III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS H. NOISE

A noise study for the Proposed Project was prepared by Martin Newson and Associates in April, 2002 A summary of the noise study is provided below. The complete noise study is included in Technical Appendix F to the EIR.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Introduction - What is Noise and How is it Quantified? Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound. Noise is characterized as a function of its sound pressure level, its frequency (as measured in cycles per second, or Hertz), and its duration. In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level. The unit of sound pressure ratioed to an assumed zero sound level is called a decibel (dB). The “pitch” of a sound is determined by the frequency. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called “A-weighting”, written as dBA. All further references to decibel (dB) levels in this section should be taken to refer to A-weighted decibel levels, i.e., dBA levels.

Time variations in noise exposure are typically expressed in terms of a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying noise source (called Leq). Because community receptors such as residential uses are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and at night, a 24- hour noise descriptor called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) has been developed. In this noise rating system, an artificial dB increment is added to quiet-time noise levels (5dB for evening hours and 10 dB for nighttime noise levels). CNEL is used in the City of Los Angeles Noise Element to specify maximum acceptable noise exposure levels for various land use categories.

For the purposes of assessing potential project related impacts, noise can be broken down into two categories: short-term and long-term. Short-term noise is primarily associated with on-site construction activities and haul-truck traffic, while long-term noise is generally associated with off-site motor vehicle traffic and on-site activities (e.g., mechanical equipment, trash-pick-up and truck deliveries). Both short-term and long-term effects from the proposed project on the noise environment are addressed in this section.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

This section predicts and discusses specific noise levels. In order to provide the reader with some reference to specific decibel levels, Figure III.H-1 shows the sound levels typically produced by a variety of common indoor and outdoor noise sources.

Existing Noise Setting Existing noise levels within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area derive mainly from vehicular sources on the roadways in the area. Other potential sources of noise include operation of building equipment such as Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment, loading docks and associated truck activities, music from stores and gatherings of people, although these sources rarely generate sufficient noise levels to rise above the prevailing traffic noise. Existing land uses within the Project Area boundaries consist of residential and commercial developments. In order to better define the existing noise environment within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, a noise survey was conducted on Wednesday April 3rd and Thursday April 4th 2002, between 4 PM and 6 PM. Noise levels were measured using a Bruel & Kjaer Type 2236 sound level meter approved by ANSI. The eleven different measurement locations are shown in Figure III.H-2. The measurement locations were selected based upon locations of residential communities within the Project Area, the need to measure evenly across the Project Area, and locations where the traffic report predicted no impact for the No Project scenario, but did predict an impact for the Minimum Project scenario. The measurement position for each location was on the far side of the sidewalk from the street (i.e., closest point to adjacent uses). The measurement results are shown in Table III.H-1. At all measurement positions, the noise levels were dominated by road traffic noise. Further details of the noise survey are provided in Appendix B to the complete Noise Report (Appendix F to the EIR). In general, the highest existing noise levels within the Project Area can be found along major thoroughfares (Hollywood Boulevard, La Brea Avenue) in the northern portion of the Project Area. Most of the predominantly residential areas within the Project Area presently experience ambient noise levels less than 70 dBA, which is generally considered to be the maximum compatible noise level for residential uses (see discussion of Community Compatibility Noise Criteria below).

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Common Noise Levels

(Caltrans Noise Manual, California Department of Transportation, March 1980)

Noise Level Common Indoor Noise Levels Common Outdoor Noise Levels (dBA)

110 Rock Band

Jet Flyover @ 1,000 feet 100 Inside Subway Train Gas Lawn Mower @ 3 feet Diesel Truck @ 50 feet 90 Food Blender @ 3 feet Noisy Urban Daytime Garbage Disposal @ 3 feet 80 Shouting @ 3 feet Gas Lawn Mower @ 100 feet 70 Vacuum Cleaner @ 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech @ 3 feet Heavy Traffic @ 300 feet 60 Large Business Office

50 Dishwasher next room Quiet Urban Daytime

Small Theater/Conference Room Quiet Urban Nightime 40 (background) Quiet Suburban Nightime Library 30 Bedroom at Night Concert Hall (background) Quiet Rural Nightime 20 Broadcast & Recording Studio

10

Threshold of Hearing 0

Figure III.H-1 Common Noise Levels H-1 Source: Caltrans Noise Manual, California Department of Transportation, March 1980.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

2 12 1

8 3 9

6 10

5 4 7

11

Source: Martin Newson & Associates LLC, April 11, 2002.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.H-2 environmental planning and research Roadway Segments Selected for Road Traffic Noise Analysis Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-1 Existing Measured Noise Levels

SEGMENT MEASURED NOISE ROAD SEGMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER LEVEL (dBA Leq)

1 Franklin Ave, west of Highland 68

2 Franklin Ave, west of Wilcox 68

3 Hollywood Blvd, east of Wilton 72

4 Fountain Ave, west of Highland 67

5 Fountain Ave, east of Western 66

6 Bronson Ave, north of Sunset 66

7 Cahuenga Blvd, north of Fountain 68

8 Wilcox Ave, north of Hollywood 66

9 Orange Dr, north of Sunset 65

10 La Brea Ave, north of Fountain 73

11 Wilton Pl, north of Santa Monica 70

Source: Martin Newson & Associates

Regulatory Environment

Construction Noise City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance Section 41.40 of the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code explicitly forbids construction of any type between the hours of 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. from Monday to Friday. On other days it states that no construction work can be carried out within 500 feet of residences “before 8:00 am or after 6:00 pm on any Saturday or national holiday nor at any time on a Sunday.”

In addition, Section 112.05 of the Municipal Code designates maximum noise levels for powered equipment and hand tools:

“Between the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm, in any residential zone of the City or within 500 feet thereof, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any powered equipment or powered hand

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

tool that produces a maximum noise level exceeding the following noise limits at a distance of 50 feet there from:

• 75dBA for construction, industrial, and agricultural machinery including crawler-tractors, dozers, rotary drills and augers, loaders, power shovels, cranes, derricks, motor graders, paving machines, off-highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, compactors, scrapers, wagons, pavement breakers, compressors and pneumatic or other powered equipment;

Long-Term Operational Noise

City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance The City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (Chapter XII, Noise Regulation) sets technical noise standards that are applicable to noise sources such as HVAC systems and places of public entertainment. As such, all on site operational noise sources associated with the development are required to be controlled in accordance with the requirements of the ordinance.

City of Los Angeles General Plan, Noise Element The City, in its General Plan Noise Element, provides maximum acceptable exterior noise exposure levels for various land use categories. The City has included in the Noise Element a chart displaying which CNEL levels are Normally Acceptable and Clearly Unacceptable (see Table III-H-2). These CNEL noise limits are applicable in the assessment of the noise impact upon a proposed noise sensitive development.

Normally Acceptable – Specified Land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable – New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.

Normally Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable – New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-2 Community Compatibility Noise Criteria

Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Single Family, Duplex, Mobile 50 – 60 55 – 70 70 – 75 Above 70 Homes Multi-Family Homes 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 75 Above 70 Schools, Libraries, Churches, 50 – 70 60 – 70 70 – 80 Above 80 Hospitals, Nursing Homes Transient Lodging – Motels, 50 – 65 60 – 70 70 – 80 Above 80 Hotels Auditoriums, Concert Halls, - 50 – 70 - Above 65 Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor - 50 – 75 - Above 70 Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood 50 – 70 - 67-75 Above 72 Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, 50 – 75 - 70 – 80 Above 80 Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business and 50 – 70 67 - 77 Above 75 - Professional Commercial Industrial, Manufacturing, 50 – 75 70 – 80 Above 75 Utilities, Agriculture

Source: City of Los Angeles, Draft CEQA Thresholds Manual

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Thresholds of Significance

Construction Noise For construction noise, the thresholds of significance included in the Draft City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, which are stricter than those contained in the Municipal Code, are considered to be the most appropriate. These state that a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if:

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

• Construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use;

• Construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a three month period would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use; or

• Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at a noise sensitive use between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or at anytime on Sunday.

Long Term Noise The Draft City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide states that “A project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from project operations if the project causes the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA in CNEL to or within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” category, or any 5 dBA or greater noise increase.” In other words, two thresholds are set with regard to the increase in noise levels due to project operations.

• A noise level increase of 3 dBA1 or more is deemed a significant impact if the resulting noise level at the property line is within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” range shown in Table III.H-2 below.

• A noise level increase of 5 dBA2 or more is deemed a significant impact regardless of the resulting noise levels.

Project Impacts

Construction Noise Maximum Possible Development. Potential development projects that could occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario could result in temporary construction noise impacts from the use of construction equipment. Temporary construction noise impacts would be expected to vary markedly because the noise level of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the quantity and type of equipment used (see Table III.H-3). Additionally, construction noise tends to vary over

1 An increase in noise levels of 3 dBA is generally considered to be required in order to be audible by the human ear. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA are generally considered to be imperceptible from background noise levels. Thus this standard would identify a significant impact if an audible increase were to occur and the resulting noise level would be “unacceptable”. 2 Under this standard, an increase of 3 to 5 dBA, even though it would be audible, would be less than significant as long as the resulting noise environment is “acceptable”.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

time, corresponding to the various discrete phases of the construction program, typically starting with the demolition of the existing structures, followed by rough grading of the site, trenching for utilities, grading and finally erection and finishing of the buildings (see Table III.H-4).

Measured existing ambient noise levels within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area range from 62 dBA to 73 dBA. The Los Angeles Municipal Code also provides ‘presumed ambient noise levels’3 that are shown in III.H-5 below. The areas within the Project Area boundaries are generally residential and commercial. Projected noise levels resulting from the employment of construction equipment during various phases of the construction cycle, as shown in Table III.H-3, would generally exceed existing ambient noise levels and the presumed ambient noise levels by greater than 10 dBA. In addition, the project area is densely developed with commercial and residential uses. Consequently, certain noise sensitive receptors are likely to be located within 50 feet of construction work on some parcels. At these locations the noise levels may be higher than stated in Table III.H-4 below. Similarly, receptors further than 50 ft. from the construction areas may experience lower noise levels than reported stated in Table III.H-4 below. Where barriers and structures exist between construction activities and noise sensitive receivers, as is common in Hollywood because the area is already fully developed, these may also serve to reduce noise levels at the receiver location due to acoustical screening. Nonetheless, the resulting noise levels shown in Table III.H-4 below would exceed existing ambient and presumed ambient noise levels by more than 10 dBA. It is therefore considered inevitable that the threshold of significance for construction noise listed above would be temporarily exceeded during construction activities at certain locations within the Project Area and significant construction noise impacts would result from development occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

3 ‘Presumed ambient” noise levels are established for the purpose of setting a “normal” ambient noise level for different land uses and are applied when the actual ambient noise level is lower than the presumed ambient.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-3 Noise Level Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment

Equipment Noise Level (dBA) at 50 ft.*

Front Loader 73-86 Trucks 82-95 Cranes (moveable) 75-88 Cranes (derrick) 86-89 Vibrator 68-82 Saws 72-82 Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83-88 Jackhammers 81-98 Pumps 68-72 Generators 71-83 Compressors 75-87 Concrete Mixers 75-88 Concrete Pumps 81-85 Back Hoe 73-95 Pile Driving (peaks) 95-107 Tractor 77-98 Scraper/Grader 80-93 Paver 85-88

Source: EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, 1971. *Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features would generate noise levels approximately 5 to 10 dBA lower than shown in this table.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-4 Outdoor Construction Noise Levels

Noise Level (dBA Leq) at Noise Level (dBA Construction Phase 50 ft. with equipment Leq) at 50 ft. mufflers

Ground Clearing 84 82

Excavation, Grading 89 86

Foundations 78 77

Structural 85 83

Finishing 89 86

Source: EPA, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, 1971.

Table III.H-5 Los Angeles Municipal Code Presumed Ambient Noise Levels (dBA)

Zone Day Night

Residential: A1, A2, RA, RE, RS, RD, RW1, 50 40 RW2, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5

Commercial: P, PB,CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, 60 55 CM

Manufacturing: MZ, MR, MR2 65 65

Heavy Manufacturing: M2, M3 70 70

Source: City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 111.03

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Moderate. Construction location and equipment utilization under the Moderate development scenario would be similar to the Maximum Possible development scenario. Therefore, impacts resulting from development activities projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be significant.

Minimum. Construction location and equipment utilization under the Minimum development scenario would be similar to the Maximum Possible development scenario. Therefore, impacts resulting from development activities projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be significant.

Long-Term Noise Impact Off-Site Road Traffic Noise Roadway traffic noise predictions were calculated using the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), which calculates the A-weighted noise level for a particular reference set of input conditions, and then makes a series of adjustments for site-specific traffic volumes, distances, speeds, or noise barriers. Twelve roadway segments were selected for analysis of traffic noise. The roadway segments were selected based upon locations of residential communities within the Redevelopment Project Area, the need for even distribution throughout the Redevelopment Project Area boundaries, and locations where the traffic report predicted no impact for the No Project scenario, but did predict an impact for the Minimum Project scenario. The selected roadway segments are shown in Table III.H-14 above and Figure III.H-2 above. Additional information regarding roadway segment configuration and speed limits, along with other relevant assumptions, is contained in Appendix F to this EIR.

In order to calculate 24-hour CNEL noise levels from peak hour traffic flow data provided in the traffic report, it was necessary to assume the distribution of traffic flow throughout a twenty-four hour period. These assumed distributions were derived individually for each roadway segment based upon hourly traffic counts5 made within the Project Area boundaries.

Tables III.H-6 through III.H-8 below compare the calculated 24-hour CNEL noise levels at 50 feet from the roadway acoustical centerline for the No Project scenario versus the Minimum, Moderate, and

4 Table III.H-1 does not include the segment of the 101 Freeway, west of Gower Street, because noise measurements were not taken at this location. However, modeled noise levels based upon measured traffic levels were used in the analysis of traffic noise at this location.

5 The same counts were used in the traffic analysis, see Section III.F of this EIR.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-12 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Maximum Possible development scenarios. The “acoustical center-line” is the location of an imaginary single lane of traffic that would produce approximately the same acoustical result, at a specific receiver location, as an analysis done on a lane by lane basis. Such acoustical analysis using an imaginary single lane is common industry practice and is consistent with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.

Based upon the traffic report, PM peak hour traffic was generally determined to be of greater volume than the AM peak hour traffic. As such, CNEL predictions were based upon the PM peak hour traffic volumes, with appropriate adjustments as described above. The increase in noise level from the No Project scenario to the Minimum, Moderate & Maximum Possible scenarios was calculated for each study roadway segment.

Maximum Possible Development. Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, roadway segments 3, 4, 8, and 10 would experience an increase in the CNEL of greater than 3 dBA and the resulting noise level would be unacceptable for sensitive (i.e., residential) uses6. Predominant land uses along segments 3 (Hollywood Boulevard, east of Wilton) and 10 (La Brea Avenue, north of Fountain) are commercial, while predominant land uses along segments 4 (Fountain Avenue, west of Highland) and 8 (Wilcox Avenue, north of Hollywood Boulevard) are residential. However, because of the presence of sensitive receptors throughout the Project Area, impacts at these locations under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be significant.

Moderate. The predicted change in the CNEL traffic noise levels under the Moderate development scenario would be less than the 3 dBA threshold of audibility for all roadway segments. Noise impacts resulting from traffic generated by future development occurring under the Moderate development scenario would be less than significant.

Minimum. The predicted change in the CNEL traffic noise levels under the Minimum development scenario would be less than the 3 dBA threshold of audibility for all roadway segments. Noise impacts resulting from traffic generated by future development occurring under the Minimum development scenario would be less than significant.

6 The maximum acceptable noise level for residential uses under the Community Compatibility Noise criteria discussed above is 70 dBA. The affected roadway segments would experience resulting noise levels between 72.6 and 80.7 dBA.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-6 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Impact

PREDICTED PREDICTED ROAD SEGMENT NOISE LEVEL CNEL: NO CNEL: MAXIMUM NUMBER INCREASE PROJECT POSSIBLE

1 75 76.4 1.4

2 74.2 76.7 2.5

3 75.6 79.1 3.5

4 73.4 76.7 3.3

5 71 73.5 2.5

6 67.2 69.9 2.7

7 72.5 75.4 2.9

8 69.3 72.6 3.3

9 65.8 68 2.2

10 77.4 80.7 3.3

11 70.9 71.2 0.3

12 87 87.8 0.8

Bold denotes significant impact. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-7 Moderate Development Scenario Traffic Noise Impact

PREDICTED PREDICTED ROAD SEGMENT NOISE LEVEL CNEL: NO CNEL: NUMBER INCREASE PROJECT MODERATE

1 75 75.9 0.9

2 74.2 75.9 1.7

3 75.6 77.9 2.3

4 73.4 75.7 2.3

5 71 72.5 1.5

6 67.2 68.6 1.4

7 72.5 74.4 1.9

8 69.3 71.6 2.3

9 65.8 67.3 1.5

10 77.4 79.7 2.3

11 70.9 71.1 0.2

12 87 87.4 0.4

Bold denotes significant impact. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-8 Minimum Development Scenario Traffic Noise Impact

PREDICTED ROAD SEGMENT PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL CNEL: NO NUMBER CNEL: MINIMUM INCREASE PROJECT

1 75 75.8 0.8

2 74.2 75.6 1.4

3 75.6 77.7 2.1

4 73.4 75.4 2.0

5 71 72.4 1.4

6 67.2 68.6 1.4

7 72.5 74.2 1.7

8 69.3 71.3 2.0

9 65.8 67.1 1.3

10 77.4 79.4 2.0

11 70.9 71 0.1

12 87 87.4 0.4

Bold denotes significant impact. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

On-Site Operational Noise Maximum Possible Development. Development projected to occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be expected to include on-site equipment and facilities that could generate noise. These sources could include, but not be limited to, stationary HVAC equipment, loading docks, music from stores and outdoor gathering places for people. These sources presently exist within the Project Area but typically do not generate noise levels that rise above the prevailing traffic noise. It is unlikely that any of these sources would result in an audible increase in noise levels (i.e., greater than 3 dBA). Since an audible increase in noise levels must occur in order for the significance threshold set forth above to be exceeded, noise generation associated with other on-site sources would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Moderate. Because development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would involve similar on-site noise sources as the Maximum Possible development scenario, impacts would be similar to the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant.

Minimum. Because development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would involve similar on-site noise sources as the Maximum Possible development scenario, impacts would be similar to the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Construction noise events which could be associated with development of potential future development projects projected to occur under the Maximum Possible, Moderate and Minimum development scenarios would take place over periods of several months or more. Although noise from construction activity associated with individual projects would increase community noise levels in the immediate vicinity of each individual development site, construction related noise would be localized and short- term in nature, and therefore would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts at more distant locations. Cumulative construction noise impacts could only occur to the extent that high noise level events, primarily during the demolition, grading and site preparation phases, were to overlap with similar activities of another project occurring in the immediate vicinity. Since this possibility cannot be precluded, cumulative construction noise impacts would be significant.

Cumulative operational traffic noise impacts would occur to the extent that the roadways within the Project Area were to experience an audible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3.0 dBA or greater) with resulting noise levels in the “unacceptable” category as a result of traffic increases associated with the Proposed Project and other growth expected to occur both within and outside the Project Area (including projected growth associated with the No Project alternative). The model used to assess potential traffic impacts of the Proposed Project, upon which the assessment of traffic noise impacts was based, included the traffic associated with potential growth under the No Project (i.e., continuation of the existing Hollywood Redevelopment Plan without proposed amendments) scenario, as well as growth in the generation of traffic from outside the Project Area based upon SCAG projections. Table III.H-9 shows the cumulative increase in traffic noise projected to result from the aggregate levels of traffic generated under the No Project plus Minimum development scenario, compared to existing conditions. As shown, increases in cumulative noise levels would be greater than the 3 dBA threshold of audibility, with the resulting noise level above the acceptable level for residential uses (70 dBA) at 7 of 12 locations. Cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant at these locations under the Minimum development scenario.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-9 Minimum Development Scenario Cumulative Traffic Noise Impact

EXISTING (2001) ROAD SEGMENT PREDICTED NOISE LEVEL CALCULATED NUMBER CNEL: MINIMUM INCREASE CNEL

1 74.3 75.8 1.5

2 71.8 75.6 3.8

3 71.4 77.7 6.3

4 70.0 75.4 5.4

5 69.0 72.4 3.4

6 64.8 68.6 3.8

7 69.2 74.2 5.0

8 65.0 71.3 6.3

9 63.8 67.1 3.3

10 73.3 79.4 6.1

11 70.8 71 0.2

12 86.7 87.4 0.7

Bold denotes significant cumulative impact. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

Table III.H-10 shows the cumulative increase in traffic noise projected to result from the aggregate levels of traffic generated under the No Project plus Moderate development scenario, compared to existing conditions. As shown, increases in cumulative noise levels would be greater than the 3 dBA threshold of audibility, with the resulting noise level above the acceptable level for residential uses (70 dBA) at 7 of 12 locations. Cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant at these locations under the Moderate development scenario.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-10 Moderate Development Scenario Cumulative Traffic Noise Impact

EXISTING (2001) PREDICTED ROAD SEGMENT NOISE LEVEL CALCULATED CNEL: NUMBER INCREASE CNEL MODERATE

1 74.3 75.9 1.6

2 71.8 75.9 4.1

3 71.4 77.9 6.5

4 70.0 75.7 5.7

5 69.0 72.5 3.5

6 64.8 68.6 3.8

7 69.2 74.4 5.2

8 65.0 71.6 6.6

9 63.8 67.3 3.5

10 73.3 79.7 6.4

11 70.8 71.1 0.3

12 86.7 87.4 0.7

Bold denotes significant cumulative impact. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

Table III.H-11 shows the cumulative increase in traffic noise projected to result from the aggregate levels of traffic generated under the No Project plus Maximum Possible development scenario, compared to existing conditions. As shown, increases in cumulative noise levels would be greater than the 3 dBA threshold of audibility, with the resulting noise level above the acceptable level for residential uses (70 dBA) at 8 of 12 locations. Cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant at these locations under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.H-11 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Cumulative Traffic Noise Impact

EXISTING (2001) PREDICTED ROAD SEGMENT NOISE LEVEL CALCULATED CNEL: MAXIMIM NUMBER INCREASE CNEL POSSIBLE

1 74.3 76.4 2.1

2 71.8 76.7 4.9

3 71.4 79.1 7.7

4 70.0 76.7 6.7

5 69.0 73.5 4.5

6 64.8 69.9 5.1

7 69.2 75.4 6.2

8 65.0 72.6 7.6

9 63.8 68 4.2

10 73.3 80.7 7.4

11 70.8 71.2 0.4

12 86.7 87.8 1.1

Bold denotes significant cumulative impact. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

Noise generated by on-site sources associated with individual projects could potentially increase community noise levels in the immediate vicinity of each individual development site. However, such sources would be localized in nature, and therefore would not contribute to potential cumulative impacts at more distant locations. Cumulative impacts related to on-site noise sources could only occur to the extent that such sources were to combine with similar sources located within another project occurring in the immediate vicinity to raise noise levels audibly. Because on-site sources would be subjected to site- specific mitigation measures to control noise levels at the source and/or provide screening from adjacent sensitive uses, the potential for cumulative noise impacts resulting from on-site sources would be remote and less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-20 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

MITIGATION MEASURES

Short Term Construction Noise The following mitigation measures shall be applied to all projects within the Project Area to address short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities:

• Major construction activity shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. during the week and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays, per the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code. Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays.

