City of Los Angeles

LANKERSHIM LOFTS PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I SCH No. 2010051083

Prepared for: City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency 1200 West 7th Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90017

Prepared by:

IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. 803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite A Camarillo, California 93012

APRIL 2011 LANKERSHIM LOFTS PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report

Volume I

Prepared for:

City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency 1200 West 7th Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles, California 90017

Prepared by:

Impact Sciences, Inc. 803 Camarillo Springs Road, Suite A Camarillo, California 93012

April 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Volume I

Section Page 1.0 Introduction ...... 1.0-1 2.0 Summary ...... 2.0-1 3.0 Project Description ...... 3.0-1 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis...... 4.0-1 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 4.1-1 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change...... 4.2-1 4.3 Cultural Resources...... 4.3-1 4.4 Noise ...... 4.4-1 4.5 Land Use and Planning...... 4.5-1 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...... 4.6-1 5.0 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ...... 5.0-1 6.0 Growth Inducement...... 6.0-1 7.0 Alternatives...... 7.0-1 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant...... 8.0-1 9.0 List of EIR Preparers ...... 9.0-1 10.0 References and Persons Consulted ...... 10.0-1

Impact Sciences, Inc. i Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 Volume II

Appendices 1.0 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and comments on the NOP Notice of Preparation Comments on the NOP 4.2 Air Quality Documentation Environmental and Regulatory Setting for Air Quality and Global Climate Change Construction and Operational Emissions LST Lookup Thresholds CO Hotspots Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.3 Historic Resources Assessment 4.4 Noise Modeling Analysis 4.6 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report Soil Vapor Survey Asbestos Reports 7.0 Project Alternative Renovation Studies Architectural and Engineering Feasibility Study Construction Estimate Commercial Real Estate Rental Study Profitability Analysis 8.0 Memorandum Traffic Study Waiver Request Update

Impact Sciences, Inc. ii Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 3.0-1 Regional Location Map...... 3.0-3 3.0-2 Project Vicinity Map...... 3.0-4 3.0-3 First Floor Plan...... 3.0-7 3.0-4 Typical Floor Plan ...... 3.0-8 3.0-5 Open Space Plan...... 3.0-9 3.0-6 Building Elevations ...... 3.0-10 3.0-7 Subterranean Level One ...... 3.0-13 3.0-8 Subterranean Level Two...... 3.0-14 4.1-1 Photo of Office Building...... 4.1-3 4.1-2 Photo of Office Building and Parking Structure ...... 4.1-4 4.1-3 Photo of 5059 Lankershim Boulevard...... 4.1-5 4.1-4 Photo of 5056–5058 Fair Avenue ...... 4.1-6 4.1-5 Photos of 5047 Lankershim Boulevard...... 4.1-7 4.1-6 Winter Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 9:00 AM–11:00 AM ...... 4.1-20 4.1-7 Winter Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 12:00 PM–2:00 PM...... 4.1-21 4.1-8 Winter Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 3:00 PM...... 4.1-22 4.1-9 Summer Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 9:00 AM–11:00 AM ...... 4.1-23 4.1-10 Summer Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 12:00 PM–2:00 PM...... 4.1-24 4.1-11 Summer Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 3:00 PM–5:00 PM...... 4.1-25 4.4-1 Common Noise Levels...... 4.4-3 4.4-2 Noise Attenuation by Barriers and Elevation Differences...... 4.4-4 4.4-3 Typical Levels of Ground-bourne Vibration ...... 4.4-7 4.4-4 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ...... 4.4-8 4.4-5 Noise Monitoring Locations ...... 4.4-15 4.4-6 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment...... 4.4-22

Impact Sciences, Inc. iii Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 2.0-1 Summary Table of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 2.0-7 4.2-1 SCAQMD Daily Construction Emissions Thresholds...... 4.2-4 4.2-2 Localized Significance Thresholds for Proposed Project (Construction)...... 4.2-5 4.2-3 SCAQMD Daily Operation Emission Thresholds...... 4.2-5 4.2-4 Localized Significance Thresholds for Proposed Project (Operation)...... 4.2-7 4.2-5 Estimated Construction Emissions ...... 4.2-12 4.2-6 Estimated Construction Emissions – Phase II with Operational Phase I Overlap ...... 4.2-13 4.2-7 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis...... 4.2-14 4.2-8 Maximum Daily Estimated Operational Emissions ...... 4.2-16 4.2-9 Maximum 2012 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations – Future Plus Project ...... 4.2-19 4.2-10 Operational Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis...... 4.2-22 4.2-11 Comparison of VMT and Population Growth...... 4.2-26 4.2-12 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions...... 4.2-29 4.2-13 Estimated Net Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions...... 4.2-31 4.2-14 Consistency with the LA Green Plan...... 4.2-33 4.2-15 Consistency with CARB Recommended Policies to Achieve the Reductions Targets under SB 375...... 37 4.4-1 Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation (dB(A))...... 4.4-2 4.4-2 Presumed Ambient Noise Levels...... 4.4-12 4.4-3 City of Los Angeles Land Use Compatibility Guidelines...... 4.4-12 4.4-4 Existing Noise Levels...... 4.4-16 8.0-1 Water Demand...... 8.0-23 8.0-2 Wastewater Generation ...... 8.0-24 8.0-3 Solid Waste Generation ...... 8.0-25

Impact Sciences, Inc. iv Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 1.0 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

This introduction is intended to provide the reader with important information regarding (1) the purpose of an environmental impact report (EIR); (2) a description of the environmental review process conducted for the proposed Lankershim Lofts project to date; (3) the Lead, Responsible, and Trustee agencies for the proposed project; and (4) the general format of this EIR.

PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

This Draft EIR evaluates the Lankershim Lofts project (the proposed project) proposed for a 1.46-acre site on the corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street in the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing six-story office building (Existing Building) and associated parking structure that currently occupy the site and the construction of a five-story building containing a maximum of approximately 172,080 square feet of floor area, two levels of subterranean parking, and one level of at-grade parking. The ground level would house 11,200 square feet of commercial space fronting Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street, and would also include a 1,330-square-foot lobby and leasing office for the residential portion of the building, which would also front on Otsego Street. A total of 156 residential units would be located on the second through fifth floors of the proposed project. It is currently anticipated that construction of the proposed project would begin in July 2011 and be completed in 2014.

This Draft EIR has been prepared by CRA/LA in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and applicable CRA/LA procedures for implementing CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, including applicable City CEQA documentation procedures and requirements. This EIR identifies and discusses potential project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts that may occur should the proposed project be implemented. The intent of this EIR is to (1) be an informational document, which serves to inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project; (2) identify possible ways to minimize or avoid any potential significant impacts either through mitigation or the adoption of alternatives; and (3) disclose to the public required agency approvals.

The principal use of an EIR is to provide input and information to the comprehensive planning analysis undertaken for the proposed project. Given the important role of the EIR in this planning and decision-making process, it is important that the information presented in the EIR be factual, adequate,

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 1.0 Introduction

and complete. The standards for adequacy of an EIR, defined in Section 15151 of the State CEQA Guidelines, are as follows:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

This EIR has been prepared by CRA/LA in accordance with the above standards for adequacy of an EIR under CEQA.

SCOPE AND CONTENT

CRA/LA determined that an EIR should be prepared for the Lankershim Lofts project after conducting preliminary review of the proposed project in accordance with Section 15060 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Following this determination, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and circulated June 30, 2010, for the required 30-day review period. The purpose of the NOP was to solicit early comments from public agencies with expertise in subjects that would be discussed in the Draft EIR. The NOP and comments received during the NOP review period are contained in Appendix 1.0 of this EIR.

Topics evaluated in this Draft EIR have been identified based on the responses to the NOP, comments received during the NOP comment period, and review of the proposed project by CRA/LA staff. The CRA/LA determined through this initial review process that impacts related to the following topics are potentially significant and require further assessment in this Draft EIR:

 Aesthetics  Land Use and Planning

 Air Quality and Global Climate Change  Noise

 Cultural Resources

LEAD, RESPONSIBLE, AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES

The public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project is designated as the Lead Agency under CEQA. For this proposed project, CRA/LA is the Lead Agency, and is responsible for ensuring that the EIR satisfies the procedural and substantive requirements of CEQA and for considering and certifying the adequacy and completeness of the EIR prior to making any decision regarding the proposed project.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 1.0 Introduction

“Responsible Agency” means a public agency that proposes to carry out or approve a project for which the Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For purposes of CEQA, the term Responsible Agency includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency having discretionary approval authority over the proposed project. For this proposed project, the City of Los Angeles serves as a Responsible Agency. Other City of Los Angeles departments whose approval is required for permits such as demolition, grading, and building permits include:

 Department of Building and Safety

 Department of Transportation

 Police Department

 Fire Department

 City Council

 Department of Public Works (Bureau of Engineering, Street Services, Sanitation, Urban Forestry, et al.)

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, etc.) include:

 South Coast Air Quality Management District

 Regional Water Quality Control Board

 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA)

 Los Angeles County Health Department

During the NOP review period, no other public agency identified itself as a Responsible Agency.

“Trustee Agency” means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. During the NOP review period, no public agency identified itself as a Trustee Agency. Responses were received from the following agencies and are included in Appendix 1.0 of this Draft EIR:

 Metropolitan Transportation Authority

 Native American Heritage Commission

 South Coast Air Quality Management District

 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

 City of Los Angeles, Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 1.0 Introduction

EIR REVIEW PROCESS

This EIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period. During this period, written comments concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR may be submitted by any interested person and/or affected agency, to the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles 1200 West 7th Street, Los Angeles, California 90017.

Following the public review period, all oral and written comments will be responded to in writing and incorporated into a Final EIR. At least 10 days prior to a hearing to certify the Final EIR, proposed responses to comments on the Draft EIR by Responsible Agencies will be sent to those agencies as required by CEQA. The Final EIR will then be considered by the CRA/LA Board, which will determine whether to certify the adequacy and completeness of the document in accordance with CEQA. No aspect of the proposed project would be approved until after the Final EIR is certified.

BACKGROUND

The CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning approved a mixed-use project on the project site in 2008. The approved project included 130 multi-family dwelling units and 5,125 square feet of ground floor commercial space located south and west of the Existing Building.

REPORT FORMAT

As stated, a principal objective of CEQA is that the environmental review process be public. In meeting this objective, the EIR must inform members of the general public, decision makers, and technically oriented reviewers of the physical impacts associated with a proposed project. To this end, specific features have been incorporated into this EIR to make it more understandable for non-technically oriented reviewers, yet provide the technical information necessary for the decision makers.

A description of the organization of this EIR and the content of each section is provided below to assist the reader in using this EIR as a source of information about the proposed project. Sections of the Draft EIR following this introduction are organized as follows:

Section 2.0, Summary, includes a general description of the environmental setting, project description, and alternatives to the proposed project. Environmental impacts and mitigation measures are summarized in a table.

Section 3.0, Project Description, presents a detailed description of the proposed project as required by the State CEQA Guidelines. Topics addressed in this section include the project objectives and the characteristics of the proposed project.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 1.0 Introduction

Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, contains analysis of each of the environmental topics addressed in this EIR. Each topic is addressed in separate subsections: environmental setting, project impacts, cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts after mitigation.

Section 5.0, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes, evaluates whether the proposed project would result in the irretrievable commitment of resources or would cause irreversible changes in the environment.

Section 6.0, Growth Inducement, discusses the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth in the area.

Section 7.0, Alternatives, provides analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the reasons for selecting the analyzed alternatives are discussed, in addition to a comparative analysis of each alternative with the proposed project.

Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant, provides an overview of those environmental topics for which the CRA/LA has determined the proposed project would not result in a significant impact.

Section 9.0, List of EIR Preparers, provides a list of persons involved in the preparation of this EIR.

Section 10.0, References and Persons Consulted, provides a list of all organizations and persons contacted during preparation of the Draft EIR, and a list of all documents used as a basis of information for the Draft EIR.

Appendices to this EIR include the NOP and written responses, as well as selected technical reports and data used or generated during preparation of the Draft EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This section summarizes the information and analysis presented in the main body of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires an EIR to include a brief summary of the proposed project and its impacts in language as clear and simple as reasonably practical. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, this summary presents information on the Lankershim Lofts project, the potential environmental effects of the project, and measures identified to mitigate these effects.

PROJECT LOCATION

The Lankershim Lofts project site is located on the southwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street in the North Hollywood community of the City of Los Angeles, approximately 0.6-mile north of the Ventura Freeway (State Route [SR] 134) and approximately 0.35 mile east of the Hollywood Freeway (SR-170). The approximately 1.46-acre (63,610-square-foot) project site is bounded by Otsego Street on the north, residential and commercial uses on the south, Lankershim Boulevard on the east, and Fair Avenue on the west.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

This Draft EIR evaluates the proposed Lankershim Lofts project (proposed project). It was designed to implement the goals of City of Los Angeles (the City) and the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA) as outlined in the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing uses and construction of a five-story building containing a maximum of approximately 172,080 square feet of floor area, two levels of subterranean parking, and one level of at-grade parking. The ground level would house 11,200 square feet of commercial space fronting Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street, and would also include a 1,330-square-foot lobby and leasing office for the residential portion of the building, which would also front on Otsego Street. This parcel would be paved, striped for 13 (including the one handicap stall) parking stalls, and used as a temporary parking lot for the existing Citibank business until parking developed as part of the project is completed. The proposed project includes 156 residential units that would be located on levels two through five. Construction of the proposed project is expected to take approximately 32 months and be completed in 2014.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial, and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

 Provide employment opportunities.

BACKGROUND

The CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning approved a mixed-use project on the project site in 2008. The approved project included 130 multi-family dwelling units and 5,125 square feet of ground floor commercial space located south and west of the Existing Building.

AREAS OF KNOWN CONTROVERSY

The State CEQA Guidelines require that a Draft EIR identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. Comments were received from the public agencies, and interested parties in response to the circulated NOP and Initial Study. Also, comments on the 2008 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration have been used to identify areas of known controversy. Highlighted issues of concern and areas of controversy include historical resources, aesthetics and shade-shadow impacts, noise, land use, hazards and hazardous materials, and impacts related to air quality and climate change. All of the areas of controversy are addressed in this EIR.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

ALTERNATIVES

The principal purpose of alternatives is to define specific strategies that would reduce the magnitude of, or eliminate, potential project-related environmental impacts.

The State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that alternatives addressed in an EIR should be feasible and should not be considered remote or speculative. The State CEQA Guidelines state, “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site.”

In response to the criteria outlining requirements for an alternatives analysis, four alternatives to the project have been selected and evaluated:

 Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development

 Alternative 2 – Reuse of Existing Office Building

 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Reuse of Existing Office Building for Residential Use

 Alternative 4 – Reduced Density (15 Percent Reduction)

Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development

The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to be evaluated by Section 15126(2)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines. As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis must examine the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Alternative 2 – Reuse of Existing Office Building

This alternative examines retaining and rehabilitating the Existing Building to make it leasable and building a smaller mixed-use project as previously approved by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles on the remainder of the site. With this alternative, the Existing Building would not be demolished; instead, it would be renovated for continued use as office space. Renovations would include upgrades to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act; cleaning and/or refinishing of interior and exterior surface treatments; replacement glazing to meet Title 24 Energy and seismic requirements; complete renovation and removal of existing mechanical yard to meet current standards; new fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems to meet code; new high-speed data and telephone system; and structural upgrades, retrofits, and reinforcing to

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

meet current seismic standards. The remaining structures on the project site, including the parking structure associated with the Existing Building, would be demolished, and a 135,064-square-foot, five-story, mixed-use building would be constructed as allowed by approvals granted by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles.

The new mixed-use building would contain 5,152 square feet of commercial space and a 1,170-square-foot lobby on the ground floor fronting Lankershim Boulevard. Floors two through five would contain a total of 130 multi-family residential units. One level of at-grade parking and two levels of subterranean parking would provide for the parking needs of both the project and the Existing Building.

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Reuse of Existing Office Building for Residential Use

This alternative examines retaining the Existing Building and adapting it for residential use. This alternative examines rehabilitating the building with retail uses on the ground floor and residential units on the floors above. The smaller mixed-use project as previously approved by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles would be built on the remainder of the site. With this alternative, the Existing Building would not be demolished and would be renovated as a mixed-use building with retail space on the first floor and 22 residential units on floors two through six. Renovations would include upgrades to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act; cleaning and/or refinishing of interior and exterior surface treatments; major interior renovations on floors two through six to convert office space to residential units; replacement glazing to meet Title 24 Energy and seismic requirements; complete renovation and removal of existing mechanical yard to meet current standards; new fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems to meet code; new high-speed data and telephone system; and structural upgrades, retrofits, and reinforcing to meet current seismic standards. Residential units would range from studio units to two-bedroom units and would be between 450 and 1,080 square feet in size. The remaining structures on the project site, including the parking structure associated with the Existing Building, would be demolished, and a 135,064-square-foot, five-story, mixed-use building would be constructed as allowed by approvals granted by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles. One level of at-grade parking and two levels of subterranean parking would provide for the parking needs of both the project and the Existing Building.

Alternative 4 – Reduced Density Alternative (15 Percent Reduction)

The Reduced Density Alternative considers development of the entire project site with a reduced-density mixed-use project. This alternative would include 133 residential units and a total of 9,520 square feet of commercial uses for a total building square footage of 162,206 square feet. The reduction in residential units would reduce the proposed building height by one story. Under this alternative, all existing structures on the site, including the Existing Building, would be demolished and removed. The

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

alternative’s design would be similar to the proposed project, including two subterranean parking levels, ground-floor retail and parking, and levels two through four containing the residential portion of the project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in an EIR. Of the alternatives considered in this section, the No Project/No Development Alternative, is environmentally superior to the other alternatives, because this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable historical resource and construction noise impacts while also creating less impacts to air quality, land use, and operational noise. According to State CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Of the other alternatives considered, the Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative is considered environmentally superior, as it would avoid the significant impact of the project in historical resources that would result from demolition of the Existing Building. Further, the Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative would more completely preserve the historical integrity of the building as compared to the Adaptive Reuse of the Existing Building for Residential Uses Alternative, due to the reduced level of renovation required. The Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative would not increase the severity of any other impact to a level of significance. This alternative would fully meet some objectives; the following objectives would only be partially met:

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

The Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative would avoid the significant impact of the proposed project on historic resources by preserving the Existing Building. In order to determine the financial feasibility of this alternative, the project applicant prepared studies identifying the renovations required to bring the building up to current standards for office space in the market, the estimated price of these renovations, the market rental value of the renovated building, and financial analysis of the cost and revenues to determine the feasibility of renovating and retaining the building. These studies are provided in Appendix 7.0 of this Draft EIR and summarized below.

M2A Milofsky, Michali and Cox Architects, Structural Focus, Donald F. Dickenson and Associates, and MEP Engineers prepared an architectural and engineering study which identifies the work required for

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

basic repair and replacement of existing systems, upgrades required to meet current building code requirements, additional upgrades to improve the building’s performance for current market needs, and upgrades to extend the life of the building for another 40 to 50 years. Based upon the findings of the preliminary architectural and engineering study, Warner Construction, Inc., estimated the total cost of renovations including permitting, demolition, materials, and labor costs at approximately $8 million dollars.

Ramsey Shilling Co., Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., estimated that after completion of the Class A tenant improvements as identified by the architectural and engineering study, the project applicant could expect to achieve residential rents of $2.30 to $2.75 per rentable square foot per month. These estimates are based upon current residential space available within the North Hollywood area.

The costs to rehabilitate the building to current standards in relation to the current rentable rates produce an anticipated rate of return of approximately 3 percent. A rate of return of approximately 10 percent would be required for the applicant to be able to obtain the financing for the renovations. Based on the costs to renovate the building and the projected rental income, the rate of return would be approximately 3 percent. Based on these studies, it was determined that it is not feasible to renovate and retain the Existing Building for the following reasons:

 The major cost to upgrade the structural system necessary to provide adequate life safety for the occupants.

 The cost to upgrade the outdated mechanical, electrical plumbing, and elevator systems.

 The cost to repair the exterior of the building to meet current energy standards.

 The declining office leasing market.

 The lack of available debt and equity for speculative office buildings at the resulting rate of return.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Table 2.0-1, Summary Table of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, presents a summary of the environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. It has been organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, and is arranged in four columns: the identified impact under each EIR issue area, the level of significance prior to mitigation, mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the level of impacts, and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures, if applicable. Compliance with existing City programs, practices, and procedures are assumed for purposes of determining the level of significance prior to mitigation. Where no mitigation is required, it is noted in the table.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Table 2.0-1 Summary Table of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation

Aesthetics

The proposed project would be compatible with the character, Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. scale, height, massing, siting, and architectural articulation of existing development in North Hollywood.

Implementation of the project would not affect any natural open Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. space areas

The replacement of the existing buildings with the proposed Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. project would change the visual character and density of the project site but would be consistent with surrounding development.

The project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on a Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. scenic vista, and no further analysis of this topic is necessary.

No natural or man-made features or valued views exist on the Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. project site

The project would not affect views from a designated scenic Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. highway, corridor, or parkway.

The project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on a Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. scenic vista.

Shadow-sensitive uses would not be shaded by project-related Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October)?

The proposed project would not significantly increase nighttime Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. light levels or cause excessive lighting spill over onto adjacent uses.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Air Quality

Construction emissions of the proposed project would not exceed Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. the South Coast Air Quality Monitoring District (SCAQMD) construction emissions thresholds

The on-site construction emissions of the proposed project would Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds.

Operational Emissions of the proposed project would not exceed Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds.

Operation of the proposed project would not exceed the Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. SCAQMD secondary operational thresholds.

The proposed project’s on-site operational emissions would not Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significant thresholds.

The operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD toxic Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. air contaminant thresholds.

The project would not result in an incremental increase in Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that exceeds the SCAQMD draft Tier 3 significance screening level and does not meet the SCAQMD draft Tier 4 significance threshold (if the Tier 3 level is exceeded).

The project would not conflict with applicable portions of the LA Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. Green Plan and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Cultural Resources

The proposed project would cause the demolition of the building Potentially significant. 4.3-1 The developer shall retain a professional Significant and located at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard that is considered a photographer, as approved by the Los Angeles unavoidable. significant historical resource under CEQA. Conservancy, to document the existing office building at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard using the Secretary of the Interior and Historic American Building Standards (HABS) documentation prior to demolition. One set of the photographic documentation shall be submitted to the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. Another set of the photographic documentation shall be submitted to the Los Angeles Conservancy for storage at a repository selected by the Los Angeles Conservancy, and the Los Angeles Conservancy shall be responsible for said storage costs.

Construction activities associated with project implementation Potentially significant. 4.3-2 If archaeological resources are uncovered on Less than significant. would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources the project site during excavation, the developer must notify the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety immediately and work must stop within a 100- foot radius until a qualified archeologist has evaluated the find. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. If the find is determined by the qualified archeologist to be a unique archeological resource, as defined by Section 2103.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. If the find is determined not to be a unique archeological resource, no further action is necessary and construction may continue.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Cultural Resources (continued)

Construction activities associated with project implementation Potentially significant. 4.3-3 In the event previously unknown Less than significant. would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources paleontological resources are uncovered during excavation of the project site, the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety shall be notified immediately and work within 100 feet of the find shall stop to allow a certified paleontologist to evaluate and appropriately remove the find for preservation. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution.

Noise

Construction noise would not exceed the applicable noise Potentially significant. 4.4-1 Trucks transporting demolition and Significant and thresholds with the implementation of mitigation measures. construction equipment shall be limited to unavoidable non-residential streets to reduce noise impacts, where feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Los Angeles representatives prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4.4-2 All delivery trucks and stationary vehicles shall stage in the designated staging area, which is off site on at the triangle shaped parking lot on the west side of the Alley south of the project and north of Hesby Street. Delivery hours shall be restricted to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM within 200 feet of a residential zone.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Noise (continued)

4.4-3 The applicant of the proposed project shall comply with City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter XI, Noise Regulation, which requires the applicant to post signs prior to construction activities with a hot line phone number for residents and neighbors to call with for construction information and/or to report problems. The applicant and/or project contractor for construction shall ensure that all feasible noise attenuation for construction equipment is being used at the project site and that all regulations and ordinances related to noise generation are being followed. If the City of Los Angeles or the construction relations liaison receives a complaint, the liaison shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. Contract specifications shall be included in the project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Los Angeles representatives prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4.4-4 The project contractors shall muffle and shield intakes and exhaust of construction equipment and shroud and shield impact tools.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Noise (continued)

4.4-5 The construction contractor shall construct a noise barrier 10 feet tall along the total length of the western and southern perimeter of the project site. The installation of the noise barrier shall occur prior to commencement of Phase I construction. After installation of the noise barriers, the barriers shall stay in place through the end of Phase II construction. The noise barriers shall be made out of any outdoor weather-resistant solid material that meets a minimum sound transmission loss. The use of the noise barrier between construction equipment and the sensitive receptors to the northwest and west would attenuate construction equipment noise levels as much as 10.5 dB(A). The use of the noise barrier between construction equipment and the sensitive receptors to the south of the project site would attenuate construction equipment noise levels as much as 18.7 dB(A).

Vibration levels would not exceed the Federal Transit Less than significant None are required. Less than significant. Administration threshold for architectural damage to non- engineered timber and masonry buildings.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Noise (continued)

The proposed project would not exceed applicable thresholds for 4.4-6 All private exterior livable space (i.e., Less than significant. interior or exterior noise with the implementation of mitigation balconies), located on the second floor, measures. fronting Lankershim Boulevard, shall be required to construct a 4-foot-tall (42 inches high from the inside floor of the balconies) solid barrier. All private exterior livable space (i.e., balconies), located on floors three and four fronting Lankershim Boulevard, shall be required to construct a 21 inch (measured from the inside floor of the balconies) solid barrier. Solid Barriers shall consist of a solid material such as, plexiglass or wood, in place of an open wood or iron railing. This solid barrier between the Lankershim Boulevard and the exterior livable space would reduce noise levels between 7.0 dB(A) to 10.0 dB(A).1 The acoustical consultant shall approve the final heights and/or materials for the enclosures of the exterior livable spaces. 4.4-7 All private interior livable space located on floors two through five fronting Lankershim Boulevard shall be required to incorporate construction techniques to reduce interior noise levels to 55.0 dB(A) or less, as specified by an acoustical consultant approved by the Community Redevelopment Agency. Example of techniques that may be applied include, but are not limited to, attaching interior sheet rock of the exterior walls assemblies to studs by resilient channels, staggering of studs or double walls; providing window assemblies with a laboratory tested STC rating of 30 or greater, baffling roof or attic vents facing the noise source, and double pane windows.

1 Canter, Larry W. “Prediction and Assessment of Impacts on the Noise Environment.” Environmental Impact Assessment, 1996.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Land Use and Planning

The proposed project is consistent with adopted land use/density Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. designation in the Community Plan, Redevelopment Plan or Specific Plan for the site; and with the General Plan or adopted environmental goals or policies contained in other applicable plans.

The project would not impact surrounding land uses and would Less than significant. None are required. Less than significant. be consistent with other development in the area.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or Less than significant None are required Less than significant the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or Less than significant None are required Less than significant the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle Less than significant None are required Less than significant hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

The project is not located on a site that is included on a list of Potentially significant 4.6-1 Prior to demolition of the site buildings, a Less than significant hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government comprehensive lead-based paint survey shall Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant be performed. If lead-based paint is found in hazard to the public or the environment. the building materials that will be disturbed by demolition activities, the project applicant shall comply with the requirements outlined by Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1 during demolition activities. Lead-contaminated debris shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as all local, state, and federal regulations regarding lead-contaminated materials.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 2.0 Summary

Level of Significance Level of Significance Project Impacts Without Mitigation Mitigation Measures With Mitigation Hazards and Hazardous Materials (continued)

4.6-2 Should areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, tanks, stained soil, or odorous soils be encountered, further investigation and analysis shall be required, and materials shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations and with oversight by the appropriate regulatory agencies. 4.6-3 Prior to demolition and grading activities, contractors shall be required to have a construction worker safety plan that complies with OSHA Safety and Health Standards and shall address, as appropriate, air monitoring for sub-surface work activities, personnel protective and safety equipment, and worker training.

The project would not result in a safety hazard for people Less than significant None are required Less than significant residing or working in the project site as a result of being located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The project result in a safety hazard for people residing or Less than significant None are required Less than significant working in the project site as a result of being located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

The project would not impair implementation of or physically Less than significant None are required Less than significant interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

The project would not expose people or structures to a significant Less than significant None are required Less than significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-15 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PURPOSE

The purpose of the project description is to describe the proposed project in a manner that would be meaningful to the public, reviewing agencies, and decision makers. As stated in Section 15124 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a complete project description must contain the following information: (1) a precise location and boundaries of the proposed project, shown on a detailed map, along with a regional map of the project's location; (2) a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project, which should include the underlying purpose of the project; (3) a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (4) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the environmental impact report (EIR), including a list of the agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision making, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review and consultation requirements imposed by federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). The State CEQA Guidelines state that an adequate project description need not be exhaustive, but should provide the level of detail necessary for the evaluation and review of the project's potential significant environmental impacts.

The project description is the starting point for all environmental analysis required by CEQA. Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the level of detail in an EIR should correspond to the level of specificity defined in the project description. This project description section serves as the basis for the environmental analysis contained in this EIR. This section describes the proposed project, as well as its location and characteristics, and it includes statements describing the project's objectives and the intended uses of this EIR.

In this case, the project proposes the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial building on Lankershim Boulevard in North Hollywood. This EIR refers to this proposed development as the “proposed project,” “project site,” or the “Lankershim Lofts project.”

PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS

As illustrated in Figure 3.0-1, Regional Location Map, the project site is located on the southwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street in the North Hollywood community of the City of Los Angeles, approximately 0.60 mile north of the Ventura Freeway (State Route [SR] 134) and approximately 0.35 mile east of the Hollywood Freeway (SR-170). As shown on Figure 3.0-2, Project Vicinity Map, the 1.46-acre (63,610-square-foot) project site is bounded by Otsego Street on the north, residential and commercial uses on the south, Lankershim Boulevard on the east, and Fair Avenue on the west.

The project site is comprised of three contiguous parcels located at 5077 and 5059 North Lankershim Boulevard and 5056–5058 North Fair Avenue. Approximately 42,764 square feet of the northern and

Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 3.0 Project Description

eastern portions of the project site are zoned C4-1-CA and approximately 22,122 square feet of the southwest portion of the project site is zoned R4-1-CA. The parcel located at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard is approximately 7,096 square feet in size and is zoned C4-1-CA. The northernmost portion of the project site, 5077 Lankershim Boulevard, is developed with a six-story office building (Existing Building), and an associated two-story above-grade parking structure. The Existing Building was built in 1961 and is presently 50 years old. The original construction of the Existing Building is considered to exhibit design characteristics of postwar modernist architecture; however, the structure has undergone many alterations since its construction. Citibank currently leases the ground floor, while the upper floors of office space are currently vacant. The parcels at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056 through 5058 Fair Avenue are vacant.

Land uses north of the project site are generally commercial, light industry, or residential; a small parking lot, auto repair shop and retail furniture store are located directly across Otsego Street. A four-story multi-family apartment building is located northwest of the site at Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. Land uses south of the project site include multi-family residential and commercial uses, and further south on Hesby Street land uses include multi-family residential dwellings and a Bank of America. West of the project site, Fair Avenue generally supports low-rise multi-family residential dwellings one and three stories in height with a church located on the southwest corner of Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. East of the project site, Lankershim Boulevard is predominantly characterized by one- and two-story retail and commercial uses.

BACKGROUND

The CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning approved a mixed-use project on the site in 2008. The approved project included 130 multi-family dwelling units and 5,125 square feet of ground floor commercial space located south and west of the Existing Building.

STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the project description in an EIR include “a statement of the objectives sought by the applicant,” which should include “the underlying purpose of the project.” The objectives of the proposed project are as follows:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial, and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 Kern County

Los Angeles County LIFORN CA IA

O ALIF RNIA 14 C 138

California Aqueduct O LIF RN CA IA 138

INTERSTATE 5

LIFORN CA IA

LIFORN 138 CA IA 18

LIFORN CA IA 138 LIFORN Los Angeles County CA IA 14 LIFORN CA IA Santa Clarita Ventura County 126

LIFORN CA IA

LIFORN 126 CA IA Project 2 Site

Porter Ranch LIFORN CA IA

LIFORN CA IA LIFORN 118 Mission Hills CA IA 118 2 Granada Hills Chatsworth

INTERSTATE

LIFORN INTERSTATE CA IA 210 27 405 Sun Valley INTERSTATE

US LIFORN Warner Center CA IA O 5 ALIF RNIA C US LIFORN 101 CA IA 101 170 North Hollywood 2 LIFORN CA IA 39

INTERSTATE Woodland Hills Encino 134 Sherman Oaks 210 US LIFORNI Pasadena CA A Calabasas 101 30 South IFORN Hollywood L CA IA INTERSTATE Pasadena US LIFORN CA IA LIFORNI San Bernardino County 27 CA A 5 Los Angeles County INTERSTATE INTERSTATE 66 23 2 Los El Monte Angeles 10 10

LIFORN Beverly Hills CA IA Monterey Park INTERSTATE ALIFORNIA C LIFORN 71 CA IA Malibu 10 1 Montbello INTERSTATE 60 Santa Monica Culver City O 605 ALIF RNIA C LIFORN CA IA LIFORN CA IA 1 Huntington 60 90 O LIF RN CA IA Park INTERSTATE Whittier LIFORN CA IA

ALIFORNIA LIFORN C 710 CA IA 110 57 P 42 Downey 72 Inglewood a INTERSTATE Santa Fe Springs

LIFORN 105 CA IA INTERSTATE c 90 INTERSTATE 5 i Paramount La Mirada 405 Gardena Compton

LIFORN f CA IA Cerritos

LIFORN i 91 CA IA INTERSTATE Carson 19 c Torrance 605 Lakewood LIFORN CA IA ALIFORNIA LIFORN C CA IA 107 INTERSTATE O 213 405 39

LIFORN CA IA

LIFORN c CA IA 1 IFOR L N 47 Long Beach CA IA LIFORN e CA IA 1 Rancho Palos 110 Verdes INTERSTATE a 405 n Terminal Island San Pedro

12 6 0 12

n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – August 2008

FIGURE 3.0-1 Regional Location Map

1027-003•08/10 LANKERSHIM BLVD. LANKERSHIM AVE. TUJUNGA

LAUREL CYN. BLVD. CYN. LAUREL AVE. VINELAND

VICTORY BLVD.

North Hollywood Area of City of Los Angeles EDISON BLVD. OXNARD ST. CLYBOURNAVE.

CAHUENGA BLVD. CAHUENGA ENSIGN AVE. FULCHER AVE. CASE AVE. ELMER ACE. FAIR AVE. KLUMP AVE

BURBANK BLVD.

KILLION ST.

CUMPSTON ST. Project CHANDLER BLVD. Site North FAIR AVE. Hollywood OTSEGO ST. ST. Park MAGNOLIA BLVD.

COLFAX AVE COLFAX

RIVERSIDE DR.

MOORPARK ST. LANKERSHIM BLVD.

s R i v e r e l e g VEN TURA BLVD. n A L o s

2640 1370 0 2640

n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – August 2010 FIGURE 3.0-2 Project Vicinity Map

1027-003•08/10 3.0 Project Description

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

 Provide employment opportunities. (The proposed project is estimated to have 35 full-time employees once fully operational)

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

The proposed project includes the demolition of the Existing Building and associated parking structure that currently occupy the site to allow for the development of a lager mixed-use project on the site. The building would be five-stories containing a maximum of approximately 172,080 square feet of floor area, two levels of subterranean parking, and one level of at-grade parking. As shown in Figure 3.0-3, First Floor Plan, the ground level would house 11,200 square feet of commercial space fronting Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street, and would also include a 1,330-square-foot lobby and leasing office for the residential portion of the building, which would also front on Otsego Street. The proposed project includes 156 residential units, which would be located on levels two through five. This parcel would be paved, striped for 13 parking stalls (including 1 handicap stall), and used as a temporary parking lot for the relocated existing Citibank branch until parking developed as part of the project is completed.

