature interpretation and education. The Vista Pacifica Scenic Site consists of 50 acres of open space and a scenic view site at the northern tip of the western ridgeline. County-owned parkland that connect the Vista Pacifica Scenic Site to La Cieniga Blvd include a total of 18 acres of open space. Both the Vista Pacifica Scenic Site and adjacent County-owned parklands are currently closed to the public. REGIONAL LAND USE Residential, commercial, and recreation associated uses dominate the surrounding area. Refer to Figure 4 for jurisdictional boundaries. ADJACENT RECREATION USES Three established local parks currently occur in the vicinity of KHSRA. These include Norman O. Houston Park, Ladera Ball Fields, and Culver City Ball Fields. Norman O. Houston Park is four acres and is managed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, and includes a lawn area and tot lots located to the east of the park.
    [Show full text]
  • Errata Sheet Official Statement Dated April 4, 2002
    ERRATA SHEET OFFICIAL STATEMENT DATED APRIL 4, 2002 $28,280,000 CULVER CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Tax Allocation Bonds, 2002 Series A (Culver City Redevelopment Project) PLEASE BE ADVISED that the above-referenced Official Statement is hereby supplemented and amended to make the following changes: Page 10: SECURITY FOR THE BONDS -Issuance of Additional Bonds. Subsection (1) of this section is restated to read as follows: (l)(i) actual Tax Revenues (excluding any unsubordinated payments to taxing agencies pursuant to the Redevelopment Law) based upon the assessed valuation of taxable property in the Project Area as shown on the most recently equalized assessment roll preceding the date of the Agency's adoption of the Supplemental Indenture providing for the issuance of such Additional Bonds plus, at the option of the Agency, the Additional Allowance must be in an amount equal to at least 125% of Combined Maximum Annual Debt Service following the issuance of such Additional Bonds, as evidenced by a Consultant's Report; and (ii) projected annual Tax Revenues over the term of the Bonds must be in an amount equal to at least 125% of Combined Annual Debt Service following the issuance of such Additional Bonds, as evidenced by a Consultant's Report. For purposes of subsection (i) above, the amount of Tax Revenues will be the amount received in the most recent Fiscal Year (which may be the current Fiscal Year) for which records are available from the County; provided that the requirements of this sentence are not a condition precedent to the issuance of the 2002 Bonds.
    [Show full text]
  • City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report
    City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines Garage (Santa Monica Antique Market, Inc.) 1613 Lincoln Boulevard (APN: 4283-001-002) Santa Monica, California Prepared for City of Santa Monica Planning Division Prepared by Margarita Wuellner, Ph.D. Amanda Kainer, M.S. Jon Wilson, M.A., M.Arch. PCR Services Corporation Santa Monica, California October 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The subject property, 1613 Lincoln Boulevard, is situated on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard between Colorado Avenue to the north, Olympic Boulevard to the south, Ninth Street to the east, and Seventh Street to the west. The legal description of the property is the Standard Tract, Lot 15. Based on Los Angeles County Tax Assessor records and Santa Monica building permits, it appears that the original improvements to the property, a 18,890 square foot Municipal Bus Garage, were made in 1933. Regulatory Setting The subject property has been identified and assessed under the City’s ongoing survey process on two previous occasions. The Municipal Bus Garage was first identified and recorded as part of the Phase 3 Survey in 1994.1 The subject property was recommended eligible as a Santa Monica Local Landmark and given a California Historic Resources Status Code of 5S1. The subject property was found eligible for its significant historical association with the economic development and transportation industry in Santa Monica, with the period of significance being 1875-1943: This property is significant for its association with the transportation industry in Santa Monica. By the late 19th century, Santa Monica had several trolley lines within the town and was connected to Los Angeles by the Pacific Electric Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About the PXP Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1525 Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA T 424 832 1303 F 424 248 2101 www.cardnoentrix.com Frequently Asked Questions about the PXP Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study Daniel R. Tormey, Ph.D., P.G. Hydrogeologist, Geochemist, & Civil Engineer Frequently Asked Questions Page 1 The Study Process 1. Why did PXP fund the Study? The Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study was funded by PXP as specified in the Settlement Agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the City of Culver City, Mark Salkin, Concerned Citizens for South Central Los Angeles, Community Health Councils, and Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community. 2. If PXP paid for the study, how do we know that it was independent? PXP’s selection of the Independent Consultant was approved by the County of Los Angeles in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the study was peer reviewed by two reviewers selected and compensated by the County of Los Angeles as required by the Settlement Agreement. The professional qualifications and independence of the reviewers were two of the criteria the County used in selecting and approving their involvement. The reviewers reviewed the draft Study (submitted 15 July 2012 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement), made comments, and then approved the final study prior to its publication (10 October 2012). In developing the Study, data collected from in-field measurements were used wherever possible in order to minimize the use of best professional judgment alone. 3. Is the Peer Reviewers’ analysis publicly available? Yes. The peer reviewers’ observations about the content of the Study are included as Appendix A of the Study.