• All equipment operating on site shall have properly operating mufflers.

• Siting of cranes, hoists, or other semi-stationary heavy equipment shall be as far from noise- sensitive uses as is practical, consistent with construction requirements.

• Electrically powered equipment shall be used instead of equipment driven by internal combustion engines where feasible.

• Equipment shall not be left idling for 30 minutes or more, instead, it should be switched off.

• An area shall be designated for delivery of materials and equipment to any construction site located within the Project Area. This area shall be located as far from residential properties as is practical, consistent with construction requirements. This area shall be protected by a temporary barrier blocking the line of sight from the source to any operable residential window.

• For projects which would cause construction noise impacts affecting a school, the Agency shall, upon notification by the affected school or designated representative(s), coordinate with the project applicant and the affected school to implement, as feasible, additional site-specific measures to reduce construction related noise impacts at the affected school.

Operational Noise Due to the nature of the source, no feasible mitigation measures are available to address significant impacts associated with increased traffic noise that would result under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

Impacts associated with other on-site noise sources would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-21 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

Even with implementation of the mitigation measures outlined above, impacts associated with short- term construction noise would be significant and unavoidable under all development scenarios. Impacts associated with on-site noise sources would be less than significant. Impacts associated with increased traffic noise under the Minimum and Moderate development scenarios would be less than significant. Impacts associated with increased traffic noise would be significant and unavoidable for four roadway segments and less than significant for eight roadway segments under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable for eight of 12 roadway segments under the Maximum Possible development scenario and seven of 12 roadway segments under the Minimum and Moderate development scenarios.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Noise Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.H-22 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS I. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. POLICE PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) serves the City of Los Angeles. The Hollywood Station located at 1358 North Wilcox Avenue serves the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). There are approximately 314 sworn officers and 42 civilian support staff serving the area. The Project Area is included within the LAPD-designated Hollywood Area bounding: Universal City, Los Angeles City Boundary to the north; Beverly Boulevard, Willoughby Avenue, and Melrose Avenue to the south; Los Angeles City Boundary and Mulholland Drive to the west; and Normandie Avenue, Fern Dell Drive, and Griffith Park Boundary to the east (see Figure III.I-1).

The crime rate, which represents the number of crimes reported, affects the “needs” projection for staff and equipment for the LAPD. An increase in crime rates is not necessarily directly proportional to increases in land use activity. This is due to other factors contributing to the crime rate such as police presence, crime prevention measures, and on-going legislation/funding.

Table III.I-1 provides crime statistics for the Hollywood Area as well as Citywide. According to the LAPD, in 2001, the Hollywood Area population was estimated at 202,618. In 2001, 53 crimes per 1,000 persons were reported in the Hollywood Area. The predominant crimes in the Hollywood Area were burglary from vehicle, other types of thefts, and vehicle theft. The average response time to emergency calls by the LAPD in the Hollywood Area during 2001 was 7.6 minutes. This is better than the Citywide average of 8.9 minutes during the same year.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Threshold of Significance

A significant impact would result if the Proposed Project would result in an increase in population and building area that would require the need for additional police services or equipment in order to maintain adequate levels of police protection services within the Project

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Fire Station No. 82 1800 N. Bronson Avenue

West Bureau Police Station d 6464 Sunset Blvd. Suite 250 Fire Station No. 41 Fire Station No. 27 1439 N. Gardner Street d 1327 N. Cole Avenue Hollywood Area Police Station 1358 North Wilcox Ave.

LEGEND dPolice Station Fire Station Project Area

N Not to Scale Source: Thomas Brothers Maps, 2002 Digital Edition.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.I-1 environmental planning and research Police and Fire Station Locations Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.I-1 Crime Statistics

Type of Crime Hollywood Area Citywide Burglary from Business 261 5,823 Burglary from 756 14,926 Residence Burglary 158 4,857 Street Robbery 755 11,019 Other Robbery 368 6,155 Murder 15 589 Rape 86 1,424 Aggravated Assault 1,549 33,178 Burglary from Vehicle 1,762 25,786 Theft from Vehicle 801 15,607 Grand Theft 872 12,470 Theft from Person 97 1,222 Purse Snatch 17 371 Other Theft 1,640 24,273 Bicycle Theft 7 41 Vehicle Theft 1,689 31,991 Bunco 6 157 TOTAL 10,839 189,889 Source: Correspondence from Los Angeles Police Department, April 2002.

Area. The adequacy of police protection is based on, among other factors, officer to population ratio, land use type, response time, crime rate, and LAPD’s judgment of project needs (anticipated crime rate and required police activity level) in the area.

Project Impacts

Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project

In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, the population of the Project Area would increase by 4,050 persons and

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

employment would increase by over 21,000 jobs. The projected increases in population and employment would result in an increase in service calls placed to the police department and thus increased demand for police services.

Maximum Possible

Development projected to occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario would result in an increase of approximately 22,000 jobs over the No Project scenario, although total resident population would be approximately 675 persons less than under the No Project scenario. Since no increase in permanent population would be experienced within the Project Area under the Maximum Possible development scenario, no degradation of the officer/population ratio within the LAPD Hollywood Area would occur. However, the increase in daytime population and activity from increased employment, tourism, and other activities would create additional opportunities for crime that could potentially increase response time and crime rates in the Project Area.. In order to address the increase in response times and crime rates that would be associated with the increased development projected to result from the Maximum Possible development scenario, LAPD would be required to provide increased services and equipment, which would constitute a significant impact.

Moderate

Development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would result in an increase of approximately 2,700 jobs over the No Project scenario and an increase in resident population of approximately 2,000 persons over than under the No Project scenario. The increase in daytime population and activity from increased employment, tourism, and other activities, along with increased permanent residential population, would reduce the officer- population ratio and create additional opportunities for crime that could potentially increase response time and crime rates in the Project Area. In order to address the reduced officer- population ratio and increased response times and crime rates that would be associated with the increased residential and commercial/industrial development projected to result from the Moderate development scenario, LAPD would be required to provide increased services and equipment, which would constitute a significant impact.

Minimum

Development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would result in an increase in resident population of approximately 2,700 persons over the No Project scenario, although total employment would be approximately 800 jobs lower than would occur under the No Project scenario. The increase in permanent resident population under the Minimum

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-4 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

development scenario would reduce the officer-population ratio and create additional opportunities for crime that could potentially increase response time and crime rates in the Project Area. In order to address the reduced officer-population ratio and increased response times and crime rates that would be associated with the increased residential development projected to result from the Minimum development scenario, LAPD would be required to provide increased services and equipment, which would constitute a significant impact.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Implementation of other development within the Project Area that would occur in conjunction with the project-related development (i.e., development occurring under the No Project scenario) could result in cumulative growth in population and employment within the Area. Cumulative employment and population growth would result in an increase of approximately 43,000 jobs and 3,400 persons, respectively, under the Maximum Possible development scenario, approximately 24,000 jobs and 6,000 persons, respectively, under the Moderate development scenario, and approximately 20,000 jobs and 7,000 persons, respectively, under the Minimum development scenario. The increase in activity resulting from such cumulative growth could result reduced officer-population ratio, increased response times and increased crime rates that would require LAPD to provide increased service and equipment within the LAPD Hollywood Area. However, the impacts created by new development would be reduced by the incorporation of required security measures into each proposed development. In addition, the LAPD monitors the need for police services and proposes appropriate service enhancements through the yearly budgetary process. Therefore, cumulative impacts with respect to police protection services would not be significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented as part of future development projects in the Project Area to address significant impacts related to police services:

• The Agency shall require all applicants for development that requires a CEQA review or has agency participation through an Owner Participation Agreement or Disposition and Development Agreement to coordinate with LAPD by providing site plans to the Hollywood Division for review and to implement security features, such as private security, video surveillance, and secured entryways, as recommended by the LAPD during their review. • The Agency shall coordinate with LAPD to determine the need for additional facilities and shall assist LAPD where feasible in implementing expansion of existing facilities or providing community policing facilities in Hollywood where needed.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts to police services would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

2. FIRE PROTECTION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) provides fire protection services to the City of Los Angeles and the Project Area. These services are provided in accordance with the Los Angeles Fire Code, the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the General Plan of Los Angeles. These documents serve to guide City departments, other government agencies, private developers and the public in reference to the construction, maintenance and operation of fire protection facilities in the City. Additional standards are established for the distribution, design, construction and location of fire protection facilities. These standards specify fire-flow criteria, minimum distances of fire stations, hydrant specification and access provisions for fire fighting vehicles and personnel.

The LAFD has three existing fire stations that provide initial response to the Project Area. The Project Area is served by Stations 27, 82 and 41 (see Figure III.I-1). Detailed information for these stations is listed in Table III.I-2 below.

Table III.I-2 Fire Stations

Fire Stations Staff Equipment Station No. 27 15 Headquarters Battalion 5 1327 N. Cole Ave. Task Force Truck and Engine Company Paramedic Rescue Ambulance EMT Rescue Ambulance Station No. 82 6 Single Engine Company 1800 N. Bronson Ave. Paramedic Rescue Ambulance Station No. 41 4 Single Engine Company 1439 N Gardner St.

Minimum level fire-flow requirements and response distances depend upon the type of development. Requirements can vary from 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM) in low-density residential areas to 12,000 GPM in high-density commercial or industrial areas.1 The Project Area includes industrial, commercial, residential, and mixed land uses. Table III.I-3 lists the maximum response distance standards based on land use.

1 Section 57.09.06, Subsection A of the L.A. Fire Code.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.I-3 Maximum Response Distance (miles)

Land Use Engine Company Truck Company

Neighborhood Land Uses 1.5 2.0 • Low Density Residential/High Density Residential/ Neighborhood Regional Land Uses 1.0 1.5 Commercial Industrial/Commercial

Commercial and Industrial Centers 0.75 1.0 • High Density Commercial/High Density Industrial

Source: City of Los Angeles Fire Code, Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), Section 57.09.07.

Based upon fire flow and response criteria described above, existing fire protection service is considered adequate.2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Threshold of Significance

Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on fire protection services if it required the addition or expansion of fire department personnel or equipment to effectively meet the project’s fire and emergency demands.

Project Impacts

Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project

In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, housing units within the Project Area would be expected to increase by 1,800 units and commercial and industrial development would increase by nearly 9 million square feet. The projected increases in development could result in an increase in service calls handled by the Fire Department.

2 Memorandum from Los Angeles City Fire Department, May 2, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Maximum Possible Development

Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, commercial and industrial development is projected to increase up to 9.4 million square feet over the No Project scenario, although approximately 300 fewer housing units would be developed. LAFD needs are determined on a project-by-project basis, with consideration given to the level of LAFD activity historically associated with uses similar to those proposed by each project. A determination of the amount of additional protection that may be necessary for the area is made after a review of project plans by the LAFD. Future development project within the Project Area are legally required to comply with all applicable State and local codes and ordinances as well as conforming to the guidelines found within the Fire Protection and Fire Prevention Plan and the Safety Elements of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Based upon requirements for fire protection services generated through such project-level reviews, the LAFD continually evaluates fire station placement and overall Department services for the City, as well as specific areas. This process assures that the Fire Department can provide the capabilities needed to provided adequate service to the City. Thus the impacts of potential future development under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be less than significant.

Moderate

Impacts to fire protection services under the Moderate development scenario would be lower than under the Maximum Possible development scenario because of substantially lower levels of commercial and industrial development (1.1 million square feet over the No Project scenario, compared to 9.4 million square feet under the Maximum Possible development scenario), even though the Moderate development scenario would include 1,200 more housing units than the Maximum Possible development scenario. Impacts of potential future development under the Moderate development scenario related to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Minimum

Impacts to fire protection services under the Minimum development scenario would be lower than under the Maximum Possible development scenario because of substantially lower levels of commercial and industrial development (400,000 square feet less than the No Project scenario, compared to 9.4 million square feet more than the No Project scenario under the Maximum Possible development scenario), even though the Minimum development scenario would include 1,500 more housing units than the Maximum Possible development scenario. Impacts of potential future development under the Minimum development scenario related to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Implementation of other development within the Project Area that would occur in conjunction with the project-related development (i.e., development occurring under the No Project scenario) could result in cumulative growth in population and employment within the Project Area. Cumulative commercial/residential and housing growth would result in an increase of approximately 18.3 million square feet and 1,500 units, respectively, under the Maximum Possible development scenario, approximately 10 million square feet and 2,700 units, respectively, under the Moderate development scenario, and approximately 8.5 million square feet and 3,000 units, respectively, under the Minimum development scenario. The increase in activity resulting from such cumulative growth could result in cumulative increase in demand for fire protection services within the service area of LAFD. However, the impacts created by new development would be reduced by project-level reviews and adherence to applicable State and local codes. In addition, the LAFD monitors the need for fire protection services and proposes appropriate service enhancements through the yearly budgetary process. Therefore, cumulative impacts with respect to fire protection services would not be significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Although no significant impacts related to fire protection services are projected to result from the Proposed Project, this assessment assumes that the LAFD will conduct project-level reviews to ensure adherence to code requirements. To ensure that this assumption is valid, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to future development projects within the Project Area:

• Site-specific development will be referred to the Fire Department to provide appropriate fire hazard management recommendations for inclusion by the City as project conditions of approval. Roadways and internal circulation systems shall be designed to accommodate fire suppression equipment with adequate turnaround areas as determined by the Fire Department. All site-specific development shall be provided with the water facilities needed to meet fire flow requirements as determined by the Fire Department. Where necessary, existing fire hydrants are to be tested to confirm adequate fire flows.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

3. SCHOOLS

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Public education services are provided within the Project Area by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Ten LAUSD schools currently serve the residents located within the Redevelopment Project Area (Figure III.I-2), including seven public elementary schools, two public middle schools, and one public high school. Detailed information pertaining to the existing schools is listed below in Table III.I-4. All schools are presently operating within their design capacity.

In addition to existing facilities, LAUSD is presently engaged in an intensive effort to meet projected future school demand throughout the District. Within the Project Area, a new primary center is scheduled for construction, two of the elementary schools are scheduled for improvements or additions, and a new high school is being built to address potential future overcrowding at Hollywood Senior High School3.

The new primary center, which will serve students in the early grades, is the Santa Monica Primary Center which will include a total of 16 classrooms with 380 seats. Pending approval of the Board of Education, the primary center should be completed in the second quarter of 2004. The Ramona Elementary School is expected to have an addition of eight classrooms with 184 seats to be completed in the second quarter of 2003. Additionally, a new Ramona Elementary School is scheduled to be constructed with an anticipated completion date of the third quarter of 2004. This school would contain a total of 26 classrooms with 599 seats. The Vine Elementary School will have an addition of 10 classrooms, 230 seats, to be completed (pending Board approval) in the second quarter of 2004. Due to the projected overcrowding of the high school now serving the area, a new 78 classroom, 1,875 seat high school, Central LA Area High School #1, is scheduled to be completed in the beginning of 2005.

3 Facilities Learning Division, www.laschools.org, April 22, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

ES Cheremoya Elementary

Selma Elementary ES ES ES HS Grant Elementary Gardner Elementary Hollywood Senior High

HS MS Central Los Angeles Area High Le Conte Middle School School #1(Under Construction) ES Ramona Elementary ES Santa Monica Elementary ES MS Vine Elementary Bancroft Middle School Legend

Project Area

N Not to Scale Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 2002.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.I-2 environmental planning and research School Locations Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.I-4 Public Schools Serving the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area

Name Address Capacity Current Percent of Enrollment Capacity ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Cheremoya 6017 Franklin 546 493 90% Avenue Avenue

Gardner Street 7450 Hawthorn 587 487 83% Avenue

Grant 1530 N. Wilton 1,558 1,452 93% Place

Ramona 1133 North 1,450 1,344 93% Mariposa Avenue

Santa Monica 1022 North Van 1,442 1,387 96% Boulevard Ness Avenue

Selma Avenue 6611 Selma 753 680 90% Avenue

Vine Street 955 North Vine 1,071 977 91% Street

Total 7,407 6,820 92%

MIDDLE SCHOOL Bancroft Middle 929 North Las 1,569 1,061 68% Palmas Avenue

Le Conte Middle 1316 North 2,481 2,043 82% Bronson Avenue

Total 4,050 3,104 77%

HIGH SCHOOL Hollywood 1521 North 2,929 2,735 93% Senior High Highland School Avenue Source: Los Angeles Unified School District correspondence from Raymond Dippel, March 26, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Regulatory Environment Pursuant to California Education Code Section 17620(a)(1), the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The interrelated nature of commercial and residential development justified the California legislature’s adoption of fee legislation that recognized both as contributing to enrollment growth in schools. The School Facilities Fee Plan (March 2, 2000), for the LAUSD, has been prepared to support the school district’s levy of the fees authorized by Section 17620 of the California Education Code. The LAUSD has, for a long time, had a development fee program to provide funding for facilities needed to house students from new housing and commercial developments. Due to recent legislation, the LAUSD is permitted to levy alternative (higher) fees per Sections 65995.5 to 65995.7 of the Government Code. The new fee level would allow the LAUSD to recover a larger portion of the cost impacts from new development.

Per Sections 65995.5 to 65995.7 of the Government Code, the Alternative Level 2 residential developer fees have been imposed at a rate, effective as of September 11, 2001, of $3.55 per square foot on new residential construction within the boundaries of the LAUSD4.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Threshold of Significance

Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to school services if it would result in a need for additional school facilities to serve projected growth occurring within the Project Area or if activities associated with construction of future projects within the Project Area would affect school traffic or pedestrian routes.

Project Impacts

Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project

In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an additional 1,080 elementary students, 360 middle school students, and 486 high school students would be generated (see Table III.I-5).

4 Los Angeles Unified School District, Raymond Dippel, Assistant Environmental Planning Specialist, March 26, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.I-5 Student Generation By Project Alternative

Alternative Change in Elementary Middle Schoola High Schoola Housing Unitsc Schoola No Project 1,800 1,080 360 486

Projected Student Accommodation at -493 586 -292 Existing Schools

Projected Student Accommodation With 900 586 1,583 New Schools

Maximum Possible 1,500 900 300 405

Projected Student Accommodation at -313 646 -211 Existing Schools

Projected Student Accommodation With 1,080 646 1,664 New Schools

Moderate 2,700 1,620 540 729

Projected Student Accommodation at -1,033 406 -535 Existing Schools

Projected Student Accommodation With 360 406 1,340 New Schools

Minimum 3,000 1,800 600 810

Projected Student Accommodation at -1,213 346 -616 Existing Schools

Projected Student Accommodation With 180 346 1,259 New Schools

Available Capacity At Existing Schoolsb 587 946 194

Available Capacity At Projected New 1,393 - 1,875 Schools a Calculated assuming 0.6 elementary students, 0.2 middle school students, and 0.27 high school students per housing unit (LAUSD, Student Generation Factors). b From Table III.I-4 reflecting the difference between current capacity and current enrollment. Current capacity calculated based on 20 students per room for elementary schools, and 35 students per room for middle and high schools. c Compared to Existing Conditions Source: Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, March 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Under the No Project scenario, based upon the capacity available at existing schools, elementary and high school capacity would be exceeded, while middle schools capacity would not be exceeded. With the addition of planned new school facilities, the projected student generation under the No Project scenario would be accommodated at all school levels (elementary, middle, high school).

Construction activities associated with future development projects occurring in the Project Area under the No Project scenario could impact school traffic and pedestrian routes. Such impacts would be significant.

Maximum Possible Development

Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, implementation of projected levels of residential development would result in 180 fewer elementary school students, 60 fewer middle school students and 81 fewer high school students than would be generated under the No Project scenario. Total student generation resulting from implementation of this development scenario would be 900 elementary students, 300 middle school students, and 405 high school students. Under the Maximum Possible Development scenario, existing school facilities would be able to accommodate the projected numbers of middle school students, but available capacity to accommodate elementary and high school students would be exceeded. With the addition of planned new school facilities, projected student generation under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be accommodated at all school levels and impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.

Construction activities associated with future development projects occurring in the Project Area under the Maximum Possible Development scenario could impact school traffic and pedestrian routes. Such impacts would be significant.

Moderate

Under the Moderate development scenario, implementation of projected levels of residential development would result in 540 more elementary school students, 180 more middle school students and 243 more high school students than would be generated under the No Project scenario. Total student generation resulting from implementation of this development scenario would be 1,620 elementary students, 540 middle school students, and 729 high school students. Under the Moderate development scenario, existing school facilities would be able to accommodate the projected numbers of middle school students, but available capacity to accommodate the additional elementary and high school students would be exceeded. With the addition of planned new school facilities, projected student generation under the Moderate

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

development scenario would be accommodated at all school levels and impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.