Residential Units

A total of 156 residential units are proposed on the second through fifth floors of the proposed project. Figure 3.0-4, Typical Floor Plan, shows the typical floor plan for levels two through five. The 156 residential units would include 14 studio units, 48 one-bedroom units, and 92 two-bedroom units. Studio units would be 475 square feet in size; one-bedroom units would range from 647 to 730 square feet in size; and two bedroom units would range from 980 to 1,251 square feet in size.

Recreational Amenities

A total of 18,350 square feet of recreational and open space is required by City code for these units. The proposed project provides 18,854 square feet of recreational and open space, which is comprised of 7,300 square feet of private open space, a 3,882-square-foot courtyard, a second 5,246-square-foot courtyard, a 600-square-foot gym, a 575-square-foot screening room, a 518-square-foot computer room

Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 3.0 Project Description

and 733 square feet of landscaped yard along Fair Ave with 15-foot minimum width. Figure 3.0-5, Open Space Plan, shows the layout of the recreational and open space areas included in the project.

Architectural Design

The proposed building would be approximately 55 feet in height at the roofline, as measured from the adjacent grade, and would include some roof projections and a tower that would be approximately 89 feet high. The building walls would be clad with a stucco finish. The commercial space on Lankershim Boulevard would have glass storefronts and decorative awnings over the storefronts. Building elevations are shown in Figure 3.0-6, Building Elevations.

Construction Schedule

Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in July 2011. Construction would consist of two distinct phases which would overlap for approximately four months:

Phase I would last approximately 24 months and would consist of demolition of the existing parking podium at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and construction of the proposed structure to the west of the Existing Building at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056 through 5058 Fair Avenue. After demolition of the parking podium at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard, parking for Citibank employees and patrons would be provided at a surface parking lot constructed for this purpose on site at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard.

Phase II would last approximately 12 months and would involve demolition of the Existing Building at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and construction of the remaining proposed structures. Phase II will begin once Phase I commercial space is ready for Citibank to move into. Once Citibank has moved out of the Existing Building, the Existing Building will be demolished and construction of all final structures will commence.

Unless the bank moves to another location, they will remain in their current location on the ground floor of the Existing Building until the 5,000 square feet of their new shell retail space facing Lankershim is ready for them to build out their tenant improvements and occupy this new space when the City allows them to occupy. When they have moved into their new space, the Existing Building will be able to be demolished. If Citibank moves to a new location, then the existing office building can be demolished when they have moved out.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 Legend: Project Boundary

n NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Nelson/Boivin-Architects – August 2010

FIGURE 3.0-3 First Floor Plan

1027-003•01/11 n NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Nelson/Boivin-Architects – August 2010

FIGURE 3.0-4 Typical Floor Plan

1027-003•01/10 n NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Nelson/Boivin-Architects – August 2010

FIGURE 3.0-5 Open Space Plan

1027-003•01/11 Legend: Project Boundary

n NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Nelson/Boivin-Architects – June 2009

FIGURE 3.0-6 Building Elevations

1027-003•08/10 3.0 Project Description

Excavation for the subterranean parking structure would generate approximately 30,223 cubic yards of soil that would be exported from the site. The haul route would be via Lankershim Boulevard to SR-134, subject to approval by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Construction of the proposed project is expected to take approximately 32 months and be completed in 2014.

Circulation and Parking

A total of 350 parking spaces would be provided on the ground floor and two subterranean levels. As shown in Figure 3.0-3, 94 parking stalls would be located on the ground floor for both the commercial and residential uses. The remaining 256 residential parking stalls would be located within the two subterranean levels. The parking layout for the subterranean levels is shown in Figure 3.0-7, Subterranean Level One, and Figure 3.0-8, Subterranean Level Two. Both pedestrian and vehicular access to the project site for all uses will be provided along Otsego Street via the main lobby and a driveway, along Fair Avenue via a driveway, and via a driveway accessible from the public alley off Hesby Street. Pedestrian access to the commercial portion of the project would be provided along Lankershim Boulevard.

INTENDED USES OF THE EIR

This EIR would serve as the environmental document for the actions associated with the development of the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA, the purpose of this EIR is to inform the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) and the City of Los Angeles, as Lead and Responsible agencies, respectively, of the potential significant environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project, alternatives to the proposed project, and any mitigation measures that may reduce or avoid any identified significant environmental effects. This EIR would also be used as an informational document by other public agencies in connection with any approval or permits necessary for construction and operation of the proposed project.

Project Actions

CRA/LA is the Lead Agency, pursuant to CEQA, for environmental review of this project. The project is located within the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. The applicant is requesting the following approvals from CRA/LA:

 Approval of the First Implementation Agreement for the approved Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) for the project would be required.

 The project would be subject to CRA/LA’s Housing Development Guidelines and project design review process, including site plan review.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 3.0 Project Description

The City of Los Angeles is a Responsible Agency for the project, as defined by CEQA. Subsequent to action by CRA/LA, the applicant is seeking action by the City of Los Angeles on a number of land use entitlements. These entitlements may include, but are not limited to, the following:

 Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 12.27, a Zone Variance from LAMC Section 13.06 E.5, to permit residential uses at the R4 density (one dwelling unit per 400 square feet of floor area) in the C4-1-CA Zone, which is otherwise not permitted.

 Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.27, a Zone Variance from LAMC Section 12.21 A.1, to permit a floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 3.5:1 (approximately 39,805 square feet) in lieu of the 1.5:1 FAR permitted in the C4-1-CA Zone;

 Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.27, a Zone Variance from LAMC Section 12.21 C.5(h), to permit vehicular and pedestrian access from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zone (i.e., from the C4-1- CA Zone to the R4-1-CA Zone), which is otherwise not permitted.

 Modification of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No. 68797), pursuant to Section 17.01 of the LAMC, to for condominium purposes with 130 residential condominium unit on Lot 1, 26 residential condominium units on Lot 2 of said Vesting Tentative Tract Map;

 A Haul Route, pursuant to Section 91.7006.7.4 of the LAMC.

Other City of Los Angeles departments whose approval is required for approvals such as demolition, grading, and building permits include:

 Department of Building and Safety

 Department of Transportation

 Police Department

 Fire Department

 City Council

 Department of Public Works (Bureau of Engineering, Street Services, Sanitation, Urban Forestry, et al.)

Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, etc) include:

 South Coast Air Quality Management District

 Regional Water Quality Control Board

 California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal-OSHA)

 Los Angeles County Health Department

Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 Legend: Project Boundary

n NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Nelson/Boivin-Architects – August 2010

FIGURE 3.0-7 Subterranean Level One

1027-003•01/11 n NOT TO SCALE

SOURCE: Nelson/Boivin-Architects – August 2010

FIGURE 3.0-8 Subterranean Level Two

1027-003•01/11 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this section is to inform decision makers and the public of the type and magnitude of the change to the existing environment that would result from the proposed project, as well as cumulative impacts that would result from related projects. The environmental impact analysis sections of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provide a comprehensive discussion of the existing local and regional environmental conditions, evaluate expected proposed project and cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed project, and determine the level of significance of reasonably foreseeable impacts. The environmental impact analysis sections identify mitigation measures intended to reduce potential environmental impacts to the extent feasible.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

The technical analysis contained in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, examines both the impacts of the proposed project and the potential combined environmental effects that may occur from the proposed project and related projects in the area. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts in addition to the project impacts. In accordance with CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project alone. According to Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines:

“Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

(a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.

(b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

Section 15130(a)(l) of the State CEQA Guidelines further states, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the proposed project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.”

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis

Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the proposed project's incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.”1 Where a Lead Agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, it need not consider the effect significant but must briefly describe the basis for its conclusion. If the combined cumulative impact associated with the proposed project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, Section 15130(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a brief discussion in the EIR of why a cumulative impact is not significant and why it is not discussed in further detail. Section 15130(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires supporting analysis in the EIR if a determination is made that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, is not significant. CEQA recognizes that the analysis of cumulative impacts need not be as detailed as the analysis of project-related impacts, but instead should “be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). The discussion of cumulative impacts in this Draft EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed project are cumulatively considerable.

The fact that a cumulative impact is significant does not necessarily mean that the proposed project-related contribution to the cumulative impact analysis is significant as well. Instead, under CEQA, a project-related contribution to a significant cumulative impact is only significant if the contribution is “cumulatively considerable.” To support each significance conclusion, the Draft EIR provides a cumulative impact analysis; and, where project-specific impacts have been identified that together with the effects of future development could result in cumulatively significant impacts, these potential impacts are documented.

1 Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “cumulatively considerable” means that “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 AESTHETICS

INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the existing visual characteristics of the project site and the surrounding area and evaluates the significance of the changes in visual character that would result from development of the proposed project as viewed from the surrounding streets and other public viewpoints. Also evaluated are the impacts of changes in shade and shadow patterns and the impact of light and glare. Shade and shadow diagrams support the analysis of potential shade and shadow impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Existing Conditions

A description of the existing visual characteristics of the project site and the surrounding area is presented below.

Scenic Vistas

Several mountain ranges are near this portion of the City of Los Angeles. The San Gabriel Mountains are located 8 miles north of the proposed site. The Verdugo Mountains are located 4 miles to the northeast and 2 miles to the south of the Santa Monica Mountains. Due to the flat topography of the North Hollywood area and the amount of existing development around the project site, no long-range scenic vistas are visible from the project site, adjacent streets, or the immediately surrounding area. Buildings immediately surrounding the project site range from one to five stories, thus blocking street-level views of these mountains.

Scenic Routes

No highways or roads within or adjacent to the project site are designated as scenic according to the Transportation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan.1 The segment of Vineland Avenue from Ventura Boulevard to Magnolia Boulevard is the nearest roadway identified in the existing General Plan as a potential scenic highway. However, the flat topography and presence of intervening structures block any visual connection between Vineland Avenue and the project site. Furthermore, the project site does not lie within the viewshed of a state-designated scenic highway.2

1 City of Los Angeles, General Plan, “Transportation Element,” adopted September 8, 1999, Map E. 2 State of California Department of Transportation, “California Scenic Highway Mapping System,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, August 2010.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

On-Site Views

The site is currently developed with commercial and residential buildings and parking facilities for these buildings. The northernmost portion of the project site, 5077 Lankershim Boulevard, is developed with a six-story office building (Existing Building), shown in Figure 4.1-1, Photo of Office Building, and an associated two-story, above-grade parking structure, shown in Figure 4.1-2, Photo of Office Building and Parking Structure. The adjacent parcel at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard is vacant, as shown in Figure 4.1-3, Photo of 5059 Lankershim Boulevard. The adjacent southwestern portion of the site, 5056–5058 Fair Avenue, is also vacant, as shown in Figure 4.1-4, Photo of 5056–5058 Fair Avenue. The parcel located approximately 70 feet south of the site contains a vacant commercial building, as shown in Figure 4.1-5, Photos of 5047 Lankershim Boulevard. No scenic resources exist on the project site, and the project site does not lie within the viewshed from any City- or state-designated scenic highway.

Off-Site Views

Land uses north of the project site are commercial, light industrial, or residential in character and include a small parking lot, auto repair shop, and retail furniture store located directly across Otsego Street from the project site. A four-story multi-family apartment building is located northwest of the site at Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. Land uses south of the project site include multi-family residential and commercial uses. Farther south on Hesby Street uses include multi-family residential dwellings and a Bank of America branch. West of the project site, Fair Avenue contains low-rise multi-family residential dwellings one to three stories in height, and a church on the southwest corner of Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. East of the project site, Lankershim Boulevard is predominantly characterized by one- and two- story retail and commercial buildings.

Light and Glare

The project site and the surrounding area currently have average ambient nighttime light levels for an urbanized area. The commercial, office, and parking uses located adjacent to the project site use typical levels of interior and exterior lighting for security, parking, signage, architectural highlighting, and landscaping. The streets in the area also utilize nighttime lighting for visibility and safety purposes. Artificial light sources found in the surrounding area include security lights associated with buildings, structures, and parking lots; light emanating from building interiors; illuminated signs; streetlights and stop lights along the major and secondary surface streets; and automobile headlights.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 SOURCE: Chandler Partners – May 26, 2006 FIGURE 4.1-1 Photo of Office Building

1027-003•09/10 SOURCE: Chandler Partners – May 26, 2006 FIGURE 4.1-2 Photo of Office Building and Parking Structure

1027-003•09/10 SOURCE: Chandler Partners – December 12, 2006 FIGURE 4.1-3 Photo of 5059 Lankershim Boulevard

1027-003•09/10 SOURCE: Chandler Partners – December 12, 2006 FIGURE 4.1-4 Photo of 5056-5058 Fair Avenue

1027-003•09/10 Photo 21 - West Side

Photo 22 - East Side

SOURCE: Chandler Partners – December 12, 2006 FIGURE 4.1-5 Photos of 5047 Lankershim Boulevard

1027-003•09/10 4.1 Aesthetics

Glare from lighting within the project vicinity is limited, as existing development consists predominantly of two- to three-story buildings that generally lack large expanses of glass or other reflective materials. The Existing Building located on the project site contains large expanses of glass that produce some glare. Larger buildings located on Lankershim Boulevard have moderate amounts of glass; however, this glass is of low reflectivity and does not generate substantial amounts of glare.

Shade and Shadow

Buildings surrounding the project site have similar shade and shadow patterns as compared to each other. Uses in the vicinity of the project site sensitive to shade and shadow include the residential uses located to the northwest, west, and south of the proposed project, and the church is located to the west. Properties to the north and east are commercial and industrial uses that are not sensitive to shade and shadow patterns. These commercial and industrial structures are generally two or three stories in height, although larger buildings having five stories or more exist along Lankershim Boulevard within the project vicinity. The northernmost portion of the project site contains the Existing Building and an associated two-level, above-grade parking structure. The southerly parcel is developed with a single- story, commercial building. The single-story commercial building and two story parking structure on the project site create limited shade and shadow pattern. The Existing Building creates a large shade and shadow pattern due to the height of the structure. Shadows are cast to the east, north, and west sides of the building and are longest during the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky. Shadows from the Existing Building fall on commercial and industrial uses located to the north and east of the project site. Residential uses located to the northwest also receive shade under current conditions.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Local

Los Angeles Municipal Code

A number of Los Angeles Municipal Code sections relate to aesthetics, visual quality, and nighttime illumination of projects. They are summarized below:

 Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 12.21 A 5(k). All lights used to illuminate a parking area shall be designed, located, and arranged so as to reflect the light away from any streets and adjacent premises.

 Chapter 1, Article 7, Section 17.08 C. Plans for street lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Bureau of Street Lighting for subdivision maps.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

 Division 62, Section 91.6205 M. No sign shall be illuminated in such a manner as to produce a light intensity of greater than 3 foot-candles above ambient lighting, as measured at the property line of the nearest residentially zoned property.

 Chapter 9, Article 3, Section 93.0117. No exterior light source may cause more than 2 foot-candles of lighting intensity or generate direct glare onto exterior glazed windows or glass doors; elevated habitable porch, deck, or balcony; or any ground surface intended for uses such as recreation, barbecue or lawn areas or any other property containing a residential unit or units.

City of Los Angeles General Plan

The Conservation Element of the General Plan states that an objective of the City is to “protect and reinforce natural and scenic vistas as irreplaceable resources and for the aesthetic enjoyment of present and future generations.”3 One policy to meet this objective is to encourage or require property developers to retain significant existing landforms (e.g., ridgelines, bluffs, unique geologic features) and unique scenic features (e.g., mountains) and/or make possible public view to these scenic features.

City of Los Angeles Scenic Highways Plan

The City of Los Angeles Scenic Highways Plan is a component of the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. The Scenic Highways Plan designates scenic highways that merit special controls for protection and enhancement of scenic resources and is designed to serve as the official guide to be used by the City in all public decisions affecting the City’s scenic resources, highways, and corridors. Several roadways and corridors designated as scenic resources by the Scenic Highways Plan have the potential to have either partial or full views of the project site. The segment of Vineland Avenue from Ventura Boulevard to Magnolia Boulevard is the nearest roadway identified in the existing General Plan as a potential scenic highway. However, the flat topography and presence of intervening structures block any visual connection between Vineland Avenue and the project site.

North Hollywood Community Plan

The North Hollywood Community Plan is intended to promote an arrangement of land uses, streets, and services that will encourage and contribute to the economic, social, and physical health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the people who live and work in the community. The plan is also intended to guide development in order to create a healthful and pleasant environment. Goals, objectives, and policies are created to meet the existing and future needs and desires of the North Hollywood community through 2010.

3 City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning, General Plan, “Conservation Element,” (Adopted September 2001), II-48,

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

The Community Plan ensures that sufficient land is designated for housing, commercial, and industrial needs as well as the educational, cultural, social, and aesthetic needs of the residents of the community. The plan seeks to enhance community identity, identifies and provides for the maintenance of significant environmental resources, and recognizes unique areas within the community. The proposed project site is located within the North Hollywood Community Plan and is designated with the following land uses: Residential-Multi-Family and Commercial.4

Amended North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan

The North Hollywood Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by Hatteras Street on the north; Sarah Street, Camarillo Street, and the Ventura Freeway on the south; Tujunga and Camellia on the west; and Cahuenga on the east. The redevelopment area contains the central business district for the North Hollywood community, with the main focus of development located along Lankershim Boulevard. The North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council in February 1979, and subsequently amended in 1980, 1988, and 1995. The most recent amendment establishes a special emphasis on attracting and retaining the arts and entertainment industry in the area. The primary objective of the Redevelopment Plan is the preservation and enhancement of the redevelopment area as a diverse community with active residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The Redevelopment Plan establishes a framework implementing community revitalization activities. All development, including the construction of new buildings, and the remodeling and expansion of existing buildings must conform to the Redevelopment Plan, and all building permits must be submitted to and approved by the Community Redevelopment Agency.

The proposed project site is located in the North Hollywood Arts District of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and is designated as the following primary and secondary land uses: Primary: arts- related cultural uses and specialty retail uses. Secondary: office uses, service uses, and residential uses.5

4 City of Los Angeles Planning Department, North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan, Generalized Land Use Map, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/valley/pdf/genlumap.nhl.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2011. 5 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Design for Development Establishing North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Commercial Core Urban Design Guidelines, Adopted September 20, 2007, p. 5.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with Appendix G to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on aesthetics and visual resources if it would

 have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;

 substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;

 substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or

 create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Furthermore, as set forth in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors, which are provided here as thresholds:

Aesthetics

AES-1 The amount or relative proportion of existing features or elements that substantially contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, or localized area, which would be removed, altered, or demolished.

AES-2 Theamountofnaturalopenspacetobegradedordeveloped.

AES-3 The degree to which proposed structures in natural open space areas would be effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site, through appropriate design, etc.

AES-4 The degree of contrast between proposed features and existing features that represent the area’s valued aesthetic image.

AES-5 The degree to which a proposed zone change would result in buildings that would detract from the existing style or image of the area due to density, height, bulk, setbacks, signage, or other physical elements.

AES-6 The degree to which the project would contribute to the area’s aesthetic value.

AES-7 Applicable guidelines and regulations.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

Obstruction of Views

VIEWS-1 The nature and quality of recognized or valued views (such as natural topography, settings, manmade or natural features of visual interest, and resources such as mountains or the ocean).

VIEWS-2 Whether the project affects views from a designated scenic highway, corridor, or parkway.

VIEWS-3 The extent of obstruction (e.g., total blockage, partial interruption, or minor diminishment)

VIEWS-4 The extent to which the project affects recognized views available from a length of a public roadway, bike path, or trail, as opposed to a single, fixed vantage point

Shading

SHADE-1 The project would be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses would be shaded by project-related structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October).

Nighttime Illumination

NIGHT-1 The change in ambient illumination levels as a result of project sources.

NIGHT-2 The extent to which project lighting would spill off the project site and affect adjacent light-sensitive areas.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

Impact Analysis

Applicable thresholds of significance are listed below followed by an analysis of the significance of any potential impacts and the identification of mitigation measures that would lessen or avoid potential impacts. The significance of potential impacts after implementation of all identified mitigation measures is presented last.

Thresholds:

AES-1 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on the amount or relative proportion of existing features or elements that substantially contribute to the valued visual character or image of a neighborhood, community, or localized area, which would be removed, altered, or demolished.

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be compatible with the character, scale, height, massing, siting, and architectural articulation of existing development in North Hollywood. Building materials for the proposed project include stucco walls; aluminized siding; galvanized aluminum siding for balconies along Lankershim Boulevard; metal railings for balconies along the north, south, and west elevations; and glass storefront windows. The proposed building would be approximately 55 feet in height at the roofline, as measured from the adjacent grade, and would include some roof projections and a tower that would be 89 feet high. The surrounding land uses include: a one- story (an estimated 15 to 18 feet in height) commercial use to the north; one-story commercial uses to the east (an estimated 15 to 18 feet in height); two-story multi-family residential structures to the south and southwest (an estimated 25 feet in height); a two-story tall church to the west (an estimated 25 feet in height); and a four-story multi-family apartment structure to the northwest (an estimated 65 feet in height). Landscaping would consist of a variety of trees and shrubs and would be located along the public right-of-way, the perimeter of the project site, and adjacent to the structure. No natural or open space would be graded or developed. Supporting infrastructure, such as telecommunications equipment and utility lines, would be placed underground or screened from public view.

All parking would be provided within the proposed subterranean structure located on the project site, and thus be screened from public view. The parcel located approximately 70 feet south of the proposed bank at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard would be used for temporary parking during construction. This lot is currently vacant. As part of the project, this lot would be paved, striped for 13 parking stalls (including one handicapped stall), provided with security lighting, and landscaped. A pathway on Lankershim would provide pedestrian access from the parking lot to Lankershim Boulevard.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

The replacement of the existing buildings on the site with the proposed project would change the visual character of the project site. The height of the proposed project would slightly decrease from the existing structure, and would continue to be similar in height to several buildings in the vicinity of the project site that range from a height of 15 to 65 feet. In general, the project elements would improve the aesthetic character of the site, given the architectural design of the proposed project and use of design elements. Given the existing urban aesthetic context, development of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings, and would not have a significant impact on the visual character of the project site and the surrounding area.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Thresholds:

AES-2 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on the amount of natural open space to be graded or developed.

AES-3 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on the degree to which proposed structures in natural open space areas would be effectively integrated into the aesthetics of the site, through appropriate design, etc.

No natural open space areas currently exist either on or in the vicinity of the project site. The project proposes the planting of trees and other landscaping, including street trees, intended to ensure compatibility with the adjacent land uses to the north, south, and west. Because implementation of the project would not affect any natural open space areas, impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Thresholds:

AES-4 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on the degree of contrast between proposed features and existing features that represent the area’s valued aesthetic image.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

AES-5 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on the degree to which a proposed zone change would result in buildings that would detract from the existing style or image of the area due to density, height, bulk, setbacks, signage, or other physical elements.

AES-6 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on the degree to which the project would contribute to the area’s aesthetic value.

AES-7 Impacts related to aesthetics would be significant based on applicable guidelines and regulations.

As described above, the proposed project would be compatible with the character, scale, height, massing, siting, and architectural articulation of existing development in North Hollywood. The replacement of the existing buildings with the proposed project would change the visual character and density of the project site. In general, the project elements would improve the aesthetic character of the site, given the architectural design of the proposed project and use of design elements such as stucco finish on the exterior building walls, glass storefronts, and decorative awnings over the storefronts for the commercial space along Lankershim Boulevard. The project is located in an urbanized area that contains buildings of similar height and massing to the proposed project. Given the existing urban aesthetic context, development of the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site or its surroundings, nor would it have a significant impact on the visual character of the project site or the surrounding area.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Thresholds:

VIEWS-1 An impact would occur if the project would affect recognized or valued views (such as natural topography, settings, manmade or natural features of visual interest, and resources such as mountains or the ocean).

No natural or man-made features of visual interest or valued views exist on the project site. The site currently contains a vacant lot and commercial structures that are of a style common in the project vicinity and does not offer any unique or valued visual features.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-15 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

VIEWS-2 An impact would occur if the project would affect views from a designated scenic highway, corridor, or parkway.

No highways or roads within or adjacent to the project site are designated as scenic according to the Transportation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan.6 The segment of Vineland Avenue from Ventura Boulevard to Magnolia Boulevard is the nearest roadway identified in the existing General Plan as a potential scenic highway. However, the flat topography and presence of intervening structures block any visual connection between Vineland Avenue and the project site. Furthermore, the project site does not lie within the viewshed of a City- or state-designated scenic highway.7

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

VIEWS-3 An impact would occur if the project would result in view obstruction (e.g., total blockage, partial interruption, or minor diminishment).

VIEWS-4 An impact would occur if the project would affect recognized views available from a length of a public roadway, bike path, or trail, as opposed to a single, fixed vantage point.

Several mountain ranges are within proximity to the proposed project. In relation to the proposed site, the San Gabriel Mountains rise 8 miles to the north, the Verdugo Mountains 4 miles to the northeast, and the Santa Monica Mountains 2 miles to the south. Despite their proximity, poor visibility and flat topography of the North Hollywood area typically hinder views of these natural resources from the proposed site and surrounding areas. In addition, land uses immediately surrounding the site range from one to five stories, thus blocking street level views that may otherwise be present. Furthermore, the proposed project would develop a structure shorter than the six-story Existing Building currently

6 City of Los Angeles, General Plan, “Transportation Element,” (Adopted September 8, 1999), Map E. 7 State of California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm, August 8, 2006.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-16 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

occupying a portion of the project site. Based on the above, the project would not cause a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Thresholds:

SHADE-1 An impact would occur if the project would shadow-sensitive uses be shaded by project-related structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October).

The potential shade and shadow impacts of the proposed project were compared with shadows cast by the six-story Existing Building and associated parking structure. The City of Los Angeles Draft Citywide CEQA Thresholds Technical Guide indicates that a project impact would normally be considered significant if shadow-sensitive uses, such as residential and institutional uses, would be shaded by project-related structures for more than 3 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Pacific Standard Time (between late October and early April), or for more than 4 hours between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time (between early April and late October).8 Sensitive residential uses are located to the northwest, west, and south of the proposed project, and a church is located to the west. Properties to the north and east are commercial and industrial uses that are not considered sensitive.

The shade and shadow created by an object blocking sunlight varies depending on the time of year and time of day. This variation is a result of the sun’s azimuth (the position of the earth in its annual orbit relative to the sun, due to the tilted axis of the earth) and altitude (the position of the earth in its daily rotation relative to the sun). Because the sun is lowest in the southern sky during the winter, project development would cast the longest shadow during this season (worst-case condition). During the summer months, the sun is directly overhead, and the shadow length is limited.

The existing shade and shadow impacts and the potential shade and shadow impacts of the proposed project were analyzed by preparing a computer model of the proposed structure and simulating the shadows that would be created by the structure. This model was based on the conceptual site plan

8 City of Los Angeles, Draft Citywide CEQA Thresholds Technical Guide, May 14, 1998, L.3-2.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-17 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

presented in Figure 3.0-3 and building elevations presented in Figure 3.0-6, and it reflects the maximum height of the proposed structure (89 feet). Simulations of the winter and summer solstices, December 21 and June 21, respectively, were prepared for the following periods to determine the significance of shading impacts:

 Winter Solstice December 21 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM

 Summer Solstice June 21 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM

These periods were selected because they represent the portion of the day during which maximum seasonal shading would occur during the winter and summer periods addressed by the threshold identified above.

Figures 4.1-6 through 4.1-8 present a graphic analysis of shade and shadow patterns cast by existing on-site buildings and by the proposed project at 9:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 1:00 PM, 2:00 PM, and 3:00 PM during the winter solstice. Figures 4.1-9 through 4.1-11 present a graphic analysis of shade and shadow patterns cast by the proposed project as compared to existing conditions at 9:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 1:00 PM, 2:00 PM, 3:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 5:00 PM during the summer solstice.

The shade and shadow modeling demonstrates that no shadows would be cast onto adjacent sensitive residential properties or structures by existing on-site structures. Shadows cast to the north and east would fall onto commercial and industrial uses that are not considered sensitive.

The proposed project would cast shadows onto adjacent sensitive properties and structures located to the northwest for less than 2 hours, between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM during the winter period. Because the threshold indicates that an impact is considered significant if shadows are cast on sensitive uses for three or more hours, the impact would be less than significant.

Shadows would be cast for more than 3 hours on properties and structures located to the north and east. However, these land uses are not considered sensitive, and the impact would be less than significant. During the summer, shadows would be cast onto sensitive properties to the west for less than 1 hour in the morning, and not onto any other properties any other time of day. For these reasons, the impact of shade and shadows cast by the proposed project will be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-18 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

Level of Significnace After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Thresholds:

NIGHT-1 An impact would occur if the project would cause a change in ambient illumination levels as a result of project sources.

NIGHT-2 An impact would occur if project lighting would spill off the project site and effect adjacent light-sensitive areas.

Lighting associated with the project would include perimeter lighting to enhance the building’s facade along the street; illumination of public walkways and parking entrances on Otsego Street, Fair Avenue, and the driveway accessible via the alley off Hesby Street; and security lighting towards the rear. The proposed project would increase ambient light levels on the project site and in the vicinity, causing nighttime illumination associated with the proposed project to be visible during the nighttime operating hours from neighboring land uses. The temporary bank parking lot at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard would contain security lighting consisting of two 25-foot light poles at the southwestern and southeastern corners of the project site. In addition to increasing the ambient glow presently associated with urban settings and particularly with this part of North Hollywood, project lighting has the potential to spill onto adjacent streets and nearby land uses.

While residential uses are located adjacent to the project site to the northwest, south, and west, building lighting and security lighting will be kept low, directed away from adjacent properties, and shielded, thus minimizing any negative impact. Furthermore, project lighting would be subject to City street lighting policies contained within the General Plan Framework, as well as lighting-related requirements contained in the Los Angeles Municipal Code. In addition, the City design and permit review process would ensure that proposed lighting would be directed so as not to pose hazards to motorists. Therefore, impacts from nighttime lighting would be less than significant.

The intensity of glare and reflectivity will depend on the types of building materials used in construction and the ultimate design of the approved project. The proposed project will not create unusual or isolated glare impacts because the project, as proposed, would be constructed of light-absorbing materials. In addition, the proposed project would utilize low-reflectivity glass on the exterior surface, non-reflective exterior building materials, and tinted windows in the building design, all of which shall minimize the potential for glare. Therefore, impacts from glare on the surrounding area will be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-19 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 Project Project Project Site Site Site

Existing 3:00 PM Existing 4:00 PM Existing 5:00 PM

Project Project Project Site Site Site

Proposed 3:00 PM Proposed 4:00 PM Proposed 5:00 PM Legend: Residential Church Commercial

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – January 2007

FIGURE 4.1-11 Summer Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM

1027-003•03/11 Project Project Project Site Site Site

Existing 12:00 PM Existing 1:00 PM Existing 2:00 PM

Project Project Project Site Site Site

Proposed 12:00 PM Proposed 1:00 PM Proposed 2:00 PM Legend: Residential Church Commercial

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – January 2007

FIGURE 4.1-10 Summer Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM

1027-003•03/11 Project Project Project Site Site Site

Existing 9:00 AM Existing 10:00 AM Existing 11:00 AM

Project Project Project Site Site Site

Proposed 9:00 AM Proposed 10:00 AM Proposed 11:00 AM Legend: Residential Church Commercial

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – January 2007

FIGURE 4.1-9 Summer Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM

1027-003•03/11 Project Site

Existing 3:00 PM

Project Site

Proposed 3:00 PM Legend: Residential Church Commercial

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – January 2007 FIGURE 4.1-8 Winter Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 3:00 PM

1027-003•03/11 Project Project Project Site Site Site

Existing 12:00 PM Existing 1:00 PM Existing 2:00 PM

Project Project Project Site Site Site

Proposed 12:00 PM Proposed 1:00 PM Proposed 2:00 PM Legend: Residential Church Commercial

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – January 2007

FIGURE 4.1-7 Winter Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM

1027-003•03/11 Project Project Project Site Site Site

Existing 9:00 AM Existing 10:00 AM Existing 11:00 AM

Project Project Project Site Site Site

Proposed 9:00 AM Proposed 10:00 AM Proposed 11:00 AM Legend: Residential Church Commercial

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – January 2007

FIGURE 4.1-6 Winter Solstice: Existing and Proposed Structures; 9:00 AM – 11:00 AM

1027-003•03/11 4.1 Aesthetics

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The proposed project site and related projects are within the community of North Hollywood and are within the boundaries of the North Hollywood Community Plan and North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan areas. Future cumulative development would likely consist of mixed-use, commercial, and residential land uses. The proposed project will be similar in height and architectural style to other structures located along Lankershim Boulevard. The proposed project along with cumulative development would be subject to design review by the City. The proposed project and related projects would be developed to include features that are consistent with aesthetic qualities, development standards and design standards of both the North Hollywood Community Plan and the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. The related projects and the proposed project would be designed to meet the following objective as set forth by the North Hollywood Community Plan:

 Improve the visual environment of the community and, in particular, to strengthen and enhance its image and identity. To discourage the distasteful array of signs and billboards located along the major arteries of the community.

In order to achieve this objective, the North Hollywood Community Plan has programs that both the proposed project and related projects would be subject to as applicable. These programs include:

 Initiation by property owners and merchants of programs to rehabilitate commercial improvements and increase off-street parking facilities, particularly along Lankershim Boulevard;

 Promote street tree planting in commercial areas throughout the Plan area;

 Programs to improve the general environment, particularly landscaping programs along railroad rights-of-way and flood control channels; and,

 Require that all new and rebuilt public and private facilities observe improved site design standards.

