A 27-story tower planned for Broadway in Chinatown is now the second development in Los Angeles that will be allowed to bypass the state’s notoriously lengthy and detailed environmental review process.
The Los Angeles City Council voted last month to exempt the retail and office project, called Harmony, from the rigorous analysis typically demanded of large-scale development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.
The council determined that Harmony meets the standards of a program, established in 2011, for so-called Sustainable Communities Projects. To qualify, developments have to be smaller than 8 acres, be located within a half-mile of a transit stop, and include some affordable units (or pay a fee to the city to build affordable housing off-site).
A 28-story skyscraper that’s planned at the corner of Sunset and Vine, where Amoeba Music stands today, was the first project in the city of Los Angeles to qualify. The city awarded it an exemption in November.
The developers behind the Chinatown high-rise, Townline and Forme Development, will be required to do a much less exhaustive “initial study,” but they will not have to do an environment impact report, better known as an EIR.
That will likely help them meet their goal of starting construction this year.
There’s no way to judge how much time the CEQA exemption can save a project, but city planner Jenna Monterrosa notes that as part of an EIR, a developer must give the public 30 days to comment on its plans. With the exemption, developers do not have to provide any public comment period.
The Chinatown project would rise at 942 Broadway on the site of what’s now a parking lot and a small retail center containing the East West Bank and a handful of storefronts. It would hold 178 residential units, five of which would be available to very low-income households, along with four floors of office and retail space, plus underground parking.
Comments
Oh but just let me build a apartment to rent out in my back garage without a permit..See how long I get to keep that
By Beachwood Dude on 03.11.19 2:11pm
"There’s no way to judge how much time the CEQA exemption can save a project, but city planner Jenna Monterrosa notes that as part of an EIR, a developer must give the public 30 days to comment on its plans. With the exemption, developers do not have to provide any public comment period."
The advantage to being free from CEQA is not being free from a 30 day comment period, which is a laughably short amount of time compared to a possible 4 year, drag-out lawsuit. Being exempt from CEQA is a huge win for anybody who wants to build more housing NOW.
By Greyvagabond on 03.11.19 3:42pm
If only we could reform CEQA so these kinds of carve-outs aren’t even necessary to protect smart development from the rabid NIMBY hordes.
By disqusted on 03.11.19 3:57pm
Infill should be exempted under most normal conditions.
By goingup on 03.13.19 9:24pm
How many developers are going to pay the city council to pass through projects like this.
Residents in LA have no problem being ruled like peons.
By LAwastheplace on 03.11.19 3:47pm
Nobody paid anybody anything, they’re using a statutory exemption created by the Legislature.
By Greyvagabond on 03.11.19 5:28pm
Right lol. Nothing was "paid"
By LAwastheplace on 03.11.19 6:54pm
You DO know those Swiss bank accounts don’t fill themselves!
By iluvnyc on 03.11.19 5:36pm
Trolling like that doesn’t help identify the regular decisions from the rare cases where there actually is corruption. Kudos to the Council for supporting housing in the city’s core.
By Parlorpink on 03.11.19 6:13pm
I hope you enjoy being disenfranchised.
By LAwastheplace on 03.11.19 6:56pm
CEQA doesn’t equal enfranchisement. But nice spin trying to make this about corruption. Damn our politicians for streamlining development and trying to build high density housing in transit cores!
By CaliSon on 03.12.19 9:49am
Nothing worse than the willfully ignorant
By LAwastheplace on 03.12.19 3:09pm
Your argument would make more sense if I was willfully in league with your boogymen, since I’m getting what I want: more dense development.
By CaliSon on 03.12.19 4:49pm
So, what happens if a "very low income" renter gets a better job? Do they throw him out on the street, or do they give him some time to lose it and go back on welfare?
By caseym54 on 03.12.19 1:11am
This is what you’re worried about?
By CaliSon on 03.12.19 9:49am
Just continue to look and act the part of being poor.
By Beachwood Dude on 03.15.19 11:16am
As it should. The excessive regulation of construction in areas where density should be normal should not face the political anti-growth entities that increase costs for developers who are trying to add housing supply. These types of reviews should be saved for land use only when it’s far outside the realm of zoning use of that parcel and thus could potentially have a negative impact on the given community.
By surfnspy on 03.12.19 8:54am
Right next to that hideous Blossom Plaza development. YAY – add more adult Ikea garbage.
They had at least better do a traffic report because people who can afford $3k apartments probably won’t even take the nearby train.
By LAisgoingdownhill on 03.12.19 11:30pm