Construction activities associated with future development projects occurring in the Project Area under the Moderate Development scenario could impact school traffic and pedestrian routes. Such impacts would be significant.

Minimum

Under the Minimum development scenario, implementation of projected levels of residential development would result in 720 more elementary school students, 240 more middle school students and 324 more high school students than would be generated under the No Project scenario. Total student generation resulting from implementation of this development scenario would be 1,800 elementary students, 600 middle school students, and 810 high school students. Under the Minimum development scenario, existing school facilities would be able to accommodate the projected numbers of middle school students, but available capacity to accommodate the additional elementary and high school students would be exceeded. With the addition of planned new school facilities, projected student generation under the Minimum development scenario would be accommodated at all school levels and impacts related to school facilities would be less than significant.

Construction activities associated with future development projects occurring in the Project Area under the Minimum scenario could impact school traffic and pedestrian routes. Such impacts would be significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The analysis of potential school impacts provided above includes the effect of cumulative growth projected to occur within the Project Area under the three development scenarios because it compares projected student generation over existing conditions to available capacity to determine potential impacts. To the extent that other growth and development occurring outside the Project Area would be served by the same schools that presently serve the uses located within the Project Area, cumulative impacts on these schools could occur. As noted in Table III.I-5 above, with implementation of planned new school facilities identified by LAUSD, excess capacity would exist at all school levels under all development scenarios. Moreover, as mandated by State law, the applicants of development projects located outside the Project Area would be required to pay a school fee to the LAUSD to help finance the identified new school facilities as well as other facilities which may be necessitated by cumulative growth.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Therefore, cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project, in conjunction with other cumulative growth, would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

As discussed above, impacts of the Proposed Project on school facilities would be less than significant. However, this assessment was based upon the presumption that additional school facilities identified by the LAUSD would be constructed to meet projected demand. In order to support this presumption, the following mitigation measure shall apply to the Proposed Project:

• CRA shall require, as a Condition of Approval for future development projects within the Project Area, payment of in-lieu fees under the provisions of the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 to mitigate impacts on schools serving the proposed project area.

The following mitigation measure shall be implemented to the maximum extent feasible to address significant impacts to school traffic and pedestrian routes that could result from future development projects within the Project:

• Project applicants shall contact the LAUSD Transportation Branch regarding potential impacts on school bus services.

• Project applicants shall coordinate with LAUSD to provide safe and convenient pedestrian routes to affected school(s).

• Project applicants shall maintain ongoing communication with LAUSD through the construction period and provide information to LAUSD regarding construction scheduling in order to forewarn children and parents of activities that could affect pedestrian routes to and from affected school(s).

• Project applicants shall, to the maximum extent feasible, provide traffic controls (signs and signals) to provide for pedestrian and vehicle safety at affected school(s).

• Haul route and construction schedules shall be established to minimize conflicts with pedestrians, school buses and cars at school arrival and dismissal times to the maximum extent feasible.

• Project applicants shall fund, if necessary, the provision of crossing guards and flag persons to provide for pedestrian safety at impacted school(s).

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

• Project applicants shall provide barriers at construction sites to minimize trespassing, vandalism and short cuts through the construction site in order to access schools.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts on school facilities and services would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

4. PARKS AND RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Seven park and recreational facilities are located around or within the boundaries of the Project Area (see Figure III.I-3). The facilities include: De Longpre Park, Dorothy J. and Benjamin B. Smith Park, Selma Park, Lexington Pocket Park, Lexington 2 Park, Yucca Park, and Hollywood Recreation Center. Griffith Park, a regional park operated by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, is located approximately two miles northeast of the Project Area.

The ratio of neighborhood and community parks to population that is used as a guideline by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks is four acres per 1,000 people. Currently, 46,343 people reside among 3.27 acres of parkland. Using the parks to population guideline, the project area population should be served by approximately 185 acres of parkland. The Project Area is thus parkland-poor, well below the Department of Recreation and Parks guideline for park service5. This deficit results from the large concentration of multi-family residential buildings in the Project Area.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Threshold of Significance

Implementation of the Proposed project would have a significant impact on parks and recreation facilities if demand would not meet the level of service guideline of the Department of Recreation and Parks.

Project Impacts

Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project

In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, population within the Project Area would increase by 4,050 persons. This population increase would require an additional 16.2 acres of parkland above the 182 acre parkland deficit presently existing within the Project Area.

5 Maureen Tamuri, Assistant General Manager, Department of Recreation and Parks, memorandum dated March 7, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-20 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Yucca Park Yucca Street and North P Cherokee Ave. Dorothy J. and Benjamin P B. Smith Park Selma Park 7020 Franklin Avenue P 6567 Selma Ave.

P Lexington Pocket Park 5523 Lexington Avenue De Longpre Park P P 1350 North Cherokee Ave. Lexington 2 Park P 5707 Lexington Avenue Hollywood Recreation Center 1122 Cole Ave.

LEGEND Park or PRecreation Center Project Area

N Not to Scale Source: Thomas Brothers Maps 2002, Department of Recreation and Parks, March 2002.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.I-3 environmental planning and research Park and Recreation Center Locations Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Maximum Possible Development

Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, the population of the Project Area would increase by approximately 675 fewer persons than under the No Project Scenario. The total projected population increase over existing conditions under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be 3,375 persons. This increase would require an additional 13.5 acres of parkland to meet the Citywide standard set by the Department of Recreation and Parks (see Table III.I-6). Because a substantial deficit in parkland already exists within the Project Area, any increase in population within the Redevelopment Project Area that does not include corresponding park facilities would worsen the existing parkland deficit and would be significant.

Table III.I-6 Projected Park and Recreation Facility Demand

Population Increase over Existing Park Facilities Alternative Conditions (persons) Guideline (acres) No Project 4,050 16.2 Maximum Possible 3,375 13.5 Moderate 6,075 24.3 Minimum 6,750 27 Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 2002.

Moderate

Under the Moderate development scenario, the population of the Project Area would increase by approximately 2,025 persons over the No Project Scenario. The total projected population increase over existing conditions under the Moderate development scenario would be 6,075 persons. This increase would require an additional 24.3 acres of parkland to meet the Citywide standard set by the Department of Recreation and Parks (see Table III.I-6). Because a substantial deficit in parkland already exists within the Project Area, any increase in population within the Project Area that does not include corresponding park facilities would worsen the existing parkland deficit and would be significant.

Minimum

Under the Minimum development scenario, the population of the Project Area would increase by approximately 2,700 persons over the No Project Scenario. The total projected population

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-22 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

increase over existing conditions under the Minimum development scenario would be 6,750 persons. This increase would require an additional 27 acres of parkland to meet the Citywide standard set by the Department of Recreation and Parks (see Table III.I-6). Because a substantial deficit in parkland already exists within the Project Area, any increase in population within the Project Area that does not include corresponding park facilities would worsen the existing parkland deficit and would be significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The analysis of potential park and recreation impacts provided above includes the effect of cumulative growth projected to occur within the Project Area under the three development scenarios because it compares projected population growth over existing conditions to the Citywide standard set by the Department of Recreation and Parks to determine potential impacts. To the extent that other growth and development occurring outside the Project Area would be served by the same parks that presently serve the uses located within the Project Area, cumulative impacts on these facilities could occur. The increase in the residential population by other cumulative growth in the vicinity of the Project Area would, in the absence of mitigation, lower the City’s existing parkland to population ratio, which is currently below their preferred standard. Impacts associated with cumulative growth could be reduced through developer fees, conditions of approval, and environmental review procedures. However, there is no certainty that Conditions of Approval or Quimby fees would be applicable. Therefore, cumulative parks and recreation impacts would be significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measure shall apply to future development projects within the Project Area to address significant impacts related to park and recreation services:

• The Agency shall require project applicants to analyze the existing, accessible park/recreational facilities and the need for additional facilities in order to determine proper mitigation. This could include on-site recreational amenities and direct support to the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks including land, equipment, funding, and other forms of compensation, as appropriate.

• The Agency shall include, in its implementation program for the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, a program to coordinate with the Department of Recreation and Parks to provide additional neighborhood park facilities within the Project Area where feasible.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-23 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

• The Agency shall include, in its implementation program for the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, a program to coordinate with LAUSD and fund, where feasible, use of school playgrounds and athletic fields during hours that school is not in session.

• The Agency shall meet with LADOT and LACMTA to identify means to better connect Griffith Park and Hollywood via transit to facilitate access to Griffith Park by Hollywood residents.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

Because of the substantial existing deficit of parkland within the Project Area, coupled with the lack of availability of sites for new park facilities, it is unlikely that the Project Area would be able to feasibly meet the Citywide parkland standard established by the Department of Recreation and Parks. Although implementation of the mitigation measure above could result in incremental additions to parkland supply and park facilities within the Project Area, impacts related to park and recreation services would be significant and unavoidable.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-24 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

5. LIBRARIES

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Library services within the Project Area are provided by the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL). The LAPL operates one central library, 67 branch libraries, and four bookmobiles to service the City of Los Angeles. Two libraries have been identified by LAPL as providing service to the Project Area: Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Branch Library, and the Will and Ariel Durant Branch Library (to open Fall 2003) (see Figure III.I-4). These libraries are 18,000 sf and 12,500 sf respectively. Parking in the vicinity of the Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Branch Library is currently limited, which potentially limits accessibility to the library.

The existing facilities serving the Project Area, comprised of an 18,000 square foot facility and 12,500 square foot facility, can accommodate a service population of approximately 250,000, based upon standards established by LAPL and shown in Table III.I-7 below. The existing daytime population of the Project Area (population and employment) is approximately 82,000 (see Section III.E, Population, Housing and Employment). Existing library facilities are adequate to serve the Project Area6.

Table III.I-7 Library Branch Building Standards

Population Served1 Size of Facility (sq.ft.) 100,001-150,0002 18,000 50,001-100,000 12,500 35,001-50,000 10,000 25,001-35,000 9,000 Under 25,000 Special size

1 Estimated population ranges are based on daytime population 2 Extrapolated value. Source: Los Angeles Public Library

6 The Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Branch Library is centrally located within the Project Area and its service area would be roughly equivalent to the areas contained within the Project Area. The Will and Ariel Durant Branch Library is located at the western edge of the Project Area. Its service area would include some areas of the City that are outside of the Project Area. However, these areas would be within the available capacity of this branch library, based upon population served.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-25 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

The Agency is presently involved in a project (Hollywood Marketplace) which includes construction of a public parking structure at the southwest corner of Selma Avenue and Ivar Avenue, across from the Frances Howard Goldwyn Hollywood Regional Branch Library, which would provide parking supply that would be available to serve patrons of that facility.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Threshold of Significance

Implementation of the Proposed Project would create a significant impact on library services if population and employment growth within the Project Area would result in inadequate library facilities to serve the Project Area.

Project Impacts

Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project

In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, daytime population within the Project Area would increase by approximately 4,050 persons and approximately 21,100 jobs, thus increasing the total service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area to approximately 107,200. This would be within the maximum service population of the library facilities serving the Project Area.

Maximum Possible Development

Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, the population of the Project Area would increase by approximately 675 fewer persons than under the No Project Scenario. The total projected population increase over existing conditions under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be 3,375 persons. Total employment would increase by approximately 43,200 jobs under this development scenario. Thus the total service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area would increase to approximately 129,000.

The resulting service population would be within the maximum service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area. Impacts on library services would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-26 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Legend Library Project Area

N Not to Scale Source: Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, February 2002.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.I-4 environmental planning and research Library Locations Serving the Project Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Moderate Under the Moderate development scenario, the population of the Redevelopment Project Area would increase by approximately 2,025 persons over the No Project Scenario. The total projected population increase over existing conditions under the Moderate development scenario would be 6,075 persons. Total employment would increase by approximately 23,800 jobs under this development scenario. Thus the total service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area would increase to approximately 112,000. The resulting service population would be within the maximum service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area. Impacts on library services would be less than significant.

Minimum

Under the Minimum development scenario, the population of the Redevelopment Project Area would increase by approximately 2,700 persons over the No Project Scenario. The total projected population increase over existing conditions under the Minimum development scenario would be 6,750 persons. Total employment would increase by approximately 20,200 jobs under this development scenario. Thus the total service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area would increase to approximately 108,000. The resulting service population would be within the maximum service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area. Impacts on library services would be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The analysis of potential impacts to library services provided above includes the effect of cumulative growth projected to occur within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area under the three development scenarios because it is based on projected population growth over existing conditions to determine potential impacts. Population and employment growth outside the Project Area would likely be within the maximum service population of the library facilities serving the Project Area7. To the extent that other growth and development occurring outside the Project Area would be served by the same libraries that presently serve the uses located within the Project Area, cumulative impacts on these facilities would likely be less than significant. Impacts associated with cumulative growth could be reduced through developer contributions made part of conditions of approval, and improvements to library facilities financed through other revenue sources, including bond funds previously approved by voters in

7 Under the maximum projected growth in population and employment within the Project Area (Maximum Possible development scenario (total service population 129,000), an additional 121,000 persons could be accommodated without exceeding the maximum service population for the two library facilities that serve the area.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-28 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

the City of Los Angeles for library facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to library facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Because impacts to library services would be less than significant, no mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

Impacts of the Proposed Project on library services would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Public Services Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.I-29 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS J. UTILITIES

1. WATER

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water is supplied to the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). The infrastructure needed to supply water to residents and business located within the Redevelopment Project Area includes: water storage facilities, transmission and distribution pipelines, booster pumping stations, pressure reducing stations, and other related facilities to deliver water to the City’s residents. DWP is also responsible for ensuring that water demand is met and that State and Federal water quality standards are achieved. For the fiscal year of 2000-2001, City water supplies were derived from the following sources: (1) the Los Angeles Aqueducts – approximately 36 percent; (2) groundwater – approximately 13 percent; (3) land purchases from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) – approximately 51 percent. Water availability from these sources varies depending on the weather and demand. The Project Area is a highly developed, urbanized environment with infrastructure already in place serving the existing properties. Existing land uses within the Project Area currently consume approximately 950,000 gallons of water per day (gpd) (see Table III.J-1).

Water storage is essential for the conservation of water to supply daily peaks, meet high demand conditions and provide for firefighting and emergencies. The City water system has 104 tanks and reservoirs ranging in size from ten thousand to 60 billion gallons with a total capacity of 109 billion gallons.1 The DWP has instituted significant water conservation measures to go along with the State level regulations including:

• City Ordinance 165,004 – Reduces water consumption by requiring new buildings to install water conservation fixtures, such as ultra low-flush toilets, urinals, taps, and showerheads, and plumbing fixtures that reduce water loss from leakage in order to obtain building permits in the City of Los Angeles. In addition, there are provisions requiring xeriscaping – the use of low- maintenance, drought-resistant plants.

1 City of Los Angeles, Draft LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 1998.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-1 Existing Water Consumption – Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area

Consumption Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 1,276,738 96 122,567 Office 683,440 180 123,019 Industrial 232,038 96 22,276 Single-Family 193 du 276 53,268 Residential Multi-Family 2,600 du 240 624,000 Residential* TOTAL 945,130

* This Consumption Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of water consumption. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

• City Ordinance 166,080 – Prohibits the use of hoses to wash sidewalks, walkways, driveways, or paved parking areas. • California Administrative Code, Title 20, Section 1604 - establishes efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new showerheads and sink faucets, and prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply with the regulations. • California Administrative Code, Title 22 - establishes standards implemented at the local level for the use of gray water for irrigation and other uses. • The DWP is also continuing to implement its water recycling project development and construction to reach its goal of recycling 10 percent of total demand by 2010.2

The Project Area is presently served by a network of water mains that are located beneath all of the major streets located within the Project Area. Existing DWP water service to all land uses presently located within the Project Area is adequate.

2 City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power, Urban Water Management Plan, Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 Annual Update, page 10.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Threshold of Significance Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on water service if either of the following occurs: 1) demand by the project exceeds the ability of the DWP to service the area based on anticipated water supplies; or 2) water demand generated by the project exceeds the capacity of existing or planned water distribution systems, resulting in an unmet need for additional infrastructure in order to provide adequate levels of service.

Water consumption was estimated from wastewater generation factors. In order to present a conservative analysis, water consumption is assumed to be 120 percent of the wastewater generated for a given land use. Conventional methodologies generally use water factors reflecting a ten percent increase over wastewater generation rates.

Project Impacts Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, estimated water consumption within the Project Area would be approximately 2.5 million gallons of water per day, as shown in Table III.J-2. This estimated level would represent increased consumption of approximately 1.6 million gallons of water per day over existing consumption.

Maximum Probable Development Implementation of future development projects occurring under the Maximum Probable development scenario would result in total estimated water consumption within the Project Area of approximately 3.6 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-3. This would represent an increase in consumption of approximately 1.1 million gallons of water per day over the No Project scenario. The projected increase in consumption under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be within the projected water supplies available to DWP3. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant.

3 DWP has provided a Water Availability Assessment for the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Redevelopment Project (Resolution No. 002 295, dated June 4, 2002), that states “DWP anticipates that it can provide sufficient domestic water supply to accommodate the development and growth associated with the Project.” Source: Letter from Alvin Z. Bautista, Water Resources Planning and Policy, LADWP, June 18, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-2 No Project Scenario Water Consumption

Consumption Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 6,301,629 96 604,956 Office 3,910,135 180 703,824 Industrial 916,429 96 87,977 Single Family 307 du 276 84,732 Residential Multi-Family 4,288 du 240 1,029,120 Residential* Subtotal 2,510,610 Less Existing Consumption (945,130) NET INCREASE 1,565,480 * This Consumption Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of water consumption. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Table III.J-3 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Water Consumption

Consumption Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 11,638,173 96 1,117,265 Office 7,118,895 180 1,281,401 Industrial 1,773,826 96 170,287 Single-Family 283 du 276 78,108 Residential Multi-Family 3,987 du 240 956,880 Residential* Subtotal 3,603,941 Less Consumption Under No Project Scenario (2,510,610) NET INCREASE 1,093,331 * This Consumption Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of water consumption. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-4 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

The Proposed Project is intended to promote the continued revitalization of the Hollywood Project Area through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties, in addition to the development of new uses. The infrastructure needed to serve these sites is either in place or would be expanded by DWP in the normal course of providing water service within the City. Impacts related to water supply infrastructure would be less than significant.

Moderate Implementation of future development projects occurring under the Moderate development scenario would result in total estimated water consumption within the Project Area of approximately 2.9 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-4. This would represent an increase in consumption of approximately 354,000 gallons of water per day over the No Project scenario. The projected increase in consumption under the Moderate development scenario would be within the projected water supplies available to DWP. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project is intended to promote the continued revitalization of the Project Area through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties, in addition to the development of new uses. The infrastructure needed to serve these sites is either in place or would be expanded by DWP in the normal course of providing water service within the City. Impacts related to water supply infrastructure would be less than significant.

Table III.J-4 Moderate Development Scenario Water Consumption

Consumption Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 6,911,865 96 663,539 Office 4,377,734 180 787,992 Industrial 953,152 96 91,503 Single-Family 354 du 276 97,704 Residential Multi-Family 5,098 du 240 1,223,520 Residential* Subtotal 2,864,258 Less Consumption Under No Project Scenario (2,510,610) NET INCREASE 353,648

* This Consumption Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of water consumption. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Minimum Implementation of future development projects occurring under the Minimum development scenario would result in total estimated water consumption within the Project Area of approximately 2.7 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-5. This would represent an increase in consumption of approximately 231,000 gallons of water per day over the No Project scenario. The projected increase in consumption under the Minimum development scenario would be within the projected water supplies available to DWP. Impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project is intended to promote the continued revitalization of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties, in addition to the development of new uses. The infrastructure needed to serve these sites is either in place or would be expanded by DWP in the normal course of providing water service within the City. Impacts related to water supply infrastructure would be less than significant.

Table III.J-5 Minimum Development Scenario Water Consumption

Consumption Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 6,090,369 96 584,675 Office 3,752,606 180 675,469 Industrial 904,797 96 86,861 Single-Family 372 du 276 102,672 Residential Multi-Family 5,384 du 240 1,292,160 Residential* Subtotal 2,741,837 Less Consumption Under No Project Scenario (2,510,610) NET INCREASE 231,227

*This Consumption Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of water consumption. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The total estimated water consumption for each of the development scenarios provided in Tables III.J-3 through III.J-5 above include the cumulative effects of other growth anticipated to occur within the Project Area (i.e., growth projected to occur under the No Project scenario). This projected cumulative increase in water consumption within the Project Area would be approximately 2.7 million

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

gallons per day under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 1.9 million gallons per day under the Moderate development scenario and 1.8 million gallons per day under the Minimum development scenario. Coupled with other potential growth within the service area of LADWP, additional cumulative increases in demand for water could occur. Future development projects within the service area of LADWP would be subject to the locally mandated water conservation programs. City-wide water conservation efforts would also be expected to partially offset the cumulative demand for water. LADWP and MWD have indicated that the cumulative water demand by regional growth can be adequately accommodated. Therefore, cumulative impacts to water service/supply would not be significant. As with the Proposed Project, LADWP undertakes expansion or modification of water service infrastructure to serve future growth in the City as required in the normal process of providing water service. Cumulative impacts related to water supply infrastructure would be addressed through this process and would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES Because no significant impacts related to water supplies or infrastructure would occur, no mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to water supplies and infrastructure would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

2. WASTEWATER

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation provide sewer conveyance infrastructure and wastewater treatment services, respectively, to the Project Area. The Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP), located directly west of the Los Angeles International Airport in Playa Del Rey, provides treatment capacity for all wastewater flows generated within the Project Area. In December of 1998, the HTP was upgraded to provide full secondary treatment for all influent based on an average dry weather flow of 450 million gallons per day (mgd). HTP currently processes average wastewater flows of approximately 360 mgd.

The Hyperion Service Area (HSA) encompasses approximately 328,000 acres, or approximately 515 square miles, of the greater Los Angeles area. The HSA also serves 53,000 acres outside the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles on a contract basis. The HSA includes approximately 96 percent of the total area served by the LADWP.

Existing land uses within the Project Area currently generate approximately 788,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater (see Table III.J-6 below).