Additionally, all related projects and the proposed project within the boundary of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area would be subject to design standards to promote aesthetic quality. Design standards that would be applicable to both the proposed project and the related projects include:

 Establish maximum Floor Area, residential density and height limits with which all projects must comply;

 Provide density, Floor Area and height bonuses in exchange for the provision of key community benefits;

 Establish sidewalk widths that contribute to comfortable use of the sidewalk and support sidewalk activity;

 Provide a central gathering place near the Metro Station in the Lankershim Core;

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-26 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

 Provide setbacks from the back of sidewalk appropriate to the land use and district;

 Provide a buffer between higher intensity commercial or mixed use development and lower density residential development;

 Establish building mass along street frontages appropriate to the character of each district;

 Where retail and cultural uses line the ground floor, provide a building wall along the sidewalk to define and enclose the street and provide a comfortable scale for pedestrians;

 Along other streets, provide additional façade articulation, both horizontally and vertically, to create visual interest;

 Along streets with required Urban Street Walls, design ground floor space for retail, cultural and live-work uses, orienting tenant spaces to the street and maximizing storefronts and entrances along the sidewalks to sustain street level interest and promote pedestrian traffic;

 Design ground floor residential development to balance privacy and a connection to the street;

 Orient buildings to the street to promote the sidewalk activity;

 Incorporate pedestrian-friendly architectural features at the ground floor to enhance the transition between buildings, streets, and public open space, and regulate the opportunity for sun and shade along public streets and common open spaces;

 Locate parking and internal vehicular circulation to minimize its visibility along streets;

 Screen and buffer service and loading facilities so as to block unsightly views from public streets, open spaces, and other sensitive uses;

 Use landscape elements to provide shade and other functional and aesthetic objectives;

 Design open space areas so as to lend them the character of outdoor rooms contained by buildings and landscape that comfortably support human occupation and use;

 Articulate all building facades to avoid extensive blank walls that detract from the visual interest and appearance of an active streetscape. In particular, use fenestration to unify a building’s appearance and add to a street façade’s interest, scale and three-dimensional quality;

 Incorporate architectural elements, materials and colors appropriate to the district or neighborhood and consistent with the overall building design;

 Architecturally incorporate or arrange roof top elements to screen equipment such as mechanical units, antennas, or satellite dishes;

 Minimize glare upon adjacent properties, sensitive uses, and roadways; and,

 Provide well-designed architectural and landscape lighting.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-27 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.1 Aesthetics

The proposed project and future cumulative development will enhance the visual character and aesthetic value within the project vicinity with implementation of such design standards and objectives as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed project, along with cumulative development, would create a less than significant visual and aesthetic impact.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.1-28 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

INTRODUCTION

This section describes the ambient air quality of the local and regional area and provides a comparison of existing air quality to applicable federal, state, and local air pollutant standards. In addition, sources of air emissions near the proposed Lankershim Lofts project (“proposed project” or “project”) site are identified and discussed. This section also identifies the plans and policies developed in efforts to improve air quality. Finally, this section evaluates potential air quality impacts associated with the project and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Sources utilized in this discussion include the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook (Handbook) and air quality data from the SCAQMD, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Emission calculations and air quality modeling conducted for the project are provided in Appendix 4.2.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Air quality is affected by the rate and location of pollutant emissions, meteorological conditions, and topography. Global Climate Change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period. Regional and local climate and air quality, as well as global and regional climate change environmental settings are described in Appendix 4.2.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Air quality and global climate change are addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality and climate change impacts within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) are discussed in Appendix 4.2 along with their individual responsibilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

The following thresholds for determining the significance of impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions are contained in the environmental checklist form contained in Appendix G of the most recent update of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Air Quality Thresholds

The City of Los Angeles has not adopted specific Citywide significance thresholds for air quality impacts; instead, the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide references thresholds and methodologies contained in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook for use in evaluating proposed projects in the City. The SCAQMD is in the process of developing an Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook to replace the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. In the interim, supplemental guidance has been adopted by the SCAQMD.1

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides sample checklist questions for use in an Initial Study to determine a project’s potential for environmental impacts. According to the questions contained in Appendix G under Section III, Air Quality, a project would have a significant impact if it would:

III.a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

III.b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;

III.c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);

III.d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

III.e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

1 While the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains significance thresholds for lead, construction, operation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the established thresholds for lead. Furthermore, the Los Angeles region is well below the state and federal ambient air quality standards for lead, with the exception of localized site-specific lead emissions from a battery facility in the City of Vernon. The proposed Project is located approximately 7.5 miles upwind from this facility and lead impacts from off-site sources would not be anticipated. Therefore, lead emissions associated with the proposed Project will not cause an air quality violation and are not analyzed further.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Greenhouse Gas Emission Thresholds

In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 97, The Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines that include criteria for evaluating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on December 30, 2009.2 The Natural Resources Agency delivered its rulemaking package to the Office of Administrative Law for their review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. The adopted amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. According to the adopted amendments, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

VII.a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

VII.b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

SCAQMD Thresholds

The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.7) provide that, when available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make determinations of significance. The potential air quality impacts of the proposed project are therefore evaluated according to thresholds developed by the SCAQMD in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, and subsequent guidance, discussed below. These thresholds generally incorporate the checklist questions contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Construction Emissions

Impacts related to construction Emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if:

AIR-1 Construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD construction emissions thresholds specified in Table 4.2-1, SCAQMD Daily Construction Emission Thresholds.

2 The adopted amendments may be viewed at the following website: http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/. 2009.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Table 4.2-1 SCAQMD Daily Construction Emissions Thresholds

Pollutant (pounds per day) Significance Threshold VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, 2009. VOC = volatile organic compounds; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter, respectively.

Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis (Construction)

In addition to emission-based thresholds, the SCAQMD also recommends evaluation of localized air quality impacts on sensitive receptors in the immediate project vicinity. The thresholds are tied to the difference between the maximum monitored ambient pollutant concentrations and the (California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and, therefore, depend upon the concentrations of pollutants monitored locally with respect to a project site.

For pollutants that already exceed the CAAQS or NAAQS (e.g., PM10 and PM2.5), the thresholds are based on standards established by the SCAQMD in the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. This evaluation requires that anticipated ambient air concentrations, determined using a computer-based air quality dispersion model, be compared to localized significance thresholds for respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO).3 The significance threshold for construction-related PM10 represents compliance with Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), while the thresholds for NO2 and CO represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels in the vicinity of the project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standards. The significance threshold for PM2.5 is intended to constrain emissions to aid in progress toward attainment of the ambient air quality standards.4 A significant impact would occur if:

AIR-2 On-site construction emissions would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds specified in Table 4.2-2, Localized Significance Thresholds for Proposed Project (Construction).

3 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.

4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, 2006.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Table 4.2-2 Localized Significance Thresholds for Proposed Project (Construction)

Pollutant (pounds per day) Significance Threshold NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction LST 109.40 630.48 5.38 3.46 (1.46 acre site; 25 meter receptor distance)

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, 2008. 1 LST thresholds are interpolated from the values in this document, based on the project, location, project size, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. 2 The NOX LST thresholds contained in the SCAQMD lookup tables are based on emissions of NOX from construction of the Project and assume gradual conversion to NO2 based on the distance from the Project site boundary.

Operational Emissions

The SCAQMD has recommended two sets of air pollution thresholds to assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the operational phase of a project’s development would be significant. These are defined below as Primary and Secondary Thresholds. The SCAQMD recommends that a project’s impacts be considered significant if either threshold is exceeded.

Primary Thresholds

Impacts related to operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if:

AIR-3 Operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds specified in Table 4.2-3, SCAQMD Daily Operation Emission Thresholds.

Table 4.2-3 SCAQMD Daily Operation Emission Thresholds

Pollutant (pounds per day) Significance Threshold VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Operation 55 55 550 150 150 55

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, 2009.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Secondary Thresholds

The SCAQMD states that a project would have a significant air quality impact if:

AIR-4 Operation of the project would exceed the following SCAQMD secondary operational thresholds:

 The project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation;

 The project could result in population increases within an area, which would be in excess of that projected by SCAG in the AQMP, or increase the population in an area where SCAG has not projected that growth for the project’s buildout year;

 The project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hotspot or project could be occupied by sensitive receptors that are exposed to a CO hotspot;

 The project will have the potential to create or be subjected to, an objectionable odor that could impact sensitive receptors; or

 The project will have hazardous materials on site and could result in an accidental release of toxic air emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety.5

Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Analysis (Operation)

In addition to emission-based thresholds, the SCAQMD also recommends evaluation of localized air quality impacts on sensitive receptors in the immediate project vicinity. The significance threshold for operational-related PM10 and PM2.5 are intended to constrain emissions to aid in progress toward attainment of the ambient air quality standards. The thresholds for NO2 and CO represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels in the vicinity of the project that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the relevant ambient air quality standards. A significant impact would occur if:

AIR-5 On-site operational emissions would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds specified in Table 4.2-4, Localized Significance Thresholds for Proposed Project (Operation).

5 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Table 4.2-4 Localized Significance Thresholds for Proposed Project (Operation)

Pollutant (pounds per day) Significance Threshold NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Operational LST 109.40 630.48 1.46 1.00 (1.46 acre site; 25 meter receptor distance)

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, 2008. 1 LST thresholds are interpolated from the values in this document, based on the project, location, project size, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. 2 The NOX LST thresholds contained in the SCAQMD lookup tables are based on emissions of NOX from construction of the project and assume gradual conversion to NO2 based on the distance from the project site boundary.

Toxic Air Contaminants

The SCAQMD states that a project would have a significant air quality impact if:

AIR-6 Operation of the project would exceed the following SCAQMD toxic air contaminant thresholds:

 The project could emit a toxic air contaminant regulated by SCAQMD rules or that is on a federal or state air toxic list;

 The project could be occupied by sensitive receptors within one-quarter mile of an existing facility that emits air toxics identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401; or

 The project could emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in 1 million.6

Cumulative

The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects. These methods differ from the methodology used in other cumulative impact analyses in which all-foreseeable future development within a given boundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The SCAQMD has not identified thresholds to which the total emissions of all cumulative development within the given boundary or geographical area can be compared. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects that are within the

6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

construction and operational emission thresholds identified above should be considered less than significant unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary.7

If a project is not within the emission thresholds above, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies three possible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects.8 The SCAQMD’s methods are based on performance standards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain the federal and state air quality standards identified in the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). However, one method is no longer recommended and supported by the SCAQMD and another method is not applicable as the SCAQMD repealed the underlying regulation (Regulation XV) after the CEQA Air Quality Handbook was published. Therefore, the only viable SCAQMD method is based on whether the rate of growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in population.

AIR-7 Operation of the project would result in a rate of growth in average daily trips that exceeds the rate of growth in population.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The first Appendix G checklist question may be evaluated by directly calculating GHG emissions from the proposed project. As previously discussed, the SCAQMD has published draft guidance documents that have not yet been formally adopted. The SCAQMD is currently developing thresholds for GHG emissions and currently recommends a tiered approach. A brief summary of the applicable draft guidance from the SCAQMD is provided below.

 The Tier 3 threshold requires that a project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions be below or mitigated to less than the significance screening level (10,000 metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e] per year for industrial projects; 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects; 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects; 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed-use or all land use projects).

 The Tier 4 threshold requires that projects achieve a 28 percent reduction from a base case scenario, including land use sector reductions from Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (total emissions not to exceed 25,000 MTCO2e) or achieve a project-level efficiency target of 4.6 MTCO2e per service population per year (total emissions not to exceed 25,000 MTCO2e per year). The recommended plan-level significance threshold is an efficiency target of 6.6 MTCO2e per service population per year.

7 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 9–12. 8 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 9–12; written communication with Steve Smith, South Coast Air Quality Management District, November 20, 2003.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

The second Appendix G checklist question may be evaluated by demonstrating compliance with plans, policies, or regulations adopted by local governments to curb GHG emissions. According to the Natural Resources Agency:

Provided that such plans contain specific requirements with respect to resources that are within the agency‘s jurisdiction to avoid or substantially lessen the agency‘s contributions to GHG emissions, both from its own projects and from private projects it has approved or will approve, such plans may be appropriately relied on in a cumulative impacts analysis.9

The State of California, through its Governor and Legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions. As previously discussed, this will occur primarily through the implementation of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which addresses the reduction of GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis.

In May 2007, the City of Los Angeles published Green LA, An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming (LA Green Plan), outlining proposed goals and actions to reduce the generation and emission of GHGs from public and private activities. The LA Green Plan is designed to reduce GHG emissions 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. To achieve this, the Green Building Program Ordinance was enacted on April 22, 2008 and establishes sustainability requirements for new construction. The LA Green Plan also does not establish any thresholds for determining significance of GHG emissions. Instead, as discussed above, the LA Green Plan details various broad goals and actions, focusing on promoting renewable energy, improving energy conservation and efficiency, and generally changing transportation and land use patterns to reduce traffic trips. Compliance with the ordinance is voluntary and the City of Los Angeles has not adopted any other plans, policies, or regulations containing specific requirements or guidance for reducing GHG emissions for projects within its jurisdiction.

Based on the discussion above, the significance thresholds used for the proposed project are based on the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds (Environmental Checklist Form) in accordance with the SCAQMD’s draft threshold for GHG emissions. Moreover, since the City of Los Angeles has adopted an applicable plan for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, the proposed project also is evaluated for consistency with applicable goals and actions for emission reduction contained in the City of Los Angeles LA Green Plan as well as with other applicable strategies prescribed in or developed to implement Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32.

9 Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97, 2009, 15.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Therefore, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant impact with respect to GHG emissions if:

GCC-1 The project would result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions that exceeds the SCAQMD draft Tier 3 significance screening level and does not meet the SCAQMD draft Tier 4 significance screening level (if the Tier 3 level is exceeded).

GCC-2 The project would conflict with applicable portions of the LA Green Plan and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32.

Impact Analysis

Each applicable threshold of significance is listed below followed by analysis of the significance of any potential impacts and the identification of mitigation measures that would lessen or avoid potential impacts. Finally, the significance of potential impacts after implementation of all identified mitigation measures is presented.

Air Quality

Construction Emissions

AIR-1 Construction emissions of the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD construction emissions thresholds specified in Table 4.2-1.

The proposed project consists of demolition of the existing six-story office building (Existing Building) and associated parking structure and construction of a five-story building containing a maximum of approximately 172,080 square feet of floor area, two levels of subterranean parking, and one level of at- grade parking. The mixed-use residential project would contain 156 residential units, 11,200 square feet of commercial space on the ground level and 8,854 square feet of recreational open space including a 600 square foot gym. Construction of the proposed project is expected to begin in mid-2011 and would be completed over a 32-month period in 2014. Development of the proposed project would involve several phases including demolition, grading, and building construction. Development of the proposed project would include the demolition of the existing 6,150 square foot bank and 23,460 square foot general office building. Development would also include the grading/excavation of approximately 30,223 cubic yards of soil. Implementation of the proposed project would require export of on-site debris and soil associated with demolition and excavation for the two levels of subterranean parking. During periods of construction activity, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use would generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would be generated by

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

grading and construction activities. During later phases of the project, asphalt paving and the application of architectural coating to the permanent buildings would generate emissions, as would workers arriving and leaving the construction site. However, construction impacts would be short term in nature and limited only to the period when construction activity is taking place on the property.

The URBEMIS2007 computer model was used to quantify construction emissions generated during each phase of project construction described above. URBEMIS2007 is a land use and transportation based computer model designed to estimate regional air emissions from new development projects. The model accounts for certain meteorological conditions that characterize specific air basins in California.

A number of variables are input into the model including the construction schedule, the type of construction equipment required to build the project and emission factors for each piece of equipment. The approximate construction schedule was obtained from the project applicant. The URBEMIS2007 defaults were used for the estimated types and numbers of construction equipment that would operate on any given day. The default construction equipment include tractors/loaders/backhoes, concrete/industrial saws, rubber tired dozers, graders, water trucks, forklifts, cranes, cement and mortar mixers, pavers, and rollers (non-vibratory type). The emission factors for each type of construction equipment and activity were obtained from CARB’s EMFAC2007 model and OFFROAD2007 model, which are incorporated as part of the URBEMIS2007 model. The EMFAC2007 model generated emissions factors for on-road mobile sources (e.g., passenger vehicles) and the OFFROAD2007 model generates emission factors for off-road source (e.g., construction equipment). Other emission factors, such as for fugitive dust emissions, are based on SCAQMD-approved factors, also incorporated into the URBEMIS2007 model. All of the construction equipment and activities are assumed to operate during the workday between 6 and 8 hours with the exception of a rubber-tired dozer during demolition (1 hour) and a crane during building construction (4 hours). These operating estimates are conservative (i.e., an overestimate) and are based on SCAQMD surveys conducted on the number of hours construction equipment operate on typical construction sites in a given day. In reality, construction equipment often operates cyclically for only a fraction of each workday.

The emission calculations also assume the use of standard construction practices such as compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to minimize fugitive dust. Compliance with Rule 403 is mandatory for all construction projects. In the URBEMIS2007 model, the emission calculations take into account compliance with Rule 403 by incorporating the watering of exposed surfaces and unpaved roads three times daily, which is estimated to reduce fugitive dust emissions (both PM10 and PM2.5) by a maximum of 61 percent per guidance from the SCAQMD. The emission calculations also take into account the use of soil stabilization measures during equipment loading and unloading, which is estimated to reduce fugitive dust emissions (both PM10 and PM2.5) by 69 percent. The emission calculations also take into

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

account the vehicle speed reduction to less than 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads measure, which is estimated to reduce fugitive dust emissions by 44 percent. During demolition, a 36 percent control efficiency was applied outside of the URBEMIS2007 program, as it does not contain a mechanism for the application of water during this phase. The control efficiency is based on the SCAQMD’s CEQA fugitive dust mitigation measure tables.10 Rule 403 contains other best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions, but is not accounted for in the URBEMIS2007 emission calculations.

Table 4.2-5, Estimated Construction Emissions, identifies the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during each phase of project construction. Construction emissions include all emissions associated with the construction equipment, grading and demolition activities, worker trips, and on-road diesel trucks. The emissions are considered to be conservative, that is, the emissions presented in Table 4.2-5 likely over predict the actual emissions that would occur during project construction.

Table 4.2-5 Estimated Construction Emissions

Maximum Daily Emissions in Pounds per Day1 Construction Year VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Phase I 2011 4.25 31.74 27.01 0.03 4.34 1.98 2012 3.93 20.52 25.52 0.03 1.40 1.22 2013 42.22 29.28 33.31 0.03 2.13 1.88 Maximum Daily Emissions 42.22 31.74 33.31 0.03 4.34 1.98 SCAQMD Threshold: 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Phase II 2013 2.98 25.50 13.84 0.01 3.51 1.48 2014 15.89 17.64 16.44 0.01 1.25 1.12 Maximum Daily Emissions 15.89 25.50 16.44 0.01 3.51 1.48 SCAQMD Threshold: 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emission calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance.

Table 4.2-6, Estimated Construction Emissions – Phase II with Operational Phase I Overlap, shows the construction emissions during the overlapping periods of Phases I and II. Land uses completed in Phase I would be in operation during the construction of Phase II; therefore, completed Phase I land use

10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Fugitive Dust,” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/ mitigation/fugitive/MM_fugitive.html. 2007.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

operational emissions are added to Phase II construction emissions to show the total emissions from the proposed project during that period.

Table 4.2-6 Estimated Construction Emissions – Phase II with Operational Phase I Overlap

Maximum Daily Emissions in Pounds per Day1 Construction Year VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 2013 – March through Early April Phase I (Construction) 3.59 18.97 24.11 0.03 1.26 1.10 Phase II (Construction) 1.21 9.70 6.52 0.01 3.51 1.13 Maximum Daily Emissions 4.80 28.67 30.63 0.04 4.77 2.23 SCAQMD Threshold (Construction): 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO 2013 – Late April through May Phase I (Construction) 40.52 19.02 25.01 0.03 1.27 1.10 Phase II (Construction) 2.98 25.50 13.84 0.01 3.04 1.48 Maximum Daily Emissions 43.50 44.52 38.85 0.04 4.31 2.58 SCAQMD Threshold (Construction): 75 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO 2013 – June Phase I (Construction) 42.22 29.28 33.31 0.03 2.13 1.88 Phase II (Construction) 1.16 8.75 8.45 0.01 0.52 0.46 Maximum Daily Emissions 43.38 38.03 41.76 0.04 2.65 2.34 SCAQMD Threshold (Construction): 75 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO 2013/2014 – July through February Phase I (Operational) 12.89 10.40 65.26 0.08 12.49 2.48 Phase II (Construction) 15.89 17.64 16.44 0.01 1.25 1.12 Maximum Daily Emissions 28.78 28.04 81.70 0.09 13.74 3.60 SCAQMD Threshold (Operational): 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emission calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. 1 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions reflect SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance.

As presented in Table 4.2-5 and Table 4.2-6, the revised project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on air quality of the region with respect to this criterion.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Localized Significance Threshold Analysis (Construction)

AIR-2 The on-site construction emissions of the proposed project would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds specified in Table 4.2-2.

The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 impacts as a result of on-site construction activities to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. This analysis determined the ambient air quality impacts due to construction activities on the day with the highest estimated daily mass emission rates, as presented above in Table 4.2-5 and Table 4.2-6. The project-specific localized significance thresholds for SRA 7 (East San Fernando Valley) are shown in Table 4.2-7, Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis, and are compared with the maximum daily on-site construction emissions.

Table 4.2-7 Construction Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis

On-Site Emissions (pounds per day) Significance Threshold NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Construction Maximum Daily On-site Emissions 34.47 21.47 4.28 2.15 Localized Significance Threshold 109.40 630.48 5.38 3.46 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2008, Appendix C. 1 LST thresholds are interpolated from the values in this document, based on the project, location, project size, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. 2 The NOX LST thresholds contained in the SCAQMD lookup tables are based on emissions of NOX from construction of the project and assume gradual conversion to NO2 based on the distance from the project site boundary.

As shown in Table 4.2-7, the construction of the proposed project would not generate on-site emissions in excess of the site-specific localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutants. Therefore, based on this assessment, the localized impacts would not be significant during construction of the proposed project to sensitive receptors.

It should be noted that the US EPA promulgated a new 1-hour NAAQS for NO2. The new 1-hour standard is 100 parts per billion (ppb) (188 micrograms per cubic meter [µg/m3]) and went into effect on April 12, 2010. The localized significance thresholds analysis should be based on the most stringent ambient air quality standards in effect. Prior to the new US EPA standard, the 1-hour CAAQS for NO2 was the most stringent standard at 180 ppb. The SCAQMD screening tables for NO2 are based on the 1- hour CAAQS. The SCAQMD has not revised the LST screening tables to correspond to the new US EPA

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

1-hour NO2 standard. However, as shown in Table 4.2-7, the project’s on-site construction NOX emissions are less than 32 percent of the previous threshold. Given that the project’s on-site construction NOX emissions are substantially less than the previous threshold, the project is not anticipated to exceed the new US EPA 1-hour NO2 standard at nearby sensitive receptors.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Operational Emissions

Primary Impacts

AIR-3 Operational Emissions of the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD operational emissions thresholds specified in Table 4.2-3.

The proposed project is anticipated to be operational in 2014. Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result of normal day-to-day activity on the site after occupation. Stationary emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and from the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Trip generation rates were obtained from the traffic report of the proposed project and were used in the URBEMIS2007 modeling.11

The operational stationary and mobile emissions are provided below in Table 4.2-8, Estimated Operational Emissions. The net emissions, which account for emissions generated from the existing land uses, are compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds.

11 KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering, Traffic Study Waiver Request Update [v2b] – Lankershim Lofts Mixed- Use Project, (2010).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-15 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Table 4.2-8 Maximum Daily Estimated Operational Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per Day1,2 Emissions Source VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Summertime Emissions Proposed Project Mobile Sources 7.47 8.57 79.64 0.10 17.00 3.32 Stationary Sources 8.74 2.11 4.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 Total for proposed project 16.21 10.68 83.66 0.10 17.01 3.33 Existing Land Use Emissions 8.63 9.33 85.73 0.06 10.59 2.08 Net Total Emissions 7.58 1.35 (2.07) 0.04 6.42 1.25 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Wintertime Emissions Proposed Project Mobile Sources 7.93 10.31 76.79 0.09 17.00 3.32 Stationary Sources 8.54 2.93 1.30 0.01 0.07 0.07 Total for proposed project 16.47 13.24 78.09 0.10 17.07 3.39 Existing Land Use Emissions 9.72 11.14 82.67 0.06 10.58 2.07 Net Total Emissions 6.75 2.10 (4.58) 0.04 6.49 1.32 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emission calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. 1 Summertime Emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31). 2 Wintertime Emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30).

As shown in Table 4.2-8, the net emission increase associated with the proposed project at buildout and in full operation would not generate emissions that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds during summer or winter. Therefore, daily operational emissions generated by the proposed project would be considered to have a less than significant impact on air quality.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Secondary Impacts

The following section discusses the secondary impact thresholds of significance during operation of the proposed project. The section is organized by first restating the individual threshold followed by an analysis of the impacts.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-16 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

AIR-4 Operation of the proposed project would exceed the following SCAQMD secondary operational thresholds:

 The project would interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation.

The SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that an air quality modeling analysis that identifies the project’s impact on ambient air quality should be performed.12 The analysis would have to demonstrate that the project’s emissions would not increase the frequency or the severity of existing air quality violations, or contribute to a new violation in order to be found less than significant.13 Impacts related to CO are primarily the result of motor vehicles traveling through congested intersection. A CO hotspots analysis is provided later in this section. With respect to the other criteria pollutants (NOX,SOX,

PM10, and PM2.5), URBEMIS2007 is used to calculate project emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Emissions that are less than the thresholds would not result in emissions that are regionally significant. Emissions of NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribute to ozone; however, the effect of the project’s NOX and VOC emissions on regional ozone concentrations cannot be determined for a single project, that is, no model exists to estimate such impacts. However, based on the analysis presented above, the proposed project’s emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for these pollutants. Furthermore, the proposed project’s emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would not exceed the significance thresholds. Accordingly, the proposed project emissions are not expected to violate ambient air quality standards or contribute considerably to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to the criterion.

 The project would result in population increases within an area, which would be in excess of that projected by SCAG in the AQMP, or increase the population in an area where SCAG has not projected that growth for the project’s buildout year.

The 2007 AQMP is designed to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to achieve the federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered consistent with the AQMP do not interfere with attainment and do not contribute to the exceedance of an existing air quality violation because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if

12 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, 12-3. 13 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, 12-3.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-17 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

they exceed the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance for operational emissions. In general, projects that are consistent with growth forecasts identified by the South Coast Association of Governments (SCAG) are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections. This is because the growth projections by SCAG form the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP.

The proposed project is considered consistent with the future population figures projected for the region. The population growth associated with the proposed project is included in the SCAG projections for growth within the City of Los Angeles, North Hollywood Community. The proposed project would house approximately 41214 people, which would represent 2 percent of the projected increase of 20,299 persons in the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan Area.15 The proposed project would not result in population and housing growth that would cause growth in the North Hollywood Community to exceed the SCAG forecast. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP attainment forecasts and would have a less than significant impact on air quality with respect to this criterion.

 The project would generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hotspot or would be occupied by sensitive receptors that are exposed to a CO hotspot.

Motor vehicles are a primary source of pollutants within the proposed project vicinity. Traffic congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed state and/or federal standards are termed CO “hotspots.” Such hot spots are defined as locations where the ambient CO concentrations exceed the state or federal ambient air quality standards. Emissions of CO are produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and are usually concentrated at or near ground level because it does not readily disperse into the atmosphere. As a result, potential air quality impacts to sensitive receptors are assessed through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. Areas of vehicle congestion have the potential to create CO hotspots that exceed the state ambient air quality 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. The federal levels are less stringent than the state standards and are based on 1- and 8-hour standards of 35 and 9 ppm, respectively. Thus, an exceedance condition would occur based on the state standards prior to exceedance of the federal standard.

The proposed project was evaluated to determine if it would cause or contribute to the formation of CO hotspots utilizing a simplified CALINE4 screening model developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis that identifies a potential CO hotspot. If a hotspot is identified, the complete CALINE4 model is then utilized to

14 156 units x 2.64 persons per household = 412 15 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, 2004.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-18 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

determine precisely the CO concentrations predicted at the intersections in question. This methodology assumes worst-case conditions (i.e., wind direction is parallel to the primary roadway and 90 degrees to the secondary road, wind speed of less than 1 meter per second and extreme atmospheric stability) and provides a screening of maximum, worst-case, CO concentrations. This method is acceptable to the SCAQMD as long as it is used in accordance with BAAQMD policy.16 The model is utilized to predict future CO concentrations 0 feet from the intersections in the study area (i.e., directly adjacent to the intersections) based on projected traffic volumes from the intersections contained in the traffic study for the project.17 The intersections were determined in the project’s traffic study to operate at a level of service (LOS) between A through F. Intersections operating at a LOS of E or F are considered to have the potential to create a CO hotspot;18 For the purposes of this analysis, intersections estimated to operate at LOS D, E, or F under future cumulative plus project traffic conditions were analyzed.

Maximum future plus project CO concentrations were calculated for peak hour morning and evening traffic volumes using the highest traffic volumes in the traffic analysis associated with the project.19 Background CO concentrations for the Los Angeles area were included in the analysis. The results of the CO hotspots analysis are presented in Table 4.2-9, Maximum 2012 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations – Future Plus Project.

Table 4.2-9 Maximum 2012 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations – Future Plus Project

0 Foot Intersection 1-Hour1 8-Hour2 Lankershim Boulevard and Magnolia Boulevard 8.1 6.4 Exceeds state 1-hour standard of 20 ppm? NO — Exceeds federal 1-hour standard of 35 ppm? NO — Exceeds state 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm? — NO Exceeds federal 8-hour standard of 9 ppm? — NO

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. 1 State standard is 20 parts per million. Federal standard is 35 parts per million. 2 State standard is 9.0 parts per million. Federal standard is 9 parts per million.

16 Communication with Steve Smith, Program Supervisor, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Impact Sciences, Inc., May 12, 2004. 17 KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering, Traffic Study Waiver Request Update [v2b] – Lankershim Lofts Mixed- use project. 2010. 18 Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, 1997. 19 KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering, Traffic Study Waiver Request Update [v2b] – Lankershim Lofts Mixed- use project. 2010.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-19 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

As shown, the CALINE4 screening procedure predicts that, under worst-case conditions, future CO concentrations at each intersection would not exceed the state 1-hour and 8-hour standards with the development of the proposed project. No significant CO hotspot impacts would occur to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of these intersections. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to the criterion.

 The project would have the potential to create, or be subjected to, an objectionable odor that could impact sensitive receptors.

Certain types of facilities and land uses have the potential to generate odorous emissions. Odorous emissions are subject to nuisance regulations because they can be pervasive enough to annoy a considerable number of persons. The SCAQMD lists the following as land uses primarily associated with odor complaints: waste transfer and recycling stations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting operations, petroleum operations, food and byproduct processes, factories, and agricultural activities, such as livestock operations. The residential and commercial land uses associated with the proposed project would not generate odorous emissions. The project site is also not located near land uses associated with odor complaints. Consequently, no significant impacts from project-related odors are anticipated at on-site or off-site receptors and no significant impact from off-site sources of odors are anticipated at on-site receptors.

Any unforeseen odors generated by the proposed project will be controlled in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance). Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that cause “injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.” Failure to comply with Rule 402 could subject the offending facility to possible fines and/or operational limitations in an approved odor control or odor abatement plan.

 The project would have hazardous materials on site and would result in an accidental release of toxic air emissions or acutely hazardous materials posing a threat to public health and safety.

The residential and commercial land uses associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to use hazardous materials in appreciable quantities. The state regulates hazardous substances under the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program. The CalARP Program satisfies the requirements of the Federal Risk Management Plan Program and contains additional state requirements beyond the federal program. The CalARP Program applies to regulated substances in excess of specific quantity thresholds. The majority of the substances have thresholds in the range of 100 to 10,000 pounds.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-20 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Land uses associated with the proposed project may contain small, if any, amounts of these hazardous substances in household and commercial cleaners and other products. However, typical uses of these products would not result in quantities that exceed the thresholds. Moreover, significant amounts of hazardous substances would typically be expected at industrial, manufacturing, and complex water or wastewater treatment land uses, and these would not be allowed uses within the proposed project area.

Project construction would involve the demolition and removal of several existing structures located on the project site. Demolition of the existing structures would be a potential hazard if the buildings contained asbestos fibers. Typically, buildings built before 1978 are considered to have a higher probability of containing asbestos fibers; however, under Rule 1403, all buildings must be properly inspected for the presence of asbestos. The Phase I ESA revealed the project site contains asbestos; therefore, demolition of all existing structures on site must comply with the requirements specified in Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities). All structures must be stabilized and removed in accordance with applicable regulations including SCAQMD Rule 1403. This rule is intended to limit asbestos emissions from demolition or renovation of structures and the associated disturbance of asbestos-containing waste material generated or handled during these activities. The rule addresses the U.S. EPA National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and provides additional requirements to cover non-NESHAP areas. The rule requires that the SCAQMD be notified before any demolition or renovation activity occurs. This notification includes a description of the structures and methods utilized to determine the presence or absence of asbestos. All asbestos- containing material found on the site must be removed prior to demolition or renovation activity. As part of project implementation, the project applicant must comply with the requirements of SCAQMD

Rule 1403. Project compliance with Rule 1403 would ensure that asbestos-containing materials would be removed and disposed of appropriately. With adherence to this applicable regulation, the potential for significant adverse health impacts would be reduced to less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to on- and off-site receptors would be less than significant with respect to this criterion.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-21 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Localized Significant Threshold Analysis (Operation)

AIR-5 The proposed project’s on-site operational emissions would result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significant thresholds specified in Table 4.2-4.

The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 impacts as a result of on-site operational activities to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. This analysis determined the ambient air quality impacts due to operational activities on the day with the highest estimated daily mass emission rates, as presented above in Table 4.2-8. The project-specific localized significance thresholds for SRA 7 (East San Fernando Valley) are shown in Table 4.2-10, Operational Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis, and are compared with the maximum daily on-site operational emissions.

Table 4.2-10 Operational Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis

On-Site Emissions (pounds per day) Significance Threshold NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Operational Maximum Daily On-site Emissions 2.93 4.02 0.07 0.07 Localized Significance Threshold 109.40 630.48 1.46 1.00 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, 2008, Appendix C. 1 LST thresholds are interpolated from the values in this document, based on the project, location, project size, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. 2 The NOX LST thresholds contained in the SCAQMD lookup tables are based on emissions of NOX from construction of the project and assume gradual conversion to NO2 based on the distance from the project site boundary.

As shown in Table 4.2-10, the operation of the proposed project would not generate on-site emissions in

excess of the site-specific localized significance thresholds for NOX, CO, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, based on this assessment, the localized impacts to on-site and off-site receptors would be less than significant during operation of the proposed project.

As previously discussed, the US EPA promulgated a new 1-hour NAAQS for NO2 (100 parts per billion

[ppb] [188 µg/m3]), which went into effect on April 12, 2010. The SCAQMD screening tables for NO2 are based on the 1-hour CAAQS (180 ppb). The SCAQMD has not revised the LST screening tables to

correspond to the new US EPA 1-hour NO2 standard. However, as shown in Table 4.2-10, the project’s

on-site operational NOX emissions are substantially less than the CAAQS-based threshold. Given that the

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-22 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

project’s on-site operational NOX emissions are substantially less than the previous threshold, the project would not be anticipated to exceed the new US EPA 1-hour NO2 standard at nearby sensitive receptors.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants

This section is organized by first restating the individual threshold followed by an analysis of the impacts.

AIR-6 The operation of the project would exceed the following SCAQMD toxic air contaminant thresholds:

 The project would emit a toxic air contaminant regulated by SCAQMD rules or that is on a federal or state air toxic list.

The residential and commercial land uses associated with the proposed project are not anticipated to emit toxic air contaminants (TACs). The SCAQMD has established thresholds for TACs. Emissions of TACs would be significant if sensitive receptors would be exposed to a carcinogenic risk that exceeds 10 in 1million or a non-cancer Hazard Index greater than 1.0. Sources of TACs from residential and commercial land uses may include household and commercial solvents, cleaners, and motor vehicle emissions. However, these land uses do not generate TAC emissions in quantities that would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts to on-site and off-site receptors would be less than significant with respect to the criterion.

 The project would be occupied by sensitive receptors within one-quarter mile of an existing facility that emits air toxics identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401.

Based on a survey of data obtained from the SCAQMD’s Facility Information Detail (FIND)20 system, several facilities that contain permitted equipment as required by Rule 1401 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants) are located within a 0.25 mile of the proposed project site. These facilities include two restaurants, five office buildings, one telephone communications company, five auto body repair and paint shops, two grocery stores, one musical instrument company, and one industrial company. Arden

20 South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Facility Information Detail (FIND),” http://www.aqmd.gov/ webappl/fim/default.htm. 2009.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-23 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Realty Finance, F1 Motorsports Group, and Sebring Auto Body and Repair companies have received a Notice to Comply (NTC) in the past five years. All companies, at the time this analysis was completed, are in compliance with the SCAQMD. Therefore, while the proposed project would be located within 0.25 mile of an existing facility that emits air toxics identified in Rule 1401, the impacts to on-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant as all facilities are in compliance with permitted emissions limits (according to the SCAQMD’s FIND system).