    [Show full text]
  • GC 1323 Historic Sites Surveys Repository
    GC 1323 Historic Sites Surveys Repository: Seaver Center for Western History Research, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Span Dates: 1974-1996, bulk 1974-1978 Conditions Governing Use: Permission to publish, quote or reproduce must be secured from the repository and the copyright holder Conditions Governing Access: Research is by appointment only Source: Surveys were compiled by Tom Sitton, former Head of History Department, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Background: In 1973, the History Department of the Natural History Museum was selected to conduct surveys of Los Angeles County historic sites as part of a statewide project funded through the National Preservation Act of 1966. Tom Sitton was appointed project facilitator in 1974 and worked with various historical societies to complete survey forms. From 1976 to 1977, the museum project operated through a grant awarded by the state Office of Historic Preservation, which allowed the hiring of three graduate students for the completion of 500 surveys, taking site photographs, as well as to help write eighteen nominations for the National Register of Historic Places (three of which were historic districts). The project concluded in 1978. Preferred Citation: Historic Sites Surveys, Seaver Center for Western History Research, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Special Formats: Photographs Scope and Content: The Los Angeles County historic site surveys were conducted from 1974 through 1978. Compilation of data for historic sites continued beyond 1978 until approximately 1996, by way of Sitton's efforts to add application sheets prepared for National Register of Historic Places nominations. These application forms provide a breadth of information to supplement the data found on the original survey forms.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field
    Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field October 10, 2012 Prepared For Plains Exploration & Production Company Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field October 10, 2012 Prepared for Plains Exploration & Production Company 5640 South Fairfax Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90056 and Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning 320 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Prepared by Cardno ENTRIX 10940 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1525, Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel 424 832 1303 Fax 424 248 2101 Toll-free 800 368 7511 www.cardnoentrix.com Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 Hydraulic Fracturing Study Objectives ................................................................. 1 ES.2 Summary of Findings............................................................................................. 2 ES.3 Oil Production in the Los Angeles Basin and the Inglewood Oil Field ................. 4 ES.4 Well Drilling and Completion ............................................................................... 6 ES.5 Summary of Past and Future Hydraulic Fracturing and High-Rate Gravel Packing at the Inglewood Oil Field ....................................................................... 9 ES.6 Monitoring Conducted During Hydraulic Fracturing and High-Rate Gravel Packing at Inglewood Oil Field ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of CITY PLANNING City Planning Commission
    DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Recommendation Report m City Planning Commission Date: March 10, 2016 Case No.: CPC-2015-2593-GPA-ZC- HD- Time: After 8:30 A.M. ZAA-SPR Place: Los Angeles City Hall CEQA No.: ENV-2014-4755-EIR 200 N. Spring Street, Room 350 Incidental VTT-73656-CN Los Angeles, CA 90012 Cases: Related Cases: None Council No.: 10 - Hon. Herb J. Wesson Jr. Public Hearing January 6, 2016 Plan Area: West Adams-Leimert Park- Completed: Baldwin Hills Appeal Status: Appealable to City Council Specific Plan: None Expiration Date: March 21, 2016 Multiple Approval: Pursuant to Section 12.36 of Certified NC: West Adams the L.A.M.C. (Multiple General Plan: Existing: Limited Entitlements), appealable to Manufacturing City Council by any party Proposed: Community Commercial Zone: Existing: MR1-1VL Proposed: [T][Q]C2-2D Applicant: CP V Cumulus, LLC. Representative: Brad Rosenheim, Rosenheim & Associates PROJECT 3321, 3351 South. La Cienega Boulevard LOCATION: 5707-5735 West Jefferson Boulevard. PROPOSED Mixed-Use Development of 1,210 dwelling units, and 300,000 square feet of commercial and PROJECT: office floor area. The commercial space would include 200,000 square feet of office space, 50,000 square feet of grocery store, 20,000 square feet of restaurant space, and 30,000 square feet of general retail. Parking would be provided within a combination of above ground and subterranean parking levels for the project, in accordance with Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The project will have an FAR of 3.9:1. The project includes demolition and removal of all existing structures to be replaced with an approximately 1,900,000-square-foot transit-oriented, mixed-use structures consisting of podium style buildings, ranging in height from 110 feet for the podium buildings and up to approximately 320 feet for the tower.
    [Show full text]