Table III.J-6 Existing Wastewater Generation

Generation Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 1,276,738 80 102,139 Office 683,440 150 102,516 Industrial 232,038 80 18,563 Single-Family 193 du 230 44,390 Residential Multi-Family 2,600 du 200 520,000 Residential* TOTAL 787,608

* This Generation Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of wastewater generation. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

The Project Area is presently served by a network of sewer lines that are located beneath most of the major streets located within the Project Area. Most of the wastewater flow generated within the Project Area is transmitted out of the Project Area via an 18-inch line located under Sunset Boulevard. Existing service to all land uses presently located within the Project Area is considered adequate. However, the existing 18-inch line under Sunset Boulevard is presently operating near the recommended sewer design flow depth of less than 50% of pipe diameter at peak flow4. The Bureau of Engineering presently no plans to improve or replace this line.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Threshold of Significance The Proposed Project would have a significant impact on sanitary sewer systems if its implementation would result in a measurable increase in wastewater generation to a point where it would cause a sewer line to become constrained, or if the proposed project’s wastewater flows would substantially or incrementally exceed the capacity of existing or planned wastewater conveyance systems or treatment facilities that serve the area.

Wastewater generation associated with the Proposed Project was calculated using generation factors based on land use, provided by the City of Los Angeles5. The estimated net increase was analyzed relative to infrastructure and treatment plant capacity.

Project Impacts Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, estimated wastewater generation within the Project Area would be approximately 2.1 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-7. This estimated level would represent increased generation of approximately 1.3 million gallons of wastewater per day over existing generation.

4 Adel H. Hagekhalil, Division Manager, Wastewater Engineering Services Division, Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, March 20, 2002. 5 City of Los Angeles, Draft CEQA Thresholds Guide, May, 1998.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-7 No Project Scenario Wastewater Generation

Generation Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 6,301,629 80 504,130 Office 3,910,135 150 586,520 Industrial 916,429 80 73,314 Single-Family 307 du 230 70,610 Residential Multi-Family 4,288 du 200 857,600 Residential* Subtotal 2,092,175 Less Existing Generation (787,608) NET INCREASE 1,304,567

* This Generation Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of wastewater generation. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Maximum Probable Implementation of future development projects occurring under the Maximum Probable development scenario would result in total estimated wastewater generation within the Project Area of approximately 3.0 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-8. This would represent an increase in generation of approximately 911,000 gallons of wastewater per day over the No Project scenario. This projected increase would represent approximately one percent of the excess treatment capacity presently available at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

Increased wastewater flows resulting from the Maximum Possible development scenario would be transmitted from the Project Area via the existing 18-inch line located in Sunset Boulevard. Any increase in flows would cause the nominal capacity of this line to be exceeded. Thus impacts related to sewer infrastructure would be significant.

Moderate Implementation of future development projects occurring under the Moderate development scenario would result in total estimated wastewater generation within the Project Area of approximately 2.4 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-9. This would represent an increase in generation of approximately 295,000 gallons of wastewater per day over the No Project scenario. This projected

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-8 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Wastewater Generation

Generation Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 11,638,173 80 931,054 Office 7,118,895 150 1,067,8349 Industrial 1,773,826 80 141,906 Single-Family 283 du 230 65,090 Residential Multi-Family 3,987 du 200 797,400 Residential* Subtotal 3,003,284 Less Generation Under No Project Scenario (2,092,175) NET INCREASE 911,109

* This Generation Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of wastewater generation. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Table III.J-9 Moderate Development Scenario Wastewater Generation

Generation Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 6,911,865 80 552,949 Office 4,377,734 150 656,660 Industrial 953,152 80 76,252 Single-Family 354 du 230 81,420 Residential Multi-Family 5,098 du 200 1,019,600 Residential* Subtotal 2,386,881 Less Generation Under No Project Scenario (2,092,175) NET INCREASE 294,706

* This Generation Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of wastewater generation. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

increase would represent approximately 0.3 percent of the excess treatment capacity presently available at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant under the Moderate development scenario.

Increased wastewater flows resulting from the Moderate development scenario would be transmitted from the Project Area via the existing 18-inch line located in Sunset Boulevard. Any increase in flows would cause the nominal capacity of this line to be exceeded. Thus impacts related to sewer infrastructure would be significant.

Minimum Implementation of future development projects occurring under the Minimum development scenario would result in total estimated wastewater generation within the Project Area of approximately 2.3 million gallons per day, as shown in Table III.J-10. This would represent an increase in generation of approximately 193,000 gallons of wastewater per day over the No Project scenario. This projected increase represent approximately 0.2 percent of the excess treatment capacity presently available at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant under the Minimum development scenario.

Increased wastewater flows resulting from the Minimum development scenario would be transmitted from the Project Area via the existing 18-inch line located in Sunset Boulevard. Any increase in flows would cause the nominal capacity of this line to be exceeded. Thus impacts related to sewer infrastructure would be significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The total estimated wastewater generation for each of the development scenarios provided in Tables III.J-8 through III.J-10 above include the cumulative effects of other growth anticipated to occur within the Project Area (i.e., growth projected to occur under the No Project scenario). This projected cumulative increase in wastewater generation within the Project Area would be approximately 2.2 million gallons per day under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 1.6 million gallons per day under the Moderate development scenario and 1.5 million gallons per day under the Minimum development scenario. These projected increases would represent 2.4%, 1.8% and 1.7%, respectively, of the excess treatment capacity presently available at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. Coupled with other potential growth within the service area of the Hyperion Treatment Plant, additional cumulative increases in wastewater generation could occur. Future development projects within the service area of the Bureau of Sanitation would be subject to the locally mandated water conservation and sewer allocation programs. City-wide water conservation efforts would also be expected to partially offset the increased cumulative wastewater generation. Cumulative increases in wastewater generation would be

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-12 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-10 Minimum Development Scenario Wastewater Generation

Generation Rate (gallons per day/1,000 Land Use Size (SF) sf) a Total (gallons/day) Retail 6,090,369 80 487,230 Office 3,752,606 150 562,891 Industrial 904,797 80 72,384 Single-Family 372 du 230 85,560 Residential Multi-Family 5,384 du 200 1,076,800 Residential* Subtotal 2,284,864 Less Existing Generation (2,092,175) TOTAL 182,689

* This Generation Rate was calculated using the 3-bedroom apartment rate to present a conservative analysis of wastewater generation. a Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001. within the excess treatment capacity currently available and projected to be available at HTP6. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment systems would not be significant. Other than the 18-inch line in Sunset Boulevard, no deficient or potentially deficient sewer lines are located within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. Except for the 18-inch line in Sunset Boulevard, cumulative impacts related to wastewater infrastructure would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES Impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. The following mitigation measures will address the significant impact to sewer infrastructure related to the 18-inch line under Sunset Boulevard:

• For all future development projects within the Project Area, the Agency shall cause to have prepared a sewer capacity study which specifies wastewater flows from that project and assesses the capacity of the specific sewer lines that would serve the project to ensure that adequate capacity will be available at the time the project connects to the sewer system. This

6 Analysis conducted for the Citywide General Plan Framework indicates that there is no projected shortfall in wastewater treatment capacity in the City of Los Angeles in the foreseeable future, taking into account projected Citywide growth (General Plan Framework Draft EIR, p.5-18).

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

study will be utilized by the Bureau of Engineering as part of the “B” permitting process to determine whether sewer connection permits can be issued for new developments.

• The Agency shall consult with the Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation to prepare a plan that provides for the upgrading of the 18-inch line under Sunset Boulevard to meet the requirements of the Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation, prior to approving any development which would generate flows that exceed the capacity of the lines serving the project. This plan shall be included in the Agency’s implementation plan for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project to provide for long-term replacement or upgrading of the 18-inch line.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts to wastewater treatment and infrastructure systems would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

3. SOLID WASTE

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Solid waste generated by projects in the City of Los Angeles is disposed of within City, County, and privately owned landfills. Transfer stations are utilized to store debris temporarily until larger hauling trucks are available to transport the materials directly to the landfills. Landfill availability is limited by several factors, some of which include the following: 1) restrictions to accepting waste generated only within a landfill’s particular jurisdictional boundary; 2) tonnage permit limitations; 3) operational constraints; and 4) corporate objectives of landfill owners and operators.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) was enacted to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum amount feasible. Specifically, the Act required city and county jurisdictions to identify an implementation schedule to divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 2000 and 70 percent by the year 2020.7 The Act also requires each city and county to promote source reduction, recycling, and safe disposal or transformation.

Further, AB 939 requires each city to conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study and to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) to describe how it would reach its goals. The SRRE contains programs and policies for fulfillment of the goals of the Act, including the above-noted diversion goals, and must be updated annually to account for changing market and infrastructure conditions. As projects and programs are implemented, the characteristics of the waste stream, the capacities of the current solid waste disposal facilities, and the operational status of those facilities are upgraded as appropriate. To date, implementation of AB 939 has proven to be a successful method of reducing landfill waste.

A range of private companies possibly serves the existing commercial and multi-family residential uses located within the Project Area. Disposal services for single-family and some multi-family residential uses are provided by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation. Given the multitude of haulers, solid waste is likely disposed of at a variety of landfills, potentially including the Bradley Landfill or the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. The Bradley Landfill, located in Sun Valley, has 4,881,010 1.65 million cubic yards of capacity remaining with an average daily intake of 4,9615,243 tons per day. However, the Bradley Landfill is in the process of expanding its facility to accommodate more waste.

7 Correspondence from the Los Angeles Office of the Board of Public Works, Karen Coca, January 30, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

The Sunshine Canyon Landfill, located in Sylmar, has 16,000,00012.78 million cubic yards of capacity remaining with an average daily intake of 3,4816,515 tons per day.8

The existing Project Area generates approximately 315 tons per day of solid waste (see Table III.J-11). Facility expansions and new landfills are being sought as existing facility capacity diminishes. In addition, mandatory City waste reduction and recycling programs, in compliance with the September 1989 California Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (AB 939), are greatly reducing the amount of waste that would otherwise have entered area landfills.

Table III.J-11 Existing Solid Waste Generation

Land Use Employees/Households Generation Rate Total (lbs per day) Commercial 31,513 employees1 10.53 lbs/employee/day 331,832

Industrial 3,730 employees 8.93 lbs/employee/day 33,309

Residential 21,589 households 12.23 lbs/household/day 264,033

Total 629,174

Source: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 1998. 1 Assumes same split between commercial and industrial uses as used in traffic analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Threshold of Significance Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact on solid waste if the existing facilities could not adequately handle the proposed project’s waste, or if the disposal of project- related solid waste would result in a premature exhaustion of a landfill’s capacity.

Project Impacts Future Conditions Without the Proposed Project In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project

8 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Active Disposal Sites, January 2001 and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (see Comment Letter No. 6 in Appendix A to this Final EIR)..

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-12 No Project Scenario Solid Waste Generation

Increase in Generation Rate Land Use Employees/Households (lbs/employee/day) Total (lbs per day) Commercial 19,360 employees 10.53 203,861

Industrial 1,737 employees 8.93 15,511

Residential 1,800 households 12.23 lbs/household/day 22,014

Total 241,386

Source: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 1998.

scenario, an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 241,000 pounds per day over existing generation would occur (see Table III.J-12).

Maximum Possible Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, projected daily solid waste generation would increase by approximately 226,000 pounds over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-13). This would represent an increase of approximately 1.31.0% over the current average daily intake at Bradley and Sunshine Canyon Landfills. Since these landfills presently have remaining capacity, coupled with ongoing efforts by the landfill operators and the City to expand available landfill capacity, this increase could be adequately handled by existing facilities and the Proposed Project’s waste would not result in a premature exhaustion of a landfill. Impacts related to solid waste generation under the Maximum Possible development scenario would therefore be less than significant.

Moderate Under the Moderate development scenario, projected daily solid waste generation would increase by approximately 39,000 pounds over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-14). This would represent an increase of approximately 0.2% over the current average daily intake at Bradley and Sunshine Canyon Landfills. Since these landfills presently have remaining capacity, coupled with ongoing efforts by the landfill operators and the City to expand available landfill capacity, this increase could be adequately handled by existing facilities and the Proposed Project’s waste would not result in a premature exhaustion of a landfill. Impacts related to solid waste generation under the Moderate development scenario would therefore be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-13 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Solid Waste Generation

Increase in Generation Rate Land Use Employees/Households (lbs/employee/day) Total (lbs per day) Commercial 39,500 employees 10.53 415,935

Industrial 3,735 employees 8.93 33,354

Residential 1,500 households 12.23 lbs/household/day 18,345

Development Scenario Total 467,634

No Project Scenario Generation 241,386

Net Change under Development Scenario 226,248

Source: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 1998.

Table III.J-14 Moderate Development Scenario Solid Waste Generation

Increase in Generation Rate Land Use Employees/Households (lbs/employee/day) Total (lbs per day) Commercial 21,951 employees 10.53 231,144

Industrial 1,853 employees 8.93 16,547

Residential 2,700 households 12.23 lbs/household/day 33,021

Development Scenario Total 280,712

No Project Scenario Generation 241,386

Net Change under Development Scenario 39,326

Source: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 1998.

Minimum Under the Minimum development scenario, projected daily solid waste generation would increase by approximately 5,000 pounds over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-15). This would represent an increase of approximately 0.030.02% over the current average daily intake at Bradley and Sunshine Canyon Landfills. Since these landfills presently have remaining capacity, coupled with ongoing efforts by the landfill operators and the City to expand available landfill capacity, this increase could be adequately handled by existing facilities and the Proposed Project’s waste would not result in a premature exhaustion of a landfill. Impacts related to solid waste generation under the Maximum Possible development scenario would therefore be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-15 Minimum Development Scenario Solid Waste Generation

Increase in Generation Rate Land Use Employees/Households (lbs/employee/day) Total (lbs per day) Commercial 18,467 employees 10.53 194,458

Industrial 1,698 employees 8.93 15,163

Residential 3,000 households 12.23 lbs/household/day 36,690

Development Scenario Total 246,311

No Project Scenario Generation 241,386

Net Change under Development Scenario 4,925

Source: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, 1998.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The total estimated solid waste generation for each of the development scenarios provided in Tables III.J-13 through III.J-15 above include the cumulative effects of other growth anticipated to occur within the Project Area (i.e., growth projected to occur under the No Project scenario). This projected cumulative increase in solid waste generation within the Project Area would be approximately 468,000 pounds per day under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 281,000 pounds per day under the Moderate development scenario and 246,000 pounds per day under the Minimum development scenario. Cumulative growth within the Project Area would thus represent increased generation of solid waste totaling approximately 2.82.0% of the current daily intake at Bradley and Sunshine Canyon landfills under the Maximum Possible development scenario, approximately 1.61.2% under the Moderate development scenario and approximately 1.41.0% under the Minimum development scenario. All projected increases would be within the projected future capacities of these landfills9. Coupled with other potential growth within the service area of the potentially affected landfills, additional cumulative increases in solid waste generation could occur. As with the Proposed Project, other future development projects would be required to participate in the City’s recycling program, thus reducing the amount of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfills described above. Because landfill capacities

9 Analysis conducted for the Citywide General Plan Framework indicates that there is presently no projected shortfall in landfill capacity in the City of Los Angeles in the foreseeable future, taking into account projected Citywide growth (General Plan Framework Draft EIR).

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

would be sufficient to accommodate the solid waste generation by cumulative growth, cumulative solid waste impacts would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES Although impacts related to solid waste disposal would be less than significant, the following mitigation measure shall be included to minimize total solid waste generation associated with development occurring under the proposed Plan Amendment:

• Development projects shall provide adequate storage areas for collection and removal of recyclable materials.

Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation measures would be required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-20 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

4. ELECTRICITY

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) provides electricity service to the City of Los Angeles. DWP obtains electricity from various generating sources that utilize coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, and renewable resources to generate power. The DWP obtains power from four municipally owned power plants within the Los Angeles Basin, LADWP Hydrogenerators on the Los Angeles Aqueduct, shared-ownership generating facilities in the Southwest, and purchases power from the Southwest and Pacific Northwest. Currently, 26% of DWP power is generated in the Los Angeles Basin at the following generation stations: Haynes Generating Station near Seal Beach, Scattergood Generating Station near Playa del Rey, Valley Generating Station in the San Fernando Valley, and Harbor Generating Station at Los Angeles Harbor.10 However, DWP also purchases excess power, as it is made available, from self-generators interconnected with the DWP within the City.11 In total, the DWP operates 20 receiving stations and 174 distribution stations to provide electricity to DWP customers, with additional facilities to be acquired as their load increases.12

The LADWP currently provides electricity to the Project Area, as it is presently developed and all of the required infrastructure is present. There are currently no electrical service problems or known deficiencies within the Project Area.13 Current estimated electricity consumption within the Project Area is contained in Table III.J-16 below.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Threshold of Significance The Proposed Project would have a significant impact if either of the following would result from project implementation:

• a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional energy facilities or supply.

• a conflict with adopted energy conservation plans.

10 A Citywide General Plan Framework Draft Environmental Impact Report, 1995. 11 Correspondence from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, James Laschober, February 7,2002. 12 Correspondence from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, James Laschober, February 7,2002. 13 Correspondence from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Charles Holloway, February 11, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-21 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-16 Existing Electricity Consumption

Consumption Rate (kilowatt-hour/sf or Total (kilowatt- Land Use Size (SF) unit/year) hour/day) Retail 1,276,738 13.55 47,397 Office 683,440 12.95 24,248 Industrial 232,038 10.50 6,675 Residential 2,793 du 5,626.50 43,054 TOTAL 121,374 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook 1993.

Project Impacts Future Conditions Without the Project In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an increase in electricity consumption of approximately 348,000 kilowatt-hours per day over existing consumption would occur (see Table III.J-17).

Maximum Possible Development Future development resulting from the Maximum Possible development scenario would consume approximately 332,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-18). The Proposed Plan Amendment is intended to promote revitalization of the Project Area through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties, and the development of new uses. The infrastructure needed to provide service to these properties is in place and is not anticipated to require expansion or rehabilitation beyond that planned by the LADWP. DWP indicates that it would be able to accommodate the electrical needs of the Maximum Possible development scenario14. No significant impacts related to electricity service would occur.

14 Correspondence from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Charles Holloway, February 11, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-22 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-17 No Project Scenario Electricity Consumption

Consumption Rate (kilowatt-hour/sf or Total (kilowatt- Land Use Size (SF) unit/year) hour/day) Retail 6,301,629 13.55 233,937 Office 3,910,135 12.95 138,729 Industrial 916,429 10.50 26,363 Residential 4,595 du 5,626.50 70,832 Subtotal 469,861 Less Existing Consumption (121,374) TOTAL 348,487 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook 1993.

Table III.J-18 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Electricity Consumption

Consumption Rate Total (kilowatt- Land Use Size (SF) (kilowatt-hour/sf/year) hour/day) Retail 11,638,173 13.55 432,047 Office 7,118,895 12.95 252,574 Industrial 1,773,826 10.50 51,028 Residential 4,270 du 5,626.50 65,822 Subtotal 801,471 Less No Project Consumption (469,861) TOTAL 331,610 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook 1993.

Moderate Future development resulting from the Moderate development scenario would consume approximately 54,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-19). The Proposed Plan Amendment is intended to promote revitalization of the Project Area through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties, and the development of new uses. The infrastructure needed to provide service to these properties is in place and is not anticipated to require expansion or rehabilitation beyond that planned by the LADWP. DWP indicates that it would be able to accommodate the electrical needs of the Moderate development scenario. No significant impacts related to electricity service would occur.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-23 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-19 Moderate Development Scenario Electricity Consumption

Consumption Rate (kilowatt-hour/sf or Total (kilowatt- Land Use Size (SF) unit/year) hour/day) Retail 6,911,865 13.55 256,591 Office 4,377,734 12.95 155,320 Industrial 953,152 10.50 27,419 Residential 5,452 du 5,626.50 84,043 Subtotal 523,373 Less No Project Consumption (469,861) TOTAL 53,512 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook 1993.

Minimum Future development resulting from the Minimum development scenario would consume approximately 4,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-20). The Proposed Plan Amendment is intended to promote revitalization of the Project Area through the rehabilitation and reuse of existing commercial, industrial, and residential properties, and the development of new uses. The infrastructure needed to provide service to these properties is in place and is not anticipated to require expansion or rehabilitation beyond that planned by the LADWP. DWP indicates that it would be able to accommodate the electrical needs of the Minimum development scenario. No significant impacts related to electricity service would occur.

Table III.J-20 Minimum Development Scenario Electricity Consumption

Consumption Rate (kilowatt-hour/sf or Total (kilowatt- Land Use Size (SF) unit/year) hour/day) Retail 6,090,369 13.55 226,095 Office 3,752,606 12.95 133,140 Industrial 904,797 10.50 26,028 Residential 5,756 du 5,626.50 88,729 Subtotal 473,992 Less No Project Consumption (469,861) TOTAL 4,131 Source: SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook 1993.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-24 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The total estimated electricity consumption for each of the development scenarios provided in Tables III.J-18 through III.J-20 above include the cumulative effects of other growth anticipated to occur within the Project Area (i.e., growth projected to occur under the No Project scenario). This projected cumulative increase in electricity consumption within the Project Area would be approximately 680,000 kWh per day under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 400,000 kWh per day under the Moderate development scenario and 350,000 kWh per day under the Minimum development scenario. Coupled with other potential growth within the service area of LADWP, additional cumulative increases in demand for electricity could occur. Future development projects within the service area of LADWP would be subject to the locally mandated energy conservation programs. LADWP has also indicated that the cumulative electricity demand by regional growth can be adequately accommodated15. As with the Proposed Project, LADWP undertakes expansion or modification of electrical service infrastructure and distribution systems to serve future growth in the City as required in the normal process of providing electrical service. Cumulative impacts related to electric power service would be addressed through this process and would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES Because no significant impacts would occur related to electricity infrastructure or supply, no mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to electrical service would be less than significant.