The proposed project is located in the City of North Hollywood. Regional access to the project site is via the State Route 170 (SR-170) located 0.39 mile west of the proposed project site. SR-170 is a north-south route traveled by heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, as well as other motor vehicles. While heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles are not included in Rule 1401, CARB has determined that health effects are generally elevated near heavily traveled roadways. The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook recommends that lead agencies, where possible, avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban road with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. The 2002 study of impacts along the San Diego (I-405) Freeway and the Long Beach (I-710) Freeway cited by CARB in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook found a substantial reduction in pollutant concentrations, relative exposure, and health risk beyond 300 feet.21 The traffic impact report for the proposed project did not identify any urban roads with 100,000 vehicles or more per day in the vicinity of the project site, and the proposed project is more than 500 feet away from SR-170; therefore, impacts on on-site sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

Between April 2004 and March 2006, the SCAQMD conducted the MATES III study, which concluded that the average of the modeled air toxics concentrations measured at each of the monitoring stations in the SoCAB equates to a cancer risk of approximately 1,200 in 1,000,000 primarily due to diesel exhaust. Based on the findings of the MATES III study, the proposed project area is located in the grid with an approximate carcinogenic risk of 791 in 1,000,000.22 The carcinogenic risk for nearby surrounding grids ranges from 715 to 884 in 1,000,000. Accordingly, based on the MATES III data, the impacts would not be any higher than those experienced by the general population in the Project area. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would expose on-site sensitive receptors to substantial increases in health risks and pollutant concentrations relative to the general population. No significant impacts with respect to this criterion are expected to occur.

21 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, 2005, 8-9. 22 The SCAQMD provides an online MATES III carcinogenic risk interactive map, which may be viewed here: http://www2.aqmd.gov/webappl/matesiii/. The interactive map displays the modeled grids and associated risk within each grid.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-24 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

 The project would emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.

The residential and commercial land uses anticipated under buildout of the proposed project are not anticipated to emit individual or cumulative TACs in appreciable quantities. No large stationary sources of TACs are anticipated under buildout of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with respect to this criterion.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Air Quality

AIR-7 Would operation of the proposed project result in a rate of growth in average daily trips that exceeds the rate of growth in population.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects that are within the emission thresholds identified above for construction and operation should be considered less than significant on a cumulative basis, unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary.23 As discussed previously, emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would not exceed any of the SCAQMD-recommended significance thresholds and would not cause an individually significant impact. There is no other pertinent information that would suggest that the project could have a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. Since both construction and operation emissions are below the thresholds of significance, the proposed project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

In addition to the emissions thresholds, if an individual project is consistent with performance standards, the project’s cumulative impact would be less than significant.24 The CEQA Air Quality Handbook recommends that the ration of the project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or average daily trips (ADT) and the VMT or ADT in the city or county in which the project is located be compared to the ratio of the project population to the population in the same city or county.25 If the VMT or ADT growth ratio is less

23 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, 9-12. 24 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, 9-12. 25 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993, A9-126.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-25 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

than the population growth ratio, then the project is not considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact.

The proposed project would result in additional VMT compared to the existing land uses. The VMT growth ratio was calculated by determining the net increase in VMT resulting from the project and dividing it by the VMT for Los Angeles County. The population growth ratio is similarly based on the net population associated with the proposed project and dividing it by the population for Los Angeles County. Table 4.2-11, Comparison of VMT and Population Growth, provides a summary of the comparison. As shown in Table 4.2-11, the growth ratio of VMT is less than the population growth ratio. Therefore, the project would be considered to have a less than significant cumulative air quality impact.

Table 4.2-11 Comparison of VMT and Population Growth

Vehicle Miles Traveled Population Revised project at Buildout1,2 9,830 412 Existing Land Use (General Office Building only)2,3 6,112 53 Net VMT and Population 3,718 359 Los Angeles County at Project Buildout4,5 220,046,000 10,718,007 Ratio of Project to Los Angeles County 0.000017 0.000033

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 City of Los Angeles Planning Department, Demographics Research Unit, Census 2000 Statistics for the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Planning Area, www.lacity.org/PLN. Based on a population generation rate of 2.64 persons per household. 2 Based on VMT calculated from URBEMIS2007. The revised project VMT includes a 2 percent reduction based on local serving retail land uses within a one-quarter mile of the project site. The 2 percent VMT reduction is calculated based on methodologies in the URBEMIS2007 program as noted in Appendix 4.2. 3 The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report (2001), p. 4. 4 Estimated ADT in Los Angeles County as determined by EMFAC2007. 5 Southern California Association of Governments, “City Projections,” http://scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-26 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Global Climate Change

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GCC-1 Would the project result in an incremental increase in GHG emissions that exceeds the SCAQMD draft Tier 3 significance screening level and does not meet the SCAQMD draft Tier 4 significance level (if the Tier 3 level is exceeded)?

Construction

The construction activities required to facilitate buildout of the proposed project would include the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. The vast majority of construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, cranes, rubber-tired loaders, scrapers, and haul trucks) rely on fossil fuels, primarily diesel, as an energy source. The combustion of fossil fuels in construction equipment results in GHG emissions of carbon dioxide

(CO2) and much smaller amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emissions of GHG would also result from the combustion of fossil fuels from haul trucks and vendor trucks delivering materials, and construction worker vehicles commuting, to and from the project site. Typically, light-duty and medium-duty automobiles and trucks would be used for worker trips and heavy-duty trucks would be used for vendor trips. The vast majority of motor vehicles used for worker trips rely on gasoline as an energy source while motor vehicles used for vendor trips rely on diesel as an energy source. The combustion of gasoline in motor vehicles results in GHG emissions of CO2 and smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O. The combustion of diesel in heavy-duty trucks results in GHG emissions of CO2 and much smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.

Construction GHG emissions would be short-term – that is, the emissions would occur only during active construction and would cease after the proposed project has been built out. The other primary GHGs (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific industrial sources and are not expected to be emitted during construction.

The construction-related emissions of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas associated with construction equipment and activities, were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. URBEMIS2007 only calculates

CO2 emissions and does not provide estimates of other GHGs associated with combustion, namely CH4 and N2O. Emissions of CH4 and N2O typically are much smaller in magnitude, when compared to CO2, even when taking into account the higher global warming potentials (GWPs) of these compounds.

Unlike URBEMIS2007, the California Climate Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol: Reporting

Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1 contains emission factors for CH4 and N2O from off-road

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-27 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

construction equipment.26 These factors, along with the CO2 emissions calculated with the URBEMIS2007 program, were used to calculate the GHG emissions from construction equipment in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), using GWPs of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O. Based on the factors, CO2 emissions account for the vast majority of the total GHG emissions from off-road construction equipment.

The California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol contains CH4 and N2O emission factors for on-road heavy-duty trucks and passenger vehicles; however, they are based on specific vehicle model years. It is not known what vehicle model years would be in use during project construction; therefore, CO2e emissions were estimated based on additional data from the California Energy Commission and the US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality. In 2002, the California Energy Commission noted that fuel economy in Class 8 heavy-duty trucks have improved from 5.2 miles per gallon to 6.5 miles per gallon between 1982 and 2000.27 As a conservative measure, this assessment assumed a fuel economy of 6 miles per gallon for on-road heavy-duty trucks. Using this information, in conjunction with emission factors from the CCAR, CO2e emissions were determined for on-road heavy- duty trucks. The US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality has stated that CO2 emissions represent approximately 95 percent of the total GHG emissions from passenger vehicles on a CO2e basis.28 Using this information in conjunction with the emissions obtained from the URBEMIS2007 program, CO2e emissions were determined for passenger (worker) vehicles. In summary, the following adjustments were made to the URBEMIS2007 emission calculations:

 Construction diesel trucks and equipment: The CO2 emissions associated with off-road and on-road equipment were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents approximately 99.1 and 99.9 percent, respectively, of the CO2e emissions. These assumptions were derived from information provided by the California Climate Action Registry29 and the California Energy Commission.30

 Motor vehicles: The CO2 emissions associated with project-generated trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95 percent of the CO2e emissions associated with

26 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse as Emissions Version 3.1, 2009, 96, 100. 27 California Energy Commission, Diesel Use in California, Remarks by Commissioner James D. Boyd, 2002. 28 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Facts–Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004), 2005, 4. 29 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse as Emissions Version 3.1, 2009, 96, 100. 30 California Energy Commission, Diesel Use in California, Remarks by Commissioner James D. Boyd, 2002.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-28 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

passenger vehicles, which account for most of the project-related trips. This assumption was based on data provided by the US EPA.31

Construction activity was modeled based on the construction schedule, equipment types, and activity levels as discussed earlier. The estimated construction-related GHG emissions for the proposed project are provided in Table 4.2-12, Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction-related GHG emissions over a project’s lifetime, defined as a 30-year period, in order to include these emissions as part of the annual total operational emissions. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions have been amortized over this period and included in the annual total operational emissions discussed in the next section.

Table 4.2-12 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions GHG Emissions Source (Metric Tons CO2e/year) One-Time Emissions: Construction Year 2011 188.91 Construction Year 2012 517.17 Construction Year 2013 458.58 Construction Year 2014 44.72 One-Time Total GHG Emissions 1,209.39 Amortized over Project Lifetime 40.31

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding.

Operation

The proposed project would result in direct operational emissions of GHG from fossil fuel combustion

due to natural gas consumption and mobile sources. The direct operational emissions of CO2, the primary

GHG, were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 model. URBEMIS2007 only calculates CO2 emissions and

does not provide estimates of other GHGs associated with combustion, namely CH4 and N2O. Emissions

of CH4 and N2O typically are much smaller in magnitude, when compared to CO2, even when taking into account the higher GWPs of these compounds. The California Climate Action Registry’s General Reporting

Protocol contains emission factors for CH4 and N2O from natural gas combustion.32 These factors, along

with the CO2 emissions calculated with the URBEMIS2007 program, were used to calculate the GHG

31 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004), 2005, 4. 32 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1, 2009, 101-103.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-29 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

emissions from natural gas combustion in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents, using GWPs of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O.

The US EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality has stated that CO2 emissions represent approximately 95 percent of the total GHG emissions from passenger vehicles on a CO2e basis.33 Using this information in conjunction with the emissions obtained from the URBEMIS2007 program, CO2e emissions were determined for passenger vehicles. In summary, the following adjustments were made to the URBEMIS2007 area and mobile source emission calculations:

 Area sources (natural gas combustion from heating, water heaters, etc.; gasoline-fueled landscaping equipment): The CO2 emissions from natural gas consumption and landscaping equipment were adjusted based on emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O from URBEMIS2007 and the California Climate Action Registry.34

 Motor vehicles: The CO2 emissions associated with project-generated trips were multiplied by a factor based on the assumption that CO2 represents 95 percent of the CO2e emissions associated with passenger vehicles, which account for most of the project-related trips. This assumption was based on data provided by the US EPA.35

The project would also result in indirect GHG emissions due to electricity demand. Emission factors for GHGs due to electricity demand were obtained from The Climate Registry’s Local Government Operations Protocol, which contains GHG emission factors from utility providers in California.36 The emission factors take into account the current mix of energy sources used to generate electricity and the relative carbon intensities of these sources, including natural gas, coal, nuclear, large hydroelectric, and other renewable sources of energy.

In addition to electrical demand, operation of the proposed project would result in indirect GHG emissions as the result of water demand, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from water demand are due to the electricity needed to convey, treat, and distribute potable water. The annual electrical demand factor for water demand was obtained from the California Energy Commission (CEC).37 GHG emissions from wastewater are attributable to the electricity needed to treat

33 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Emission Facts–Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004), 2005, 4. 34 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Version 3.1, 2009, 96, 100, 103. 35 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004), 2005, 4. 36 The Climate Registry, Local Government Operations Protocol, Version 1.1, 2010, 208. 37 California Energy Commission, Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California, PIER Final Project Report (CEC-500-2006-118), 2006, 22.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-30 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

wastewater. GHG emissions from solid waste generation are due to the decomposition of organic

material, which releases CH4 into the atmosphere. GHG emission factors for wastewater treatment38 and solid waste generation39 were obtained from the US EPA.

The existing site GHG emissions were also estimated using the same conversions from the estimated

URBEMIS2007 emissions of CO2 to obtain the CH4 and N2O emissions from area and mobile sources. The indirect GHG emissions due to electricity demand, water demand, wastewater generation and solid waste generation were estimated based on emission factors from California Climate Action Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, The Climate Registry’s Local Government Operations Protocol, and data from the CEC and the US EPA.

A summary of the net emissions generated from existing operations on the project site and the proposed project’s GHG emissions are presented in Table 4.2-13, Estimated Net Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The amortized project construction-related GHG emissions are included in the annual total GHG emissions. Operational emissions would tend to decrease with each succeeding year, as CARB adopts and implements GHG reduction measures under its AB 32 authority and as local governments, including the City of Los Angeles, implement GHG reduction measures consisted with local climate action plans and green building ordinances. Therefore, the annual GHG emissions in Table 4.2-13 would likely represent a worst-case emissions scenario. As shown, the emissions would not exceed the

SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Therefore, the net change in GHG emissions from the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

Table 4.2-13 Estimated Net Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Operational GHG Emission Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year) Construction (Amortized) Emissions 40.31 Operational (Mobile) Sources 653.24 Area Sources 398.21 Electrical Consumption 417.02 Solid Waste Generation 31.67 Water Supply 66.99 Wastewater Generation 14.55 Total Annual 1,621.99

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2.

38 US Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 4.3.5, 1998. 39 US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste (EPA-530-R-98-013), 1998.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-31 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

The emissions presented in Table 4.2-13 do not account for reductions that would occur as the result of the adoption of GHG reduction measures under AB 32. CARB has already begun to adopt strategies to reduce GHG emissions under AB 32. However, many of the emission reduction strategies associated with AB 32 are generally applied at the State level. As listed in Table 4.2-13, strategies included in the Climate Change Scoping Plan, such as SPM-2 (California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards), SPM-3 (Energy Efficiency), SPM-4 (Renewables Portfolio Standard), SPM-5 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard), SPM-7 (Vehicle Efficiency Measures), and SPM-10 (Heavy/Medium-Duty Vehicles), while applicable to land use projects, are generally not under the control of local agencies. Nonetheless, emission reductions from these strategies are anticipated to occur as CARB adopts and implements these and other regulations under AB 32. Reductions are already expected to take place in 2012, if not earlier, due to the newly adopted vehicle emission standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and would continue to phase in through 2020.

The proposed project is planned for a buildout date of 2014 and some reductions associated with AB 32 are expected to be implemented at that time. Since the proposed project’s GHG emissions shown in Table 4.2-13 do not take those reductions into account, they represent the maximum emissions and therefore a more conservative scenario. CARB has estimated the expected reductions in GHG emissions based on the Scoping Plan Measures listed above.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans

GCC-2 Would the project conflict with applicable portions of the LA Green Plan and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32?

The LA Green Plan seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 by increasing the generation of renewable energy, improving energy conservation and efficiency, and changing transportation and land use patterns to reduce dependence on automobiles. As part of the LA Green Plan, the City Council approved the Green Building Program Ordinance, which requires non- residential and high-rise residential projects with at least 50,000 square feet of floor area and low-rise residential projects with at least 50 units or 50,000 square feet of floor area to meet at a minimum the USGBC’s LEED® Certified level. Redevelopment projects that exceed 50 percent of the valuation of the existing building’s replacement cost are also subject to this requirement.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-32 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

As previously discussed, in 2008, the City released an implementation program for the LA Green Plan referred to as ClimateLA,40 which provides detailed information about each action item discussed in the LA Green Plan framework. ClimateLA is a living document, reflecting a process of ongoing learning and continuous improvement as technology advances and City departments develop expertise in the methods of lowering greenhouse gas emissions. It contains some minor revisions to the strategies and action items listed in the LA Green Plan.

The proposed project would be consistent with the LA Green Plan since it would include numerous resource conservation and energy efficiency measures, including provisions to increase renewable energy use, and is designed to increase pedestrian activity and public transportation ridership due to its mixed- use and infill development nature, thereby reducing dependency on automobiles. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the applicable portions of the LA Green Plan is provided in Table 4.2-14, Consistency with the LA Green Plan. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable recommended actions.

Table 4.2-14 Consistency with the LA Green Plan

ID Action Project Consistency/Comment ENERGY LA-1 Green the Power Project is Generally Consistent: From the Largest Municipal Utility in the  While the proposed project has no jurisdiction over power United States: plants, it would construct environmentally sustainable and  Increase use of renewable energy (solar, energy-efficient new development by following USGBC’s wind, biomass, geothermal, etc.) to 20 LEED® principles, including implementing percent by 2010. environmentally sensitive construction and operational  Increase use of renewable energy to 35 practices such as water efficiency, energy efficiency, the percent by 2020. use of sustainable building materials and resources, indoor environmental quality (air quality, climate control, and use  Reduce use of coal-fired power plants. of natural light and views), and the creation of an  Increase the efficiency of natural gas- innovative design. These features would reduce energy fired power plants. demand and associated indirect GHG emissions.  Increase biogas co-firing of natural gas- fired power plants. LA-2 Make Los Angeles a Worldwide Leader In Project is Generally Consistent: Green Buildings:  The proposed project would construct environmentally  Present comprehensive green building sustainable and energy-efficient new development by policies to support private sector following USGBC’s LEED® principles, including development. implementing environmentally sensitive construction and operational practices such as water efficiency, energy efficiency, the use of sustainable building materials and resources, indoor environmental quality (air quality, climate control, and use of natural light and views), and the creation of an innovative design. These features would reduce energy demand and associated indirect GHG emissions.

40 City of Los Angeles, Climate LA: Municipal Program Implementing the Green LA Climate Action Plan, 2008.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-33 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

ID Action Project Consistency/Comment ENERGY (continued) LA-3 Transform Los Angeles Into the Model Of an Project is Generally Consistent: Energy Efficient City:  The proposed project would construct environmentally  Reduce energy use by all City sustainable and energy-efficient new development by departments to the maximum extent following USGBC’s LEED® principles, including feasible. implementing environmentally sensitive construction and  Perform energy-efficient retrofits on 500 operational practices such as water efficiency, energy City buildings to continually reduce efficiency, the use of sustainable building materials and energy consumption. resources, indoor environmental quality (air quality,  Install the equivalent of 50 “cool roofs” climate control, and use of natural light and views), and on new or remodeled City buildings. the creation of an innovative design. These features would reduce energy demand and associated indirect GHG  Improve energy efficiency at drinking emissions. water treatment and distribution facilities.  Maximize energy efficiency of wastewater treatment equipment. LA-4 Help Angelenos Save Energy: Project is Generally Consistent:  Distribute two compact fluorescent light  The proposed project would construct environmentally (CFL) bulbs to each of the 1.4 million sustainable and energy-efficient new development by households in Los Angeles. following USGBC’s LEED® principles, including  Increase the levels and types of customer implementing environmentally sensitive construction and rebates for energy-efficient appliances, operational practices such as water efficiency, energy windows, lighting, and heating and efficiency, the use of sustainable building materials and cooling systems. resources, indoor environmental quality (air quality,  Increase distribution of energy-efficient climate control, and use of natural light and views), and refrigerators to qualified customers. the creation of an innovative design. These features would reduce energy demand and associated indirect GHG  Create a fund to “acquire” energy emissions. savings as a resource from LADWP customers. WATER LA-5 Decrease Per Capita Water Use: Project is Generally Consistent:  Meet all additional demand for water  The proposed project would construct environmentally resulting from growth through water sustainable and energy-efficient new development by conservation and recycling. following USGBC’s LEED® principles, including  Reduce per capita water consumption by implementing environmentally sensitive construction and 20 percent. operational practices such as water efficiency, energy  Implement the City’s innovative water efficiency, the use of sustainable building materials and resources, indoor environmental quality (air quality, and wastewater integrated resources plan that will increase conservation, and climate control, and use of natural light and views), and maximize use of recycled water, the creation of an innovative design. These features would reduce energy demand and associated indirect GHG including capture and reuse of stormwater. emissions. TRANSPORTATION LA-6 Lower the Environmental Impact And Carbon Project is Generally Consistent: Intensity of Transportation:  While the proposed project has no jurisdiction over City  Require 85 percent of the City fleet to be fleets, refuse collection trucks, or buses, it would enhance powered by alternative fuels. on-site circulation to avoid unnecessary emissions.  Convert 100 percent of City refuse  The project has an urban infill characteristic and is well collection trucks and street sweepers to located to facilitate the use of the MTA bus and Metro Line alternative fuels. routes by residents.  Convert 100 percent of Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses to alternative fuels.  Convert Commuter Express diesel buses to alternative fuels and CityRide diesel vehicles to ultra-low-emission gasoline.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-34 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

ID Action Project Consistency/Comment TRANSPORTATION (continued) LA-7 Focus on Mobility for People, Not Cars: Project is Generally Consistent:  Complete the Automated Traffic  While the proposed project is not a transit-oriented Surveillance and Control System development as defined under SB 375 and has no (ATSAC). jurisdiction over ATSAC systems, FlyAway shuttles, or the  Expand FlyAway shuttles serving Los regional rail network, it has an urban infill characteristic Angeles World Airports, including Los and is well located to facilitate the use of the MTA bus and Angeles International Airport, and Metro Line routes by residents. convert existing FlyAway buses to alternative fuels.  Make transit information easily available, understandable, and translated into multiple languages.  Increase City employee participation in the rideshare program and increase the subsidy for mass transit.  Promote walking and biking to work, within neighborhoods, and to large events and venues.  Expand the regional rail network. LA-8 Create a More Livable City: Project is Generally Consistent:  Promote high-density housing close to  The proposed project would result in the major transportation arteries. redevelopment/reuse of an existing infill site. the project  Promote and implement transit-oriented site would incorporate mixed-use commercial and development (TOD). residential uses that would provide complimentary on-site  Make underutilized City land, especially services; near transit, available for housing and  While the project is not a transit-oriented development as mixed-use development. defined under SB 375, it has an urban infill characteristic  Make underutilized City land available and is well located to facilitate the use of the MTA bus and for parks and open space. Metro Line routes by residents.  Clean up brownfields for community economic revitalization and open space. WASTE LA-9 Shift From Waste Disposal to Resource Project is Generally Consistent: Recovery:  The proposed project would comply with City regulations  Recycle 70 percent of trash by 2015. regarding recycling and waste diversion. OPEN SPACE AND GREENING LA-10 Unpave Paradise/Create New Paradises: Project is Generally Consistent:  Create 35 new parks.  The proposed project includes design features that invite  Revitalize the Los Angeles River to create pedestrian activity and enhance access within the project open space opportunities along the 32- site and between the project site and neighboring uses, mile corridor within the City. which would increase pedestrian activity and increase the  Plant 1 million trees throughout Los use of non-motorized transportation modes as well as Angeles. public transportation ridership.  The project would construct environmentally sustainable  Identify opportunities to “daylight” and energy-efficient new development by following streams. USGBC’s LEED® principles, including implementing  Identify and develop promising locations environmentally sensitive construction and operational for stormwater infiltration to recharge practices such as water efficiency, energy efficiency, the groundwater aquifers. use of sustainable building materials and resources, indoor  Partner with schools to create more parks environmental quality (air quality, climate control, and use in neighborhoods. of natural light and views), and the creation of an innovative design. These features would reduce energy demand and associated indirect GHG emissions

Sources: City of Los Angeles, Green LA: An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming, 2007. City of Los Angeles, ClimateLA: Municipal Program Implementing the Green LA Climate Action Plan, 2008.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-35 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

The goal of AB 32 is to reduce Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In December 2008, CARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which details strategies to meet that goal. The Scoping Plan includes emission reductions from local governments primarily through land use planning measures. Under SB 375, MPOs are to establish sustainable community strategies to reduce GHG emissions associated with land use planning. Planning efforts that lead to reduced vehicle trips while preserving personal mobility should be undertaken in addition to programs such as employee transit incentives, telework programs, car sharing, parking policies, public education programs and other strategies that enhance and complement land use and transit strategies.

In 2010, CARB released a Draft CEQA Functional Equivalent Document for Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.41 While the purpose of the document is for CARB to present “a proposed determination that the establishment of regional greenhouse gas reduction targets… and subsequent actions by [MPOs] to implement policies that achieve those targets may have adverse impacts on the environment,”42 CARB has determined that the strategies used to achieve the reductions targets would be beneficial overall. CARB recommends several policies to achieve the reduction targets that would be applicable to the proposed project. The applicable recommended policies are assessed in Table 4.2-15, Consistency with CARB Recommended Policies to Achieve the Reductions Targets under SB 375.

In addition to the measures listed above, other State offices have provided recommended measures that would assist lead agencies in determining consistency with the State’s GHG reduction goals. The California Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has stated that lead agencies can play an important role in “moving the State away from ‘business as usual’ and toward a low-carbon future.”43 The AGO has released a guidance document that provides information to lead agencies that may be helpful in carrying out their duties under CEQA with respect to GHGs and climate change impacts. Provided in the document are measures that can be included as project design features, required changes to the project, or mitigation measures at the project level and at the general-plan level. The measures are not intended to be exhaustive and may not be appropriate for every project or general plan. The AGO affirms that “the decision of whether to approve a project—as proposed or with required changes or mitigation—is for the local agency, exercising its informed judgment in compliance with the law and balancing a variety of public objectives.”

41 California Air Resources Board, Draft CEQA Functional Equivalent Document for Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, 2010. 42 California Air Resources Board, Draft CEQA Functional Equivalent Document for Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, 2010, 1. 43 California Office of the Attorney General, The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, 2008.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-36 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Table 4.2-15 Consistency with CARB Recommended Policies to Achieve the Reductions Targets under SB 375

Policy Project Consistency/Comment LAND USE POLICIES Density: Project is Generally Consistent:  Increase infill and development in  The proposed project would result in the redevelopment/reuse of an existing areas with existing infrastructure; infill site within the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project area. The  Increase opportunities for proposed redevelopment would incorporate mixed-use commercial and redevelopment/reuse (e.g., residential uses that would constitute complementary on-site services. brownfields);  The project would construct environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient  Increase residential/commercial new development by following USGBC’s LEED® principles, including density near transit (e.g., transit- implementing environmentally sensitive construction and operational practices oriented developments); such as water efficiency, energy efficiency, the use of sustainable building  Increase use of compact building materials and resources, indoor environmental quality (air quality, climate design in new and existing control, and use of natural light and views), and the creation of an innovative developments. design. These features would reduce energy demand and associated indirect GHG emissions Diversity: Project is Generally Consistent:  Increase mixed use development  The proposed project would result in the redevelopment/reuse of an existing (e.g., residential and commercial infill site within a densely developed area. The proposed redevelopment would uses in infill, reuse/redevelopment incorporate mixed-use commercial and residential uses that would constitute or greenfield projects); complementary on-site services.  Increase transit oriented  While the project is not a transit-oriented development as defined under SB 375, development. it would incorporate design and landscaping concepts that would encourage pedestrian activity and non-motorized transportation modes and would reduce vehicle trips and vehicles miles traveled due to its urban infill characteristic and proximity to multiple modes of public transportation, including bus routes and the Metro Orange and Red Lines to the south. Design: Project is Generally Consistent:  Improve connectivity of streets and  The proposed project includes design features that invite pedestrian activity pedestrian network (e.g., through and enhance circulation within and access to the project site, which would streets); increase pedestrian activity and increase the use of non-motorized  Improve neighborhood and site transportation modes as well as public transportation ridership. design (e.g., traffic calming, beautification). Distance to Transit: Project is Generally Consistent:  Increase residential/commercial  While the proposed project is not a transit-oriented development as defined density near transit (e.g., transit under SB 375, it would incorporate design and landscaping concepts that would oriented development); encourage pedestrian activity and non-motorized transportation modes and  Make developments transit ready. would reduce vehicle trips and vehicles miles traveled due to its urban infill characteristic and proximity to multiple modes of public transportation, including bus routes and the Metro Orange and Red Lines to the south. Open Space and Agricultural Land Project is Generally Consistent: Conservation:  The proposed project would result in the redevelopment/reuse of an existing  Reduce pressure on greenfields by infill site within a densely developed area. directing growth to existing developed areas;  Adopt mechanisms to protect key natural resources.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-37 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Policy Project Consistency/Comment Location of Development: Project is Generally Consistent:  Locate major regional activity  The proposed project would result in the redevelopment/reuse of an existing centers near existing development infill site within a densely developed area designated as a Regional Center in (e.g., destinations); the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project area. The proposed  Locate schools in neighborhoods redevelopment would incorporate mixed-use commercial and residential uses that house the student population or that would constitute complementary on-site services. maximize access by alternate modes. TRANSPORTATION POLICIES Pedestrian Infrastructure and Project is Generally Consistent: Environment:  The proposed project includes design features that invite pedestrian activity  Improve pedestrian facilities and and enhance circulation within and access to the project site, which would infrastructure; increase pedestrian activity and increase the use of non-motorized  Improve pedestrian environment transportation modes as well as public transportation ridership. (e.g., beautification, access);  Implement “safe routes to schools” program. Bike Infrastructure and Environment: Project is Generally Consistent:  Improve bicycle facilities and  The proposed project includes design features that invite pedestrian activity infrastructure; and enhance circulation within and access to the project site and between the  Improve cyclist environment (e.g., project site and neighboring uses, which would increase pedestrian activity and safety, access); increase the use of non-motorized transportation modes as well as public  Implement “safe routes to schools” transportation ridership. program.  The project would include bicycle facilities and infrastructure, such as bicycle parking facilities.

Source: California Air Resources Board, Draft CEQA Functional Equivalent Document for Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, 2010.

The proposed project is generally consistent with the goal of AB 32. As shown above, the proposed project would result in net GHG emissions that are less than the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of significance. With the inclusions of AB 32 reductions, the proposed project’s net GHG emissions would be substantially lower than the threshold. The proposed project would also be designed to reduce energy and water consumption through environmentally sustainable and energy-efficient development consistent with the USGBC’s LEED® principles. The project would also incorporate design and landscaping concepts that would encourage pedestrian activity and non-motorized transportation modes and would reduce vehicle trips and vehicles miles traveled due to its urban infill characteristic and proximity to multiple modes of public transportation including bus routes and the Local Metro Bus Line. These features are consistent with the AGO’s and CARB’s recommendations to reduce GHG emissions under AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to consistency with the applicable GHG emission reduction measures in the LA Green Plan and the reduction measures recommended by the AGO and CARB under AB 32.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2-38 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project on cultural resources, including historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources. Where impacts are identified, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. The potential for impacts to historic resources was evaluated in a report prepared by PCR Services Corporation (PCR) dated September 2010.1

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Federal

National Register of Historic Places

First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation's cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.”2 The National Register recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels.

Criteria

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Four criteria have been established to determine the significance of a resource:

A. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B. It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

C. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

1 PCR Services Corporation, Historic Resources Assessment, Commonwealth Savings and Loan Building, 5077 North Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood (Los Angeles), Los Angeles County, California, September 2010. This report is provided in Appendix 4.3. 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 Sec. 60.2.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

D. It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

A property eligible for the National Register must meet one or more of the above criteria. In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing.

As defined in National Register Criteria Consideration G, “Properties that have Achieved Significance with the Past Fifty Years,” a property achieving significance within the past 50 years is eligible only if it is of exceptional importance, or if it is an integral part of a district that is eligible for listing in the National Register.3

In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must also have integrity. “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.”4 According to the National Register Bulletin, the National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The following is excerpted from the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, which provides guidance on the interpretation and application of these factors:

 Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.5

 Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

 Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.

 Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

 Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

 Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years, (1979, Revised 1990, 1996, 1998.) 4 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, (1997) 44 5 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, National Register Bulletin, (1997) 44

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

 Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

In assessing a property's integrity, the National Register criteria recognize that properties change over time, therefore, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity. For properties which are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that a property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s). In assessing the integrity of properties which are considered significant under National Register Criterion C, the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation provides that a property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.

For properties which are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that a property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s). In assessing the integrity of properties which are considered significant under National Register Criterion C, the National Register Bulletin, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation provides that a property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.

State

California Register of Historical Resources

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the National Historic Preservation Act on a statewide level. The OHP also carries out the duties as set forth in the Public Resources Code and maintains the California Historic Resources Inventory and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).6 The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions. Also implemented at the state level, CEQA requires the identification of substantial adverse impacts which may affect the significance of identified historical resources through an environmental review process. Further discussion of OHP survey methodology and specific criteria to determine the significance of a resource are provided in Section III, Part B, of this

6 California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(a).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

document. Created by Assembly Bill 2881 in 1992, the California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”7 The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria.8 Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.9 The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:

 California properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places;

 California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; and

 California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.10

Other resources which may be nominated to the California Register include:

 individual historical resources;

 historical resources contributing to historic districts;

 historic resources identified as significant in historical resources surveys with significance ratings of Category 1 through 5; and

 historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.11

Criteria

To be eligible for the California Register, a historic resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

 Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage

7 California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(a). 8 California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(b). 9 California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(d). 10 California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(d). 11 California Public Resources Code Sec. 5024.1(e).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

 Associated with the lives of persons important in our past

 Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values

 Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history

Additionally, a historic resource eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one or more of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reasons for its significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.12

Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The resource must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which it is proposed for eligibility. It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.13

Local

City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments

The City of Los Angeles enacted a Cultural Heritage Ordinance in 1962, which defined Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (LAHCMs) for the City. According to the ordinance (Los Angeles Administrative Code, Section 22.130), LAHCMs are sites, buildings, or structures of particular historic or cultural significance to the City of Los Angeles in which the broad cultural, political, or social history of the nation, state, or City is reflected or exemplified, including sites and buildings associated with important personages or which embody certain distinguishing architectural characteristics and are associated with a notable architect. These LAHCMs are regulated by the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission, which reviews permits to alter, relocate, or demolish these landmarks.

12 California Code of Regulations, California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14, Chapter 11.5), Sec. 4852(c). 13 California Code of Regulations, California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14, Chapter 11.5), Sec. 4852(c).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Criteria

The Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Ordinance (Los Angeles Administrative Code, Section 22.130) establishes criteria for designating local historic resources and/or historic districts (historic preservation overlay zones) as LAHCMs. These properties must reflect one of the following elements:

 The proposed site, building, or structure reflects or exemplifies the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, or City (community).

 The proposed site, building, or structure is identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history.

 The proposed site, building, or structure embodies certain distinguishing architectural characteristics of an architectural-type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period style or method of construction.

 The proposed site, building, or structure is a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influenced his age.

METHODOLOGY

A multi-step methodology was utilized to evaluate the existing six story office building located at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard (Existing Building). This involved review of the National Register and its annual updates, the California Register, the California Historic Resources Inventory database maintained by the OHP, and the City of Los Angeles’ list of Historical-Cultural Monuments to identify previously recorded properties within or near the study area. Site inspections and review of building permits and tax assessor records were conducted to document the construction history, alterations, and existing conditions. This data was used to assist in evaluating the property for significance.

A records search was conducted to identify known historical resources in the project vicinity. There are several buildings in the vicinity of the Existing Building previously assessed and determined to be historical resources. The Department of Water and Power building at 5108 North Lankershim Boulevard is listed as an individual property determined eligible for the National Register by a consensus through Section 106 process in 1994, and it is listed in the California Register. The El Portal Theatre at 5265 Lankershim Boulevard was also determined eligible for the National Register by a consensus through Section 106 process in 1994, and it is listed in the California Register. A residence constructed in 1895 at 11104 Otsego Street was listed in a reconnaissance survey, but was not evaluated. There are no known potentially eligible or determined eligible local, state, or federal historic districts in the project vicinity.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

A site survey of the property, including photography and an intensive visual examination, was also conducted. Other properties in the area that exhibited potential architectural and/or historical associations were photographed. The site survey was conducted in accordance with the procedures established by federal, state, and local guidelines for conducting historic preservation work. Site-specific research on the Existing Building and vicinity utilizing Sanborn fire insurance maps, city directories, newspaper articles, historical photographs, and other published sources was conducted. This information was incorporated into the historic context for the Existing Building. Ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment processes, and related programs were reviewed and analyzed.

Other available information was also reviewed, including a LAHCM application prepared by the LA Conservancy Modern Committee (May 21, 2007), and a previous survey report prepared by McKenna et al. (February 2007). An independent architectural evaluation was then conducted by PCR to assess the integrity and significance of the property against the criteria of the National Register, California Register, and the City of Los Angeles.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Paleontological Setting

During the Pleistocene epoch (1.8 million to 10,000 years ago), the area that is now California transitioned from shallow marine to terrestrial as the ocean receded. In the Los Angeles area, the developing terrestrial landscape had a climate that was moister than the present, with free-flowing streams and relatively abundant standing water.

