Errata to the EIR 1 Introduction Project Title: 2110 Bay Street Mixed-Use Project Document Type: Errata to the EIR for a new mixed-use residential and commercial in-fill development (the Project). Environmental No.: ENV-2016-3480-EIR State Clearinghouse: 2017031007 Project Location: 2100, 2130 Bay Street and 2141 Sacramento Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021 (Project Site or Site) Lead Agency: City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning 221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1350, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Applicant: Bay Capital Fund, LLC Prepared By: CAJA Environmental Services, LLC 15350 Sherman Way, Suite 315, Van Nuys, CA 91406 The City of Los Angeles (City) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the 2110 Bay Street Mixed-Use Project (Project) to assess potential environmental impacts of the Project, as described below. The EIR is comprised of two parts, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. A Draft EIR was made available and circulated for public review and comment, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, for a 46-day public review period from November 8, 2018 to December 26, 2018.1 The Final EIR was released on April 2, 2019, and included responses to comments and text revisions to the Draft EIR based on input received.2 The EIR concluded that with mitigation, all of the Project’s environmental impacts would be less than significant, with the exception of a significant and unavoidable environmental impacts related to traffic (intersection impact at Soto Street and Whittier Boulevard). On May 6, 2019 the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters filed an appeal against the Project’s Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The appeal focused on three reasons: • Improper Spot Zoning. 1 https://planning.lacity.org/eir/2110_Bay_Street/deir/DEIR%202110%20Bay%20Street%20Mixed%20Use%20Project.html 2 https://planning.lacity.org/eir/2110_Bay_Street/FEIR/FEIR%202110%20Bay%20Street%20Project.html 2110 Bay Street Mixed-Use Project City of Los Angeles Errata to the EIR October 2019 Page 1 • Inconsistent findings with relevant policies regarding preservation of industrial-zoned land. • Cumulative displacement of industrial developments from the Project and Related Projects. The Appeal relies upon and refers to a trial court statement of decision in Arts District Community Council Los Angeles, et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al. (Case No. BS172014). This Errata contains detailed responses to all of the points raised in the Appeal based upon that statement of decision. It is important to note that the statement of decision is not legal precedent or in any way binding on the City. That case has been dismissed with prejudice. Neither a writ nor a judgment was entered in that case. Nonetheless, this Errata addresses and resolves the concerns raised in the statement of decision. The City has prepared this Errata to provide responses to the various issues raised in the Appeal along with providing clarifications to the Project that will be considered by the decision makers prior to approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the Project. In support of the Appeal responses, the Applicant retained CBRE to address the issues raised in the Appeal relative to the Project’s requested land use changes and the potential effects of that change on neighboring and regional land uses, and on the opportunities for manufacturing employment. The resulting “CBRE Report” is provided as “Consulting Report, CBRE, September 30, 2019”, and included as Attachment A to this Errata. In addition, the Applicant’s representative, Craig Lawson & Company (CLC), provided information regarding existing land uses within proximity to the Project Site to understand the extent to which complementary/compatible non-manufacturing uses have evolved alongside traditional industrial and manufacturing uses. Non-manufacturing uses are uses also permitted in the City of Los Angeles Commercial or Residential zoning districts, as opposed to traditional manufacturing uses which are only permitted in Industrial or Manufacturing zoning districts. The resulting “CLC Memo” is provided as “Memo to Bay Capital Fund, LLC, from Craig Lawson & Co., LLC, October 7, 2019”, and included as Attachment B to this Errata. This information and data has been independently reviewed and verified in preparation of this Errata, prior to its inclusion. 2 Regulatory Information This Errata makes minor technical corrections and clarifications to the EIR for the Project. These modifications clarify and refine the EIR and provide supplemental information to the City decision-makers and the public. CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states: 2110 Bay Street Mixed-Use Project City of Los Angeles Errata to the EIR October 2019 Page 2 New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: • A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 also provides that “[r]ecirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR... A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. The information added pursuant to this Errata does not disclose a new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure or substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Nor does it contain significant new information that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the Applicant has declined to adopt. Additionally, information provided in this Errata does not present a feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the EIR. All of the information added pursuant to this Errata merely clarifies, corrects, adds to, or makes insignificant modifications to information in the EIR. The City has reviewed the information in this Errata and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. 3 Appeal Issue Responses 3.1 Spot Zoning The 2006 L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide includes as one of its land use screening criteria: “Would the project result in a ‘spot’ zone”. If the answer to the screening question is yes, further analysis is required in an Initial Study, MND, or EIR. Even if a project could involve a spot zone, 2110 Bay Street Mixed-Use Project City of Los Angeles Errata to the EIR October 2019 Page 3 that does not in and of itself result in a significant land use impact. The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide defines spot zoning as occurring "when the zoning or land use designation for only a portion of a block changes, or a single zone or land use designation becomes surrounded by more or less intensive land uses."3 Spot zoning arises where a small parcel is restricted and given lesser or greater rights than the surrounding property, creating an "island" in the middle of a larger area of other uses.4 In this case, the Project would be developed on a large 1.78-acre site, and not on a small site. The requested General Plan Amendment from Heavy Industrial to Commercial Industrial and the elimination of floor area constraints creates a development site consistent, in terms of uses and intensities, with recent successful developments in the area. These developments, both conversion and ground up, are consistent with the Central City North Community Plan’s description of the Artists-in-Residence Subarea District, whose southern boundary is one block north of the Project Site at Violet Street, as an area “primarily made up of old warehouses now converted to artists lofts and studios.” The description of the Artists-in-Residence District also notes that the Community Plan “encourages the continued and expanded development of a thriving artists-in-residence community.”5 The Appeal does not address the legal standard for the spot zone claim, which provides that the City’s rezoning would be upheld unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support. (Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1309.) The Courts recognize that "the essence of spot zoning is irrational discrimination," and that spot zoning usually "involves a small parcel of land." (Id. at 1311.) The "larger the property" and if the property "is not an island but is connected on some sides to a like zone," the harder it is to sustain an allegation of spot zoning.