15 Charles C. Holloway, Supervisor, Environmental Assessment, LADWP, correspondence February 11, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-25 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

5. NATURAL GAS

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) provides natural gas to the City of Los Angeles through existing gas mains located under the streets. Natural gas service is provided in accordance with the Gas Company’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) at the time contractual agreements are made. The state of California produces about 16 percent of the natural gas it uses. The remaining 84 percent is obtained from sources outside of the state; 46 percent from the Southwest, 28 percent from Canada, and ten percent from the Rocky Mountain area. In the last ten years, three new interstate gas pipelines were built to serve California, expanding the over one million miles of existing pipelines.16 However, the availability of natural gas is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, SGC is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), but can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service would be provided in accordance with those revised conditions.

The Project Area is currently urbanized, with existing gas mains connecting the properties to a natural gas supply. Natural gas consumption associated with existing uses is shown in Table III.J-21 below and totals approximately 22.4 million cubic feet of natural gas per month.

Table III.J-21 Existing Natural Gas Consumption

Consumption Rate (cubic feet/1,000 sf or Total (cubic Land Use Size (SF) unit/month)a feet/month) Retail 1,276,738 2,900 3,702,540 Office 683,440 2,000 1,366,880 Industrial 232,038 24,161 5,606,270 Single-Family 193 6,650 1,283,450 Residential Multi-Family 2,600 4,011.5 10,429,900 Residential TOTAL 22,389,040 aSource: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1994.

16 California Home Page: www.energy.ca.gov/html/calif_energy_facts.html, March 8, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-26 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Threshold of Significance Implementation of the Proposed Project would create a significant impact upon natural gas resources if its demand for natural gas cannot be served by existing natural gas infrastructure and/or supply or if the proposed project would limit or interfere with the City’s ability to achieve and/or meet its citywide objectives.

Project Impacts Future Conditions Without the Project In the absence of the proposed Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an increase in natural gas consumption of approximately 45.1 million cubic feet per month over existing consumption would occur (see Table III.J-22).

Table III.J-22 No Project Scenario Natural Gas Consumption

Consumption Rate (cubic feet/1,000 Total (cubic Land Use Size (SF) sf/month)a feet/month) Retail 6,301,629 2,900 18,274,724 Office 3,910,135 2,000 7,820,270 Industrial 916,429 24,161 22,141,841 Single-Family 307 6,650 2,041,550 Residential Multi-Family 4,288 4,011.5 17,201,312 Residential Subtotal 67,479,697 Less Existing Consumption (22,389,040) TOTAL 45,090,657 aSource: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1994.

Maximum Possible Under the Maximum Possible development scenario, estimated consumption of natural gas would increase by approximately 41.2 million cubic feet per month over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-23). Under the terms of existing tariffs and regulations, Southern California Gas Company would provide service to new development occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario and no significant impacts would occur.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-27 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-23 Maximum Possible Development Scenario Natural Gas Consumption

Consumption Rate (cubic feet/1,000 Total (cubic Land Use Size (SF) sf/month)a feet/month) Retail 11,638,173 2,900 33,750,702 Office 7,118,895 2,000 14,237,790 Industrial 1,773,826 24,161 42,857,410 Single-Family 283 6,650 1,881,950 Residential Multi-Family 3,987 4,011.5 15,993,851 Residential Subtotal 108,721,702 Less No Project Consumption (67,479,697) TOTAL 41,242,005 aSource: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1994.

Moderate Under the Moderate development scenario, estimated consumption of natural gas would increase by approximately 7.2 million cubic feet per month over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-24). Under the terms of existing tariffs and regulations, Southern California Gas Company would provide service to new development occurring under the Moderate development scenario and no significant impacts would occur.

Minimum Under the Minimum development scenario, estimated consumption of natural gas would increase by approximately 3.6 million cubic feet per month over the No Project scenario (see Table III.J-25). Under the terms of existing tariffs and regulations, Southern California Gas Company would provide service to new development occurring under the Minimum development scenario and no significant impacts would occur.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-28 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.J-24 Moderate Development Scenario Natural Gas Consumption

Consumption Rate (cubic feet/1,000 Total (cubic Land Use Size (SF) sf/month)a feet/month) Retail 6911865 2,900 20,044,409 Office 4377734 2,000 8,755,468 Industrial 953152 24,161 23,029,105 Single-Family 354 6,650 2,354,100 Residential Multi-Family 5098 4,011.5 20,450,627 Residential Subtotal 74,633,709 Less No Project Consumption (67,479,697) TOTAL 7,154,012 aSource: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1994.

Table III.J-25 Minimum Development Scenario Natural Gas Consumption

Consumption Rate (cubic feet/1,000 Total (cubic Land Use Size (SF) sf/month)a feet/month) Retail 6,090,369 2,900 17,662,070 Office 3,752,606 2,000 7,505,212 Industrial 904,797 24,161 21,860,800 Single-Family 372 6,650 2,473,800 Residential Multi-Family 5,384 4,011.5 21,597,916 Residential Subtotal 71,099,798 Less No Project Consumption (67,479,697) TOTAL 3,620,101 aSource: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1994.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-29 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The total estimated natural gas consumption for each of the development scenarios provided in Tables III.J-23 through III.J-25 above include the cumulative effects of other growth anticipated to occur within the Project Area (i.e., growth projected to occur under the No Project scenario). This projected cumulative increase in natural gas consumption within the Project Area would be approximately 86 million cubic feet per month under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 52 million cubic feet per month under the Moderate development scenario and 49 million cubic feet per month under the Minimum development scenario. Coupled with other potential growth within the service area of the Gas Company, additional cumulative increases in demand for natural gas could occur. Future development projects within the service area of the Gas Company would be subject to the locally mandated energy conservation programs. As with the Proposed Project, the Gas Company undertakes expansion or modification of natural gas service infrastructure to serve future growth in the within its service area as required in the normal process of providing service. Cumulative impacts related to natural gas service would be addressed through this process and would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES Because no significant impacts to natural gas service were identified, no mitigation measures are required.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Impacts related to natural gas service would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Utilities Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.J-30 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS K. GEOTECHNICAL/SEISMIC

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) is located within a gently sloping alluvial apron bounded by the Santa Monica Mountains to the north. These mountains rise steeply, obtaining elevations of approximately 1,000 to 1,200 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Franklin Avenue, which defines the northern boundary of the Project Area, follows the base of the Santa Monica Mountains at an elevation of approximately 425 feet above MSL. The Project Area slopes to the south, with a southern boundary elevation of approximately 320 to 325 feet above MSL.

Geology

Geologic formations with the Project Area consist of older surficial deposits in the southern portion and bedrock units found in the Santa Monica Mountains in the northern portion. The mountain area contains at least ten different bedrock units. Based on age, these include (from oldest to youngest): Mesozoic granitic rocks, Cretaceous sandy conglomerates, and Tertiary sedimentary rocks all surrounded by minor amounts of surficial deposits (alluvium and older alluvium). Soils present in the Project Area are predominantly Hanford loam, with some pockets of Ramona loam at the base of the mountains and at the eastern edge of the Project Area.

The bedrock is folded and tilted yielding a relatively complex geologic structure with bedding attitudes (strikes and dips) oriented in various directions. Scattered known and probable bedrock landslides are found mainly near the crest of the ranges, and on the south and east facing slopes. Essentially all of the bedrock area has slopes greater than 15%.

Seismic Hazards

The entire southern California area is considered a seismically active region. The region has numerous active, potentially active, and inactive faults. Active faults are defined as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene times (about the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is a fault that has demonstrated surface displacement of Quaternary age deposits (within the last 1.6 million years). Inactive faults have not moved in the last 1.6 million years. Major faults in the vicinity of the Project Area include: Newport-Inglewood, Hollywood, Elysian Park, Santa Monica, San Fernando, Raymond, Sierra Madre, Verdugo, Northridge and Palos Verdes. These faults are depicted in Figure III.K-1. As shown in Figure III.K-1, a portion of the potentially active Santa Monica-Hollywood Fault transects the southeastern corner of the Project Area.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Project Site

Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 1993.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.K-1 environmental planning and research Regional Fault Map Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

The City has designated approximately one-eighth mile wide Fault Rupture Study Zones on each side of identified active and potentially active faults to establish areas of particularly acute seismic hazard potential. The part of the Project Area the contains the small segment of the Santa Monica-Hollywood Fault is included within a City-designated Fault Rupture Study Zone. The state Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act mitigates fault rupture hazards by prohibiting the location of most structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. The State provides maps to city and county agencies designating these zones. No Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones are located within the Project Area. The closest Alquist-Priolo Zone to the Project Area is associated with the Newport- Inglewood Fault, approximately five miles to the south of the Project Area.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction is the transformation of the soil to a liquid state resulting in lateral spreading, ground settlement, sand boils, and soil falls. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas with a high groundwater table and loose, fine sands occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain size and clay and gravel content increase. According to the Los Angeles City Planning Department Citywide Division, Environmental and Public Facilities Maps, portions of the Project Area are identified as being located in a liquefiable area (see Figure III.K-2). Additionally, the Los Angeles Citywide General Plan Framework Draft EIR indicates that the Project Area is located in an area of the City that has a high probability of liquefaction.

Subsidence

Subsidence is the downward settling of the earth’s surface as a result of fluid withdrawal from deep geologic formations. Unless these voids are refilled, they may collapse causing subsidence in the shallower earth layers between the ground surface and the pumped geologic units. Several inches of subsidence was reported to have occurred during the 1950’s to 1970’s due to groundwater pumping in the area around Vine between Sunset Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard. However, according to the Los Angeles Citywide General Plan Framework Draft EIR hazards associated with subsidence are not known to be present in this area.

Landslides

Landslides may be triggered by earthquakes, rainstorms, or construction-related activities (e.g., improper grading, structural design, landscaping, etc.). According to the Los Angeles Citywide General Plan Framework Draft EIR, the Project Area is located in an area of the City where the likelihood of landslides ranges from “Not Known to be Present” to “High”. The Los Angeles City Planning Department Citywide Division Environmental and Public Facilities Maps indicate that the

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Legend

Project Area

Potentially Liquefiable Areas

Liquefiable Areas

N Not to Scale

Source: General Plan Framework Maps,1996 and Thomas Brothers Maps, 2002 Digital Edition.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.K-2 environmental planning and research Potential Liquefaction Areas Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

areas within the northwestern portion of the Project Area would be most susceptible to effects associated with landslides (see Figure III.K-3).

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Thresholds of Significance

The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact if it exposes people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or strong seismic ground shaking; 2) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; 3) ground failure related to subsidence or 4) seismically-induced landslides.

A project would normally have a significant geologic hazard impact if it would cause or accelerate geologic hazards which would result in substantial damage to structures or infrastructure, or expose people to substantial risk of injury.

Project Impacts

Ground Rupture

Maximum Possible Development. As shown in Figure III.K-1, active or potentially active faults known to exist in the vicinity of the Project Area include the Verdugo Fault, Newport-Inglewood Fault and Whittier Fault and a segment of the Santa Monica-Hollywood Fault underlies the southeastern corner of the Project Area. Projects occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario that are located within the City-designated Fault Rupture Study Zone would be subject to special project- specific foundation and structural studies and imposition of structural design standards for projects located within Fault Rupture Study Zones administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. With adherence to these standards, impacts related to fault rupture hazards under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be less than significant.

Moderate. Potential development projects under the Moderate development scenario could occur within the part of the Project Area that has been designated by the City as a Fault Rupture Study Zone. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with adherence to City requirements for special project-specific foundation and structural studies and imposition of structural design standards for projects located within Fault Rupture Study Zones.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Legend Project Area Cluster of Small Shallow Surficial Landslides Approximate Location of Hillside Areas 5-100 Acre Probable Bedrock Landslide Site 5-100 Acre Bedrock Landslide Site N Not to Scale Source: General Plan Framework Maps,1996 and Thomas Brothers Maps, 2002 Digital Edition.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.K-3 environmental planning and research Potential Landslide Areas Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Minimum. Potential development projects under the Minimum development scenario could occur within the part of the Project Area that has been designated by the City as a Fault Rupture Study Zone, Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with adherence to City requirements for special project-specific foundation and structural studies and imposition of structural design standards for projects located within Fault Rupture Study Zones.

Groundshaking

Maximum Possible Development. The Project Area could be subjected to strong groundshaking motions as a result of an earthquake occurring along one or more of the faults shown in Figure III.K-1, as well as other undiscovered faults that may be located in the region. While the Project Area would be susceptible to strong groundshaking motions, there is no evidence to suggest that the severity of groundshaking would be greater within the Project Area than at other locations in southern California. Specific projects located within the Project Area under the Maximum Possible Development Scenario would be constructed in compliance with accepted engineering practices and current building codes to resist seismically-generated motions, as administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. With adherence to these standards, the Proposed Project would not expose people, property, or infrastructure to greater seismic impacts than already exist in southern California. Impacts related to groundshaking under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be less than significant.

Moderate. Potential development projects under the Moderate development scenario could be subject to the same groundshaking motions in the event of an earthquake that could effect development projects occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with adherence to accepted engineering practices and current building codes to resist seismically-generated motions.

Minimum. Potential development projects under the Minimum development scenario could be subject to the same groundshaking motions in the event of an earthquake that could effect development projects occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with adherence to accepted engineering practices and current building codes to resist seismically-generated motions.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Liquefaction

Maximum Possible Development. The Project Area includes areas with a high probability of liquefaction. Liquefaction of soils can cause damage to structures and utility lines, resulting in a significant impact. Specific projects occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario that are located within the those parts of the Project Area subject to liquefaction, as shown in Figure III.K- 2, would be required to undertake special liquefaction studies, incorporate foundation design features to reduce risks associated with liquefaction, and comply with the requirements of the City building code with respect to design requirements in areas subject to liquefaction, as administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. Impacts related to liquefaction hazards under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be less than significant.

Moderate. Potential development projects occurring under the Moderate development scenario could occur in those parts of the Project Area subject to liquefaction, as shown in Figure III.K-2. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with the completion of special liquefaction studies, incorporation of foundation design features to reduce risks associated with liquefaction, and compliance with the design requirements of the City building code for development in areas subject to liquefaction.

Minimum. Potential development projects occurring under the Minimum development scenario could occur in those parts of the Project Area subject to liquefaction, as shown in Figure III.K-2. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with the completion of special liquefaction studies, incorporation of foundation design features to reduce risks associated with liquefaction, and compliance with the design requirements of the City building code for development in areas subject to liquefaction.

Subsidence

Maximum Possible Development. While subsidence may have occurred during the 1950’s through the 1970’s as a result of groundwater withdrawal, the General Plan Framework Draft EIR indicates that potential for subsidence is not known to be present within the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts related to subsidence are anticipated as a result of potential development projected to occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

Moderate. Since the potential for subsidence is not known to be present within the Project Area, no impacts related to subsidence would result from potential development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Minimum. Since the potential for subsidence is not known to be present within the Project Area, no impacts related to subsidence would result from potential development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario.

Landslides

Maximum Possible Development. Landslides are known to have occurred at the edges of the Project Area. According to the Environmental and Facilities Maps published by the City of Los Angeles, the northwestern end of Project Area has a cluster of small shallow surficial landslides (see Figure III.K-3). Specific projects located within the Project Area under the Maximum Possible Development Scenario that would be within areas identified in Figure III.K-3 for potential landslide and slope hazards would be subject to design requirements set forth in the City building code, as administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. Impacts related to landslide hazards under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be less than significant.

Moderate. Potential development projects occurring under the Moderate development scenario could occur in those parts of the Project Area subject to landslides, as shown in Figure III.K-3. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with the adherence to design requirements set forth in the City’s building code with respect to construction in areas with potential landslide and slope hazards.

Minimum. Potential development projects occurring under the Minimum development scenario could occur in those parts of the Project Area subject to landslides, as shown in Figure III.K-3. Therefore, impacts related to development projected to occur under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be less than significant with the adherence to design requirements set forth in the City’s building code with respect to construction in areas with potential landslide and slope hazards.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Development projected under any of the development scenarios, in conjunction with other regional development, would expose an increased number of persons to the potential geological hazards in the area. These areas could be subjected to ground fault rupture, strong ground shaking and liquefaction effects. However, the hazards associated with ground shaking are common in seismically active Southern California. In addition, all new development in the surrounding area would be subject to State and local seismic building codes and regulations, which should reduce property damage and human injury due to earthquake-related ground rupture, groundshaking and liquefaction to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other regional growth, would not result in

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

or expose people to significant cumulative impacts related to seismicity and ground shaking. Impacts related to landslides and slope stability are local in nature. Cumulative effects could occur if projects within identified landslide hazard areas were to be located in close proximity to one another. However, these projects would be subject to design requirements set forth in the building code and enforced by the Department of Building and Safety, which would take into account existing buildings within the landslide area as well as planned projects when identifying required design features. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. No potential for cumulative impacts related to subsidence would exist as the proposed project is not located in an area where subsidence is known to occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Impacts related to geotechnical and seismic hazards would be less than significant, assuming that projects comply with requirements set forth in the building code related to special studies, design requirements and accepted engineering practices to minimize risks to people and property resulting from these potential hazards. To ensure that this assumption is valid with respect to future projects projected to occur under the Maximum Possible, Moderate and Minimum development scenarios, the following mitigation measures shall apply:

1. Prior to the design and construction of a site specific project, a comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall be performed. If liquefiable soils or soils subject to seismic settlement are found, appropriate site preparation and foundation design measures shall be included in the project design that would minimize the effects of the soil conditions on the integrity of proposed structures. The required measures would be dependent upon the specific site conditions encountered. The geotechnical analysis and design measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of building permits for the project.

2. All structural elements shall be designed and built to resist strong ground motions in accordance with the requirements of the City Building Code. These measures shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of building permits.

3. All projects located within areas designated by the City as subject to landslide and slope stability hazards shall include design features to address site specific conditions as required by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

Impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Geotechnical/Seismic Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.K-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS L. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The following sections describe conditions related to hazardous materials within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). For the purposes of this analysis, the Project Area was divided into eight study areas. Figure III.L-1 depicts the boundaries of these study areas.

Government Regulatory Database Searches

EMG conducted a Government Regulatory Database Search for each of the eight study areas within the Project Area. In addition, a listing of “site unplottable”1 sites within the Project Area was also provided. Separate reports were prepared for each of the study areas, as follows:

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 2) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 3) Hollywood, California , July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 6) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 7) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

1 Unplottable sites are those environmental risk sites that cannot be plotted with confidence, but can be located by zip code or city name.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

8 1 3 2 5 7

6 4

Legend

Project Area

# Study Area N

Not to Scale Source: Thomas Brothers Maps, 2002 Digital Edition.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.L-1 environmental planning and research Study Area Boundaries Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 6) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 7) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 8) Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001;

• Regulatory Database Search of Unplottable Sites for all Study Areas Hollywood, California, July 13, 2001. These reports are available for review at the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Records Center, 5th Floor, 354 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

Appendix H to this EIR contains a description of the regulatory databases that were examined. Review of the following data bases found no listed sites within the Project Area: National Priority List (NPL), Proposed NPL, Delisted NPL, Consent, Records of Decision (ROD), NPL Liens, Resources Conservation and Recover Act – Treatment, Storage, Disposal (RCRA-TSD), RCRA-Corracts, the RCRA Administration Action Tracking System (RAATS), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP), MLTS, MINES, TSCA, AWP, CALSITES, Notify 65, and Toxic Pits.

The following section provides a list of sites that were found in the remaining data bases. Figure III.L- 2 depicts the locations of these sites.

RCRIS – Generator

The RCRIS Generator list contains information on facilities that report hazardous waste generation. All of the study areas within the Project Area contain some generator facilities. Government regulatory database searches indicated that a total of 84 generator facilities are located within the Project Area. Inclusion within this category reflects the routine handling of hazardous materials in the course of normal business and does not indicate, in and of itself, the existence of any environmental hazard. Typical hazardous waste generators include but are not limited to the following: service stations, cas washes, dry cleaners, photographic processing shops, industrial uses (including entertainment industry- related post-production facilities).

Descriptions and locations of these 84 sites can be found in the reports available for review at the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Records Center, 5th Floor, 354 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. Titles of these reports are listed on pages III.L-1 and III.L-3 of this EIR.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

59 62 63 52 22 2.5 Miles 65 12 30 20 Miles 4 Miles 44 15 32 34 33 51 19 25 61 8 16

46 13 18 3 38 35 1 37 9 36 40 39 64

55 48 10 45 53 26 43 41 54 42 6 47 20 21 57 58 56 7 27 11 4 5 60 2349 2 50

28 29 14

31 Legend

Project Area # Hazardous Site

N Not to Scale Source: Thomas Brothers Maps, 2002 Digital Edition.

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates Figure III.L-2 environmental planning and research Hazardous Site Locations Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

ERNS

The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to collect information on reported releases of oil or hazardous substances. Government regulatory database searches indicated that a total of three ERNS sites were found within the Project Area. A description of these sites is contained in Table III.L-1.

Table III.L-1 ERNS Sites1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status2 Comments3 1 6100 West Hollywood Blvd. 1 N/A None. 2 Union Oil Service Station 4 Unknown None. 1300 North Western Avenue 3 Nancy Whelan Trustee 8 N/A None reported. 1737 North Whitley Avenue

1 Source: Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 8) Hollywood, California, all dated July 13, 2001.

TRI

The Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) report contains information on the industrial release and/or transfer of toxic chemicals as reportable under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Government regulatory database searches indicated that one site was found within the boundaries of the Project Area (Table III.L-2).

Table III.L-2 Toxic Release Inventory Sites1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 4 Metromedia Technologies Inc. 4 Unknown None. 1320 North Wilton Place

1. Source: Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California, dated July 13, 2001.

2 In all tables, Status column indicates the current status of the incident, if reported in the data base. 3 In all tables, Comments column contains comments regarding the incident, if provided in the data base.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

FINDS

The FINDS report contains an inventory of all facilities tracked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Government regulatory database searches indicated that a total of 88 facilities were listed as located within the Project Area. Inclusion within this category reflects the routine handling of hazardous materials in the course of normal business and does not indicate, in and of itself, the existence of any environmental hazard. Descriptions and locations of these 88 sites can be found in the reports available for review at the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Records Center, 5th Floor, 354 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. Titles of these reports are listed on pages III.L-1 and III.L-3 of this EIR.