A dynamic community of large animals migrated into Southern California during this period, attracted by the abundant resources and fleeing the ice sheet encroaching from the north. The community included large herbivores like North American native horses, camels, and mastodon plus Eurasian immigrants like mammoth and bison. They were joined by immigrants from South America including ground sloths and llama. The herbivores were pursued by predators such as the short-faced bear, dire wolf, saber-toothed cat, and American lion. Most of these large animals became extinct at the end of the Ice Age. However, the many types of smaller animals including rabbits, rodents, birds, and snails mostly survive into present times.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Prehistoric Setting

The project site’s prehistoric setting can be divided into the following three periods:

 Milling Stone Period. This period dates from 8,000–3,000 RYBP (radiocarbon years before present). Sites from this period appear to be part of an expansion of settlement to take advantage of new habitats and resources that became available as sea levels stabilized between about six to five thousand years ago. Gorges were used for fishing and mano/metate pairs were used to process plant materials. Most sites were in coastal areas.

 Intermediate Period. This period dates from 3,000 to 1.350 RYBP (2000 BC to AD 600). The first circular fish hooks appear in the tool kit in this period and use of plant grinding tools increases. Hunting tools consist of the atlatl and dart. Most sites were in coastal areas.

 Late Prehistoric Period. The period dates from 1, 350 RYBP to 150 RYBP (AD 600 to AD 1769). In this period the atlatl and dart hunting tools are replaced by the bow and arrow. Manos/metates were gradually replaced by pestle/mortars. Use of other traditional tools continued. Settlement was expanded into the hills and canyons inland.

The project area was within the territory of the Tongva beginning approximately 3,000 years before present. The name “Gabrielino” is Spanish in origin and was used in reference to the Native Americans associated with the Mission San Gabriel. It is unknown what these people called themselves before the Spanish arrived, but today they call themselves “Tongva,” meaning “people of the earth.”

The Tongva/Gabrielino speak a language that is part of the Takic language family originating in the Great Basin. Their prehistoric tool kit demonstrates strong links to other desert peoples. Their territory encompassed a vast area stretching from Topanga Canyon in the northwest, to the base of Mount Wilson in the north, to San Bernardino in the east, Aliso Creek in the southeast, and the Southern Channel Islands—in all an area of more than 2,500 square miles. At European contact, the tribe consisted of more than 5,000 people living in various settlements throughout the area. Some of the villages could be quite large, housing up to 150 people. They thrived by exploiting the abundant and rich animal and plant resources available in the area. Seasonal migration was practiced for the exploitation of resources and protection from seasonal weather conditions. The Gabrielino used plants and animals for food, shelter, and medicines. Seeds, foliage, shoots, fruits, and berries were all used as food. Mountain shrubs, ash, elder, and willow were used for shelters and tool materials (e.g., bows). Food animals included a variety of oceanic and land animals including deer, rabbits, sharks, fish, and types of shellfish. The Gabrielino tool kit included bows, bedrock mortars, portable mortars, pipes, chisels, metates, manos, and various forms of chipped stone tools. Houses were constructed of branches, grasses, and mud and interior hearths were used for heat. Cooking was generally done outdoors.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Historical Setting

The earliest European explorers arrived to the region in 1769, with the Gaspar de Portola Expedition. In 1781, Mexican settlers under the direction of Spanish Governor Felipe de Neve founded El Pueblo de La Reina de Los Angeles. Land to the west of the pueblo, which was centered by a large plaza, comprised four sizeable ranchos. The largest of these was Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica, which encompassed most of the Santa Monica Mountains, Brentwood, West Los Angeles, and the City of Santa Monica. California was admitted as the 31st state in the Union in 1850, just as many Americans were flocking to California to find gold. During the 1860s and 1870s, land to the west and north of the present-day Harbor Freeway was settled as Los Angeles began to expand. In the 1870s and 1880s, immigrants established Chinatown, to the north of Los Angeles. By the 1880s, Southern California began attracting Midwesterners and Easterners with its new railroad lines. Streetcars also made possible the development of residential neighborhoods farther west during the late 1880s and early 1890s.

San Fernando Valley and the Lankershim/North Hollywood District

The Existing Building is located in the North Hollywood district of Los Angeles. Situated in the eastern San Fernando Valley, the area was part of the 116,858-acre Rancho Ex-Mission San Fernando that Eulogia de Celis had obtained from the Mexican government in 1846. In 1869, de Celis’s heirs sold the southern half of the rancho, approximately 59,000 acres, to a syndicate that included Isaac Lankershim and Isaac Newton Van Nuys, who were prominent Southern California businessmen and landowners. The Lankershim-Van Nuys syndicate was known under several names until 1880 when it became the San Fernando Farm and Milling Company. Wheat farming was the syndicate’s primary activity. To facilitate operations, the 59,000-acre ranch was divided into seven smaller units, which included the Lankershim Ranch (now North Hollywood, in which the Existing Building is located), the Sheep Ranch (also North Hollywood), the Kester Ranch (now Van Nuys), and the Home Ranch (also Van Nuys).

During Southern California’s first great real estate boom in the late 1880s, and following the death of Isaac Lankershim, Isaac Newton Van Nuys sold the 12,000 acres at the east end of the Valley to the Lankershim Ranch Land and Water Company. The land was first subdivided into small farms ranging from 1 acre to 250 acres in size. The Pacific Improvement Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad, purchased a 0.5-square-mile area and laid out the town site of Toluca near Chandler and Lankershim Boulevards. Still a “struggling village” 20 years later, the town site of Toluca had become known as Lankershim, and later grew into the thriving agricultural community of North Hollywood. Other communities that emerged in the early decades of the 20th century in the southeast San Fernando Valley included Van Nuys (subdivided in the 1910s), Sherman Oaks (developed in the early 1920s), and the present community of Toluca Lake (subdivided in the mid-1920s). The area that became known as

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Studio City was initially improved in 1927 by Mack Sennett for his 20-acre movie studio facility. By the mid-1920s, larger farms in the Lankershim area were subdivided into residential tracts.

After a number of legal decisions and completion of the Owens Valley Aqueduct in 1913, most of the independent communities of the San Fernando Valley consented to annexation by the City of Los Angeles in order to obtain access to a consistent supply of water. The 1.2-square-mile West Lankershim Addition was annexed in 1919, and Lankershim itself was annexed in 1923. All of these areas, each with its own group of pioneers and special identity, continued to grow after annexation, first as agricultural town sites, and then as residential subdivisions tied to the City of Los Angeles.

Transportation played a critical role in the economic development of San Fernando Valley communities. Roads and rail systems provided a valuable link for goods and services, and the original town sites, agricultural lands, and other industries were located along the major transportation routes. Significant roads included San Fernando Road, Ventura Boulevard (the El Camino Real), Sherman Way, Lankershim Boulevard, and Van Nuys Boulevard, the latter three of which were laid out by San Fernando Valley subdividers prior to 1912. The Southern Pacific Railroad and the Pacific Electric Railway, in particular, were directly responsible for the successful subdivision and platting of the town sites of Lankershim and Van Nuys through which the railroad passed. The Pacific Electric Railway arrived in the Valley in 1909 with lines passing through Lankershim (along Vineland Avenue, turning west to parallel Chandler Boulevard), Van Nuys, San Fernando, and other area communities. Carrying freight and passengers, the electric railway opened large areas for increased agricultural and residential development in the San Fernando Valley.

Agriculture was the primary industry of the southeast San Fernando Valley from the Mission period until residential development consumed the last vestiges of farmland in the 1940s and 1950s. The southeast San Fernando Valley was primarily grazing land for sheep and cattle during most of the 19th century, transitioning to wheat farming starting from the 1870s to approximately 1910. Following the subdivision of the San Fernando Valley into small farms at the turn of the 20th century, deciduous fruit trees, including peach and apricot trees, were planted in the Lankershim area with the community becoming known as the “Home of the Peach.” Walnuts were also common. Field crops such as lima beans, alfalfa, vegetables, sugar beets, and commercial nurseries flourished there prior to 1925. Large poultry farms and dairies were also important agricultural activities crucial to the economic development of the southeast San Fernando Valley. Fruit drying, packing, and canning warehouses, along with the hatcheries and other buildings associated with the raising of poultry, became the predominant built forms of the agricultural industry and were located near major transportation routes such as the cross-Valley Southern Pacific Railroad line. Lankershim’s one-story Southern Pacific Railroad depot constructed in 1895 still exists and is located on the north side of Chandler Boulevard east of Lankershim Boulevard.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Until the 1920s, the Lankershim area was primarily an agricultural community. Sanborn maps show that areas near the town center (the intersection of Wilcox Avenue, now Chandler Boulevard, and Lankershim Boulevard) contained scattered single-family dwellings and some commercial buildings (bank, drugstore, motion picture theatre, auto repair shops, grocery, tailor, feed stores, machine shops). Lankershim’s public schools were clustered near the town center on the west side of Lankershim Boulevard. By 1922, Lankershim Boulevard between Chandler and Magnolia Boulevards had emerged as the town’s primary commercial strip and contained, in addition to many of the businesses noted above, the large Seyler/Seely Motor Car Company, several gasoline stations, a few large automobile repair garages, and the multistory Lankershim Methodist Episcopal Community Church. In 1923, the independent community of Lankershim was annexed by the City of Los Angeles. In 1927, Lankershim was renamed the district of North Hollywood.

From 1927 to 1945, commercial parcels facing Lankershim Boulevard were nearly filled with buildings containing numerous small stores, restaurants and offices, several large furniture stores, auto sales and service facilities, and gasoline stations. Following the World War II, the San Fernando Valley became identified as a prototypical suburb with the construction of tens of thousands of single- and multi-family residences to satisfy a tremendous demand for housing. Following World War II, thousands of returning servicemen and their families built new homes in the San Fernando Valley on the large swaths of undeveloped agricultural land. Additionally, the emerging aerospace industry and the growing entertainment business established or expanded their operations in the San Fernando Valley, providing employment for residents. As freeways replaced the electric railways, easy access to the Los Angeles basin increased the feasibility of commuting from the San Fernando Valley. The result was that increased pressures on housing demand led to the replacement of a majority of the one-story single- and multi-family residences in the neighborhoods around Lankershim Boulevard with multi-story apartment buildings during the latter half of the 20th century.

Along Lankershim Boulevard, new post–World War II commercial infill supported the needs of the growing population. New retail and commercial businesses were designed to be compatible with the developing automobile culture in the San Fernando Valley. The roadside architecture in North Hollywood connected the emerging San Fernando Valley suburban culture to the commercial architecture along Lankershim Boulevard. Although most of the commercial spaces along Lankershim Boulevard were improved between the 1920s and 1940s, enough automobile infill occurred during the post–World War II years to become a measurable presence along Lankershim Boulevard.

The Existing Building was one of numerous banking organizations operating in the San Fernando Valley that helped finance the suburbanization of the San Fernando Valley, and is associated with the economic and cultural values of the fast-paced suburbanization of North Hollywood and the larger San Fernando

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Valley. However, it does not appear that Commonwealth Savings and Loan was particularly significant in comparison with other banks in the area for its role in financing suburban development. Commonwealth Savings and Loan was one of 46 banking institutions financing the post-World War II housing boom in the San Fernando Valley. Originally founded in North Hollywood in 1946 at 4662 Lankershim Boulevard, the firm moved farther into North Hollywood to a new low-rise building at the corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street in 1952, designed by architect Gerald Bense. In 1961, shortly after completion of the Existing Building, Commonwealth Savings and Loan was acquired by Allstate Enterprises, parent company of Allstate Insurance Company. However, Commonwealth Savings and Loan retained its name until February 1964 when it became Allstate Savings and Loan. The Existing Building remained Allstate’s headquarters until 1979, then continued as a branch office for Allstate until 1983, when the company became Sears Savings Bank. In 1987, Citibank took over tenancy of the banking space on the ground floor, and the upper floors were rented out as offices.

By 1966, the shift of the headquarters of corporations and companies from downtown into high-rise office buildings in the San Fernando Valley was becoming more and more evident. Among office towers in the San Fernando Valley, the Existing Building was the second of a grouping of three midrise office towers constructed in North Hollywood between 1960 and 1961. In 1960, Los Angeles Federal Savings and Loan built a nine-story building at the Valley Plaza shopping center, designed by the notable modernist architectural firm of Honnold & Rex, which become an instant landmark. Two towers were built the following year, the Existing Building and its neighbor to the south, North Hollywood Federal Savings and Loan at Lankershim and Riverside.

The Existing Building is connected to both the history of postwar economics and the rise of automobile culture in the San Fernando Valley during the first few decades following World War II. The postwar history of the San Fernando Valley was dominated by suburban development tied to the automobile. The need for housing combined with the growth of the automobile industry encouraged the development of residential suburbs on the periphery of the urban core of Los Angeles. Although the commercial lots along Lankershim Boulevard were largely improved before the postwar era, the low-density residential developments on the remaining agricultural land in North Hollywood created an environment where new services were no longer located in the center commercial area; rather, long commercial strips designed for the automobile served as the primary shopping corridors for valley residents. Businesses in the older commercial cores competed with new businesses on the commercial strips by adding car-friendly conveniences to their stores. The construction of the Existing Building in 1961 provided convenience to its customers by adding “drive-up” bank tellers so one never had to leave their car while banking. The illuminated signage above the roof and the bright green colors of the stone and terracotta

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

tile were design elements used to draw drivers off of the road and into the bank. The idea of a midrise tower in the suburbs visually communicated financial security and success.

The Existing Building is architecturally interesting because it embodies a creative approach to a commercial building type, the suburban bank that merged several architectural design strategies common in postwar modern architecture. The architect, Gerald H. Bense, incorporated architectural ideas from roadside architecture, the corporate tower, and indoor-outdoor modern design, and reassembled them into a single entity.

Gerald Henry Bense, Architect

Gerald Henry Bense was born in Grey Eagle, Minnesota, on January 23, 1920. He graduated from the University of Southern California (USC) with an undergraduate degree in architecture. After graduation, he was an instructor in the architecture department at USC. He worked as an architectural intern with Long Beach architect Kenneth Wing, and later as an associate designer with Paul R. Williams. Thus, his education and early professional training place him within the context of the modernist movement in Southern California architecture. In 1946, Bense opened his own firm in Whittier, California. He was a member of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), Southern California Chapter and Cabrillo Chapter. His career was associated primarily with urban commercial redevelopment and suburban commercial and residential development projects. Between 1946 and 1965, Gerald H. Bense and Associates designed several buildings including banks in Long Beach, Encinitas, Pico Rivera, Fullerton, and North Hollywood. He designed at least 14 branch or headquarters buildings for savings and loans institutions; among these, his 1959 two-story building for Continental Savings and Loan in Pico Rivera is a particularly noteworthy extant example, featuring an exterior spiral staircase, curved brick and stone walls, and pivoting sunscreens on the south-facing windows. He appears to have specialized in building types that exemplified postwar growth, including shopping centers, residential tract housing, supermarkets, and schools, examples of which include the Alpha Beta grocery store in Fullerton, the South Hills Plaza Shopping Center in Glendora, a pre-designed pattern home for Jack Robinson Builders, and several other modest projects. Bense was a member of the steering committee for the Whittier Uptown Association, which was established in 1964 to promote redevelopment of the uptown business area, and it appears he was known for his involvement in commercial development in the Whittier area. In 1965, Bense designed and built Whittier Square, a speculative commercial and professional building in Whittier. Between 1969 and 1970, Bense sold his 40 percent interest in Whittier Square. It is unclear what Bense did after 1965. The 1970 AIA directory shows no new projects listed for Gerald H. Bense and Associates.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Corporate Modernism

In the post–World War II period in America, the predominant idiom applied to corporate architecture was the International Style, which came to be known as corporate modernism. Deriving from the 1920s origins of modernism in Europe, the International Style was characterized by rectilinear forms, flat roofs, open floor plans, use of steel and glass, and lack of applied ornamentation. During the 1950s and 1960s, distinct and broadly identifiable stylistic variants of the International Style evolved, including the Miesian Style which was influenced by the work of German architect, Mies Van der Rohe; as well as formalism, which abstracted and reinterpreted fundamental classical forms using modern materials and technology. It was not uncommon for an architectural firm or individual architect to work in a variety of idioms, the selection of which was generally related to the proposed building’s functional use, the design of the surrounding urban fabric and the client’s own stylistic preferences.

In particular, commercial office tower architecture of the 1950s through 1960s era is generally characterized by a tight integration of materials, construction systems and aesthetic minimalism that is conceptually indebted to the work of Mies van der Rohe, who perfected the glass office tower as a corporate building type. The Miesian Style is best exemplified by Mies Van der Rohe’s Seagram Building in New York City, completed in 1958. The formal elements of the Miesian Style include an open pedestrian plaza, ground-floor glass weather walls set back behind outer piers, curtain walls, uninterrupted vertical lines, and the frank expression of materials including concrete, steel, and glass. The integration of structural and aesthetic goals is most apparent in the articulation of the curtain wall where the economies of scale in the design and manufacture of architectural elements resulted in the uniformity and regularity apparent in the external articulation. For a generation, the Miesian variant of corporate modernism became the accepted look for America’s office buildings based upon a stylistic preference for its perceived modernity and practicality, as well as its inherent overall economy of construction. In plan, the regular structural grid enabled the creation of large spaces with few interruptions and made them flexible enough to accommodate a variety of functions. Such adaptability was particularly welcome in office buildings where tenants changed frequently and interior partition walls could be erected, altered, or removed based upon the tenant’s requirements.

Existing Building Architectural Description

The design of the Existing Building is that of an urban midrise bank building in a suburban setting, adapting a midrise corporate modern office tower to a suburban commercial use. The original construction of the Existing Building is a good example of the “total design” practice used by both the early modernists and the postwar modernists, which involved the design of all details of a building project, architecture, landscape, interiors, and furniture, as indicated by the construction drawings.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

During the 1950s and early 1960s, modern architects sought to integrate landscape and architecture as a single environment. At the Existing Building, the transparency of the glazed perimeter walls blurred the barrier between the interior and exterior. The design of the building interior and the exterior landscape setting are connected through the use of natural and man-made materials. Thus, the fieldstone walls used in the bank’s landscape and the wood finish on the bank’s ground floor walls both refer to the natural worlds, while concrete, metal, and glass are new man-made materials typical of modern architecture. The construction drawings show that the landscape design theme was also carried through on the interior, in the curvilinear layout of the bank lobby.

Assessment of Integrity

In June and August 2007, field visits to the project site were conducted to visually examine and assess the architecture of the Existing Building. The building was documented in digital photographs and manuscript notes. A windshield survey of the existing conditions around the site was also conducted to identify potential historic resources near the Existing Building, and to examine the visibility of the Existing Building from points east and west of the site on Lankershim Boulevard. The assessment of integrity involved comparison of historical photos and original working drawings against existing conditions and recent contemporary aerial photography.

The overall appearance of the Existing Building indicates that the integrity of the property has been substantially compromised over the years in terms of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. According to the building permits on record with the City of Los Angeles for 5077 North Lankershim Boulevard, there have been many alterations to the Existing Building. The permits indicate that “alterations” were made to the building in 1962, 1963, 1966, 1976, 1982, 1984, 1989, 1994, and 1997. Furthermore, when comparing the original architectural drawings to the existing conditions, it is apparent that many of the character-defining features of the building have been removed or permanently altered.

The design of the ground floor intended to create transparency between the exterior landscaped site and the bank’s interior. The most significant and architecturally distinctive characteristic of the building is the “indoor-outdoor” design of the ground floor. While there is a substantial amount of extant original landscaping on the site, much of it is altered and disconnected from the interior of the building because of the interior alterations. Extant original character-defining features on the ground floor include some plantings, exterior wood benches, exterior fieldstone landscaping, black Mexican pebble, the green fieldstone walls and vault, and the extant terrazzo ramps. Alterations include a total remodel of the bank’s ground-floor interior with little or no existing original fabric retained. At the entrance, a new incompatible ramp addition cuts through the original landscaping, altering the landscaping between the

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-15 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

perimeter glass and the sidewalk on the primary elevation. Incompatible concrete stairs replaced the original terrazzo ramps that led to the main bank entrance. The reflective pond, which was on the most public corner of the front elevation at the corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Otsego Street, was removed or destroyed by neglect. An incompatible addition for ATMs was inserted into the primary elevation at the ground floor, adding an opaque surface into the glazed perimeter wall, thereby disrupting the ability of the wall to convey transparency. The drive-up teller driveway, awning, and mechanical infrastructure were removed during an early remodel and the driveway space was landscaped over with an incompatible design.

Extant original character-defining features of the building in the tower include portions of the green terracotta tiles on both the interior and exterior that were not painted over, the stairs and handrails, the metal screen that encloses the stairs on the east elevation, ceiling panels in certain areas of the building, the mail slot adjacent to the elevator shaft, and the backlighting for the sign on the roof. The interiors in the basement and tower have little extant original fabric. Each of the five floors of commercial space has been extensively remodeled. Important primary character-defining features have been altered, including the replacement of numerous windows on the glazed stair tower and on the perimeter curtain wall of the tower. The tall Commonwealth Savings and Loan signage on top of the building has been replaced along with the former vertical surface to which the sign was attached.

Assessment of Significance

The survey process undertaken for purposes of this evaluation was conducted per OHP instructions, which gives a 45-year threshold for surveying properties for significance.

The Existing Building was built in 1961, and is just now 50 years old. The property was evaluated under Criteria A, B, C, and G of the National Register. The property does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under Criteria A, B, or C. The building does not meet the criteria for national designation because it does not exemplify “the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, or City” with a national level of significance. The building is not identified with any nationally significant personages or with important events.

The architecture is not representative of an architectural type that has national significance. Gerald H. Bense headed a successful architecture practice typical of many of his colleagues and contemporaries of the period. Bense’s career, while locally notable, does not meet the criteria of a master builder at the national, state, or local level. Finally, the Existing Building has not attained exceptional historical or architectural importance within the last 50 years and does not satisfy Criterion G. The Existing Building is not eligible for individual listing or as a contributor to a district in the California Register under any of

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-16 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

the criteria. Although the Existing Building is an example of a modern-style building, the corporate midrise office tower, and was tied to the economic development history of North Hollywood, the extensive alterations and remodeling over the years prevents the building from being eligible for individual listing under Criterion 1 or 3 in the California Register. Furthermore, its lack of connection to historic personages makes it ineligible at the state level for Criterion 2. The building is ineligible for designation under Criterion 3, as Bense’s career does not meet the criteria of eligibility at the state level of a master builder. The Existing Building does not appear to be eligible for listing as a City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. The evaluation that the Existing Building is not eligible as a Historic-Cultural Monument was confirmed when the Cultural Heritage Commission denied the application to declare the Existing Building a Historic-Cultural Monument.

The original construction of the Existing Building is a creative approach to a commercial building type that merged several architectural design strategies common in postwar modern architecture. Although the architecture of the Existing Building represents both the postwar economic and cultural values of the fast-paced suburbanization of North Hollywood and the larger San Fernando Valley, the extensive alterations and remodeling prevent the building from retaining sufficient integrity for listing under any of the criteria for City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument. While the Cultural Heritage Ordinance does not have specific integrity criteria, a potential resource evaluated against the ordinance’s architectural criterion should retain the character-defining features that enable it to embody a particular architectural style.

While the building does retain its essential original 1961 form, several key elements that may have once elevated the building to an eligible status—such as its drive-thru teller, interior layout, landscaping and interior-exterior transparency, and rooftop signage—have since been removed or substantially altered. The six-story height of the Existing Building relative to the built environment of the San Fernando Valley in the early 1960s is not a distinguishing characteristic of the economic development of the area. The building was the second of a grouping of midrises constructed in 1960–61 in the San Fernando Valley. Furthermore, the Existing Building was one of 46 banking organizations that operated in the San Fernando Valley that helped finance the area’s suburbanization. Nothing in the historical record indicates the Commonwealth Savings and Loan was a ground-breaking, innovative, or particularly influential banking institution that was distinguishable in its own right for significant contributions to economic history in comparison with other savings and loan firms, and the building does not rise to the threshold to meet the criteria for a City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument in reflecting a broad social, economic, or cultural history or movement. Finally, the building does not appear eligible as a contributor to a neighborhood Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-17 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

In connection with the nomination of the Building for designation as a Historic-Cultural Monument, in a letter of September 5, 2007, to the Cultural Heritage Commission, Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, State Historic Preservation Officer, stated, “the Commonwealth Building is a significant example of postwar commercial architecture in Los Angeles and one of the finest modern buildings in the San Fernando Valley.” He added, “The Commonwealth Savings & Loan was a leading financial institution in the rapid postwar development in the San Fernando Valley and, as the company’s headquarters, the Commonwealth Building clearly expressed the optimism and forward-looking vision of its namesake with its high-rise, modernist design.” Donaldson concluded his letter by noting that a key goal of the California Statewide Historic Preservation Plan (2006–2010) is to “increase awareness, scholarship and the exchange of information on and preservation of resources of the recent past,” continuing, “This building is important to your community’s sense of identity and memory.” Notwithstanding this and several other letters in support of designation, as noted above, the Cultural Heritage Commission denied the application for designation.

Resources that California Register may include those listed in or surveyed as eligible for a local historic register. Therefore, although the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission denied the application for designation as a LAHCM, given the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer, the building is considered a potential historic resource for purposes of the review of environmental impacts under CEQA.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

Historical Resources

In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on historical resources if it would:

 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. Section 15064.5(b)(1) states that in determining potential impacts a "substantial adverse change" means "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alterations of the resource such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired." The setting of a resource may also contribute to its significance, as impairment of the setting could affect the significance of that resource. Material impairment occurs when a project:

 demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-18 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

 demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or

 demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

Furthermore, as set forth in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors:

CR-1 Demolition of a significant resource.

CR-2 Relocation that does not maintain the integrity and significance of a significant resource.

CR-3 Conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a significant resource which does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

CR-4 Construction that reduces the integrity or significance of important resources on the site or in the vicinity.

Archaeological Resources

In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on archaeological resources if it would

 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5; or

 disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Furthermore, as set forth in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, a project would normally have a significant impact upon archaeological resources if it could disturb, damage, or degrade an archaeological resource or its setting that is found to be important under CEQA because it meets any of the following criteria:

CR-5 Is associated with an event or person of recognized importance in California or American prehistory or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory.

CR-6 Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-19 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

CR-7 Has a special or particular quality, such as the oldest, best, largest, or last surviving example of its kind.

CR-8 Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity.14

CR-9 Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods.

Paleontological Resources

In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would:

 directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Furthermore, as set forth in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors:

CR-10 Whether, or the degree to which, the project might result in the permanent loss of, or loss of access to, a paleontological resource.

CR-11 Whether the paleontological resourceis of regional or statewide significance.

The Appendix G thresholds are addressed within the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, for cultural resources. In addition, the City’s thresholds provide more specific guidance for evaluating impacts. Therefore, the Los Angeles CEQA thresholds are used to assess the project’s potential impacts related to cultural resources.

14 Although the CEQA criteria state that “important archaeological resources” are those which are at least 100 years old, the California Register provides that any site found eligible for nomination to the National Register will automatically be included within the California Register and subject to all protections thereof. The National Register requires that a site or structure be at least 50 years old.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-20 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Impact Analysis

Thresholds: Historical

CR-1 Demolition of a significant resource

CR-2 Relocation that does not maintain the integrity and significance of a significant resource

CR-3 Conversion, rehabilitation, or alteration of a significant resource which does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings

CR-4 Construction that reduces the integrity or significance of important resources on the site or in the vicinity.

As described above, based on review of prior evaluations and an independent architectural evaluation to assess the integrity and significance of this property against applicable federal, state, and local criteria, the Existing Building is ineligible for designation at the federal, state, or local level. The evaluation that the building is not eligible as a LAHCM was confirmed by the Cultural Heritage Commission in its denial of the nomination of the building for such a designation. However, from a conservative perspective, given the State Historic Preservation Officer’s letter in support of local designation, the Existing Building is considered a potential historic resource for purposes of environmental review in this EIR. Therefore, as the proposed project would include the demolition of the Existing Building, the project would result in a significant adverse effect on this potential resource and this would be significant impact of the proposed project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant.

Mitigation Measures:

4.3-1 The developer shall retain a professional photographer, as approved by the Los Angeles Conservancy, to document the existing office building at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard using the Secretary of the Interior and Historic American Building Standards (HABS) documentation prior to demolition. One set of the photographic documentation shall be submitted to the City of Los Angeles Office of Historic Resources. Another set of the photographic documentation shall be submitted to the Los Angeles Conservancy for storage at a repository selected by the Los Angeles Conservancy, and the Los Angeles Conservancy shall be responsible for said storage costs.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-21 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable.

Thresholds: Archaeological

CR-5 Is associated with an event or person of recognized importance in California or American prehistory or of recognized scientific importance in prehistory

CR-6 Can provide information which is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable archaeological research questions

CR-7 Has a special or particular quality, such as the oldest, best, largest, or last surviving example of its kind

CR-8 Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity

CR-9 Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods

The project area is located in an urban setting and given the history of the development and redevelopment within the project area, archaeological resources are not expected to be present. No native soils are available for visual inspection and there is no evidence to suggest that prehistoric resources will be identified within the project area. Any archaeological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources and result in a significant impact. Implementation of standard mitigation required by CEQA, as identified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

4.3-2 If archaeological resources are uncovered on the project site during excavation, the developer must notify the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety immediately and work must stop within a 100-foot radius until a qualified archeologist has evaluated the find. Construction activity may continue unimpeded on other portions of the project site. If the find is determined by the qualified archeologist to be a unique archeological resource, as defined by Section 2103.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-22 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

Code. If the find is determined not to be a unique archeological resource, no further action is necessary and construction may continue.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Thresholds: Paleontological

CR-10 Whether, or the degree to which, the project might result in the permanent loss of, or loss of access to, a paleontological resource

CR-11 Whether the paleontological resource is of regional or statewide significance

The project site has been subject to extensive disruption and contains fill materials. Any paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources and result in a significant impact. Implementation of standard mitigation required by CEQA, as identified in Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

4.3-3 In the event previously unknown paleontological resources are uncovered during excavation of the project site, the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety shall be notified immediately and work within 100 feet of the find shall stop to allow a certified paleontologist to evaluate and appropriately remove the find for preservation. Any fossils recovered during mitigation shall be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Development of future projects would also require grading and excavation or demolition that could potentially affect paleontological, archaeological, or historical resources or human remains. Therefore, construction and development of these projects could contribute to the cumulative loss of cultural resources, if these resources are not protected upon discovery. CEQA requirements for protecting archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains are applicable to development in the City. Because subsurface archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources would

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-23 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.3 Cultural Resources

be protected upon discovery as required by law, impacts to those resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Subsurface paleontological and archaeological resources and human remains are not known to exist within the project site boundaries. Implementation of the project, with incorporation of mitigation, would reduce impacts related to subsurface archaeological resources, human remains, and paleontological resources to less than significant levels. For these reasons, the project contribution to cumulative impacts related to archeological and paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would demolish the Existing Building located on the project site. This building is considered a historic resource as defined by CEQA and demolition of the building is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. A records search was conducted to identify known historical resources in the project vicinity. The project site is not located within a historical district, however, as discussed above; several buildings in the vicinity of the Existing Building were determined to be historical resources. These buildings include the Department of Water and Power building at 5108 North Lankershim Boulevard, the El Portal Theatre at 5265 Lankershim Boulevard, and a residence constructed in 1895 at 11104 Otsego Street. None of these historic resources are slated for demolition or other actions that could harm their historical integrity. Therefore, no cumulative impact to historical resources within the North Hollywood area is expected to occur. However, within the greater Los Angeles area post– World War II buildings that are constructed in the corporate modernism style, similar to the Existing Building, are being impacted by new development projects. As the proposed project would demolish a building exhibiting corporate modernism design elements, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of modern-era buildings in the Los Angeles area.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1, above, requires that historic documentation be prepared prior to demolition of the Existing Building.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.3-24 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 NOISE

INTRODUCTION

This section presents the results of an analysis of both existing background conditions and future noise conditions following completion of the proposed project. These findings also reflect the information contained in a memorandum from Brian A. Marchetti titled, “Traffic Study Waiver Request Update – Lankershim Lofts Mixed-Use Project” from January 15, 2010. Complete copies of the traffic memorandum and noise modeling analysis are contained in Appendix 4.4.

CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE

Noise, usually defined as unwanted sound, can be an undesirable by-product of society’s normal day-to-day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, causes actual physical harm, or has an adverse effect on health. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect or causes a substantial annoyance to people and their environment.

Sound pressure level alone is not a reliable indicator of loudness because the human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, it is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than to the medium frequencies that more closely correspond to human speech. In response to the human ear’s varying sensitivity to different frequencies, the A-weighted noise level, referenced in units of dB(A), was developed to better correspond with peoples’ subjective judgment of sound levels. In general, changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear.1 Changes from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. An increase greater than 5 dB(A) is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound volume. A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound wave energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a roadway) would result in a barely perceptible change in sound level. Common noise levels associated with certain activities are shown on Figure 4.4-1, Common Noise Levels.

Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of mobile point sources (motor vehicles).

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980, p. 81.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Sound generated by a stationary point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites, and at a rate of 7.5 dB(A) at acoustically “soft” sites.2 For example, a 60 dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and it would be 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dB(A) and 4.4 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively.3 Man-made or natural barriers can also attenuate sound levels, as illustrated in Figure 4.4-2, Noise Attenuation by Barriers and Elevation Differences.

Solid walls and berms may reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A).4 The minimum attenuation of exterior to interior noise provided by typical structures in California is provided in Table 4.4-1, Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation.

Table 4.4-1 Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation (dB(A))

Open Closed Building Type Windows Windows1 Residences 17 25 Schools 17 25 Churches 20 30 Hospitals/Convalescent Homes 17 25 Offices 17 25 Theaters 20 30 Hotels/Motels 17 25

Source: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117. 1 As shown, structures with closed windows can attenuate exterior noise by a minimum of 25 to 30 dB(A).

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 97. A "hard" or reflective site does not provide any excess ground-effect attenuation and is characteristic of asphalt, concrete, and very hard packed soils. An acoustically "soft" or absorptive site is characteristic of normal earth and most ground with vegetation. 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 97. 4 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Mitigation, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980), p. 18.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 ‡ SUBJECTIVE EXAMPLES DECIBELS (dB) EVALUATIONS

NEAR JET ENGINE 140

THRESHOLD OF PAIN 130 DEAFENING THRESHOLD OF FEELING– 120 HARD ROCK BAND

ACCELERATING MOTORCYCLE AT A FEW FEET AWAY* 110

LOUD AUTO HORN AT 10' AWAY 100 VERY LOUD NOISY URBAN STREET NOISY FACTORY continuous exposure above 90 here is likely to degrade the SCHOOL CAFETERIA WITH hearing of most people UNTREATED SURFACES 80

STENOGRAPHIC ROOM Range of Speech LOUD 70

NEAR FREEWAY AUTO TRAFFIC 60

AVERAGE OFFICE MODERATE 50

SOFT RADIO MUSIC IN APARTMENT 40

FAINT AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUT 30 STEREO PLAYING

AVERAGE WHISPER 20

RUSTLE OF LEAVES IN WIND 10 VERY FAINT HUMAN BREATHING

THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY 0

* NOTE: 50' from motorcycle equals noise at about 2000' from a four-engine jet aircraft. ‡ NOTE: dB are “average” values as measured on the A–scale of a sound–level meter.

FIGURE 4.4-1 Common Noise Levels

1027-003•08/10 Source

8' Deflected Noise

Barrier Roadway

Line-of-Sight

Receptor

"Barrier Effect" Resulting from Differences in Elevation.

Source Deflected Noise

Line-of-Sight Receptor

8'

Roadway Barrier

"Barrier Effect" Resulting from Typical Soundwall.