HMIRS

The HMIRS database contains information regarding hazardous material spills reported to the Department of Transportation. Government regulatory database searches indicated that one spill incident was listed for the areas contained within the Project Area (Table III.L-3).

Table III.L-3 Hazardous Materials Spills1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 5 Corner of Fountain and Western 4 Unknown None.

1. Source: Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California, dated July 13, 2001.

PADS

The PADS database identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers, and/or brokers and disposers of polychlorinated biphenyls. Government regulatory database searches indicated that one site was listed within the Project Area (Table III.L-4).

Table III.L-4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 6 Metro Tape 1 Unknown None. AKA KTWV Radio AKA Fox Television 5746 Sunset Blvd.

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California, dated July 13, 2001.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

FTTS

The FTTS database tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Government regulatory database searches indicated that three sites were identified within the Project Area (Table III.L-5).

Table III.L-5 FTTS Database Sites1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 7 Assistance League Day Nursery & KG 4 N/A This site is listed for one 1375 North Saint Andrews Place violation involving pesticides 4 Metromedia Technologies Inc. 4 N/A This site is listed for one 1320 North Wilton Place violation involving pesticides. 8 Lance Robbins 5 N/A An inspection was conducted in 6500 Yucca Street 1999 and no violation occurred.

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California, both dated July 13, 2001.

SLIC

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board maintains the SLIC database, which tracks spills, leaks, investigations, and cleanup costs. Government regulatory database searches indicated that seven sites were found within the boundaries of the Project Area (Table III.L-6).

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.L-6 Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanup Cost Database

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 9 Trizec Hahn Hollywood 3 Unknown Site listed for TPH release and a AKA Souvenirs of Hollywood site assessment has been completed. 6800 Hollywood Boulevard No further information provided. 10 Metro Cleaners 3 Unknown Site listed for a release of PCE and 7055-7065 Sunset Boulevard a site assessment has been completed. No further information provided. 11 Deluxe Laboratories Inc. 4 Listed as None reported 1377 Serrano Avenue “Closure” 12 Lido Cleaners 5 N/A Site assessment performed for 1901 Wilcox Avenue VOCs. No other information included. 13 Bob Smith (Car Dealership) 5 N/A A site assessment performed for 1750 and 51 N. Cahuenga Blvd TPH. No other information included. 14 Holly Auto Center 6 Listed as Listed for a release of VOCs. No 6020-6062 Santa Monica Blvd. Closure other information reported. 15 Hollywood Hills Cleaners 8 Listed as This site is listed for VOCs and no 1900 North Highland Avenue “Closure” further information is provided.

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 3) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 6) Hollywood, California; and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 8) Hollywood, California, all dated July 13, 2001.

LUST

The leaking underground storage tank list (LUST) database is a listing of known or reported leaking underground storage tanks. Government regulatory database searches indicated that 24 sites in this database are found within the Project Area. Table III.L-7 lists the sites and provides brief descriptions.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.L-7 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks1

Map Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments No. 16 LA Fire Station #82 1 Open Release of diesel fuel (11/89) impacted only 1800 North Bronson Case soils. Tanks were removed from ground. (listed twice) 17 Mobil #11 2 Open Release of waste oil to soils (1986). The (listed twice for same release) Case tank was then emptied. No action has been completed since 1986. 18 Arco #1247 2 Open Release of gasoline to soils (1990) due to 5777 Hollywood Boulevard Case overspill – fire department responded, but case left open. No action has been completed since 1990. 19 Former Mobil 3 Case Release of gasoline impacting soils (1991). 1840 North Highland Drive closed RWQCB closed case with no further action except required except abandoning the monitoring wells. 20 IHOP Realty Corp. 3 Open Release of gasoline impacting soils (1992). 7006 Sunset Boulevard Case Investigations on-going. (listed twice) 21 Chevron 3 Case Release of gasoline impacting groundwater 1459 North Highland Ave. Closed (1989). The RWQCB closed the case with no further action required. 22 KTLA Broadcasting 4 Case Release of diesel fuel impacting soils Athens Mt. Wilson Road Closed (1991). The RWQCB closed the case with no further action required. 23 Morales Chevron 4 Case Release of gasoline impacting groundwater 1276 North Western Ave. Closed (1987). The RWQCB closed the case with no further action required. 24 USPS, North Garage 4 Case Release of gasoline impacting groundwater 1375 North Western Ave. Closed (1990). The RWQCB closed the case with no further action required. 25 Unocal 823 5 Case Release of gasoline impacting soils (1983). 1803 North Cahuenga Blvd Closed The RWQCB closed the case with no further (listed twice) action required. 26 Former Texaco #374 5 Case Release of gasoline impacting groundwater 6409 West Sunset Blvd. Closed (1985). The RWQCB closed the case with (listed twice) no further action required 27 Fire Station 27 5 Case Release of gasoline impacting groundwater. 1355 North Cahuenga Blvd Closed The RWQCB closed the case with no further action required.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

28 Ambassador Car Wash 6 Open Release of gasoline impacting groundwater 6061 Santa Monica Blvd. Case (1990). A pollution characterization is ongoing. 29 Shell Station 6 Open Release of gasoline impacting groundwater 6000 Santa Monica Blvd Case (1987). Free product is present and pollution (listed twice) characterization is ongoing. 30 Chevron #9-0880 Unplottable Case No further action required by the RWQCB. 6201 Franklin Avenue S Closed 31 Shell Station 204-6906-105 Unplottable Case Release of gasoline impacting soils (1993). 900 North Western Closed The RWQCB has since closed the case with no further action required. 32 Fire Station #76 Unplottable Open Release of hydrocarbons (1991) which has 3111 Cahuenga Boulevard Case impacted the groundwater. Preliminary North assessment is still underway. 33 Mobil #11-H50 Unplottable Case No further action required by the RWQCB. 1840 Highland Avenue North Closed

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 2) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 3) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 6) Hollywood, California; and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project Unplottable Sites for all Study Areas Hollywood, California, all dated July 13, 2001.

UST

The underground storage tank (UST) database is a listing of all registered underground storage tanks. Government regulatory database searches indicated that underground storage tanks can be found at 43 locations within the Project Area. Table III.L-8 lists the sites and the number and types of underground storage tanks. The dates in parentheses are the year the tanks were installed, if known.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.L-8 Underground Storage Tanks1

Map Site Name and Address Study Status Comments No. Area 34 Hoseph Bajakajian, Mobil Service 1 Active 280 gallon UST for waste oil; 10,000- 6230 Franklin Ave. gallon UST for gasoline; 8,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1963); 6,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1971) 16 LA Fire Station #82 1 Active 550-gallon UST for gasoline 1800 North Bronson Avenue 35 Chevron 1 Active 5,000-gallon UST for “product” (1970); 6104 Hollywood Blvd. Two 10,000-gallon USTs for “product” (1970); 1,000-gallon UST for waste (1970) 36 Pep Boys 1 Active 550-gallon UST for waste oil 6125 Hollywood Boulevard 37 Ortiz Chevron (91655) 1 Active Two 10,000 gallon USTs for “product” 5871 Hollywood Blvd. (1968); 5,000 gallon UST for “product” (1968); 1,000 gallon UST for waste (1968) 38 Service Station 5286 1 Active 550-gallon UST for waste oil (1969); 5890 Hollywood Blvd. 10,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1969); (listed twice) 10,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1969); 200-gallon UST for waste oil 39 Hollywood L.M. 1 Active 500-gallon UST for product; 500-gallon 6010 Hollywood Boulevard UST for waste oil; 500-gallon UST for waste oil 40 Hollywood Toyota/Lincoln/Mercury 1 Active 500-gallon UST for product; Four USTs 6000 Hollywood Blvd. of unknown capacity for waste oil 6 Metro Tape 1 Active 5,000 gallon UST for waste (1975); AKA KTWV Radio, Fox Television 7,500 gallon UST for gasoline (1975); 5746 Sunset Boulevard 500-gallon UST for diesel (1969); 3,000 gallon UST for diesel (1969) 41 Mobil Oil Corporation 1 Active 280-gallon UST for waste oil (1983); 5857 West Sunset Boulevard 8,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1983); 6,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1983); 10,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1983) 42 KTLA Studios 1 Active 1,000-gallon UST containing diesel 5800 West Sunset Boulevard (1984) 43 CBS Columbia Square 1 Active 6,000 gallon UST for waste AKA KNX CBS Radio 6121 Sunset Boulevard

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

17 Mobil #11 2 Active 280-gallon UST for waste oil; 12,000 gallon UST for gasoline; 6,000 gallon UST for gasoline; 8,000 gallon UST for gasoline 44 Union Service Station 3 Active 180-gallon UST for waste oil; 550-gallon 1837 North Highland Avenue UST for waste oil (1969); 10,000 gallon (listed twice) UST for gasoline (1969); 10,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1969)

19 Former Mobil 3 Appears 4,000-gallon USt for gasoline (1949); 1840 North Highland Drive Inactive 6,000-gallon USt for gasoline (1954); 6,000-gallon USt for gasoline (1971); 280-gallon USt for waste oil (1971) 45 Atlas Service 3 Active Two 1,000-gallon USTs for gasoline 1670 North Sycamore Avenue 46 The Hertz Corporation 3 Active Two 4,000 gallon UST; Three 8,000- 7047 Hollywood Boulevard gallon USTs for gasoline 47 Hagop Tohikian 3 Active 280-gallon UST for waste oil; 6,000 7100 West Sunset Boulevard gallon UST for gasoline (1971); 10,000- gallon UST for gasoline (1964); 8,000- gallon UST for gasoline (1964) 48 96176 3 Active Two 4,000 gallon USTs for product 7077 Sunset Boulevard (1955); 3,000-gallon UST for product (1955); 6,000-gallon UST for product (1962); 550-gallon UST for waste (1955) 21 Chevron 3 Appears 10,000-gallon USt for product (19670; 1459 North Highland Avenue Inactive 7,500-gallon UST for product (1967); 4,000-gallon UST for product (1967); 1,000-gallon UST for waste (1967) 23 Morales Chevron 4 Active 10,000-gallon UST for product (1966); 1276 North Western Avenue 7,500-gallon UST for product (1966); 4,000-gallon UST for product (1966); 550-gallon UST for waste (1966) 49 Harry Hairabedian Mobil 4 Active 4,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1952); 1277 North Western Avenue 5,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1952); 8,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1966); 280-gallon UST for waste oil 2 Union Oil Service Station 4 Active 300-gallon USt for waste oil (1983); Two 1300 North Western Avenue 12,000-gallon USTs for gasoline (1983); (listed twice) 10,000-gallon UST for diesel (1983); 550-gallon USt for waste oil (1983)

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-12 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

50 Gas to Go 4 Active Two 12,000-gallon USTs for gasoline 1353 North Western Avenue (1975); Two 10,000-gallon USTs for gasoline (1963); 10,000-gallon UST-use not reported (1963) 24 USPS, North Garage 4 Active 600-gallon UST for waste oil; 500-gallon 1375 North Western Avenue USt for product; 10,000-gallon USt for gasoline 11 Deluxe Laboratories Inc. 4 Appears 20,000-gallon UST for waste 1377 Serrano Avenue Inactive

51 Shell Oil Co. 5 Active 87-gallon UST for gasoline (1964); 550- 6420 Franklin Avenue gallon USt for waste oil (1964); Two 57- gallon USTs for gasoline (1964); 87- gallon USt for gasoline (1970) 13 Bob Smith (Car Dealership) 5 Active 250-gallon UST for waste oil 1750 and 51 North Cahuenga Blvd (listed twice) 52 Hollywood Police 5 Active Two 6,000 gallon USts for gasoline; 500- 1538 Wilcox Avenue gallon USt for waste oil 53 Hollywood Mercedes 5 Active 2,000-gallon UST for waste oil; 6465 Sunset Boulevard and Unknown capacity for waste oil (x 2); Inactive 200-gallon UST for waste; 100-gallon UST for waste; 250-gallon UST for waste 54 Chevron USA 5 Appears Four 10,000 gallon USTs for product 6450 West Sunset Boulevard Inactive 55 Texaco 5 Appears 550-gallon UST for waste oil (1961); 6407 West Sunset Boulevard Inactive Four 4,000 gallon USTs for gasoline (1961); 1,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1971) 27 Fire Station 27 5 Appears 550-gallon USt for gasoline; 2,000-gallon 1355 North Cahuenga Boulevard Inactive UST for diesel 56 Pacific Bell 6 Active 8,000-gallon UST for gasoline (1953); 6105 Delongpre Avenue 400-gallon UST for waste oil (1935); 20,000-gallon UST for diesel (1975) 28 Ambassador Car Wash 6 Unknown Two USTs for product, capacity not 6061 Santa Monica Boulevard reported; Two USTs for waste, capacity not reported 29 Shell Station 6 Active Six 12,000 gallon USTs for gasoline 6000 Santa Monica Boulevard (1976)

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

57 Union Oil 6338 7 Active 180-gallon UST for waste; 4 USTs for 6760 Sunset Boulevard product, capacity not listed; 550-gallon (listed twice) UST for waste oil; Two 10,000 gallon USTs for gasoline

58 Texaco Station 7 Appears 550-gallon UST for waste oil (1971); 6767 Sunset Boulevard Inactive Two 10,000 gallon USTs for gasoline (1971) 59 Cinema City Car Wash 7 Unknown Four 10,000 gallon USTs for gasoline; 1411 North Highland Avenue 10,000 gallon UST for diesel 60 ABC Messenger Service 7 Unknown Two 6,000 gallon USTs for gasoline 1328 North Highland Avenue (1973) 61 90624, AKA Chevron 90624 8 Active 1,000-gallon UST for waste; Three 1787 North Highland Avenue 10,000-gallon USTs for product. 62 Exxon Service Station UP Appears 6,000 gallon UST for gasoline (1971); 7075 West Western Active 8,000 gallon UST for gasoline (1971); 10,000 gallon USt for gasoline (1971); 1,000 gallon UST for waste oil (1983) 63 Paul Talieh #14-192 UP Appears 280-gallon UST for waste oil (1959); 3240 Cahuenga Active Three 6,000 gallon USTs for gasoline (1959)

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 2) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 3) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 4) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 6) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 7) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 8) and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project Unplottable Sites for all Study Areas Hollywood, California, all dated July 13, 2001.

CHMIRS

The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) contains information on reported hazardous incidents (accidental releases or spills). A search of this database revealed two sites within the Project Area. These sites are described in Table III.L-9.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table III.L-9 CHMIRS Sites1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 47 Hagop Tohikian 3 Case Release of 25 gallons of gasoline 7100 West Sunset Boulevard Closed reported in 1989. 26 Former Texaco #374 5 Case Release of hydrogen peroxide to the 6409 West Sunset Boulevard Closed ground. Site remediated the same day.

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 3) Hollywood, California, and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California, both dated July 13, 2001.

CORTESE

The CORTESE list contains a summary of information pertaining to contaminated sites in the State of California, including contaminated wells, leaking USTs, and sanitary landfills. A search of this database found nine sites within the Project Area. Table III.L-10 identifies these sites.

Table III.L-10 CORTESE Sites1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 16 LA Fire Station #82 1 N/A None provided. 1800 North Bronson Avenue 64 Precise Auto Body 2 N/A None provided. AKA Precision Auto Inc. 5632 Hollywood Boulevard 17 Mobil #11 2 N/A None provided. 18 Arco #1247 2 Unknown None provided. 5777 Hollywood Boulevard 20 IHOP Realty Corp 3 N/A None provided. 7006 Sunset Boulevard 25 Unocal 823 5 N/A None provided. 1803 North Cahuenga Blvd 27 Fire Station 27 5 N/A None provided. 1355 North Cahuenga Blvd 28 Ambassador Car Wash 6 Unknown None provided 6061 Santa Monica Boulevard 29 Shell Station 6 Unknown None provided 6000 Santa Monica Boulevard 1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 2) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 3) Hollywood, California; Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 5) Hollywood, California; and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 6) Hollywood, California, all dated July 13, 2001.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

SWF/LF (SWIS) AND WMUDS/SWAT

This database contains a listing of active, closed, and inactive landfills. One landfill is located in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Project Area (Table III.L-11).

Table III.L-11 Sanitary Landfills

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 65 Toyon Canyon Landfill Not in Active Listed as a landfill for non-hazardous 5050 Mt. Hollywood Redevelopment wastes. Drive Area

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project Unplottable Sites for all Study Areas Hollywood, California, dated July 13, 2001.

AST

This listing provides information on all registered aboveground storage tanks. Government regulatory database searches indicated that two sites in the Project Area have been identified as having aboveground storage tanks. These sites are listed in Table III.L-12.

Table III.L-12 Aboveground Storage Tanks1

Map No. Site Name and Address Study Area Status Comments 40 Hollywood Toyota/Lincoln/Mercury 1 Unknown None. 6000 Hollywood Blvd. 65 Toyon Canyon Landfill Not in Unknown None. 5050 Mt. Hollywood Drive Redevelopment Area

1. Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project (Study Area 1) Hollywood, California and Regulatory Database Search of Hollywood Redevelopment Project Unplottable Sites for all Study Areas Hollywood, California, both dated July 13, 2001.

WDS

According to the Waste Discharge System list, only one site in the vicinity of the Project Area has been issued waste discharge permits: the Toyon Canyon Landfill.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

HAZNET

This database lists information regarding facilities and manifest data that is extracted from the copies of the manifests received each year by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. All study areas within the Project Area have facilities on this listing. There are approximately 326 sites within the Project Area. Inclusion within this category reflects the routine handling of hazardous materials in the course of normal business and does not indicate, in and of itself, the existence of any environmental hazard. Description and locations of these 326 sites can be found in the Government Regulatory Database Search reports listed above and available for review at the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Records Center, 5th Floor, 354 South Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013. Titles of these reports are listed on pages III.L-1 and III.L-3 of this EIR.

Hazardous Materials

Due to the age of some structures with the Project Area, it is likely that hazardous materials may be present in some of the structures. These materials include asbestos, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls.

Asbestos

Building materials containing asbestos were commonly used in structures between 1945 and 1980. These materials include vinyl flooring and mastic, wallboard and associated joint compound, plaster, stucco, acoustic ceiling spray, ceiling tiles, heating system components, and roofing materials. Airborne particles of asbestos have been found to be hazardous to human health. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines asbestos containing materials (ACM) as those materials that contain more than one percent asbestos.

The National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) sets standards for the use, removal, and disposal of ACM. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 regulates asbestos as a toxic material and lists requirements to limit asbestos emissions associated with building demolition and renovation.

Lead-Based Paint

Lead-based paint is considered a health hazard for people, especially children. From the turn of the century through the 1940’s, paint manufacturers used lead as a primary ingredient in many oil-based paints. Use of lead in paint decreased, but was still used until 1978 when it was banned from residential use. California law requires that all residential buildings constructed on or before January 1,

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

1979 or schools constructed on or before January 1, 1993 to be presumed to contain lead-based paint.4 Structures (residential, commercial, or industrial) are affected by lead-based paint regulations if remodeling, renovations, or demolition activities would disturb lead-based paint surfaces.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB)

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of synthetic organic chemicals that were used extensively as insulators in electrical equipment such as transformers, ballasts in fluorescent lighting, circuit breakers, and switch gear. In 1976, the Environmental Protection Agency banned the manufacture and sale of polychlorinated biphenyls. However, PCBs may still be present in older capacitors or transformers. It should be assumed that any transformers contain PCBs unless otherwise marked.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Thresholds of Significance

Potentially significant impacts could occur to the public or the environment if a proposed future project was located on or in the vicinity of any of the sites listed in Figure III.L-2, above. Impacts related to asbestos, lead-based paint, or polychlorinated biphenyls in existing buildings would be significant if demolition or renovation of any structures found to contain such materials would occur prior to appropriate stabilization and/or removal of the materials in accordance with applicable regulations.

Project Impacts

Government Regulatory Data Bases

Maximum Possible Development. As noted above, some areas within the Project Area have been identified through review of government regulatory data bases for potential environmental hazards as a result of past practices or current operations. In the event that a future development project occurring under the Maximum Possible redevelopment scenario is proposed on or near a property that has been identified in one or more of the data bases listed above and shown in Figure III.L-2, a potentially significant impact related to hazardous materials would occur. Impacts could result from exposure of persons or the environment to hazardous materials through activities that could include but not be limited to, excavation of underground materials, release of improperly handled materials, leaking tanks or improper remediation of hazardous conditions. The extent of the impact would be dependent upon

4 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, Section 35043.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

the characteristics of the project being proposed and the precise site conditions related to hazardous materials, which cannot be known until the project is identified.

Moderate. Since future development projects under the Moderate development scenario could occur on sites that are located on or near sites that have been identified through review of government regulatory data bases for potential environmental hazards, impacts associated with future development projects occurring under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be significant.

Minimum. Since future development projects under the Minimum development scenario could occur on sites that are located on or near sites that have been identified through review of government regulatory data bases for potential environmental hazards, impacts associated with future development projects occurring under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be significant.

Hazardous Materials

Maximum Possible Development. Due to the age of the structures within the Project Area, it is likely that asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCBs are present. During renovation or demolition activities these hazardous materials may be disturbed. Disturbance of asbestos, lead-based paint and PCBs could expose construction workers and residents to health hazards. Thus any future development project occurring under the Maximum Possible development scenario that involves demolition activity could result in potentially significant impacts related to these materials.

Moderate. Since future development projects under the Moderate development scenario could occur on sites with older buildings that might contain asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCBs impacts associated with future development projects occurring under the Moderate development scenario would be the same as under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be significant.

Minimum. Since future development projects under the Minimum development scenario could occur on sites with older buildings that might contain asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCBs, impacts associated with future development projects occurring under the Minimum development scenario would be the same as under the Maximum Possible development scenario and would be significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Possible cumulative impacts could result from new developments using or generating hazardous materials in the course of their production/service provision process, or proximity of new developments to existing facilities which generate, or have generated, hazardous materials. Use of hazardous materials in new development projects, as well as remediation and/or abatement of existing conditions

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

related to hazardous materials would be subject to all existing federal, state and local regulations to ensure safe handling. Based on existing regulations dealing with the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, along with laws governing underground storage tanks and the location and nature of surrounding land uses, no significant cumulative impacts would occur.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The following mitigation measures shall be required to reduce the potential impacts related to environmental hazards and hazardous materials to less than significant levels.

Environmental Hazards

• For any future development project proposed within the Project Area that is located on or near a parcel identified in the regulatory data base search discussed above and shown in Figure III.L-2, the Agency shall cause to have prepared a property-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prior to issuance of any grading, foundation, demolition, building or any other permit issued by the City for that project. If indicated by the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the Agency shall require the preparation of subsequent Phase II Environmental Site Assessment(s).

• Remediation of any environmental conditions identified in the Phase I and/or Phase II Environmental Site Assessments shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) (California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and/or South Coast Air Quality Management District) prior to the issuance of grading or building permits for the project.

Hazardous Materials

• Asbestos and lead-based paint surveys shall be conducted on buildings scheduled to be demolished or renovated. When asbestos and lead-based paint are detected, they shall be abated in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. Abatement activities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency(ies) prior to the issuance of demolition permits for the project. Abatement of asbestos shall be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities.

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, impacts associated with environmental hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Hazardous Materials Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page III.L-20 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

IV. ALTERNATIVES

A. INTRODUCTION

As stated in CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1(a)), “the purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to a project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided (emphasis added).” More specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) require an EIR to 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 evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The discussion of alternatives, however, need not be exhaustive, but rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of alternatives for examination and must disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives.

CEQA also requires the analysis of a No Project alternative. The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1)). In addition, in accordance with the Guidelines, the No Project analysis shall discuss existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved. The discussion of the No Project Alternative is provided in Section IV.B below.

The range of alternatives evaluated by CRA was structured to evaluate alternatives which would meet the project objectives of promoting redevelopment and eliminating blight within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). Three alternative future development scenarios were developed as described in Section II.D of this EIR, and evaluated for each environmental issue in Sections III.A through III.L of this EIR. An alternate site for the Proposed Project was rejected because the Project Area already exists and the physical conditions that the redevelopment tools authorized under the existing Redevelopment Plan and the proposed amendment are intended to address are concentrated within the existing Project Area boundaries.

Based on the alternatives analysis, an environmentally superior alternative must be identified from among the alternatives. If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The analysis of the environmentally superior alternative is provided in Section IV.C below.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Proposed Project Objectives Another important consideration in the analysis of alternatives is the degree to which the alternative achieves the objectives of the proposed project. To facilitate this comparison, the objectives of the proposed project contained in Chapter II, Project Description, are re-iterated in this section of the EIR.

The objectives of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment are primarily to re-establish the ability of the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire property on which no persons lawfully reside, to provide for the continued financing of redevelopment activity through completion of the Redevelopment Plan, to ensure that the land use designations of the Redevelopment Plan are consistent with the land use designations contained in the Hollywood Community Plan and to make other limited revisions to the text of the Redevelopment Plan. The existing Redevelopment Plan has also established the following objectives and goals for the Redevelopment Project, which the Agency will continue to implement upon approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment:

• Encourage the involvement and participation of residents, business persons, property owners and community organizations in the redevelopment of the community.

• Preserve and increase employment, and business and investment opportunities through redevelopment programs and, to the greatest extent feasible, promote these opportunities for minorities and women.

• Promote a balanced community meeting the needs of the residential, commercial, industrial, arts and entertainment sectors.

• Support and encourage the development of social services with special consideration given to participating in projects involving community based organizations that serve runaways, the homeless, senior citizens and provide child care services and other social services.

• Improve the quality of the environment, promote a positive image for Hollywood and provide a safe environment through mechanisms such as:

◊ Adopting land use standards;

◊ Promoting architectural and urban design standards including: standards for height, building setback, continuity of street façade, building materials, and compatibility of new construction with existing structures and concealment of mechanical appurtenances;

◊ Promoting landscape criteria and planting programs to ensure additional green space;

◊ Encouraging maintenance of the built environment;

◊ Promoting sign and billboard standards;

◊ Coordinating the provision of high quality public improvements;

◊ Promoting rehabilitation and restoration guidelines;

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

◊ Integrate public safety concerns into planning efforts.

• Support and promote Hollywood as the center of the entertainment industry and a tourist destination through the retention, development and expansion of all sectors of the entertainment industry and the preservation of landmarks related to the entertainment industry.

• Promote the development of Hollywood Boulevard within the Hollywood commercial core as a unique place which:

◊ Reflects Hollywood’s position as the entertainment center;

◊ Provides facilities for tourists;

◊ Contains active retail and entertainment uses at the street level;

◊ Provides for residential uses;

◊ Is pedestrian oriented;

◊ Is a focus for the arts, particularly the performing arts;

◊ Recognizes and reinforces its history and architecture.

• Promote and encourage the retention and expansion of all segments of the arts community and the support facilities necessary to foster the arts and attract the arts through land use and development policies such as the creation of a theater district.

• Provide housing choices and increase the supply of housing for all income and age groups, especially for persons with low and moderate incomes; and to provide home ownership opportunities and other housing choices which meet the needs of the resident population.

• Promote the development of sound residential neighborhoods through mechanisms such as land use, density and design standards, public improvements, property rehabilitation, sensitive in-fill housing, traffic and circulation programming, development of open spaces and other support services necessary to enable residents to live and work in Hollywood.

• Recognize, promote and support the retention, restoration and appropriate reuse of existing buildings, groupings of buildings and other physical features especially those having significant historic and/or architectural value and ensure that new development is sensitive to these features though land use and development criteria.

• Support and encourage a circulation system which will improve the quality of life in Hollywood, including pedestrian, automobile, parking and mass transit systems with an emphasis on serving existing facilities and meeting future needs.

• Promote and encourage the development of health, education, child and youth care, and senior citizen facilities and programs to enable the development of a community with a variety of lifestyles.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

• Promote and encourage development of recreational and cultural facilities and open spaces necessary to support attractive residential neighborhoods and commercial centers.

• Promote the development of the varied ethnic communities in Hollywood.

• To the maximum extent feasible, seek to build replacement housing within the Project Area prior to the destruction or removal of dwelling units which house low and moderate income people. The Agency shall make a good faith effort to relocate any displaced residents or businesses within the Project Area unless they choose to relocated elsewhere. Residents displaced as a result of the proposed project shall be provided a priority for occupancy in housing which the Agency has facilitated.

B. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

Because the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan is an adopted plan, it is likely that development of the candidate parcels would continue to occur over time as a result of the currently authorized redevelopment tools that are provided to the Agency under the Redevelopment Plan. These tools would continue to be utilized by the Agency in the event that the proposed Plan Amendment is not adopted. The resulting development would be expected to continue to occur until the expiration of the adopted Redevelopment Plan in 2026, with the Agency’s involvement within the Redevelopment Plan also continuing until that time in accordance with applicable law. For this reason, a projected scenario was developed to assess the potential impacts that could result if the current provisions of the Redevelopment Plan were continued in effect until 2026. This scenario was defined as the No Project (i.e., No Plan Amendment) scenario. Total development under the No Project scenario was calculated by assuming that each of the candidate parcels would be developed to the development capacity provided by the existing zoning that is applicable to each candidate parcel.

Projected levels of growth under the No Project and the three alternative development scenarios assume the development of approximately 4 to 5 million square feet of commercial and residential floor area and approximately 2,000 to 3,000 public parking spaces between 2003 and 2007. This development includes project concepts that have been discussed with Agency staff since 2000 that would likely proceed to more refined project scopes and possible construction in the near future. This “near-term” growth also includes the development of a 300-room hotel, 200 apartment units, 46 condominium units, 30,000 square feet of retail use and an intermodal transit plaza adjacent to the Hollywood/Vine Metro Rail subway station. This potential level of development would be within the levels of development under the No Project scenario.

Table IV-1 shows the existing levels of development and the projected total development expected to result under the No Project development scenario, as calculated in accordance with the methodology described in Section II, Project Description, of this EIR, as well as the incremental change projected to occur under the No Project scenario. The projected level of development shown could be located at any

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-4 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

site within the Project Area and would be expected to occur over an extended time frame ending with the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan in 2026.

Table IV-1 Existing Development and Total Development Resulting from No Project Alternative

Alternative Commercial (sq.ft.)1 Housing Units

Existing Conditions2 2,200,000 2,800

No Project 11,100,000 4,600

Net Change from Existing 8,900,000 1,800 Conditions

1 Includes office, retail, restaurant and hotel uses 2 Existing development on candidate parcels. Source: Terry A Hayes Associates

Development occurring under the No Project scenario would be subject to mitigation measures set forth in the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan or included in the 1986 Redevelopment Plan EIR (1986 EIR).1

Land Use Construction activities which could result from the development occurring under the No Project alternative, could cause conflicts with adjacent uses during the construction period due to temporary increases in air emissions (including fugitive dust) and noise. Such construction impacts could result in temporary incompatibility between the short-term land use activity of project construction and adjacent sensitive land uses. Uses that are typically considered sensitive to noise and air pollution include residences, schools, hospitals and convalescent care facilities. These sensitive uses could experience significant impacts from construction–related air emissions and noise. Impacts would be similar to the other development scenarios evaluated in the EIR and would be significant and unavoidable.

Development occurring under the No Project alternative could result in incompatibilities with adjacent land uses. Under existing Community Plan land use designations, new commercial and industrial development could occur near predominantly residential areas. In addition, increased intensity of land use could result in some parts of the Project Area as a result of development occurring under the No Project scenario. Impacts would be similar to the other development scenarios and would be

1( Hollywood Redevelopment Project Final EIR, January, 1986, State Clearinghouse #1985052903,

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

significant. The 1986 EIR includes mitigation measures related to compatibility of adjacent land uses that would be applicable to development occurring under the No Project scenario, which would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

The No Project alternative would serve to implement numerous regional growth policies set forth in the RCPG, similar to the other development scenarios. The No Project alternative would also be consistent with the pertinent goals, objectives and policies of the Hollywood Community Plan because, under the existing Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, CRA is provided with substantial capabilities to: promote the development and redevelopment of the Hollywood community; attract private investment to the community; eliminate conditions of blight within the community; and improve transportation and other infrastructure systems within the community. No impacts related to conflicts with the policies of the Hollywood Community Plan would result from the No Project alternative, similar to the other development scenarios.

Overall, the No Project alternative would not pose any incompatibilities with adopted regional or local plans, similar to the Proposed Project.

Aesthetics/Urban Design/Light & Glare Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could have the effect of increasing development density and filling in portions of the street wall that are presently undeveloped along the segments of Hollywood Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard that are designated as scenic highways under the Hollywood Community Plan. Such development would reinforce the existing visual character of these street segments and would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could have the effect of reinforcing the existing urban character of the Project Area, which is the predominant visual feature from the east-west streets within the Project Area. Development would also be controlled in a manner which does not affect the historic character of the Hollywood Boulevard historic district such that visual character of Hollywood Boulevard stemming from the historic buildings would not be affected. Impacts related to scenic views within the Project Area would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Development occurring under the No Project alternative in some areas could block existing views of the HOLLYWOOD sign from east-west streets, as it would potentially introduce new buildings into existing view lines from these streets to the sign. Development under the No Project alternative would have less effect on views of the Hollywood sign from north-south streets as these view would not be substantially affected by development occurring adjacent to the street. Blockage of views of the Hollywood sign from the east-west roadways would be a significant impact under the No Project scenario. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

potential view blockage impacts. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to view blockage would be significant and unavoidable, which would be similar to the other development scenarios.

The character of panoramic views from the Hollywood Hills that include the Project Area would not substantially change as a result of development projected to occur under the No Project alternative because such development would reinforce the existing urban character of the Project Area. Views that extend to the Pacific Ocean would be from the highest elevations of the Hollywood Hills and would not be affected by development occurring under the No Project alternative, similar to the other development scenarios. Impacts related to views from the Hollywood Hills under the No Project alternative would be similar to the other development scenarios and less than significant.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could result in the development of new structures of increased height and mass that could result in blockage of existing views of the Hollywood Hills from within the Project Area. Blockage of such views, which would be predominantly experienced from the east-west streets in the Project Area, would be a significant impact. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address potential view blockage impacts. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to view blockage would be significant and unavoidable, which would be similar to the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative would generally have the effect of increasing the development density within the Project Area. Along the most densely developed corridors at present (Hollywood Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard), construction of new buildings with increased height and mass, along with infill development that emphasizes the existing street wall, would reinforce the character of urban development that presently defines the visual environment and would thus be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Along the other commercial streets located within the Project Area (Santa Monica Boulevard, Western Avenue, Vine Street, Cahuenga Boulevard, Highland Avenue, Vermont Avenue), the effects of new development occurring under the No Project alternative would likely be more pronounced. New development projected to occur under the No Project alternative would be expected to introduce buildings of increased height and mass and reduced or no front and side yard setbacks. Since the existing visual environment within the commercial streets in the Project Area is presently characterized by the same kind of urban development, such changes would not be widely noticeable and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could result in increased density of residential

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

development within the neighborhoods presently located within the Project Area. Since existing development density is relatively low in some parts of the Project Area that include predominantly residential uses, this change could be noticeable. The change in the visual environment that would result from increased development density in residential areas under the No Project alternative would be a significant impact. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address potential impacts related to visual character. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to visual character would be significant and unavoidable, which would be similar to the other development scenarios.

Since no substantial open space resources presently exist within the Project Area, development projected to occur under the No Project alternative would not have the potential to affect open space resources within the Project Area. Impacts related to open space within the Project Area would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, existing views of open space areas outside the Project Area, including the Santa Monica Mountains and Griffith Park, could potentially be blocked by new buildings that could result from the No Project alternative. Blockage of such views, which would be predominantly experienced from the east-west streets within the Project Area, would be a significant impact. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address potential view blockage impacts. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to view blockage would be significant and unavoidable, which would be similar to the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could result in the construction of new buildings with increased height and mass that could cast shadows over a broader area than is presently affected by existing structures within the Project Area. These shadows could potentially affect residential and other sensitive uses. Potential shadow impacts resulting from new development under the No Project alternative would be significant. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address potential impacts related to shadows. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to shadows would be significant and unavoidable, which would be similar to the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could introduce new sources of lighting within the Project Area, including building security lighting, lighted signage, street lighting, parking lot and structure lighting and automobile headlights. Such lighting sources could potentially spill over into residential areas and other sensitive uses. These potential impacts would be significant. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address potential impacts related to lighting. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to shadows would be significant and

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

unavoidable. Mitigation measures that would applicable to the other development scenarios would reduce impacts related to lighting to less than significant. Impacts of the No Project alternative would be greater than the other development scenarios.

Depending upon design characteristics of individual projects that cannot presently be known, development occurring under the No Project alternative could introduce new sources of glare within the Project Area, including glass facades on buildings, new metallic signs and increased automobile traffic. Potential sources of glare resulting from new buildings and signs could adversely affect residential and other sensitive uses. Potential sources of glare associated with automobile traffic would be transitory and would not significantly affect residential or other sensitive uses. Impacts associated with glare generation from buildings and signs would be significant. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures to address potential impacts related to glare. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative related to glare generation would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures that would applicable to the other development scenarios would reduce impacts related to glare to less than significant. Impacts of the No Project alternative would be greater than the other development scenarios.

Cultural Resources Under the No Project scenario, a net change from existing conditions of up to 8.9 million square feet of commercial and industrial development and 1,800 housing units could occur. The likelihood that any of the new development would affect historical resources is highly dependent upon the proximity of the proposed development to any of the 448 identified historical resources, 89 of which are located in the Hollywood Commercial and Entertainment National Register district. Any future development projects occurring within the Project Area under the No Project scenario that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource would represent a significant impact related to historical resources. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR contain measures that address significant impacts related to historic resources. However, these measures would not ensure that impacts to historic resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore impacts related to historic resources under the No Project alternative would be significant and unavoidable, higher than the impacts associated with the other development scenarios.

Construction activity which could occur under the No Project alternative that involves any major ground disturbance such as grading or excavation has the potential to disturb, scatter or relocate archaeological resources. The level of significance for an effect would be dependent upon the existing integrity and nature of the archaeological deposit. To the extent that such activity would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance criteria of an archaeological resource, significant impacts related to archaeological resources would occur under the No Project scenario. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and 1986 EIR do not contain measures specifically directed at archeological resources. However, standard City conditions related to grading activities provide the same effects as

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

would result from implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the other development scenarios. These conditions would apply to development occurring under the No Project scenario. Therefore impacts of the No Project alternative would be reduced to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

Population, Housing and Employment Under the No Project alternative, existing commercial development and residential units could be displaced as redevelopment occurs. No involuntary displacements would result from the No Project alternative as the existing Hollywood Redevelopment Plan does not provide the Agency with eminent domain authority. The same mitigation measures that would be applicable to the other development scenarios would also be applicable to the No Project scenario because these mitigation measures consist of requirements for relocation assistance that are established in state and federal law and would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

Under the No Project alternative, a net population increase of approximately 4,000 persons in the Redevelopment Project Area is projected. This would represent an 8.7 percent increase in the existing population in the Project Area. This increase in population growth, however, would be within the 36.6 percent increase in population for the Project Area projected by the Southern California Association of Governments to occur by 2025. Impacts would be similar to the other development scenarios and would be less than significant.

Employment growth under the No Project alternative could result in an increase of approximately 21,000 jobs over existing conditions within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. This would represent a 60% increase over existing employment levels, which would exceed the SCAG projection of a 4.9% increase.

However, the potential concentration of employment in this area of the City that would occur under the No project alternative would be consistent with the regional growth management policies discussed in detail in Section III.B, Land Use. These policies promote development and redevelopment activity in existing developed areas that are well-served by existing transit and transportation infrastructure. These policies also promote growth and development in areas within the developed urban core of the City that do not require extension of other major infrastructure systems. Projected employment growth under the Maximum Possible development scenario would be more easily accommodated with fewer environmental impacts within the Project Area than if such growth were to occur in outlying areas. In addition, projected employment growth would enhance the economic base of the Hollywood community and thereby work toward the elimination of blight, promote improvements in the standard of living of the residents of the Redevelopment Project Area and improve the existing infrastructure and public services within the Redevelopment Project Area. Implementation of redevelopment activity within the Project Area would promote these regional growth management policies. Therefore, even though this

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

alternative would exceed the numeric growth forecasts provided by SCAG, the projected employment growth under the No Project alternative would not represent a significant impact, similar to the other development scenarios.

The projected increase in employment within the Project Area under the No Project alternative could result in increased demand for housing. Although additional residential development is projected to occur under this alternative (a net increase of 1,800 units in the Project Area) and the Proposed Project would support the development of affordable housing within the Project Area, projected housing growth would occur at a lower rate than the projected employment growth under this development scenario. However, because the projected employment growth under this scenario would be concentrated in an area of the City served by the Metro Rail Red Line, the backbone of the regional transit system, the jobs that would be located within the Project Area would be accessible from a larger area within the region. In addition, some of the induced housing demand associated with projected could be accommodated in other transit station areas located outside the Project Area, as promoted under regional growth management plans. Therefore, impacts associated with induced housing growth under No Project alternative would be less than significant.

Transportation/Circulation Non-project growth for the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area reflects the growth in traffic that would be associated with: (1) the No Project (Without Plan Amendment) alternative (i.e., growth projected to occur if the existing Redevelopment Plan were to remain in place); and (2) traffic forecasts made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the recently-adopted Regional Transportation Plan (or RTP, the horizon year for which is 2025). Increased traffic under the No Project scenario would cause LADOT significance thresholds to be exceeded on 69 of 73 roadway segments during the AM peak hour, PM peak hour or both. Under the future baseline (i.e., No Project) condition, 39 out of 73 (53 percent) of the roadway segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour and 19 out of 73 (26 percent) of the segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the PM peak hour. Under the No Project alternative, the number of segments operating at an unacceptable level of service in the AM peak hour would be lower than under any of the development scenarios (34 under the No Project alternative compared to 53 under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 37 under the Moderate development scenario, and 35 under the Minimum development scenario). Under the No Project alternative, the number of segments operating at an unacceptable level of service in the PM peak hour would be lower than under any of the development scenarios (54 under the No Project alternative compared to 56 under the Maximum Possible development scenario, 55 under the Moderate development scenario, and 54 under the Minimum development scenario). Although traffic impacts of the No Project alternative would be lower than the other development scenarios, significant impacts would still occur as a result of the No Project alternative, under LADOT criteria. Under the No Project alternative, LADOT would likely require implementation of some of the mitigation measures

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

that would be applicable to the other development scenarios, including installation of ATCS and imposition of peak hour parking restrictions where feasible. Development of a comprehensive Transportation Plan for the Project Area by the Agency would not, however, be likely to take place under the No Project alternative. Traffic impacts of the No Project alternative would be lower than the other development scenarios, but would be significant and unavoidable.

Air Quality New developments within the Project Area resulting from implementation of the No Project scenario would generate pollutant emissions from construction activities. These emissions would be similar to those generated under the other development scenarios and would exceed SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for NOx and PM10. Impacts from construction activities under the No Project scenario would thus be similar to the other development scenarios and would be significant and unavoidable for NOx and PM10 emissions, similar to the other development scenarios.

Long-term project emissions under the No Project alternative would be generated predominantly by mobile sources (motor vehicles). According to the traffic study prepared for the Proposed Project, 268,254 daily vehicular trips would be generated under the No Project scenario. Regional emissions generated under the No Project scenario would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for CO,

ROG and NOX. Daily operational emissions of SOX and PM10 projected under the No Project scenario would be below the SCAQMD significance threshold. Thus, significant impacts for criteria pollutants

CO, ROG and NOX would result from implementation of the No Project scenario. Impacts of the No Project alternative with respect to regional emissions would be similar to the Maximum Possible and Moderate development scenarios and higher than the Minimum development scenario, which would generate emissions that would be below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all pollutants.