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – August 2010 FIGURE 4.4-2 Noise Attenuation by Barriers and Elevation Differences

1027-003•08/10 4.4 Noise

When assessing community reaction to noise, there is an obvious need for a scale that averages sound pressure levels over time and quantifies the result in terms of a single numerical descriptor. Several scales have been developed that address community noise levels.

Those that are applicable to this analysis are the Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) and the Community Noise

Equivalent Level (CNEL). Leq is the average A-weighted sound level measured over a given time interval.

Leq can be measured over any period, but is typically measured for 1-minute, 15-minute, 1-hour, or 24-hour periods. CNEL is another average A-weighted sound level measured over a 24-hour period. However, this noise scale is adjusted to account for some individuals’ increased sensitivity to noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours. A CNEL noise measurement is obtained by adding 5 dB to sound levels occurring during the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 dB to sound levels occurring during the nighttime from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5 dB and 10 dB “penalties” are applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The logarithmic effect of adding these penalties to the 1-hour Leq measurements typically results in a CNEL measurement that is within approximately 3 dB(A) of the peak-hour Leq.5

CHARACTERISTICS OF VIBRATION

Vibration is a unique form of noise. It is unique because its energy is carried through structures and the earth, whereas noise is carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from truck pass-bys. This phenomenon is related to the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, ground borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration, which spreads through the ground rapidly, diminishes in amplitude with distance from the source. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and, in the U.S. is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB).

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground borne vibration from traffic is barely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background

5 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement; A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, (Sacramento, California: October 1998), pp. N51-N54.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

vibration velocity, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.

Figure 4.4-3, Typical Levels of Ground-bourne Vibration, identifies the typical ground borne vibration levels in VdB and human response to different levels of vibration.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Plans and policies that pertain to the noise conditions affecting and affected by the proposed project include (1) the State of California, Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division Guidelines for Noise and Land Use Compatibility; (2) the City of Los Angeles General Plan; and (3) the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). As the proposed project is located within the community of North Hollywood in the City of Los Angeles, it is subject to the standards promulgated by the City of Los Angeles and the community of North Hollywood.

State of California

The State of California Department of Health Services’ Environmental Health Division has published recommended guidelines for land use compatibility with community noise exposure levels. These guidelines rate ranges of noise levels for various land use categories as either normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, or clearly unacceptable. Figure 4.4-4, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, identifies the acceptability of exterior noise levels for various land use categories as recommended by the Department of Health Services. Each jurisdiction within the state is required to consider these guidelines when developing its general plan noise element and determining acceptable noise levels within its community. The City of Los Angeles uses elements of these guidelines when assessing a land use’s compatibility with mobile-source noise. In addition, the City has incorporated the state noise/land use compatibility guidelines into the City of Los Angeles General Plan (as discussed in the following subsection).

City of Los Angeles General Plan – Noise Element

The Noise Element contained in the City’s General Plan includes noise guidelines and policies that establish acceptable noise levels for different land uses (i.e., zoning classifications). The “acceptable noise levels” reference those set forth in LAMC Section 111 et seq. The Noise Element defines different sources of noise found throughout the City and sets forth goals, objectives, and policies to ensure that such sources uses do not generate noise levels that adversely affect noise-sensitive uses or receptors.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 PPV AMPLITUDE VELOCITY RMS VELOCITY HUMAN/STRUCTURAL IN INCHES 1 LEVEL IN AMPLITUDE IN 2 TYPICAL SOURCES RESPONSE PER SECOND VdB INCHES/SECOND 50 FEET FROM SOURCE

THRESHOLD, MINOR COSMETIC .4 100 .1 BLASTING FROM DAMAGE TO FRAGILE BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

BULLDOZER AND OTHER DIFFICULTY WITH TASKS SUCH AS .1264 90 .0316 HEAVY-TRACKED READING A VDT SCREEN CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT

COMMUTER RAIL, UPPER RANGE RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, INFREQUENT EVENTS (E.G., COMMUTER RAIL) .04 80 .01 RAPID TRANSIT, UPPER RANGE

RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, COMMUTER RAIL, TYPICAL FREQUENT EVENTS (E.G., RAPID TRANSIT) BUS OR TRUCK OVER BUMP .01264 70 .00316 RAPID TRANSIT, TYPICAL

BUS OR TRUCK, TYPICAL LIMIT FOR VIBRATION-SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT APPROXIMATE THRESHOLD FOR HUMAN PERCEPTION OF VIBRATION .004 60 .001

AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUT STEREO PLAYING TYPICAL GROUND VIBRATION AVERAGE WHISPER .00126 50 .000316

1 PPV is typically a factor 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity. A factor of 4 was used to calculate noise levels. 2 Vibration levels in terms of velocity levels are defined as: V=20 x log (a/r) V=velocity levels in decibels 10 a=RMS velocity amplitude r=reference amplitude (accepted reference quantities for vibration velocity are 1 x 10-6 inches/second in the United States)

FIGURE 4.4-3 Typical Levels of Ground-bourne Vibration

1027-003•08/10 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn or CNEL, dB LAND USE CATEGORY 55 60 65 70 75 80

Residential - Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes

Residential - Multi Family

Transient Lodging - Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheatres

Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing Utilities, Agriculture

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 reduction features included in the design.

CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

SOURCE: California Department of Health, Office of Health Control, Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, February 1976. FIGURE 4.4-4 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

1027-003•08/10 4.4 Noise

“Noise sensitive” receptors are defined as single-family and multi-unit dwellings, long-term care facilities (including convalescent and retirement facilities), dormitories, motels, hotels, transient lodgings and other residential uses; houses of worship; hospitals; libraries; schools; auditoriums; concert halls; outdoor theaters; nature and wildlife preserves; and parks.6

The Noise Element addresses noise produced by aircraft and airports, rail systems, and freeways, which are also governed by federal and state regulations, as well as building sound insulation regulations, automotive and truck noise (including vehicle noise emissions, street noise, and freeway noise), and so-called nuisance noise. Sources of nuisance noise defined in the Noise Element include, but are not limited to, the following: building mechanical equipment (rooftop air conditioners); disturbing the peace (including noise from theaters, construction activities, devices used to emit music, miniature golf courses, and loud raucous noise); city park facilities (including sound amplification systems within parks and regulation of concert uses); barking dogs; commercial vehicles (engines of large commercial vehicles); and emergency vehicles (fire, police, and ambulance vehicles sirens).

The Noise Element contains one goal and several objectives and policies that address noise management within the City of Los Angeles. Those that apply to the proposed project are listed below.

Goal: A City where noise does not reduce the quality of urban life.

Objective 2: Reduce or eliminate nonairport related intrusive noise, especially relative to noise sensitive uses.

Policy 2.2: Enforce and/or implement applicable city, state and federal regulations intended to mitigate proposed noise producing activities, reduce intrusive noise and alleviate noise that is deemed a public nuisance.

Objective 3: Reduce or eliminate noise impacts associated with proposed development of land and changes in land use.

Policy 3.1: Develop land use policies and programs that will reduce or eliminate potential and existing noise impacts.

Policies 2.2 and 3.1 are implemented through City programs intended to eliminate or minimize adverse sound impacts on noise-sensitive receptors as defined in the Noise Element. Of relevance to the proposed project, Implementation Program P-11 states that proposed development projects deemed to have a potentially significant noise impact on noise-sensitive receptors are required to implement mitigation

6 City of Los Angeles, “Noise Element,” General Plan, 1999, 3-1.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

measures, as appropriate, in accordance with CEQA and City procedures. Examples of such measures include

 the designation of construction-related haul routes, types of construction equipment that may be used, enclosure or muffling of equipment, and imposing construction hours;

 orientation of a building on a site or the incorporation of other design features to minimize off-site noise impacts;

 the construction of sound buffers such as walls and berms; and

 limiting the hours of operation for a given use.

City of Los Angeles Municipal Code

Construction Noise

Construction noise sources are not measured over a 24-hour period and are therefore not held to a 24-hour community noise standard, since construction noise typically occurs only during the day and varies greatly throughout the day. Construction activities area also treated separately in many noise ordinances because they do not generate chronic, permanent noise. To abate the potential nuisance from construction noise, LAMC Chapter IV, Article 1, Section 41.40 regulates construction noise in several ways. The standards defined by the City for construction activity noise control include the following:

 Section 41.40(a) limit hours of construction activities to 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM if such activities may disturb the sleep of any persons in the vicinity. Construction activities include equipment operations, as well as equipment repair and servicing, and the delivery of any construction materials. (Ordinance No. 155 587)

 Section 41.40(c) further limits hours of allowable operations from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday or any holiday. Construction work is not permitted on Sundays. (Ordinance No. 166 170)

Additionally, LAMC Section 112.05 establishes performance standards for powered equipment or powered hand tools. Between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, in or within 500 feet of any residential zone of the City, no person shall operate any powered equipment or powered hand tool that produces a maximum noise level exceeding the following noise limits at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source:

 75.0 dB(A) 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.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

 75.0 dB(A) for powered equipment of 20 horsepower (hp) or less intended for infrequent use in residential areas, including chain saws, log chippers and powered hand tools.

 65.0 dB(A) for powered equipment intended for repetitive use in residential areas, including lawn mowers, backpack blowers, small lawn and garden tools and riding tractors. (Ordinance No 161 564)

This restriction holds unless compliance is not technically feasible even with the use of noise mufflers, shields, sound barriers and/or other noise-reduction devices or techniques during operation of the equipment.

Operational Noise

LAMC Section 41.40 (Chapter XI, Articles 1 through 6) regulates noise generated by stationary sources (e.g., sound amplifying equipment, powered equipment and machinery, and places of public entertainment) as well as auto repair activity, vehicle acceleration, and audible warning and signaling devices for vehicles. For noise sources listed in Sections 112.01, 112.02, and 114.02 (e.g., radios, television sets, and similar devices, air conditioning, refrigeration, heating, pumping, filtering equipment, unreasonable operation of a motor driven vehicle), a violation occurs if the source results in a noise levels increase of 5.0 dB(A) or more over the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property line. In order to account for greater tolerance for short-term noise events, the noise level measurement may be reduced by 5.0 dB(A) if the noise event occurs for 5 minutes or less during a 1-hour period. For other noise sources, such as powered equipment and devices listed in Section 112.04, a violation occurs if the duration of the noise exceeds a specified period. Also, a penalty of 5.0 dB(A) is applied to steady high-pitched noise or repeated impulsive noise. Where the actual ambient noise level is not known, the presumed daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) minimum ambient noise level for properties zoned residential is considered to be 50.0 dB(A), while the presumed nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) ambient noise level is presumed to be 40.0 dB(A).7 For properties zoned commercial, the presumed daytime and nighttime ambient noise is 60.0 dB(A) and 55.0 dB(A), respectively.8 These values are presented below in Table 4.4-2, Presumed Ambient Noise Levels.

7 Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter XI, Article I, Section 111.03. 8 Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter XI, Article I, Section 111.03.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-2 Presumed Ambient Noise Levels

Zone Decibels Time Residential 50.0 dB(A) Daytime1 Residential 40.0 dB(A) Nighttime2 Commercial 60.0dB(A) Daytime1 Commercial 55.0dB(A) Nighttime2

Source: City of Los Angeles, Municipal Code, Chapter XI, Article I, Section 111.03. 1 Daytime is defined as between 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. 2 Nighttime is defined as between 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM the next day.

City of Los Angeles CNEL Guidelines

The City of Los Angeles has adopted local guidelines based, in part, on the State Department of Health Services noise compatibility guidelines, which are used for planning purposes (i.e., they have no regulatory enforcement). These guidelines are intended for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types within a range of noise levels. Similar to the State Guidelines, the City’s CNEL ranges for specific land uses are classified as normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, or clearly unacceptable. As shown in Table 4.4-3, City of Los Angeles Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, a CNEL value of 65.0 dB(A) is the upper limit of what is considered a normally acceptable noise environment for multi-family residential uses. However, a CNEL as high as 70.0 dB(A) is considered conditionally acceptable for multi-family residential units. For commercial uses a CNEL value of 70.0 dB(A) is the upper limit of what is considered a normally acceptable noise environment and a CNEL value of 77.0 dB(A) is the upper limit of what is considered a conditionally acceptable noise environment.

Ground borne Vibration Standards

The City of Los Angeles has not adopted policies or guidelines relative to ground borne vibration. A technical discussion of construction activity-related vibration is provided in Section 12.2 of the Federal Transit Administration publication titled, Transit Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessments (May 2006). As described therein, a ground borne vibration level of 0.2 inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) should be considered as a damage threshold criterion for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Table 4.4-3 City of Los Angeles Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

dB(A) CNEL Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Land Use Acceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes 50–60 55–70 70–75 70+ Multi-Family Homes 50–65 60–70 70–75 70+ Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing 50–70 60–70 70–80 80+ Homes Transient Lodging: Motels, Hotels 50–65 60–70 70–80 80+ Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters -- 50–70 -- 65+ Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports, -- 50–75 -- 70+ Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks 50–70 -- 67–75 72+ Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, 50–75 -- 70–80 80+ Cemeteries Office Buildings: Personal, Business and 50–70 67–77 75+ -- Professional Commercial Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 50–75 70–80 75+ --

Source: City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide, (2006) I.2-4. Normally Acceptable: The 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 be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Existing Conditions

Noise Environment

The project site is located in an urban location in the community of North Hollywood and is exposed to noise sources typical of such a setting.

Land uses north of the project site are commercial, light industrial or residential uses in character and include a small parking lot and a fitness center/gym that is located directly across Otsego Street from the project site. A four-story multi-family apartment building is located northwest of the site at Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. Land uses south of the project site include multi-family residential and commercial uses, and farther south on Hesby Street uses include multi-family residential dwellings and a Bank of America branch. West of the project site, Fair Avenue contains low-rise multi-family residential dwellings between one and three stories in height, and a church on the southwest corner of Otsego Street and Fair

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Avenue. East of the project site, Lankershim Boulevard is predominantly characterized by one- and two-story retail and commercial buildings.

The project site is composed of three contiguous parcels located at 5077 and 5059 North Lankershim Boulevard and 5056–5058 North Fair Avenue. The northernmost portion of the project site, 5077 Lankershim Boulevard, is developed with a six-story office building and an associated two-story, above-grade parking structure. The parcels at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056–5058 Fair Avenue are currently vacant. Off-site stationary noise sources in the area that are audible on the project site include activities associated with commercial and retail uses surrounding the site, such as people talking, doors slamming, tires squealing, and truck deliveries. Mobile sources of noise audible on the site are related to traffic along Lankershim Boulevard, Otsego Street, and Fair Avenue.

Roadway Traffic Noise

The proposed project site is located within an area of North Hollywood that is highly urbanized. The major source of noise that currently affects the proposed project site is generated by vehicles traveling along Lankershim Boulevard, Otsego Street, and Fair Avenue. Since the proposed project would only incrementally increase vehicle traffic on Lankershim Boulevard, Otsego Street, and Fair Avenue, the existing, existing plus project, and future plus project Average Daily Trips (ADTs) of these roadways were not analyzed. Lankershim Boulevard is currently the loudest roadway near the project site because it is a Major Highway Class II and it is a main thorough-fair in North Hollywood. Existing noise levels measured along Lankershim Boulevard range from a low of 69.2 dB(A) to a high of 71.8 dB(A).

Monitored Existing Noise Levels

Short term noise monitoring was conducted on March 9, 2011 using one Larson Davis 820 SLM Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter. One on-site location was chosen and three off-site locations were chosen to conduct noise monitoring in order to determine the existing noise levels on and adjacent to the project site. The Larson Davis noise monitor was set up for 15-minute at each location and was calibrated to measure noise levels at 1-minute intervals. Figure 4.4-5, Noise Monitoring Locations shows the locations where noise monitoring was conducted. Noise monitoring Location 1 was located on the project site, approximately 274 feet from Lankershim Boulevard, 66 feet from Ostego Street and 102 feet from Fair Avenue. Noise monitoring Location 2 was located at the multi-family residential structure to the south of the project site and was approximately 20 feet from the centerline of Fair Avenue. Noise monitoring Location 3 was located at the church to the west of the project site and approximately 20 feet from the centerline of Fair Avenue. Noise monitoring Location 4 was located at the North Hollywood Gardens multi-family residential structure to the northwest of the project site approximately 28 feet from the

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4 Otsego St.

1 3 Lankershim Blvd.

Fair Ave. Project Site

2

Legend: Project Boundary X Noise Monitoring Location Hesby St. 125.0 62.5 0 125.0

n APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET

SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – March 2011

FIGURE 4.4-5 Noise Monitoring Locations

1027-003•03/11 4.4 Noise

centerline of Otsego Street. Table 4.4-4 Existing Noise Levels shows the existing noise levels during allowable construction hours per the City of Los Angeles between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM at each of the four noise monitoring locations. Noise levels on the project site were extrapolated from the 15-minute monitoring sessions. As shown, noise levels on and around the project site range from 56.0 to 69.0 dB(A).

Table 4.4-4 Existing Noise Levels

Existing Noise Levels Monitoring 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Location Location Description Leq (dB(A)) Location 1 On Project site 56.0 Location 2 At Multi-Family Residential Structure to South of Project Site 61.0 Location 3 At Church to the West of the Project Site 69.0 Location 4 At Multi-Family Residential Structure to the Northwest of Project Site 61.0

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. March 2009. Monitored Noise worksheets and extrapolation worksheets are located in Appendix 4.4.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Methodology

The analysis for future noise levels presented in this section is based on noise monitoring that occurred in the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area, published reports, noise and vibration prediction modeling for construction activities, empirical observations, and traffic volume data provided by Brian A. Marchetti of KOA Corporation.

Short term noise monitoring was conducted on March 9, 2011 at four locations, one on-site location and three off-site locations. Noise monitoring was conducted using a Larson Davis Model 820 SLM Type 1 Integrating Sound Level Meter that was calibrated in the field using Larson Davis CAL150 Precision Acoustic Calibrator. Monitoring was conducted at each location for 15-minutes and each session was calibrated to record noise at 1-minute intervals. The weather was clear with light winds of 0 to 5 miles per hour and the air temperature was approximately 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Noise levels on the project site were extrapolated from the 15-minute monitoring sessions to determine the existing noise levels at each location between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM which are the allowable construction hours per the City of Los Angeles. Noise monitoring and monitoring conversion results are included in Appendix 4.4.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-16 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Construction noise levels and ground-borne vibration impacts were evaluated by identifying potential construction equipment that can produce noise and vibrations, measuring the distance between these sources and surrounding sensitive receptors, and making a significance determination based on the significance thresholds described below.

Because the increase in vehicle trips that would be added to local roadways with implementation of the proposed project is small, a formal analysis using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) was not conducted. It was determined that the proposed project would cause an incremental increase to noise levels along surrounding roadway segments that would not be discernable to the human ear. Typically, it takes a doubling of traffic generated by a proposed project to increase noise levels along streets by up to 3.0 dB(A). Since the proposed project would not double the amount of traffic generated in the local vicinity, and would only add 156 additional daily trips, the project would not result in an increase in significant noise levels along road segments in the area.

Thresholds of Significance

Noise thresholds consider both the Noise Compatibility Criteria and community responses to changes in noise levels. The thresholds of significance used in this noise impact analysis are based on the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the plans and policies identified previously in this section, and community response to noise level changes. These thresholds apply to both project and cumulative impacts assessed herein.

Construction Noise Thresholds

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide state that a project would result in significant noise impacts from construction if any of the following situations occurred:

NOISE-1 Construction activities lasting more than a day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dB(A) or more at a noise sensitive use.

NOISE-2 Construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a three-month period would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5.0 dB(A) or more at a noise sensitive use.

NOISE-3 Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5.0 dB(A) at a noise sensitive receptor between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday, before 8:00 AM or after 6:00 PM on Saturday or at any time on Sunday.9

9 City of Los Angeles, L.A. CEQA Threshold Guide, (2006), I.1-3.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-17 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Construction Vibration Thresholds

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide does not define the levels at which vibration is considered a significant impact. The Federal Transit Administration has published guidelines for assessing the impacts of ground-borne vibration associated with construction activities, which have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects. The Federal Transit Administration threshold for architectural damage for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings (e.g., most residential units) is 0.2 inch per second PPV, which is approximately equal to 94 VdB.10 The Federal Highway Administration does not provide standards for traffic-related vibrations, since they do not consider highway traffic vibrations to pose a threat to buildings and structures.11

The proposed project would result in a significant vibration impact during construction if the following situation occurred:12

NOISE-4 Vibration levels exceed the Federal Transit Administration threshold for architectural damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings of 0.2 inch per second PPV (approximately 94 VdB).

Operational Noise Thresholds

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide indicates a project would normally have a significant operational noise impact if the following were to occur:

NOISE-5 The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact on noise levels from Project operation if the Proposed Project would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected noise uses to increase by 3.0 dB(A) in CNEL to or within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” category, as identified in Table IV.I-3, or any 5 dB(A) or greater noise increase.13

10 Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, (2006) 12–13. The Federal Transit Administration recommends that these limits be viewed as “criteria that should be used during the environmental impact assessment phase to identify problem locations that must be addressed during final design.” 11 California Department of Transportation, Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences), Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV-02-01-R9601, 2002, 10. 12 U.S. Department of Transportation, (2006) 8-3. 13 City of Los Angeles, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, I.2-3 and I.2-4.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-18 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

NOISE-6 Project-related operational (i.e., non-roadway) noise sources, such as outdoor building mechanical/electrical equipment, increase ambient noise levels by 5.0 dB(A), thus causing a violation of the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance.

Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines provides sample questions for use in an Initial Study to determine a project’s potential for environmental impacts. According to the sample questions included in Appendix G under Section XI Noise, a project would have a significant impact if it would result in:

XI.a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

XI.b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;

XI.c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or

XI.d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project determined that the proposed project would have no impact with regard to sample questions XI.c and -d of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The responses to these questions are discussed in Section 8.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant. The Initial Study is provided in Appendix I.

The thresholds used in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide to determine significant noise impacts are inclusive of those provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, thresholds NOISE-1 through NOISE-6, above, are used for the following analysis of the proposed project’s potential impacts.

Impact Analysis

Construction Noise Impacts

Thresholds:

NOISE-1 Implementation of the Proposed Project include construction activities lasting more than a day that would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10.0 dB(A) or more at a noise sensitive use.

NOISE-2 Implementation of the Proposed Project include construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a 3-month period that would exceed existing ambient noise levels by 5.0 dB(A) or more at a noise sensitive use.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-19 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

NOISE-3 Implementation of the Proposed Project include construction activities occurring on-site that would result in an increase of 5.0 dB(A) or more at a noise sensitive use outside the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance (i.e., between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday, before 8:00 AM or after 6:00 PM on Saturday or a public holiday, or at any time on Sunday).

Implementation of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in July 2011. Construction would consist of two distinct phases. Phase I would consist of demolition of the existing parking podium at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and construction of the proposed structure to the west of the Existing Building at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056 through 5058 Fair Avenue. Phase II would involve demolition of the Existing Building at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and construction of the remaining structures. Phase II would commence once the development of the commercial space in Phase I is ready for Citibank to move into. Once Citibank has moved out of the Existing Building, the Existing Building would be demolished and construction of all final structures would commence. A preliminary construction schedule has been developed that indicates that construction on the project site would occur over 32 months and be completed by 2014. During the development of the proposed project site, a different assortment of construction, demolition, and construction equipment would be used. Construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, concrete mixers, cranes, excavators, and graders. Smaller equipment such as jackhammers, pneumatic tools, saws, and hammers could also be used during the construction phases. Heavy trucks would be used to deliver equipment and building materials and haul away waste materials.

Additionally, large construction equipment would be transported to the proposed project site along the City-approved haul route that would avoid residential neighborhood streets and other sensitive receptors to the greatest extent possible. The haul route would be via Lankershim Boulevard to State Route 134 (SR-134, the Ventura Freeway), to the Puente Hills Landfill in the City of Whittier.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise-generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. This data is presented in Figure 4.4-6, Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment. As shown, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68.0 dB(A) to noise levels in excess of 100.0 dB(A) when measured at 50 feet distance from the piece of equipment. As discussed previously, these stationary source noise levels would diminish rapidly with distances from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6.0 to 7.5 dB(A) per doubling distance. Nonetheless, any locations that would have an uninterrupted line of sight to the construction noise source could be exposed to some level of

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-20 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

construction noise. It should be noted that individual pieces of construction equipment would not be used continuously and, due to the small area of the project site, during each of the construction phases only a certain amount of construction equipment would be able to occupy the site and operate all at the same time. A detailed analysis of the expected noise levels as experienced by sensitive receptors around the project site during each phase of construction is described below.

Construction Equipment Noise Impacts

The proposed project site is located in an area of North Hollywood where sensitive receptors to noise exist. There are multi-family residential units directly to the south, west, and northwest of the proposed project site. There is also a church located on the southwest corner of Otsego Street. The closest sensitive receptor to the proposed project site is the multi-family residential structure located approximately 10 feet to the south of the site. The multi-family residential structure would have a direct line of sight onto the project site.

The following analysis provides the estimated noise levels that each of these sensitive receptors may be exposed to during each phase of development on the proposed project site.

The locations and the number of equipment used during each phase at any given time has been assumed based on the size of the construction equipment, the location where the construction equipment may be needed relative to the location of the sensitive receptors, and the size of the area being worked on during each phase of construction.

During Phase I and Phase II construction on the project site, the following pieces of construction equipment would be used: grader, rubber tired dozer, tractor/loader/backhoe, mobile crane, generator, forklift, concrete/industrial saw, roller, and cement/mortar mixers. The use of this construction equipment on site could generate noise levels at sensitive locations which would exceed 75.0 dB(A). Construction noise level modeling was conducted using information from the Federal Transit Administration14 and modeling results are provided in Appendix 4.4.

14 Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06), May 2006, pg. 12-3 and FWWA Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Highway Construction Noise Handbook.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-21 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 NOISE LEVEL (dBA) AT 50 FEET 60 70 80 90 100 110

Compacters (Rollers)

Front Loaders

Backhoes

Tractors

EARTH MOVING EARTH Scrapers, Graders

Pavers

Trucks

Concrete Mixers

Concrete Pumps

Cranes (Movable)

MATERIALS HANDLING MATERIALS Cranes (Derrick)

Pumps EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES INTERNAL POWERED BY EQUIPMENT

Generators STATIONARY STATIONARY Compressors

Pneumatic Wrenches

Jack Hammers, Rock Drills IMPACT IMPACT EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT Pile Drivers (Peaks)

Vibrators

OTHER Saws

Note: Based on limited available data samples.

SOURCE: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," NTID 300-1.

FIGURE 4.4-6 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment

1027-003•03/11 4.4 Noise

During Phase I and Phase II construction, the church to the west of the project site would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 82.0 dB(A) to a high of 89.0 dB(A). The multi-family residential structure to the northwest of the proposed project would be exposed to construction noise levels ranging from a low of 79.0 dB(A) to a high of 86.0 dB(A) during Phase I and Phase II construction. The multi- family residential structure to the south of the proposed project site would be exposed to construction noise levels ranging from a low of 95.0 dB(A) to a high of 103.0 dB(A). Therefore, sensitive receptors would be exposed to noise levels exceeding 5.0 dB(A) over ambient noise levels lasting more than ten days in a three-month period. Construction noise level impacts at the sensitive receptors would therefore be temporarily significant during Phase I and Phase II construction.

Construction Equipment Conclusion

Construction of the proposed project will be required to comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance, and all applicable City codes and regulations for noise control (e.g., Ordinance No. 144.331) that will help limit the impact of construction noise on the sensitive uses. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to implement a construction traffic plan, including the identification of truck haul routes, which would be via Lankershim Boulevard to SR-134, to be approved by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Compliance with the following City noise ordinances and City codes and incorporation of mitigation measures listed below would reduce construction-related noise impacts but impacts would remain temporarily significant during construction.

Construction of the proposed project would occur in compliance with the following City noise ordinances and City codes:

 Construction of the project, and its operation following construction, must be in compliance with applicable provisions of the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance No. 144.331, as required by law.

 Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday, excluding holidays. Ordinance 144.331, Chapter XI, Article 2, Section 112.03 shall further regulate construction activities within 500 feet of a residential zone.

 Construction equipment must use mufflers or other sound restriction devices to reduce noise levels if they are found to exceed levels customarily expected with this type of activity (Article 2, Section 112.03 of the City’s Noise Ordinance).

 Stationary noise sources shall comply with Noise Ordinance 144.331 sound level criteria, Articles 2, 3, 5, and 6 that govern the following activities: amplified sound, general noise, sanitary operations, and special noise sources, such as building equipment, construction and machinery noise.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-23 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Construction Traffic Noise Impacts

In addition to heavy-duty construction equipment noise, the movement of equipment, haul trucks, and workers to and from the project site during construction would generate temporary traffic noise along access routes to the proposed project site. The project applicant will request for LADOT to approve a haul route, which would include Lankershim Boulevard and SR-134 as the main route for construction haulers to and from the proposed project site. It takes a doubling of average daily trips (ADTs) on roadways to increase noise by 3.0 dB(A), and the maximum number of haul truck and construction worker trips to the proposed project site would not cause a doubling of ADTs in the immediate area. As a result, the noise level increases along major arterials surrounding the proposed project site would be less than 3.0 dB(A). Therefore, noise impacts associated with construction-related traffic would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts would be temporarily significant during construction

Mitigation Measures:

4.4-1 Trucks transporting demolition and construction equipment shall be limited to non-residential streets to reduce noise impacts, where feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Los Angeles representatives prior to issuance of a grading permit.

4.4-2 All delivery trucks and stationary vehicles shall stage in the designated staging area, which is off site on at the triangle-shaped parking lot on the west side of the alley south of the project and north of Hesby Street. Delivery hours shall be restricted to between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM within 200 feet of a residential zone.

4.4-3 The applicant of the proposed project shall comply with City of Los Angeles Municipal Code Chapter XI, Noise Regulation, which requires the applicant to post signs prior to construction activities with a hot line phone number for residents and neighbors to call with for construction information and/or to report problems. The applicant and/or project contractor for construction shall ensure that all feasible noise attenuation for construction equipment is being used at the project site and that all regulations and ordinances related to noise generation are being followed. If the City of Los Angeles or the construction relations liaison receives a complaint, the liaison shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. Contract specifications shall be included in the project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Los Angeles representatives prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-24 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

4.4-4 The project contractors shall muffle and shield intakes and exhaust of construction equipment and shroud and shield impact tools.

4.4-5 The construction contractor shall construct a noise barrier 10 feet tall along the total length of the western and southern perimeter of the Project site. The installation of the noise barrier shall occur prior to commencement of Phase I construction. After installation of the noise barriers, the barriers shall stay in place through the end of Phase II construction. The noise barriers shall be made out of any outdoor weather-resistant solid material that meets a minimum sound transmission loss. The use of the noise barrier between construction equipment and the sensitive receptors to the northwest and west would attenuate construction equipment noise levels as much as 8.9 dB(A). The use of the noise barrier between construction equipment and the sensitive receptors to the south of the Project site would attenuate construction equipment noise levels as much as 14.1 dB(A).

Level of Significance After Mitigation:

As discussed above, the Church located to the west of the proposed project site would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 82.0 dB(A) to a high of 89.0 dB(A) during Phase I and Phase II construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 the Church would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 73.1 dB(A) to a high of 80.1 dB(A). Construction barrier calculations are provided in Appendix 4.4 of this EIR.

The multi-family residential structures located to the northwest of the proposed project site would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 79.0 dB(A) to a high of 86.0 dB(A) during Phase I and Phase II construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 the multi-family residential structure to the northwest of the project site would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 70.1 dB(A) to a high of 77.1 dB(A).

The multi-family residential structure located to the south of the proposed project site would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 95.0 dB(A) to a high of 103.0 dB(A) during Phase I and Phase II construction. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 noise levels at the multi-family residential structure south of the project site would range from a low of 80.9 dB(A) to a high of 88.9 dB(A).

Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors would temporarily exceed 5.0 dB(A) over ambient noise levels lasting more than ten days in a three- month period. Therefore, construction noise impacts would be temporarily significant and unavoidable.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-25 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Construction Vibration Impacts

Thresholds:

NOISE-4 Vibration levels exceed the Federal Transit Administration threshold for architectural damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings of 0.2 inch per second PPV (approximately 94 VdB).

Persons residing and working in the area surrounding the proposed project site could be exposed to ground-borne vibrations or ground-borne noise levels related to construction activities. Typical ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach the levels that can damage structures; however, they can achieve the audible range and can be felt in buildings very close to the proposed project site. During each phase of the development of the proposed project, site equipment will be used as discussed above. The analysis presented below is based on the same types and amount of construction equipment as discussed above under Construction Equipment Noise. Modeling was then used to determine the level of vibration each sensitive use would be exposed to if all of the discussed pieces of construction equipment were operating simultaneously.

Construction

During Phase I and Phase II construction on the project site, the following pieces of construction equipment would be used: grader, rubber tired dozer, tractor/loader/backhoe, mobile crane, generator, forklift, concrete/industrial saw, roller, and cement/mortar mixers. The use of this construction equipment on site could generate ground borne vibrations at adjacent sensitive receptors. Construction vibration modeling was conducted using information from the Federal Transit Administration15 and modeling results are provided in Appendix 4.4. During Phase I and Phase II construction, the church to the west of the project site would be exposed to vibration levels ranging from a low of 62.7 VdB to a high of 72.7 VdB. The multi-family residential structure to the northwest of the proposed project would be exposed to vibration levels ranging from a low of 58.2 VdB to a high of 72.1 VdB during Phase I and Phase II construction. The multi-family residential structure to the south of the proposed project site would be exposed to vibration levels ranging from a low of 67.1 VdB to a high of 92.6 VdB. Therefore, vibration levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors would not exceed the 94.0 VdB threshold per the LAMC, and construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.

15 Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06), May 2006, pg. 12-12.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-26 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Operational Noise Impacts

Thresholds:

NOISE-5 Would the proposed project would result in a significant impact on noise levels from project operation if the proposed project would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected noise uses to increase by 3.0 dB(A) in CNEL to or within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” category, as identified in Table IV.I-3, or any 5 dB(A) or greater noise increase?16

NOISE-6 Would project-related operational (i.e., non-roadway) noise sources, such as outdoor building mechanical/electrical equipment, increase ambient noise levels by 5.0 dB(A), thus causing a violation of the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance?

The proposed residential and retail commercial uses do not typically generate excessive noise levels. The predominant noise source within the City of Los Angeles is traffic.17 The project would result in the demolition of the existing buildings and parking structure on site and would replace these structures with a five-story mixed-use building.

Roadway Noise

The proposed project is located in a highly urbanized area of North Hollywood in the City of Los Angeles. The site is surrounded by major thoroughfares and the majority of noise is generated by vehicles traveling along these street segments. A traffic memorandum was prepared by KOA Corporation on January 15, 2010. The memorandum calculated project trip generation, including credits for the existing operational uses. As indicated in the memorandum, the proposed project would generate a net increase of 156 daily trips, including 41 weekday AM peak-hour trips and six weekday PM peak-hour trips.18

16 City of Los Angeles, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, I.2-3 and I.2-4. 17 City of Los Angeles, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, I.2-2. 18 KOA Corporation, Memorandum for Traffic Study Waiver Request Update – Lankershim Lofts Mixed-Use Project, Brian A. Marchetti, January 15, 2010.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-27 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate a sufficient volume of vehicle trips to cause an audible increase in noise levels. Typically, it takes a doubling of traffic volumes on a roadway to cause an audible increase. The proposed project would not double the amount of vehicles on local streets; therefore, any increase in noise along street segments would not be discernable to the human ear. Impacts would be less than significant in regards to noise increase along surrounding roadways due to implementation and operation of the proposed project.

Point Source Noise

Parking Structure

The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing parking structure on the northwest corner of the project site. The mixed-use structure proposed for the project site includes the development of a three-story parking structure, two stories that will be subterranean and one story that will be at-grade parking. A total of 358 parking spaces would be provided on the ground floor and two subterranean levels. The at-grade parking level will provide for a total of 95 parking stalls for both the commercial uses and residential uses of the proposed project. The remaining 263 parking stalls will be located on the two subterranean levels of the parking structure and will be exclusively for the residential uses of the proposed project.

In general, noise associated with enclosed parking structures, especially subterranean and partially enclosed above-grade parking structures, is not sufficiently loud to exceed community standards based on the time-weighted CNEL scale. Parking garages can be a source of annoyance due to automobile engine start-ups and acceleration and the activation of car alarms. Adjacent multi-family residential land uses to the south, west, and northwest and adjacent church use to the west of the project site would be the closest sensitive receptors within the project area. These uses are currently exposed to noise levels between 61.0 to 69.0 dB(A) which are mainly generated by vehicles traveling along Fair Avenue, Otsego Street, and Lankershim Boulevard. Subterranean and above grade parking structures can generate noise levels between 49.0 dB(A) Leq (tire squeals) and 74.0 dB(A) Leq (car alarms) at 50 feet from the noise source. Due to the masking of noise by the high levels of roadway noise along Fair Avenue, Otsego Street, and Lankershim Boulevard, normal daytime parking lot noise would not likely be audible outside of the proposed parking structure. The subterranean portion of the parking garage would act as a damper for daytime (daytime refers to the hours between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM) parking lot noise due to the enclosure by concrete walls. Furthermore, the at-grade portion of the parking structure would be enclosed which would further attenuate parking structure noise levels that would be experienced by surrounding sensitive receptors. Consequently, noise generated by use of the parking structure would

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-28 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

not impact sensitive land uses surrounding the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mechanical Systems

The proposed project would include the development of mechanical systems such as a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, and electrical equipment that could generate increased noise levels emanating from the proposed project site. The majority of the mechanical systems will be located within the at-grade parking structure. The mechanical systems would be enclosed in rooms within the at-grade level of the parking structure to ensure that noise levels are attenuated to acceptable levels. Furthermore, mechanical rooms that contain HVAC systems would be located in enclosed areas within the stairway towers that would be located on the proposed project site. Since these mechanical systems will be enclosed, it is expected that they would not expose sensitive receptors around the project site to noise levels that would exceed the standards as provided by the City of Los Angeles regulations. Therefore, impacts with respect to compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would be less than significant.

Courtyards

The proposed project would incorporate the design of two courtyards to provide open space areas for its residents. Typical noise generated in courtyards includes people talking, music playing, and children playing. Courtyard 1 will be located in the western-center portion of the proposed project site, and Courtyard 2 will be located toward the eastern-center portion of the proposed project site. Both courtyards would be surrounded by the residential towers that will be part of the proposed project. Therefore, any noise associated with activities within the courtyard areas would be attenuated due to their location and the fact that they are surrounded by buildings that are part of the proposed project. It is expected that development of the proposed project, specifically activities occurring within the courtyards, would not expose sensitive receptors around the project site to noise levels that would exceed the standards as provided by the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, impact would be less than significant.

Noise Impacts to Project Residents

Concerning potential noise impacts to project residents, the Noise Element of the General Plan considers 55.0 dB(A) to be the normally acceptable exterior noise level for multi-family residential units. Noise levels up to 65.0 dB(A) are considered conditionally acceptable where new construction containing fresh air ventilation systems and closed windows are provided, as is the case with the proposed project.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-29 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

Studies have shown that the exterior to interior noise reduction provided by a structure with closed windows is approximately 20.0 dB(A).19

Lankershim Boulevard is a Class II Major Highway and is designed to accommodate 30,000 to 50,000 ADTs at peak traffic hours. Using the Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77- 108), it was determined that sensitive receptors along Lankershim Boulevard, would be exposed to noise levels ranging from a low of 70.5 dB(A) to a high of 72.7 dB(A) at 75-feet from the centerline of Lankershim Boulevard.20 Noise levels experienced at the project site will be somewhat less due to the attenuating affect associated with distance from the source on Lankershim Boulevard. Assuming the use of conventional construction material and techniques, interior noise levels experienced by project occupants are estimated to reach 56.0 dB(A) CNEL. This slightly exceeds the City’s standard for interior noise levels. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant prior to mitigation.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

4.4-6 All private exterior livable space (i.e., balconies), located on the second floor fronting Lankershim Boulevard, shall be required to construct a 4-foot tall (42 inches high from the inside floor of the balconies) solid barrier. All private exterior livable space (i.e., balconies), located on floors three and four fronting Lankershim Boulevard, shall be required to construct a 21 inch (measured from the inside floor of the balconies) solid barrier. Solid Barriers shall consist of a solid material such as, plexiglass or wood, in place of an open wood or iron railing. This solid barrier between the Lankershim Boulevard and the exterior livable space would reduce noise levels between 7.0 dB(A) to 10.0 dB(A).21 The acoustical consultant shall approve the final heights and/or materials for the enclosures of the exterior livable spaces.

19 United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Highway Noise Fundamentals, 1980, p. 81. 20 Refer to http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/transelt/TE/T6StStds.pdf for details regarding Major Class II Highway design standards. Also please refer to Appendix 4.4 for results of Lankershim future noise levels based on estimated ADTs of 30,000 to 50,000. 21 Canter, Larry W. “Prediction and Assessment of Impacts on the Noise Environment.” Environmental Impact Assessment, 1996.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-30 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

4.4-7 All private interior livable space located on floors two through five fronting Lankershim Boulevard shall be required to incorporate construction techniques to reduce interior noise levels to 55.0 dB(A) or less. Example of techniques that may be applied include, but are not limited to, attaching interior sheet rock of the exterior walls assemblies to studs by resilient channels, staggering of studs or double walls; providing window assemblies with a laboratory tested STC rating of 30 or greater, baffling roof or attic vents facing the noise source, and double pane windows.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts

Construction Noise Impacts

Cumulative development has the potential to produce noise construction impacts. Given that timing of construction activities for future projects cannot be fully defined, any quantitative analysis that assumes multiple concurrent construction projects would be speculative. In addition, each of the related projects would have to comply with the local noise ordinance, as well as mitigation measures that may be incorporated pursuant to CEQA, required environmental review that would reduce construction noise for each project to the extent feasible. As such, individual construction noise impacts would only contribute to cumulative impacts when projects are in proximity to each other. There are no related projects that are within a one-block radius of the proposed project site. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project considered together with related projects would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulatively significant noise construction impacts.

Roadway Noise Impacts

Cumulative noise impacts would primarily occur as the result of increased traffic on local roadways due to ambient growth and other development in the vicinity of the project site. The future ambient noise level at roads surrounding the proposed project site would increase from traffic associated with future development. Future development would be reviewed subsequent to CEQA and any impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible. As noted above, the proposed project would add 156 ADTs to local street segments, which would result in a barely perceptible increase in roadway noise in the area and thus would not substantively contribute to cumulative increases in roadway noise. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-31 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.4 Noise

On-Site Noise Impacts

Implementation of the proposed project along with the related projects would slightly increase the ambient noise level in North Hollywood. Residents of the proposed project would be exposed to typical noise levels that are associated with major urban areas. Project residents would typically be exposed to noise sources including: vehicles, people talking, dogs barking, vehicle tires squealing and vehicle alarms. Development of the proposed project and related projects would incrementally contribute to existing in noise levels in North Hollywood; however, the noise level increases would be less than 3.0 dB(A) and therefore, inaudible to the human ear. Furthermore, the proposed project would include mitigation measures to reduce interior noise levels on-site to a level under the City of Los Angeles’ interior noise level thresholds. Related projects would undergo CEQA review and similar mitigation measures as the proposed project would be applied. Therefore, the proposed project and related projects would not cumulatively contribute to noise impacts. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4-32 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING

INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the consistency of the Lankershim Lofts project with applicable local land use policies. The proposed project is subject to the City of Los Angeles General Plan, the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) (including the Zoning Ordinance), and the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. In addition, an analysis of the consistency of the project with regional plans prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is also provided.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Regional Setting

The City of Los Angles is located within the six-county jurisdiction of the SCAG, which also includes Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial counties. SCAG has divided its jurisdiction into 13 subregions to facilitate regional planning efforts. The City is located in the Los Angeles City Subregion.

In 2008, SCAG updated its Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), which is a long-term comprehensive plan that addresses the SCAG region’s many challenges, and provides a strategic vision for handling the region’s land use, housing, economic, transportation, environmental, and overall quality of life needs. The RCP is similar to a general plan for the region and is in fact intended to function as a voluntary toolbox to assist cities and counties in developing General and Specific plans. To that end, the RCP includes nine chapters: land use and housing, open space and habitat, water, energy, air quality, solid waste, transportation, security and emergency preparedness, and economy—with each having specific goals, outcomes, and action plans designed to help set the path toward a more sustainable region. The RCP includes “constrained policies,” which are recommended near-term policies, and “strategic initiatives” that are longer-term strategies aimed to achieve the desired goals and outcomes of the RCP.

As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. If a project meets the definition for “Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance” contained in Section 15206(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, SCAG requests that the project be analyzed for consistency with applicable policies in the RCPG. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for Projects of Statewide, Regional, or Areawide Significance.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Local Setting

The project site is located within the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. Land uses north of the project site are commercial, light industrial or residential in character and include a small parking lot, auto repair shop, and retail furniture store located directly across Otsego Street from the project site. A four-story multi-family apartment building is located northwest of the site at Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. Land uses south of the project site include multi-family residential and commercial uses, and farther south on Hesby Street uses include multi-family residential dwellings and a Bank of America branch. West of the project site, Fair Avenue contains low-rise multi-family residential dwellings between one and three stories in height, and a church on the southwest corner of Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. East of the project site, Lankershim Boulevard is predominantly characterized by one- and two-story retail and commercial buildings.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

City of Los Angeles General Plan

Land use and planning within the City of Los Angeles is governed by the City’s General Plan, which consists of 11 elements: the Framework, Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources, Infrastructure Systems, Transportation, Open Space, Service Systems, Housing, Noise, Air Quality, Conservation, and Safety Elements. The Land Use Element is made up of Community Plans for each of the City’s 35 Community Planning Areas. The Land Use Element has the broadest scope of all the General Plan Elements, as it establishes the pattern of land use in the City’s communities and sets forth standards and guidelines to regulate development.

North Hollywood Community Plan

The North Hollywood Community Plan is intended to promote an arrangement of land uses, streets, and services which will encourage and contribute to the economic, social, and physical health, safety, welfare, and convenience of the people who live and work in the community. The plan is also intended to guide development in order to create a healthful and pleasant environment. Goals, objectives, and policies are created to meet the existing and future needs and desires of the North Hollywood community through the year 2011.

The Community Plan ensures that sufficient land is designated for housing, commercial, and industrial needs as well as educational, cultural, social, and aesthetic needs of the residents of the community. The plan seeks to enhance community identity, identifies and provides for the maintenance of significant environmental resources, and recognizes unique areas within the community. The proposed project site is

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

located within the North Hollywood Community Plan and is designated with the following land uses: Residential-Multi-Family and Commercial.1

North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan

The North Hollywood Redevelopment Area is generally bounded by Hatteras Street on the north, Sarah Street, Camarillo Street and the Ventura Freeway on the south, Tujunga and Camellia on the west, and Cahuenga on the east. The redevelopment area contains the central business district for the North Hollywood community with the main focus of development located along Lankershim Boulevard. The North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the City Council in February 1979, and subsequently amended in 1980, 1988, and 1995. The most recent amendment establishes a special emphasis on attracting and retaining the arts and entertainment industry in the area. The primary objective of the Redevelopment Plan is the preservation and enhancement of the redevelopment area as a diverse community with active residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. The Redevelopment Plan establishes a framework implementing community revitalization activities. All development, including the construction of new buildings, and the remodeling and expansion of existing buildings must conform to the Redevelopment Plan and all building permits must be submitted to and approved by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA).

The proposed project site is located in the North Hollywood Arts District of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and is designated with the following primary and secondary land uses: Primary: arts-related cultural uses and specialty retail uses. Secondary: office uses, service uses, and residential uses.2

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

In accordance with Appendix G to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project would have a significant impact on land use if it would:

 physically divide an established community;

1 City of Los Angeles Planning Department, North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan, Generalized Land Use Map, http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/valley/pdf/genlumap.nhl.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2011. 2 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Design for Development Establishing North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Commercial Core Urban Design Guidelines, Adopted September 20, 2007, pg. 5.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

 conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or

 conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.

Furthermore, as set forth in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors, which are used here, as thresholds of significance:

LU-1 Whether the proposed project is consistent with adopted land use/density designation in the Community Plan, Redevelopment Plan or Specific Plan for the site.

LU-2 Whether the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan or adopted environmental goals or policies contained in other applicable plans.

LU-3 The extent of the area impacted, the nature and degree of impacts and the type of land uses within the area.

LU-4 The extent to which existing neighborhoods, communities or land uses would be disrupted, divided or isolated and the duration of the disruptions.

LU-5 The number, degree and type of secondary impacts to surrounding land uses that could result from implementation of the proposed project.

Impact Analysis

Thresholds:

LU-1 Whether the proposed project is consistent with adopted land use/density designation in the Community Plan, Redevelopment Plan or Specific Plan for the site

LU-2 Whether the proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan or adopted environmental goals or policies contained in other applicable plans

The site is within the City of Los Angeles and within the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area and is, therefore, subject to the City’s land use plans, policies, and regulations as well as those of the Redevelopment Plan for the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Four plans and the LAMC (Zoning Code) govern land use on the project site: the City of Los Angeles General Plan, North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan, North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, and the North Hollywood Commercial and Artcraft Supplemental Use District. The City of Los Angeles General Plan consists of the Framework Element (1996), which is a long-range citywide comprehensive growth strategy, and 32 Community Plans that comprise the Land Use Element of the General Plan. These Community Plans are intended to promote an arrangement of land uses, streets, and services that meet the objectives of the General Plan. The proposed project is located in the North Hollywood-Valley Village Plan Area (adopted in 1996). The project is also within the boundaries of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (adopted in 1979), including the North Hollywood (NoHo) Commercial and Artcraft Supplemental Use District (adopted in 1995). The City’s Planning and Zoning Code assists in enacting the land use policies of the General Plan and the Community Plan by designating property for specified types of development and defines development standards for each of those categories.

The project applicant is requesting from CRA/LA to allow residential use in a commercial area per Section 604 of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. As previously discussed, the proposed project site is designated as Multi-Family Residential and Commercial land uses under the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan. Additionally the proposed project site is designated for arts-related cultural land uses; specialty retail land uses; office uses; service uses; and, residential land uses under the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, the features of the proposed project would be allowed land uses under both the North Hollywood Community Plan and the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan.

Further, the applicant is also requesting a Zone Variance from the City of Los Angeles to allow residential uses in the C4-1-CA zone. Residential uses at R4 density are generally permitted by the Zoning Code in the C4 zone. The project site contains multiple zone designations, R4-1-CA and C4-1-CA, in the Commercial and Artcraft District. The Zoning Code section applicable to Commercial and Artcraft Districts states that residential uses in C zones are permitted in connection with the main commercial or artcraft use. Strict interpretation of the Zoning Code could potentially restrict residential uses that are not “in connection with the main commercial or artcraft use.” Recent zoning actions on nearby projects with similar circumstances concluded that the Zoning Ordinance was intended to encourage a mix of uses where appropriate and it does not prohibit stand-alone residential developments or, by inference, mixed-use projects. Because of the potential ambiguity in the City’s interpretation of this Zoning Code section, a variance is being requested. With approval from CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles allowing residential uses in the commercial zone, the project would be consistent with the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and the City’s Zoning Code, and no impact would occur.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

The applicant is also requesting Zone Variances from the City of Los Angeles to allow:

 an increased floor area ratio to 3.5:1 average for the overall site;

 vehicular and pedestrian access from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zone;

 balcony projections into the side yard setback area; and

 elimination of the required commercial loading area on property.

 modification of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow residential condominium uses

These requests are discussed below.

An increased floor area ratio to 3.5:1 average for the overall site

The City of Los Angeles Zoning Code designates the northern and eastern portions of the project site, totaling approximately 42,764 square feet, as Community Commercial, Height District No. 1, Commercial and Artcraft Supplemental Use District (C4-1-CA). Under this designation, buildings on a lot in a commercial or industrial zone cannot exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of one and a half times the area of the site (expressed as 1.5:1).3

The Zoning Code designates the southwestern portion of the project site, approximately 22,112 square feet, as High Medium Residential, Height District No. 1, Commercial and Artcraft Supplemental Use District (R4-1-CA). Under this designation, buildings on a lot in a high medium residential zone cannot exceed a FAR of three times the area of the site (expressed as 3.0:1).4

Assuming the ground floor of the area of the C4 zone is 100 percent commercial/retail, a 1.5:1 FAR would allow up to approximately 64,146 square feet of floor area in the C4 zone. Assuming the ground floor of the area of the R4 zone is 100 percent residential, a 3:1 FAR would allow up to approximately 66,336 square feet of floor area in the R4 zone. Accordingly, the total combined floor area permitted on the project site is approximately 130,482 square feet (64,146 square feet + 66,336 square feet = 130,482 square feet). However, under the 1:1.5 FAR and 3.0:1 FAR limits, only 66,336 square feet is permitted. The project proposes development of approximately 172,080 square feet. Therefore, the project requires a variance to the Zoning Code from the City of Los Angeles Planning Department to permit a proposed average FAR of 3.5:1 on the project site. This FAR designation would allow the development of 227,066 square feet, which exceeds the approximately 172,080 square feet proposed by the project.

3 Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Article 1.5, Section 12.21.1-A.1. 4 Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Article 1.5, Section 12.21.1-A.1.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Vehicular and pedestrian access from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zone

The project site is divided into two Community Plan land use designations and two different zone categories: R4-1-CA and C4-1-CA. Granting of the variance would enable residents occupying the residential units located in the C4-1-CA portion of the proposed project to park in the R4-1-CA portion and to walk from the R4-1-CA portion to the C4-1-CA portion.

Modification of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow residential condominium uses

The proposed project would allow a total of 156 residential condominium uses on site. A modification of Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No. 68797) is proposed, pursuant to Section 17.01 of the LAMC, to allow the 130 residential condominium unit on Lot 1, and 26 residential condominium units on Lot 2 to be sold as condominiums. No land use impact would result from approval of this modification.

Balcony projections into the side yard setback area

The Zoning Code also specifies required yard setbacks for specific zones. The project is within both the R4 and C4 zones. For residential uses in the C4 zone, side and rear yards are the same as those set for the R4 zone, with setbacks applied at the lowest residential level, and no front yards are required.5 The project proposes commercial uses, a leasing office for the residential uses, and parking uses on the ground (first) floor. The required side yard setbacks in the R4 zone is 5 feet plus 1 additional foot for each residential story above the second floor, not to exceed 16 feet. The required dimension of the front yard setbacks for uses in the R4 zone is 15 feet. These setback requirements would be applicable to the residential levels of the project, the second through sixth floors. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety will consider the project site a “through lot,” with front yards along Fair Avenue and Lankershim Boulevard and side yards along Otsego Street and the southern property line. No yard requirements apply to the residential portions of buildings located on lots in the C4 zones used for combined commercial and residential uses if such portions are used exclusively for residential uses, abut a street and the first floor of such building at ground level is used for commercial uses or for access to the residential portions of such buildings.6 This requirement would be applicable to the Lankershim Boulevard yard. For other yards in a development combining residential and commercial uses, the yard requirements of the zone in which the lot is located shall apply.7 This requirement would apply to the

5 Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.16 “C4” Commercial Zone. 6 Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.22A 18. (c)(3). 7 Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.22A 18. (c).

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Otsego Street, Fair Avenue, and southerly yards, which would be required to adhere to the yard requirements for the R4 zone.

Based upon the Zoning Code, the setback requirement for the side yards (Otsego Street and the southern property line) would be 9 feet (5 feet plus 4 additional feet—one for each residential story above the second story). The project would provide a varying setback of 9 feet 0 inches to 9 feet 1-3/8 inches along Otsego Street and a varying setback of 9 feet 1/16 inches to 9 feet 8 7/16 inches along the southern boundary. The project includes a 6-foot-6-inch setback from the edge of the roadway to the closest building projection (balcony face) along both Otsego Street and the southern property line. The balconies would project 30 inches into the side yards; the Zoning Code allows this on Otsego Street but not along the southern boundary. As part of the project, the applicant has requested a variance to permit the balconies to project 30 inches into the southern property line side yard setback.

Based upon the Zoning Code, the setback requirement for the front yard (Fair Avenue) would be 15 feet. The project would provide a setback of 18 feet along the front yard. The balconies would project 48 inches into the yard on Fair Avenue, as allowed by the Zoning Code.

As discussed above, no setback is required along Lankershim Boulevard. Nonetheless, the architect has provided a varying setback along Lankershim Boulevard of 0 feet to 10 feet.

In conclusion, with granting of the variance requested for balcony projections into the sideyard setback, no impact would occur.

Elimination of the required commercial loading area on property which abuts an alley

The Zoning Code mandates a loading space of 1,000 square feet where the gross floor area of a commercial building exceeds 200,000 square feet. The commercial component of the proposed project will be only 11,200 square feet in size, which is approximately 5 percent of the total development. The Zoning Code does contain an exception (Section 12.21 C.6.(a)) from the loading zone requirement if the structure is used solely for residential uses; however, the provision does not extend to mixed-use projects. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Code would require the property owner to maintain a loading area far larger than needed for the amount of commercial development proposed for the project. In addition, the configuration of the project site, which has multiple contiguous zones and an alley terminating on an oblique angle at the southerly property line, results in an alley that does not represent a functional or convenient access point for delivery vehicles.

The applicant has requested a Zoning Administrator Adjustment to allow relief from R-4 and C-4 zone area requirements for side and rear yard setbacks at the zone boundary line. The granting of this request

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

would allow one building to be constructed across and on top of the zone boundary. The requested yard adjustments are from an interior lot line and would have no impact on the adjacent properties.

As indicated above, the project site is located within Height District 1, which does not limit the total height of the development. Footnote 3 of the Community Plan states that property designated for Community Commercial land uses must correspond to an average Height District 1 with a maximum of Height District 2, which has an unlimited height. However, the project site abuts a residentially zoned property to the south. Therefore, the Commercial Corner Development provisions of LAMC Section 12.24W27 are imposed on the project site, which limits the maximum height of any development to 45 feet. However, a project may be deemed exempt from the Commercial Corner Development standards and conditions of LAMC Section 12.22A23 if the project is deemed a mixed-use project as defined by LAMC Section 13.09B3, consisting of predominantly residential uses, and does not contain commercial uses pursuant to LAMC Section 12.24W. Commercial uses not allowed pursuant to Section 12.24W include (1) a commercial use not otherwise subject to conditional use approval which operates between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM, (2) an amusement enterprise such as a pool hall or similar uses, and (3) an automobile laundry or wash rack. The project is a mixed-use project that is predominantly residential, and the commercial uses proposed (general retail and a bank) are permissible. Therefore, the project is deemed exempt from the Commercial Corner Development standards and conditions of LAMC Section 12.22A23, and is allowed to exceed the 45-foot height limit. Therefore, the height of the proposed project, approximately 89 feet in height above grade, as measured to the highest point of the roof projections (i.e., stair and elevator towers) would be allowed, and any impact related to height would be less than significant.

Density

The project site is within the R4-1-CA and C4-1-CA zones, which permits residential uses at an R4 density. The minimum lot area for residential development within the R4 zone is 400 square feet per dwelling unit.8 For residential development within the C4 zone, LAMC Section 12.63C3 states that the “lot area requirements for the R4 zone … shall apply to all portions of the buildings erected and used for residential purposes.” Given that the total area of the project site is approximately 64,876 square feet, the total number of dwelling units permitted under the R4 density is 162 units. The proposed project would develop 156 residential dwelling units, which is within the 162 dwelling units permitted under the R4 density. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the density requirement under the LAMC.

8 Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Article 1.5, Section 12.11.C4.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Open Space

LAMC Section 12.21G requires all multi-family developments with six or more units to provide on-site open space for passive and/or active recreational use. Usable open space may consist of private and/or common areas as defined in the City regulations. For units with less than three habitable rooms, the LAMC requires 100 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. For units with three habitable rooms, the LAMC requires 125 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. For units with more than three habitable rooms, the LAMC requires 175 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Therefore, the project would need to provide 15,600 square feet of residential open space (54 units with less than 3 habitable rooms × 100 square feet per unit = 5,400 square feet; 93 units with 3 habitable rooms × 125 square feet per unit = 11,625 square feet; and 11 units with more than 3 habitable rooms × 175 square feet per unit = 1,925 square feet; 5,400 square feet + 11,625 square feet + 1,925 square feet = 18,950 square feet). The project would provide 19,409 square feet of usable open space with 13,509 square feet of common open space and 5,900 square feet of private open space, which are also in accordance with the LAMC.

Parking

Under the LAMC, a total of 319 spaces are required for the proposed project, if developed with 156 apartment units and 11,200 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project would provide 358 spaces which is an additional 39 parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed LAMC parking requirements.

Impacts related to land use would be less than significant, and no further study is required.

The parcel located at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard is approximately 14,114 square feet in size and zoned C4-1-CA. Use of the site for a temporary parking lot is allowable under the Zoning Code, and no conflict would occur.

The project site is not located within a natural conservation community or a habitat conservation area. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation elements or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur as a result of the project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Threshold:

LU-3 The extent of the area impacted, the nature and degree of impacts and the type of land uses within the area

LU-4 The extent to which existing neighborhoods, communities, or land uses would be disrupted, divided, or isolated and the duration of the disruptions

LU-5 The number, degree, and type of secondary impacts to surrounding land uses that could result from implementation of the proposed project (i.e., Air Quality, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Noise)

The site is currently developed with a six-story office building (Existing Building) and an associated two-level, above-grade parking structure at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and a vacant lot at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard. The parts of the site at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard 5056–5068 Fair Avenue are currently undeveloped. Land uses directly north of the project site across Otsego Street include a parking lot, auto repair shop, and retail furniture store. Land uses south of the project site include multi-family residential dwellings, and commercial uses. Fair Avenue west of the project site generally supports low-rise multi-family residential dwellings between one and three stories in height and a church located on the southeast corner of Otsego Street and Fair Avenue. Land uses east of the project site include retail and restaurant uses. No established community would be divided by the project. The project would be constructed on an existing city block and would be consistent with existing uses within the project area.

The project site is not located within a natural conservation community or a habitat conservation area. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation elements or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur as a result of the project. (Potential impacts relating to Air Quality, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, and Noise are addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report [EIR])

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required beyond mitigation measures located in Sections 4.1 through 4.4 of this Draft EIR.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

Cumulative Impacts

Development of future projects within the boundaries of the North Hollywood Community Plan area and the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area would result in changes to existing land uses in the community of North Hollywood. Future development, including development of the proposed project, would be required to meet or enhance the following objectives of the Community Plan:

 Preserve and enhance the positive character of existing residential neighborhoods while providing a variety of housing opportunities with compatible new housing;

 Improve the function, design and economic vitality of the commercial corridors;

 Maximize the development opportunities of the future rail transit system while minimizing any adverse impacts;

 Plan the remaining commercial and industrial development opportunity sites for needed job producing uses that improves the economic and physical condition of the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan area; and,

 Develop a North Hollywood Art Craft District centered in the central business district along Lankershim Boulevard.

Similarly all future development, including the proposed project, within the boundaries of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area would be required to meet or enhance the following objectives of the Plan:

 Foster development that reinforces the identity of North Hollywood and enables its creative business and residential communities to flourish;

 Build a community of districts and neighborhoods, each with a district identity;

 Preserve and reinforce the existing character of the North Hollywood Arts District;

 Support existing art, theater, and other cultural facilities and develop new facilities that complement the existing facilities;

 Create a significant concentration of commercial development (retail, hotel, entertainment and office), as well as housing, around the Metro Red and Orange Line Stations;

 Encourage convenience uses that will become part of the everyday commute;

 Provide linkages between the transit-related development in the Lankershim Core, the North Hollywood Arts District and surrounding neighborhoods and between individual buildings in the Lankershim Core;

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.5 Land Use and Planning

 Reinforce Lankershim Boulevard and Magnolia Boulevard as North Hollywood’s retail, cultural, and pedestrian activity spines, providing shopping and cultural activities within walking distance of one another, jobs, the surrounding neighborhoods and the Metro Red and Orange Line Stations;

 Design buildings and streetscape amenities to activate the street and encourage walking;

 Provide a broad range of housing types and price levels that offer a full range of choices and bring people of diverse ages, ethnicities, and incomes into daily interactions;

 Preserve existing stable neighborhoods, including existing housing stock that provides affordable, family housing;

 Cultivate compact, pedestrian-friendly residential neighborhoods where a variety of activities are within walking distance and new development is integrated into, not isolated from, the existing neighborhood;

 Design streets not just for vehicles, but as usable outdoor space for walking and visual enjoyment;

 Provide adequate public open space, including joint use open space with Los Angeles Unified School District and MTA within walking distance of residents;

 Reinforce Burbank Boulevard’s function as a commonly serving commercial and mixed-use district; and,

 Reinforce Tujunga Avenue’s function as a neighborhood-serving commercial and residential district.

All future development would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by the City of Los Angeles. For this reason, all future development is anticipated to be consistent with the City of Los Angeles General Plan, the North Hollywood Community Plan, the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan area, and zoning requirements, or be subject to an allowable exception, and, further, would be subject to CEQA, mitigation requirements, and design review. As both the future projects and the proposed project would be consistent with land use planning objectives of the North Hollywood Community Plan and the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan cumulative impacts related to land use would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.5-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

INTRODUCTION

This section addresses the project’s potential environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The information contained in this section is derived from following documents: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), dated March 2, 2006, performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc.; Soil Vapor Survey, dated January 13, 2006, performed by Leighton and Associates, Inc., Asbestos Survey Report 5056 through 5058 Fair Avenue, prepared March 17, 2006, performed by City Environmental Services, Inc.; and Asbestos Survey Report 5059 Lankershim Boulevard, prepared March 17, 2006, performed by City Environmental Services, Inc. These documents are included as Appendix 4.6 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Historical Uses

Based on historical records, the project site has had a number of uses located on it. From 1922 to 1927, the project site contained vacant land, and multiple single-family homes. From 1928 to 1956, uses included multi-family dwelling units, retail stores, auto repair shops, dry cleaners, and a gasoline station. From 1961 to present, the project site was developed with the existing uses, which include multi-family dwelling units, retail stores and a six-story bank building.

Existing Conditions

Site surveys were conducted on November 2 and December 20, 2005. The site surveys consisted of observation and documentation of the existing site conditions and nature of the neighboring property development within a 0.25 mile of the project site.

Hazardous Materials

Hooper Camera at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard stores chemicals for photo processing. These chemicals appeared to be stored properly and chemical wastes are removed by a licensed disposal company on a regular basis.

Asbestos Containing Materials

A limited Asbestos Survey was performed as part of the Phase I ESA. While no asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were discovered, suspect ACMs were identified on the project site. The Phase I ESA recommended more detailed surveys to sample suspect ACMs.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Asbestos Survey Reports were prepared for the project site to further assess potential ACMs on the project site. ACMs identified included drywall and joint compound, vinyl floor tile and associated mastic, roof patch mastic, and rolled roofing material.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Evidence of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) was not observed on site. Three pole-mounted transformers were observed on the eastern boundary of 5056 Fair Avenue. Three additional transformers were observed on the northern boundary of 5077 Lankershim Boulevard. Staining was not observed beneath these transformers. PCBs are not considered a concern on the project site.

Soil Vapor

Due to the historical presence of an auto repair facility and dry cleaners on the project site, a Soil Vapor Survey was performed. No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-g) were discovered in the 10 soil vapor samples taken on the project site. There was no visual or olfactory evidence of impacted soils during collection of the soil samples. Based on the results of this study, no further actions were deemed necessary.

Records Review

A search of selected government databases was conducted using an Environmental Data Resources (EDR) environmental data base report. The report meets the government records search requirements of ASTM E1527-00.

One address on the project site was identified in the EDR report. 5059 Lankershim Boulevard is listed under the Haznet database for disposal of photo-processing chemicals.

The EDR report did not identify any sites within the project vicinity that would have the potential to pose a hazard to the project site.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Federal Regulations

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the main federal agency responsible for enforcing regulations relating to hazardous materials and wastes, including evaluation and remediation of contamination and hazardous wastes. The U.S. EPA works collaboratively with other agencies to enforce materials handling and storage regulations and site cleanup requirements. The Occupational

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are authorized to regulate safe transport of hazardous materials.

Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act

The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) provides guidance for the management of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) in schools. The Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act (ASHARA) extended AHERA regulations to cover public and commercial buildings. AHERA established regulatory standards for inspections, abatement, and transport and disposal of ACM.1

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) “Lead-Based Paint: Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing”2 provides comprehensive technical information on how to identify lead-based paint hazards in housing and how to control such hazards safely and efficiently. The goal of the guidelines is to help property owners, private contractors, and government agencies reduce exposure to lead without unnecessarily increasing the cost of housing. The guidelines address lead hazards posed by paint, dust, and soil in the residential environment. Paint that is found to have a lead concentration of at least 10 milligrams per cubic centimeter (mg/cm2) is considered to be lead-based paint. Furthermore, interior or exterior paints that have greater than 600 parts per million (ppm) (0.06 percent) of lead are considered by the Consumer Products Safety Commission to be lead-based paint. Finally, any material containing detectable lead is subject to OSHA’s Lead Exposure in Construction Rule,3 which requires employers to ensure that employees are not exposed to lead at concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air (50 µg/m3) averaged over an 8-hour period.

State Regulations

Department of Toxic Substances Control

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is authorized by the U.S. EPA to administer the hazardous waste laws and oversee remediation of hazardous wastes sites. Regulations require that DTSC “shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for

1 U.S. Code, Title 15, Section 2641 et seq. “Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response,” contains the codified requirements of both AHERA and ASHARA. 2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Lead-Based Paint: Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing,” Federal Register. June 1995. 3 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1926, “State Plan Responses to Federal OSHA Standards.”

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Environmental Protection, a list of all the following: (1) all hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC).”4

The hazardous waste facilities identified in HSC Section 25187.5 are those where DTSC has taken or contracted for corrective action because a facility owner/operator has failed to comply with a date for taking corrective action in an order issued under the HSC, or because DTSC determined that immediate corrective action was necessary to abate an imminent or substantial endangerment.5

California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

The California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is mandated by Section 3106 of the Public Resources Code to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells for the purpose of preventing (1) damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; (2) damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; (3) loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy; and (4) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes. The regulations can be found in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14. DOGGR’s Well Review Program assists developers in addressing issues associated with development near oil and gas wells.6

Lead-Based Paint Regulations

The CCR sets standards for lead hazard assessment and abatement, removal, certification of individuals engaged in lead-based paint activities, and accreditation of training providers.7 The CCR also contains regulations governing worker safety during lead-related construction activities, including demolition.8 These regulations cover

(1) demolition or salvage of structures where lead or materials containing lead are present;

(2) removal or encapsulation of materials containing lead;

(3) new construction, alteration, repair, or renovation of structures, substrates, or portions thereof, that contain lead, or materials containing lead;

(4) installation of products containing lead;

4 California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 65962.5. 5 California Health and Safety Code, Section 25187.5. 6 California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Well Review Program Introduction and Application, 2007, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/oil/Well_Review_Program.pdf. 7 California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 35001 et seq. 8 California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1 et seq.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

(5) lead contamination/emergency cleanup;

(6) transportation, disposal, storage, or containment of lead or materials containing lead on the site or location at which construction activities are performed, and

(7) maintenance operations associated with the construction activities described in this subsection.9 Local Regulation

Local Regulations

Chapter IX, Article 1, Division 71, Section 91.7103 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code lays out the Los Angeles Methane Seepage Regulations for buildings and paved areas located in either a Methane Zone or Methane Buffer Zone.

The Los Angeles Fire Department regulates hazardous materials for the City of Los Angeles by issuing permits for hazardous materials handling and administering sections of the Los Angeles City Fire Code applicable to hazardous materials.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Thresholds of Significance

Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would result in a significant impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials if it would:

 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

 Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.