One-hour CO concentrations under the No Project alternative would range from approximately 4.2 ppm to 12.2 ppm at worst-case sidewalk receptors. Eight-hour CO concentrations are anticipated to range from approximately 2.9 ppm to 8.5 ppm. The State one-hour standard of 20.0 ppm and eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm would not be exceeded at worst-case sidewalk receptor locations at any of the 57 roadway segments. Impacts under the No Project alternative would be similar to the Moderate and Minimum development scenario and lower than the impacts under the Maximum Possible development scenario. The No Project alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts related to CO concentrations, and thus the significant and unavoidable impacts related to AQMP consistency, that would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

Noise Potential development projects that could occur under the No Project scenario could result in temporary construction noise impacts from the use of construction equipment. Under the No Project alternative, the threshold of significance for construction noise would be temporarily exceeded during construction

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-12 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

activities at certain locations within the Project Area and significant construction noise impacts would result from development occurring under the No Project scenario, similar to the other development scenarios. The 1986 EIR contains mitigation measures to address construction noise impacts that would be applicable to development occurring under the No Project alternative. However, these measures would not reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Construction noise impacts under the No Project scenario would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the other development scenarios.

Traffic noise impacts of the No Project alternative were determined by comparing the projected noise levels from traffic associated with the No Project alternative with existing calculated CNEL levels. As indicated in Table IV-2, a 3dBA increase in noise levels, with a resulting noise level greater than 70 dBA, would occur on 4 of 12 roadway segments (3, 4, 7 and 10). Because of the presence of sensitive receptors throughout the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, impacts at these locations under the No Project scenario would be significant. The No Project scenario would impact four fewer locations than would be impacted under the Minimum and Moderate development scenarios2 and five fewer

Table IV-2 No Project Scenario Traffic Noise Impact

Road Segment Existing (2001) Predicted CNEL: Noise Level Number Calculated CNEL No Project Increase 1 74.3 75 0.7 2 71.8 74.2 2.4 3 71.4 75.6 4.2 4 70.0 73.4 3.4 5 69.0 71 2.0 6 64.8 67.2 2.4 7 69.2 72.5 3.3 8 65.0 69.3 4.3 9 63.8 65.8 2.0 10 73.3 77.4 4.1 11 70.8 70.9 0.1 12 86.7 87 0.3 Bold denotes significant impact. * Note: freeway segment that was not specifically measured, but would not be expected to be lower than 80 dBA. Source: Martin Newson & Associates

2 Based upon cumulative impacts identified in Section III.H, Noise.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

locations than would be impacted under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Impacts of the No Project alternative would be lower than the other development scenarios, but significant and unavoidable impacts on four roadway segments would still result from the No Project alternative.

Development projected to occur under the No Project alternative would be expected to include on-site equipment and facilities that could generate noise, including stationary equipment such as heating- ventilation-air conditioning (HVAC), loading docks, music from stores and gathering places for people. Such sources would not be expected to generate noise levels that rise above the prevailing traffic noise. Impacts would be similar to those projected to occur under the other development scenarios and would be less than significant.

Public Services

Police Protection Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, the population of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area would increase by 4,050 persons and employment would increase by over 21,000 jobs. The projected increases in population and employment would reduce the officer- population ratio and potentially increase response times and crime rates. LAPD has indicated that increased population and employment within the LAPD Hollywood Area would result in significant impacts to police services. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with the authority to pursue the same mitigation measures that would be applicable to the other development scenarios (i.e., Agency coordination with LAPD and project review for projects with Agency involvement) and apply those measures to development occurring under the No Project alternative. These measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

Fire Protection Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, housing units within the Project Area would be expected to increase by 1,800 units and commercial and industrial development would increase by nearly 9 million square feet. The projected increases in development could result in an increase in service calls handled by the Fire Department. New development under the No Project alternative would be required to comply with legal requirements related to fire safety and Fire Department site plan review. Thus impacts related to fire protection services would be less than significant under the No Project alternative, similar to the other development scenarios.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Schools Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an additional 1,080 elementary students, 360 middle school students, and 486 high school students would be generated. Based upon the capacity available at existing schools, these levels of student generation would cause elementary and high school capacity to be exceeded, while middle school capacity would not be exceeded. With the addition of planned new school facilities, the projected student generation under the No Project scenario would be accommodated at all school levels (elementary, middle, high school). Impacts to school facilities under the No Project alternative would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Parks and Recreation Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, population within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area would increase by 4,050 persons. This population increase would require an additional 16.2 acres of parkland above the 182 acre parkland deficit presently existing within the Project Area. Impacts to park and recreation facilities under the No Project scenario would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the other development scenarios.

Libraries Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, population within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area would increase by approximately 4,050 persons. Total employment would increase by approximately 21,100 jobs under this alternative. Thus the total service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area would increase to approximately 107,000 under the No Project alternative. The resulting service population would be within the maximum service population for the library facilities serving the Project Area. Impacts on library services would be less than significant under the No Project alternative, similar to the other development scenarios.

Utilities

Water Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, estimated water consumption within the Project Area would be approximately 2.5 million gallons of water per day, as shown in Table III.J-2. This estimated level would represent increased consumption of approximately 1.6 million gallons of water per day over existing consumption. Projected water demand under the No Project alternative would be within the water supply and infrastructure capacity of LADWP and would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Wastewater Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, estimated wastewater generation within the Redevelopment Project Area would be approximately 2.1 million gallons per day. This estimated level would represent increased generation of approximately 1.3 million gallons of wastewater per day over existing generation. Wastewater generation associated with the No Project alternative would represent approximately 1.4% of the excess treatment capacity presently available at the Hyperion Treatment Plant and would result in less than significant impacts, similar to the other development scenarios. Increased wastewater generation within the Area would exceed the capacity of the 18-inch sewer line under Sunset Boulevard which transmits wastewater flows from the Project Area. Impacts of the No Project alternative related to wastewater infrastructure would be significant, similar to the other development scenarios. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with the authority to pursue the same mitigation measures that would be applicable to the other development scenarios (i.e., development of a replacement/upgrading plan for this line in coordination with Bureau of Engineering) and apply those measures to development occurring under the No Project alternative. These measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

Solid Waste Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an increase in solid waste generation of approximately 214,000 pounds per day over existing generation would occur. This would represent an increase of approximately 1.4% over the current average daily intake at Bradley and Sunshine Canyon Landfills. Since the solid waste generation under the No Project alternative would not result in premature exhaustion of a landfill, impacts of the No Project alternative would be similar to the other development scenarios and less than significant.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Electricity Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an increase in electricity consumption of approximately 348,000 kilowatt-hours per day over existing consumption would occur. Since the demand associated with the No Project scenario would be within the service capability of LADWP, impacts of the No Project alternative would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Natural Gas Under the No Project alternative, the provisions of the existing Redevelopment Plan would remain in place and redevelopment activities within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area would continue to be undertaken by the Agency and the private sector. Under the No Project scenario, an increase in natural gas consumption of approximately 45.1 million cubic feet per month over existing consumption would occur. Since the demand associated with the No Project scenario would be within the service capability of the Gas Company, impacts of the No Project alternative would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Geotechnical/Seismic Specific projects located within the Project Area under the No Project scenario would be expected to be constructed in compliance with accepted engineering practices and current building codes to resist seismically-generated motions, as administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. With adherence to these standards, the No Project alternative would not expose people, property, or infrastructure to greater seismic impacts than already exist in southern California. Impacts related to seismic hazards under the No Project scenario would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

The Project Area is located in an area with a high probability of liquefaction. Specific projects located within the Project Area under the No Project alternative would be required to undertake special liquefaction studies, incorporate foundation design features to reduce risks associated with liquefaction, and comply with the requirements of the building code, as administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. Impacts related to liquefaction hazards under the No Project scenario would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Potential for subsidence is not known to be present within the Project Area. Therefore, no significant impacts related to subsidence are anticipated as a result of potential development projected to occur under the No Project alternative. No impacts related to subsidence would occur under the No Project alternative, similar to the other development scenarios.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Landslides are known to have occurred at the edges of the Project Area. Specific projects located within the Project Area under the No Project alternative that would be within areas identified for potential landslide and slope hazards would be subject to design requirements set forth in the building code, as administered by the Department of Building and Safety in the course of its ministerial duties. Impacts related to landslide hazards under the No Project alternative would be less than significant, similar to the other development scenarios.

Hazardous Materials Some areas within the Project Area have been identified through a review of government regulatory data bases for potential environmental hazards as a result of past practices or current operations. In the event that a future development project occurring under the No Project scenario is proposed on a property that has been identified in one or more of the data bases listed Section III.L, a potentially significant impact related to hazardous materials would occur, similar to the other development scenarios. The extent of the impact would be dependent upon the characteristics of the project being proposed and the precise site conditions related to hazardous materials, which cannot be presently known. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with the authority to pursue the same mitigation measures that would be applicable to the other development scenarios (i.e., requiring Phase I/II environmental site assessments and remediation before permit issuance) and apply those measures to development occurring under the No Project alternative. These measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

Due to the age of the structures within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, it is likely that asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCBs are present. During renovation or demolition activities these hazardous materials may be disturbed, exposing construction workers and residents to health hazards. Thus any future development project occurring under the No Project scenario that involves demolition activity could result in potentially significant impacts related to these materials. The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan provides the Agency with the authority to pursue the same mitigation measures that would be applicable to the other development scenarios (i.e., requiring abatement of such conditions in accordance with existing regulations prior to permit issuance) and apply those measures to development occurring under the No Project alternative. These measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, similar to the other development scenarios.

C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

A comparison of impacts associated with the Maximum Possible, Moderate, Minimum and No Project scenarios is shown in Table IV-3.

The Minimum development scenario would be environmentally superior to the Maximum Possible and Moderate development scenarios and would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of these

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

scenarios with respect to regional air emissions. The Minimum development scenario would avoid the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts, after mitigation, that would occur under the Maximum Possible (58 street segments) and Moderate (32 street segments) development scenarios. The Minimum development scenario would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Maximum Possible development scenario with respect to traffic noise impacts on four roadway segments. The Minimum development scenario would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to CO concentrations at two locations would occur under the Maximum Possible development scenario. The Minimum development scenario, unlike the Maximum Possible development scenario, would be consistent with the AQMP. The Minimum development scenario would achieve the objectives of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Minimum development scenario is the environmentally superior alternative.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Table IV-3 Comparison of Alternatives

Impact Category Maximum Possible Development Moderate Minimum No Project Land Use – Land Use Compatibility Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same Land Use – Plan Consistency Consistent Same Same Same Aesthetics – Scenic Highways Less Than Significant Same Same Same Aesthetics – Views in Project Area Less Than Significant Same Same Same Aesthetics – View Blockage Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Aesthetics – Landform Views Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Aesthetics – Visual Character Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Aesthetics – Open Space Less Than Significant Same Same Same Aesthetics – Views of Open Space Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Aesthetics - Shadows Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Aesthetics – Light and Glare Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same Cultural Resources - Historic Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same Cultural Resource - Archaeological Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same Pop/Housing/Employment - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same Displacement Pop/Housing/Employment – Less Than Significant Same Same Same Population Growth Pop/Housing/Employment – Less Than Significant Same Same Same Employment Growth Pop/Housing/Employment – Induced Less Than Significant Same Same Same Housing Transportation – Street Segment Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Significant and Significant and Impacts Unavoidable, Lower1 Unavoidable, Lower2 Unavoidable, Lower3 Transportation – Congestion Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Significant and Significant and Management Program Impacts Unavoidable, Lower1 Unavoidable, Lower2 Unavoidable, Lower3 Air Quality – Construction Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Air Quality – Regional Operational Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Less Than Significant Significant and Emissions Unavoidable, Lower1 Unavoidable, Lower3

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-20 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Impact Category Maximum Possible Development Moderate Minimum No Project Air Quality – Local CO Significant and Unavoidable Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant Concentrations Noise - Construction Significant and Unavoidable Same Same Same Noise – Project Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Less Than Significant Less Than Significant N/A Noise – Cumulative Traffic Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Significant and Significant and Unavoidable, Lower1 Unavoidable, Lower2 Unavoidable, Lower3 Public Services - Police Less Than Significant with Mitigation Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Public Services - Fire Less Than Significant Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Public Services – Schools Less Than Significant Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Public Services – Parks and Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Significant and Significant and Recreation Unavoidable, Higher1 Unavoidable, Higher2 Unavoidable, Higher1 Public Services – Libraries Less Than Significant Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Utilities - Water Less Than Significant Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Utilities - Sewer Less Than Significant with Mitigation Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Utilities – Solid Waste Less Than Significant Lower1 Lower2 Lower3 Geotechnical/Seismic Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same Hazardous Materials Less Than Significant with Mitigation Same Same Same

1 Impacts as compared to the Maximum Possible Development Scenario 2 Impacts as compared to the Maximum Possible and Moderate Development Scenarios 3 Impacts as compared to the other development scenarios

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Alternatives Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page IV-21 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

V. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The Proposed Amendment to the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan would have the following unavoidable significant environmental impacts:

• Aesthetics: Significant and unavoidable impacts related to blockage of views of the HOLLYWOOD sign, major landforms and off-site open space could result from new development occurring under all development scenarios. • Aesthetics: Significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased development density in residential neighborhoods could result from new development could result from all development scenarios. • Aesthetics: Significant and unavoidable impacts related to shadows could result from new development under all development scenarios. • Transportation/Circulation: Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain on 48 street segments during the AM peak hour and 51 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Maximum Possible development scenario; and on 7 street segments during the AM peak hour and 30 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Moderate development scenario. • Transportation/Circulation: Under the Maximum Possible development scenario impacts to three CMP freeway segments and six CMP arterial street segments analyzed would be significant and unavoidable. Under the Moderate development scenario, impacts on one CMP freeway segment and one CMP arterial street segment would be significant and unavoidable.

• Air Quality: Impacts related to emissions of NOX and PM10 during construction would be significant and unavoidable under all development scenarios.

• Air Quality: Impacts related to regional CO, ROG and NOX emissions would be significant and unavoidable under the Maximum Possible and Moderate development scenarios. • Air Quality: Impacts related to local CO concentrations would be significant and unavoidable at two locations under the Maximum Possible development scenario.

• Air Quality: Cumulative impacts related to regional CO, ROG, NOX, SOX, and PM10 emissions would be significant and unavoidable under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Cumulative impacts related to regional CO, ROG and NOX emissions would be significant and unavoidable under the Moderate and Minimum development scenarios. • Noise: Project-related construction noise generation would exceed City of Los Angeles noise standards for short periods of time adjacent to residential areas. • Noise: Impacts associated with increased traffic noise would be significant and unavoidable for four roadway segments under the Maximum Possible development scenario. • Noise: Cumulative impacts from traffic noise would be significant and unavoidable on 8 of 12 roadway segments under the Maximum Possible development scenario and 7 of 12 roadway segments under the Moderate and Minimum development scenarios.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Unavoidable Significant Impacts Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page V-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

• Parks and Recreation: Impacts related to parks and recreation services would be significant and unavoidable under all development scenarios because of the severe deficit of parkland that presently exists within the Redevelopment Project Area.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Unavoidable Significant Impacts Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page V-2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

VI. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS

Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed action could be growth-inducing. This would include ways in which the project would foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Section 15126.2(d) reads as follows:

“Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may further tax existing community service facilities so consideration must be given to this impact. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed growth in any area is beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.”

Redevelopment projects, by their nature, are growth-inducing. The Proposed Project is intended to foster economic growth within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) by promoting redevelopment, facilitating public and private investment and the development of housing supply and affordable housing. Additionally, some short-term employment opportunities would be provided by construction activity resulting from the Proposed Project. Given that the primary objective of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan is to foster revitalization in the Project Area, the Proposed Project would also be growth inducing. Thus, although the Proposed Project would induce growth in the Project Area, such growth inducement would be consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.

In addition, the Proposed Project would not induce growth in an area that is not already developed with infrastructure to accommodate such growth. The proposed project site is located within a highly developed urban setting and, as discussed in Section III.I, Public Services, and Section III.J, Utilities, does not include the construction of new infrastructure that would promote growth in an inappropriate location. It is anticipated that existing and/or upgrading of existing water, fire mains, and sewer utility lines could adequately service the Proposed Project. Police and fire services in the area would also adequately serve the Proposed Project. Thus, in this manner, the necessary infrastructure that normally triggers growth when introduced are already in place within the Project Area.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Growth Inducing Impacts Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page VI-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

VII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires discussion of the uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project. The use of such resources may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Section 15127 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires this discussion be included in EIRs prepared in connection with the adoption, amendment or enactment of a plan, policy or ordinance of a public agency. Since the Proposed Project consists of an amendment to the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, the required discussion is included in this section of the Draft EIR.

Construction of development projects anticipated to occur under the Proposed Project would require the use of nonrenewable and/or slowly renewable resources (i.e., wood, sand and gravel, fossil fuels, metals, water) for building materials and to fuel construction vehicles and equipment. Subsequent use and maintenance of development resulting from the Proposed Project would also require the long-term consumption of these non-renewable resources at levels typical for such a commercial development. Such consumption would represent a long-term commitment of essentially non-renewable resources.

Development projects resulting from the Proposed Project would represent an essentially irreversible commitment of the use of the land within the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. The Proposed Project would guide such development in conformance with local planning goals and policies. While in the very long term other uses may replace existing uses, reversion to low density or non-urban uses would be unlikely.

With respect to potential damage to the environment, long-term increases in ambient air pollution and noise levels would also occur as a result of the Proposed Project, although not at significant levels. Potential irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the project is unlikely, as their likelihood for occurrence would be minimized through compliance with existing federal, state and local safety regulations.

The commitment of resources required for the type and level of proposed development would limit the availability of these resources for future generations for other uses during the life of the Proposed Project. However, this resource consumption would be consistent with the growth and anticipated change in the Los Angeles urban region. Moreover, even in the absence of the Proposed Project, the same resources would merely be consumed by other development in the region. Further, beneficial redevelopment of the area could reduce consumption of resources compared to other potential urban development patterns by promoting development in an area already served by existing infrastructure and by mass transit.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page VII-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

VIII. ORGANIZATIONS/PERSONS CONTACTED

LEAD AGENCY

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles 354 South Spring Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Pauline Lewicki, Principal Environmental Planner, Environmental Review Robert Manford, City Planner, Environmental Review Kip Rudd, Senior Project Planner, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Jeff Skornek, Project Manager, Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Bob Fazio, Senior Planner, Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Donna DeBruhl-Hemer, Project Manager, Hollywood Redevelopment Project Julia Duenes, Associate Planner, Hollywood Redevelopment Project

Agency Special Counsel Murray Kane, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman Kathy Ng, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman

EIR PREPARATION

Christopher A. Joseph & Associates 11849 W Olympic Boulevard, Suite 101 Los Angeles, California 90064 Craig Fajnor, Vice President, EIR Project Manager Jocelyn Swain, Senior Environmental Planner Jennifer Johnson, Associate Environmental Planner Leah Dierkes, Assistant Environmental Planner Christopher Schnieders, Senior Word Processor

Traffic/Transportation Kaku Associates Dick Kaku, President Paul Taylor, Vice President

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Organizations/Persons Contacted Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page VIII-1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

Netai Basu, Associate

Project Definition/Air Quality Terry A Hayes Associates Terry Hayes, President Randy Cooper, Project Manager Teresa Li, Air Quality Planner

Noise Martin Newson & Associates Martin Newson, Principal Michael Brown, Director of Technical Services Amrir Toufali, Acoustic Engineer

Historic Resources/Population, Housing & Employment Myra L Frank and Associates Myra Frank, President Rick Starzak, Project Manager/Senior Architectural Historian Lee Lisecki, Project Manager Catherine Barrier, Architectural Historian

Hazardous Materials EMG Jim Bartlett, Project Manager

ORGANIZATIONS/PERSONS CONTACTED

Los Angeles Police Department Crime Prevention Unit

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Solid Resources & Citywide Recycling Division, Mistie Joyce

City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Wastewater Engineering Services Division, Adel H. Hagekhalil, Division Manager

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Organizations/Persons Contacted Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page VIII-2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

City of Los Angeles Fire Department Inspector Joseph Jackson

Los Angeles Unified School District Office of Environmental Health and Safety, Raymond E. Dippel, Assistant Environmental Planning Specialist

Los Angeles Unified School District Developers Fees Program Office, Sonja White, Administrative Analyst

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Environmental Assessment Department, Charles C. Holloway, Supervisor James Laschober, Project Management Engineer

City of Los Angeles Public Library Library Facilities Division, Fontayne Holmes, Director

City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation Maureen Tamuri, Assistant General Manager

Southern California Gas Company Geographic Services, Teri McBurney, Mapping Supervisor

City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation Robert Takasaki, Senior Transportation Engineer

REFERENCES

Correspondence from Los Angeles Police Department, Crime Prevention Unit, April 2002.

City of Los Angeles Fire Code, Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), Section 57.09.07.

Facilities Learning Division, www.laschools.org, April 22, 2002.

Los Angeles Unified School District correspondence from Raymond Dippel, Assistant Environmental Planning Specialist, March 26, 2002.

City of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation correspondence from Maureen Tamuri, Assistant General Manager, March 7, 2002.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Organizations/Persons Contacted Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page VIII-3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress

Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles February 2003

City of Los Angeles Public Library correspondence from Fontayne Holmes, Director, January 28, 2002.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation correspondence from Adel H. Hagekhalil, March 20, 2002.

City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power correspondence from Charles C. Holloway, February 11, 2002.

Phone conversation with Sonja White, Administrative Analyst, LAUSD Developer Fees Program Office, April 19, 2002.

City of Los Angeles, Draft LA CEQA Thresholds Guide, May 1998.

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, September 2001.

City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power, Urban Water Management Plan, Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Annual Update, page 10.

California Integrated Waste Management Board, Active Disposal Sites, January 2001.

LA Citywide General Plan Framework Draft Environmental Impact Report, 1995.

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power correspondence from James Laschober, February 7, 2002.

SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook 1993.

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Organizations/Persons Contacted Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 1985052903) Page VIII-4 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT ~ Work In Progress