9 California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 1532.1a.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Furthermore, as set forth in the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors, which are provided here, as thresholds:

 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

HAZ-2 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

HAZ-3 Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

HAZ-4 Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

HAZ-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site?

HAZ-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site?

HAZ-7 Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

HAZ-8 Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Impact Analysis

Applicable thresholds of significance are listed below followed by an analysis of the significance of any potential impacts and the identification of mitigation measures that would lessen or avoid potential impacts. The significance of potential impacts after implementation of all identified mitigation measures is presented last.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Thresholds:

 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Construction and operation of residential units, retail and commercial uses, and a surface parking lot does not require the extensive or ongoing use of materials with significant hazardous potential. The occasional use of hazardous materials includes the utilization or disposal of unused paint, aerosol cans, and cleaning agents (solvents). These materials are generally disposed of at non-hazardous Class II and III landfills (along with traditional solid waste). Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, potential or otherwise, given that appropriate procedures and guidelines are followed during the development. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

The project does not involve the use, storage, or transport of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. As such, no reasonably foreseen upset or accident conditions would occur that would release hazardous materials into the environment. In addition, the project plans will be reviewed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, and any design safety features recommended by the Department of Building and Safety will be incorporated into the project. Impacts resulting from accident conditions would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed primary, middle, or secondary school or learning center. The nearest school is Lankershim Elementary school, located 0.27 mile to the northwest of the project site.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

 Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The Phase I ESA included analysis of existing and historic uses at 5047 and 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and historic uses at 5059 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056–5058 Fair Avenue. The Phase I ESA and soil vapor survey found that the portions of the site located at 5059 and 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056–6068 Fair Avenue are listed as the location of a former dry cleaner, automobile repair shop, and gasoline service station. The Phase I ESA found that potential soil and groundwater contamination may exist beneath 5077 and 5059 Lankershim Boulevard from previous uses on the site as a dry cleaner and gasoline service station. However, it is unlikely that underground storage tanks (USTs) exist due to the depth of the excavation for the existing building on site. Therefore, any USTs that may have been located on site have most probably been removed prior to the construction of the existing buildings on the project site.

In addition, analysis contained in the soil vapor survey performed for the project site did not reveal evidence of impacted soil in the areas sampled. No VOCs or total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TPH-g were reported in the 10 soil vapor samples or the duplicate sample above practical quantification limits (PQL). In addition, there was no visual or olfactory evidence of impacted soil during collection of soil samples and subsequent photo-ionization detector (PID) readings of the soil samples. Based on the results of this investigation, TPH-g or VOCs were not detected in the sampled soils. The Phase I ESA and soil vapor survey concluded that no further action is recommended with regard to the former on-site gasoline service station, automobile repair shop, and dry cleaners.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

An auto body shop was located on the north side of Otsego Street directly across from the project site. The shop was identified as a small-quantity hazardous waste generator. However, the site does not pose a threat to the project site, as the shop was not identified as a contaminated site on any of the governmental databases researched as part of the Phase I ESA.10

Based upon the years of construction, asbestos-containing materials may exist at 5047 and 5077 Lankershim Boulevard. The Phase I ESA recommended that a comprehensive asbestos survey be performed prior to demolition of the structures on the project site. Asbestos identification survey reports were prepared for the Existing Building and associated parking structure.11 The surveys included visual observation for asbestos-containing material (ACM), sampling of accessible suspect materials throughout the interior and exterior areas, and laboratory analyses. No friable ACM were identified on site.12 Category I and II materials were found at the Existing Building and 5047 Lankershim Boulevard (various vinyl floor tiles and mastic, wall mastics, various vinyl floor tiles and glue, roof patch, and penetration mastics).13 Asbestos containing construction materials (ACCM) were found at the Existing Building (select vinyl floor tiles, exterior color coated texture on concrete walls).

The proposed project would be subject to the requirements of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), Chapter V, Public Safety and Protection, Article 7, Fire Protection and Prevention, Division 10, Asbestos Abatement, (Added by Order No. 168,176; Effective September 20, 1992). This division sets forth the minimum fire and life safety requirements for the removal of ACM, including, but not limited to, fire protective coatings. The project would also be subject to Los Angeles Ordinance No. 173011, adopted December 17, 1999; and SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, Amended October 5, 2007.

All identified ACM shall be properly removed and disposed by licensed and Cal/OSHA-registered asbestos abatement contractors prior to construction/demolition activities at the site. Removal and handling of ACM shall be performed by licensed and Cal/OSHA-registered asbestos abatement contractors with personnel who are properly trained and certified in asbestos abatement work. The

10 Telephone communication with Joseph L. Montoya, CEG, CHG, REA I, Senior Project Geologist, Leighton and Associates, Inc., August 17, 2006. 11 Asbestos Identification Survey Report, 5077 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, California 91601, CITY Environmental Services, Inc., March 16, 2006, and Asbestos Identification Survey Report, 5047-5051 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, California 91601, CITY Environmental Services, Inc., February 27, 2006. 12 Friable ACM are materials that can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry. 13 Category I and II Nonfriable ACM are material which is used as intended, cannot be broken, crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry, but which can be made friable by mechanical means such as sanding, sandblasting, cutting, scraping, improper handling and disposal, or leaching of matrix binders amongst other means.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

project applicant would comply with applicable legal requirements related to ACM removal and demolition activities involving, including requirements of the SCAQMD Rule 1403 for ACMs, as well as all local, state, and federal regulations regarding ACMs. Removal and disposal of ACMs is required to be in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. Adherence to city, state, and local building codes and regulations would reduce potential impacts related to ACMs to a less than significant level.

Based on the age of the structures on the project site, lead based paint (LBP) may be present. Exposure to lead from older, vintage paint is possible when the paint is in poor condition or during its removal. Lead can enter the body by inhaling dust, fumes, or sprays containing lead or by the ingestion of food or other substances that contain lead. Lead poisoning can result in neurological damage, developmental impairment, and other health problems. Demolition of these buildings must be performed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-1. With implementation Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, impacts from LBPs would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures:

4.6-1 Prior to demolition of the site buildings, a comprehensive lead-based paint survey shall be performed. If lead-based paint is found in the building materials that will be disturbed by demolition activities, the project applicant shall comply with the requirements outlined by Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1 during demolition activities. Lead-contaminated debris shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code, as well as all local, state, and federal regulations regarding lead-contaminated materials.

4.6-2 Should areas of possible contamination such as, but not limited to, the presence of underground facilities, buried debris, waste drums, tanks, stained soil, or odorous soils be encountered, further investigation and analysis shall be required, and materials shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations and with oversight by the appropriate regulatory agencies.

4.6-3 Prior to demolition and grading activities, contractors shall be required to have a construction worker safety plan that complies with OSHA Safety and Health Standards and shall address, as appropriate, air monitoring for sub-surface work activities, personnel protective and safety equipment, and worker training.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site?

The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no safety impacts would result for residents, employees, or patrons of the project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site?

The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no safety impacts would result for residents, employees, or patrons of the project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

 Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The project would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the police and fire departments, as well as fire protection and security. Emergency access to the site during construction and project operation would utilize existing roadways. As a result, impacts under this category are considered less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The project site is located in an urbanized area. There is no flammable brush, grass, or dense trees or other wildlands on or near the project site. As a result, there would be no impacts from wildland fires.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None feasible.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

A cumulative hazards impact would occur if development located within the vicinity of the proposed project would contribute to a cumulative release of a hazardous substance into the environment, a cumulative increase in the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or cumulatively interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Future developments would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety related to hazards and hazardous materials. Further local municipalities are required to follow local, state, and federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials and other hazards. Project-related impacts associated with ACMs and LBPs would be less than significant or would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance: Less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: None are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation: Less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.6-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 5.0 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

INTRODUCTION

Section 15126.2(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that use of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a proposed project may be irreversible if a large commitment of these resources makes their removal, indirect removal, or non-use thereafter unlikely. This section of the environmental impact report (EIR) evaluates whether the proposed project would result in the irretrievable commitment of resources, or would cause irreversible changes in the environment. Also, in accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section identifies any irreversible damage that could result from environmental accidents associated with the proposed project.

IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Implementation of the proposed Lankershim Lofts project would include 156 residential units and 11,200 square feet of commercial square footage.

Construction and operation of the proposed project would contribute to the incremental depletion of resources, including renewable and non-renewable resources. Resources such as lumber and other forest products are generally considered renewable resources. Such resources would be replenished over the lifetime of the proposed project. For example, lumber supplies are increased as seedlings mature into trees. As such, the development of the proposed project would not result in the irreversible commitment of renewable resources. Nevertheless, there would be an incremental increase in the demand for these resources over the life of the proposed project.

Non-renewable resources such as natural gas, petroleum products, asphalt, petrochemical construction materials, steel, copper, other metals, and sand and gravel are considered to be commodities that are available in a finite supply. The processes that created these resources occur over a long period of time. Therefore, the replacement of these resources would not occur over the life of the proposed project. To varying degrees, the aforementioned materials are all readily available and some materials, such as asphalt or sand, and gravel, are abundant. Other commodities, such as metals, natural gas, and petroleum products, are also readily available, but they are finite in supply, given the length of time required by the natural process to create them.

The demand for all such resources is expected to increase regardless of whether or not the proposed project is developed. The California Department of Finance indicates that the population of Southern

Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 5.0 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes

California will increase 62 percent over the 30-year period between 1990 and 2020. The increase in population would directly result in the need for more retail, commercial, and residential facilities in order to provide needed services. If not consumed by this proposed project, these resources would likely be committed to other projects in the region intended to meet this anticipated growth. Furthermore, the investment of resources in the proposed project would be typical of the level of investment normally required for commercial uses of this scale.

IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

Irreversible long-term environmental changes associated with the proposed project would include a change in the visual character of the site as a result of the conversion of the project site to a new mixed-use development. Additional irreversible environmental changes would include the increase in local and regional vehicular traffic, and the resultant increase in air pollutants and noise emissions generated by this traffic, among other impacts. Design features have been incorporated into the development proposal and mitigation measures are proposed in this EIR that would minimize the effects of the environmental changes associated with the development of the proposed project to the maximum degree feasible. The demolition of the existing office building on the site, which is considered a historic resource as defined by CEQA for the purposes of environmental review in this EIR, would also be an irreversible environmental change that would result from the project as proposed.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE FROM ACCIDENTS

The project proposes no uniquely hazardous uses, and its operation would not be expected to cause environmental accidents that would affect other areas. The project site is located within a seismically active region and would be exposed to ground shaking during a seismic event. Conformance with the regulatory provisions of the City of Los Angeles, the International Building Code, and all other applicable building codes pertaining to construction standards would minimize, to the extent feasible, damage and injuries in the event of such an occurrence. The inclusion of these features would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 5.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 6.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Section 15126.2(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended, requires the discussion of the ways in which a project could directly or indirectly foster economic growth, population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment. This discussion should also include projects that would remove obstacles to population growth. It should include the characteristics of a project, which may encourage and/or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. CEQA emphasizes that growth in an area should not be considered beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance. The purpose of this section is to evaluate the growth-inducing potential and impact of this proposed project.

GROWTH-INDUCING CRITERIA

In general terms, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any of the criteria that are identified below:

 Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area).

 Economic expansion or growth (e.g., construction of additional housing, changes in revenue base, employment expansion, etc.).

 Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning or general plan designation).

 Development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an “infill” type of project).

Should a project meet any one of these criteria, it can be considered growth inducing. An evaluation of this proposed project compared against these growth-inducing criteria is provided below.

Removal of an Impediment to Growth

Growth in an area may result from the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to growth, as well as the removal of planning impediments resulting from land use plans and policies. In this context, physical growth impediments may include nonexistent or inadequate access to an area or the lack of essential public services (e.g., water service), while planning impediments may include restrictive zoning and/or general plan designations.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 6.0 Growth Inducement

The surrounding area contains established land uses and has supporting infrastructure. Construction of the proposed project would require the modification and/or improvement of existing infrastructure in order to support the increased land use intensity associated with the proposed Lankershim Lofts project. Such modifications and improvements to infrastructure are discussed in further detail below. Given the urban nature of the site and surroundings, and the existence of infrastructure located and designed to serve urban uses on this site, no growth-inducing impacts would result from the development of the proposed project.

An established transportation network exists in the surrounding area that offers local and regional access to the project site. The location of the proposed project would also provide patrons and residents opportunities to use alternative transportation. Specifically, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) operates seven routes near the project site. All routes serving the project site provide access to the greater Los Angeles Metropolitan region via bus and commuter trains.

In summary, the design and construction of roadway, and infrastructure needed to accommodate the proposed project would not induce growth within undeveloped areas surrounding the project site area.

Economic Growth

The second criterion by which growth inducement can be measured involves economic considerations. In the short term, the proposed project would provide for short-term construction employment opportunities. It is anticipated that construction employees would commute from elsewhere in the region, rather than relocate to the City for a temporary assignment.

Long-term growth, should it occur, would be primarily in the form of an economic response to the new employees and residents that would occupy the project site. However, given the relatively small size of the proposed project in relation to City population, the economic contribution of this proposed project alone would not be considered growth inducing.

Precedent-Setting Action

Changes from a project that could be precedent setting include (among others) approval of parking exceptions, Conditional Use Permits (CUPs), Subdivisions, and Variances that could have implications for other properties or that could make it easier for other properties to develop.

The applicant is requesting Zone Variances to allow a greater density on the project site. Recent zoning actions on nearby projects with similar circumstances concluded that the City’s Zoning Ordinance was intended to encourage a mix of uses where appropriate and it does not prohibit stand-alone residential

Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 6.0 Growth Inducement

developments or, by inference, mixed-use projects. Because of the potential ambiguity in the City’s interpretation of this code section, a variance is being requested. The project would be consistent with the policies contained in the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and with other development occurring in the project vicinity. Consistent with this and other City policies, the proposed project would redevelop the property with commercial and residential uses.

Conclusion

Development can be considered growth inducing when it requires the extension of urban infrastructure into isolated localities that are presently devoid of such facilities. The project site is situated in an area that is surrounded to the north, east, south, and west by urban areas that contain established infrastructure. Consequently, the proposed project would not induce growth under this criterion because it would not result in the urbanization of land in an isolated location.

It must be emphasized that the State CEQA Guidelines require an environmental impact report (EIR) to “discuss the ways” a project could be growth inducing and “discuss the characteristics of some projects that may encourage … activities that could significantly affect the environment.” However, the State CEQA Guidelines do not require an EIR to predict or speculate where such growth would occur, in what form it would occur, or when it would occur. Attempting to determine the environmental impacts created by growth that might be induced by the proposed project is speculative because the size, type, and location of specific future projects that may be induced by this proposed project are unknown at the present time. Therefore, such impacts are too speculative to evaluate (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). Additionally, due to the variables that must be considered when examining the mechanics of urban growth (e.g., market forces, demographic trends, etc.), it would be speculative to state conclusively that implementation of the proposed project alone would induce growth in the surrounding area. However, the project is not anticipated to result in any noticeable or substantial increase in growth because it will not remove impediments to growth, involve any precedent-setting actions, or directly result in a large number of new jobs in the region or increase in population.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 ALTERNATIVES

INTRODUCTION

This section provides a comparative analysis of the merits of alternatives to the proposed project pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize significant effects of the project. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) need only examine in detail those alternatives that could feasibly meet most of the basic objectives of the project. When addressing feasibility, Section 15126.6 states, “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the applicant can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to alternative sites.” The State CEQA Guidelines also specify that the alternatives discussion should not be remote or speculative, and need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project.

Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, several factors need to be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects associated with the project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives.

SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

According to the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives should focus on feasible alternatives to a project or its location that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the project. The State CEQA Guidelines indicate that the range of alternatives included in this discussion should be sufficient to allow decision makers a reasoned choice. The alternative discussion should provide decision makers with an understanding of the merits and disadvantages of these alternatives.

Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR concludes the proposed project would result in two significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided through the incorporation of mitigation measures into the project. One impact would result from demolition of the existing office building located at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard (Existing Building). This building is considered a historic resource for the purpose of the environmental review conducted in this EIR and, therefore, its demolition is considered a significant impact (see Section 4.3, Cultural Resources). The second impact would occur from construction noise levels exceeding 5 dB(A) over ambient levels at adjacent sensitive receptors for more than 10 days within a three month period. All other potential impacts of the proposed project are either not significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

In response to this impact, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) identified several alternatives to the proposed project for evaluation to determine if these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen this significant impact. These alternatives include the no-project alternative, reuse of the Existing Building for office use, reuse of the Existing Building for residential use, and development of the proposed project at reduced density.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED IN DETAIL

Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed and the reasons for eliminating alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts. The reasons for not providing detailed evaluation of some of the alternatives initially considered by CRA/LA are discussed below.

Off-Site Alternative

An alternative site would involve the development of the proposed project at a different location. Given that the project applicant does not own or control any other property in the vicinity of the project site, the applicant’s ability to find and purchase an alternative site on which to develop the proposed project is uncertain. In addition, the project applicant owns the project site and the applicant’s ability to sell the project site is also uncertain. As indicated in CEQA Section 15126.6(c), “among factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.” As discussed above, the relocation of the project to an alternative site would not be feasible because the applicant’s ability to sell the current project site and identify and purchase a suitable alternative site in the North Hollywood site is uncertain. For this reason, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed consideration within this EIR.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL

CRA/LA has identified three alternatives to the proposed project for analysis in this EIR to determine if these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project while feasibly meeting the basic project objectives. The following objectives for the proposed project have been identified by the project applicant and CRA/LA:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

 Provide employment opportunities.

Based on the environmental analysis, alternatives were developed which would provide decision makers with a reasonable range of alternatives that would eliminate or reduce the impacts of the proposed project. A list of the alternatives selected for evaluation in this analysis is provided below.

 Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development

 Alternative 2 – Reuse of Existing Office Building

 Alternative 3 – Adaptive Reuse of Existing Office Building for Residential Use

 Alternative 4 – Reduced Density (15 Percent Reduction)

Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative

The No Project/No Development Alternative is required to be evaluated by Section 15126(2)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Also, according to the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis must examine the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the proposed project would not be developed on the project site and would remain in its current state. None of the potential impacts associated with project construction would occur if the No Project/No Development Alternative were selected and neither would any potential long-term impacts associated with occupancy and use of the proposed residential units and retail commercial space. The Existing Building, which is considered a historic resource for purposes of environmental review in this EIR, would not be demolished. This would avoid the significant impact on cultural resources. In addition, as no construction would occur under this alternative, I the significant impact resulting from construction noise under the proposed project would also be avoided. However, with the No Project/No Development Alternative, no upgrades to the Existing Building would be made as as they would under Alternative 2 and 3. Also, under this alternative, the Existing Building would

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

remain in its current condition, largely vacant and unoccupied due to its current condition. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, as it would avoid the significant impact to historic resources that would result from demolition of the Existing Building but would not meet any of the project objectives.

Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives

This alternative would not meet any of objectives for the proposed project, which are as follows:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

 Provide employment opportunities.

Alternative 2 – Reuse of Existing Office Building

This alternative examines retaining and rehabilitating the Existing Building to make it leasable and building a smaller mixed-use project, as previously approved by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles, on the remainder of the site. With this alternative, the Existing Building would not be demolished and instead would be renovated for continued use as office space. Renovations would include upgrades to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act; cleaning and/or refinishing of interior and exterior surface treatments; replacement glazing to meet Title 24 Energy and seismic requirements; complete renovation and removal of existing mechanical yard to meet current standards; new fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems to meet code; new high-speed data and telephone system; and structural upgrades, retrofits, and reinforcing to meet current seismic standards. The remaining structures on the project site, including the parking structure associated with the Existing Building, would be demolished, and a 135,064-square-foot, five-story, mixed-use building would be constructed, as allowed by approvals granted by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

The new mixed-use building would contain 5,152 square feet of commercial space and a 1,170-square-foot lobby on the ground floor fronting Lankershim Boulevard. Floors two through five would contain a total of 130 multi-family residential units. One level of at-grade parking and two levels of subterranean parking would provide for the parking needs of both the project and the Existing Building.

Aesthetics

The new building that would be developed as part of this alternative would have the same height as the building included in the proposed project. Both this alternative and the proposed project would be compatible with the character, scale, height, massing, siting, and architectural articulation of existing development in North Hollywood. Because the Existing Building would remain on the project site, the visual character of the site would not be altered to the same degree as would occur with the proposed project. However, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in a significant impact to the site and surrounding area. Shade and shadow patterns would be the same as the proposed project since both buildings would be of the same height. Neither the proposed project nor Alternative 2 would create significant impacts resulting from shade and shadow impacts on surrounding uses. Lighting would be similar to lighting for the proposed project and, therefore, would not result in any significant impacts.

In conclusion, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in significant aesthetic impacts; however, this alternative would be slightly superior due to preservation of the Existing Building, which would maintain the project site’s current aesthetic character.

Air Quality

Construction emissions resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. As Alternative 2 would include less construction than the proposed project, because a smaller new mixed-use building would be built instead of the proposed project, construction emissions would also be less than significant and less than those of the proposed project. During the operational phase of the project, emissions would primarily be generated from the use of automobiles by project residents, office tenants, and customers visiting the commercial tenants. Under the proposed project, a net increase of 156 daily trips would result from implementation of the project. In contrast, the alternative would cause a net increase of 459 daily trips from the project site resulting from the Existing Building in addition to the proposed residential and commercial uses.1 Therefore, the alternative would result in greater emissions during operation that the

1 Trip generation rates were defined by Trip Generation (7th edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

proposed project. As a result, impacts from the alternative would be greater than those associated with the proposed project but would remain less than significant.

Cultural Resources

The proposed project would demolish the Existing Building, which is considered a historic resource for purposes of the analysis in this EIR and would result in a significant impact. This alternative would preserve the Existing Building and rehabilitate it for continued use as office space. Therefore, the alternative would avoid this significant impact of the proposed project. The possibility of impacts to archeological and paleontological resources would be similar under the alternative and the proposed project, as both this alternative and the proposed project would include the construction of new buildings on the site, which would involve some ground disturbance. Implementation of the standard mitigation recommended for the proposed project would reduce the potential impact of this alternative to a less than significant level.

In conclusion, the alternative would result in similar impacts with regard to archeological and paleontological resources but would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources that would result from demolition of the Existing Building. Therefore, Alternative 2 would be superior to the proposed project in impacts on cultural resources.

Land Use

Both the alternative and the proposed project would require the following approvals from CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles:

 Discretionary land use approval to allow residential use in a commercial area per Section 604 of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan.

 A Zone Variance from the City of Los Angeles to allow residential uses at the R4 density in the C4-1- CA zone.

 Vehicular and pedestrian access from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zone.

 Balcony projections into the side yard setback area.

 Elimination of the required commercial loading area on property.

In addition, both the alternative and the proposed project would request an increased floor-area ratio (FAR) on the project site. However, the alternative would only require a FAR of 3.0:1 as compared to the proposed project’s requested FAR of 3.5:1. Both the proposed project and the alternative would be consistent with the goals and policies of the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan and the

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, with approval of the requested variances, impacts from Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts.

Noise

Construction activities associated with the proposed project and this alternative, such as demolition, earthmoving, and construction of new buildings, would involve the use of heavy equipment, including backhoes, dozers, loaders, concrete mixers, forklifts, and cranes. Under either the proposed project or the alternative, these noise sources would cause significant and unavoidable noise, and less than significant ground-borne vibration impacts. The construction duration associated with the alternative would be less than the proposed project as the Existing Building will not be demolished nor will a new building be built in its place. Therefore, noise and ground-borne vibration impacts would be less than the proposed project.

Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under this alternative would most likely be more severe when compared to the proposed project because of the increased estimated daily vehicle trips associated with this alternative. However, it takes a doubling of traffic volumes to cause an audible increase in noise levels. Therefore, the estimated 459 trips associated with this alternative would not cause a significant increase in roadway noise levels. Therefore, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in significant noise impacts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Development of this alternative would require demolition of all buildings on the project site with the exception of the Existing Building. The Phase I ESA and Soil Vapor Survey did not identify any hazardous materials on the project site or within the surrounding area that may pose potential threats to the project. The Asbestos Surveys conducted for the project site concluded that due to the age of the structures present on the project site there is the potential for asbestos containing materials to exist on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 would ensure that standard procedures regarding the identification, handling and disposal of hazardous materials are followed and would mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would adequate entry to the project site for emergency services, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives

This alternative would partially meet the following objectives for the proposed project:

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

This alternative would meet the following objectives:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Provide employment opportunities

Alternative 3 – Adaptive Reuse of Existing Office Building for Residential Use

This alternative examines retaining the Existing Building and adapting it for residential use. This alternative would rehabilitate the Existing Building with retail uses on the ground floor and residential units on the floors above. The smaller mixed-use project, as previously approved by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles, would be built on the remainder of the site. With this alternative, the Existing Building would not be demolished and instead would be renovated as a mixed-use building with retail space on the first floor and 22 residential units on floors two through six. Renovations would include upgrades to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act; cleaning and/or refinishing of interior and exterior surface treatments; major interior renovations on floors two through six to convert office space to residential units; replacement glazing to meet Title 24 Energy and seismic requirements; complete renovation and removal of existing mechanical yard to meet current standards; new fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems to meet code; new high-speed data and telephone system; and structural upgrades, retrofits, and reinforcing to meet current seismic standards. Residential units would range from studio units to two-bedroom units and would be between 450 and 1,080 square feet in size. The remaining structures on the project site, including the parking structure associated with the Existing Building, would be demolished, and a 135,064-square-foot, five-story, mixed-use building would be constructed, as allowed by approvals granted by CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles. One level of at-grade parking and

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

two levels of subterranean parking would provide for the parking needs of both the smaller mixed-use project and the Existing Building.

Aesthetics

The new building that would be developed as part of this alternative would have the same height as the building included in the proposed project. Both this alternative and the proposed project would be compatible with the character, scale, height, massing, site design, and architectural articulation of existing development in the portion of North Hollywood the project site is located in. Because the Existing Building would remain on the project site, the visual character of the site would not be altered to the same degree as would occur with the proposed project. However, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in a significant impact to the site and surrounding area. Neither the proposed project nor this alternative would shade any surrounding uses sensitive to shade and shadows. Neither the proposed project nor the alternative would create significant impacts resulting from shade and shadow impacts on surrounding uses. Lighting would be similar to lighting for the proposed project and would, therefore, result in similar impacts.

In conclusion, neither the proposed project nor Alternative 3 would result in significant aesthetic impacts, however, this alternative would be slightly superior due to preservation of the Existing Building, which would maintain the project site’s current aesthetic character.

Air Quality

Construction emissions resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. As the alternative would include less construction than the proposed project, as a smaller mixed-use building would be built instead of the proposed project, construction emissions would also be less than significant and less than those of the proposed project.

With occupancy, emissions would primarily be generated from the use of automobiles by project residents, office tenants, and customers visiting the commercial tenants. Under the proposed project, a net increase of 156 daily trips would result from implementation of the project. This alternative would have 151 daily trips.2 Therefore, this alternative would result in incrementally lesser emissions than the proposed project. As a result, impacts from Alternative 3 would be slightly less than those associated with the proposed project and would remain less than significant.

2 Trip generation rates were defined by Trip Generation (7th edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

Cultural Resources

The proposed project would demolish the Existing Building, which is considered a historic resource for purposes of the analysis in this EIR, and would result in a significant impact. This alternative would preserve the Existing Building and renovate it for continued use as residential and retail space. Therefore, the alternative would avoid this significant impact of the proposed project. However, as this alternative would require significant renovations to the interior of the Existing Building to convert the structure from office to residential uses, the historical integrity of the building would not be entirely preserved. The possibility of impacts to archeological and paleontological resources would be similar under the alternative and the proposed project, as both would include the construction of new buildings on the site that would involve some ground disturbance. Implementation of the standard mitigation recommended for the proposed project would reduce the potential impact of this alternative to a less than significant level.

In conclusion, the alternative would result in similar impacts with regards to archeological and paleontological resources but would avoid the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources that would result from demolition of the Existing Building. Therefore, this alternative would be superior to the proposed project with regard to cultural resources.

Land Use

Both the alternative and the proposed project would require the following approvals from CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles:

 Discretionary land use approval to allow residential use in a commercial area per Section 604 of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan.

 A Zone Variance from the City of Los Angeles to allow residential uses at the R4 density in the C4-1- CA zone

 Vehicular and pedestrian access from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zone.

 Balcony projections into the side yard setback area.

 Elimination of the required commercial loading area on property.

This alternative and the proposed project would both result in an amount of development greater than the allowed floor area ratio (FAR) on the project site. This alternative would result in a FAR of 3.0:1 as compared to the requested FAR of 3.5:1 for the proposed project. Both the proposed project and the alternative would be consistent with the goals and policies of the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan and North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, with approval of the requested

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

variances, impacts from Alternative 3 would be similar to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts.

Noise

Construction activities associated with the proposed project and this alternative, such as demolition, earthmoving, and construction of new buildings, would involve the use of heavy equipment, including backhoes, dozers, loaders, concrete mixers, forklifts, and cranes. Under either the proposed project or the alternative, these noise sources would cause significant and unavoidable noise, and less than significant ground-borne vibration impacts. In addition, the construction duration associated with the alternative would be comparable to the proposed project. Therefore, noise and ground-borne vibration impacts would be similar for both the proposed project and the alternative.

Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under this alternative would be less severe as compared to the proposed project because of the slightly decreased estimated daily vehicle trips associated with this alternative. It takes a doubling of traffic volumes to cause an audible increase in noise levels. Therefore, the estimated 151 daily trips associated with this alternative would not cause a significant increase in roadway noise levels. Therefore, neither the proposed project nor Alternative 3 would result in significant noise impacts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Development of this alternative would require demolition of all buildings on the project site with the exception of the Existing Building. The Phase I ESA and Soil Vapor Survey did not identify any hazardous materials on the project site or within the surrounding area that may pose potential threats to the project. The Asbestos Surveys conducted for the project site concluded that due to the age of the structures present on the project site there is the potential for asbestos containing materials to exist on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 would ensure that standard procedures regarding the identification, handling and disposal of hazardous materials are followed and would mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would adequate entry to the project site for emergency services, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives

This alternative would partially meet the following objectives for the proposed project due to the reduced number of residential units:

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

This alternative would meet the following objectives:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

 Provide employment opportunities

Alternative 4 – Reduced Density Alternative (15 Percent Reduction)

The Reduced Density Alternative considers development of the entire project site with a reduced-density mixed-use project. This alternative would include 133 residential units and a total of 9,520 square feet of commercial uses for a total building square footage of 162,206 square feet. This reduction in residential units would reduce the proposed building by one story. Under this alternative, all existing structures on the site, including the Existing Building, would be demolished and removed. The project design would be similar to the proposed project, including two subterranean parking levels, ground-floor retail and parking, and levels two through four containing the residential portion of the project.

Aesthetics

The height of the structures would be reduced to four stories under this alternative. Similarly, all visual impacts under this alternative would be incrementally reduced compared to the proposed project. Since impacts to visual resources and shade and shadow impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant, the impact associated with this alternative would be incrementally less than the proposed project’s impact. Neither the proposed project nor Alternative 4 would result in significant aesthetic impacts.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

Air Quality

Construction emissions resulting from the proposed project would be less than significant. As the alternative would include less development than the proposed project, construction emissions would also be less than significant and less than those of the proposed project. During the operational phase of the project, emissions would primarily be generated from the use of automobiles by project residents, tenants, and customers. Under the proposed project, a net increase of 156 daily trips would result from implementation of the project. In contrast, the alternative would cause 133 daily trips, resulting from the reduced size of the alternative.3 Therefore, the alternative would result in fewer emissions from occupancy and use of the proposed project. As a result, impacts from Alternative 4 would be less than those of the proposed project, and neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in significant air quality impacts.

Cultural Resources

Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would demolish the Existing Building. This building is considered a historic resource for the purpose of the analysis in this EIR, and demolition of it would result in a significant impact. The possibility of impacts to archeological and paleontological resources would be similar to the proposed project under the alternative, as both projects occupy the same project site. Implementation of standard mitigation recommended for the proposed project would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. In conclusion, the alternative would result in similar impacts with regards cultural resources, including a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources.

Land Use

Both the alternative and the proposed project would request the following from CRA/LA and the City of Los Angeles:

 Discretionary land use approval to allow residential use in a commercial area per Section 604 of the North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan.

 A Zone Variance from the City of Los Angeles to allow residential uses at the R4 density in the C4-1- CA zone.

 Vehicular and pedestrian access from a less restrictive to a more restrictive zone;

 Balcony projections into the sideyard setback area; and

3 Trip generation rates were defined by Trip Generation (7th edition), published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

 Elimination of the required commercial loading area on property.

In addition, both the alternative and the proposed project would request an increased floor area ratio (FAR) on the project site. However, the alternative would only require a FAR of 2.5:1 as compared to the requested FAR of 3.5:1 for the proposed project. Both the proposed project and the alternative would be consistent with the goals and policies of the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan and North Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, with approval of the requested variances, impacts from Alternative 4 would be similar to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts.

Noise

Construction activities associated with the proposed project and this alternative, such as demolition, earthmoving, and construction of on-site infrastructure, would involve the use of heavy equipment, including backhoes, dozers, loaders, concrete mixers, forklifts, and cranes. Under either the proposed project or the alternative, these noise sources would cause significant and unavoidable noise and less than significant ground-borne vibration impacts. However, the construction duration associated with the alternative would be less than the proposed project. Therefore, noise and ground-borne vibration impacts would be less under the alternative than under proposed project.

Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under this alternative would be less severe as compared to the proposed project because of the estimated reduced quantity of trips associated with this alternative. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in incrementally less severe impacts than the proposed project, and neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in significant noise impacts.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Development of this alternative would require demolition of all buildings on the project site. The Phase I ESA and Soil Vapor Survey did not identify any hazardous materials on the project site or within the surrounding area that may pose potential threats to the project. The Asbestos Surveys conducted for the project site concluded that due to the age of the structures present on the project site there is the potential for asbestos containing materials to exist on the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 would ensure that standard procedures regarding the identification, handling and disposal of hazardous materials are followed and would mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would adequate entry to the project site for emergency services, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts from this alternative would be similar to the proposed project’s less than significant impacts.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives

This alternative would partially meet the following objectives for the proposed project due to the reduced number of residential units:

 Create a diversity of residential, commercial and urban uses to activate and strengthen the vitality of Lankershim Boulevard.

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

This alternative would meet the following objectives:

 Support the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate blight and revitalize the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area.

 Utilize architectural design, lighting, and landscape materials to give the project site a distinctive and pleasing appearance.

 Provide employment opportunities

Environmentally Superior Alternative

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative among those evaluated in an EIR. Of the alternatives considered in this section, the No Project/No Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the other alternatives, because this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable historical resource and construction noise impacts while also creating fewer impacts to air quality, land use, and operation noise. According to State CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Of the other alternatives considered, the Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative is considered environmentally superior, as it would avoid the significant impact of the project in historical resources that would result from demolition of the Existing Building. Furthermore, the Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative would more completely preserve the historical integrity of the building as compared to the Adaptive Reuse of the Existing Building for Residential Uses Alternative, due to the reduced level of renovation required. The Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative would not

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-15 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

increase the severity of any other impact to a level of significance. This alternative would fully meet some objectives; the following objectives would only be partially met:

 Provide housing opportunities, pursuant to Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency policy, in an urban setting in close proximity to employment opportunities, public transportation, public facilities, and goods and services.

 Focus development of high-density residential and retail-commercial uses on a site adjacent to compatible land uses.

The Reuse of Existing Office Building Alternative would avoid the significant impact of the proposed project on historic resources by preserving the Existing Building. In order to determine the financial feasibility of this alternative, the project applicant prepared studies identifying the renovations required to bring the building up to current standards for office space in the market, the estimated price of these renovations, the market rental value of the renovated building, and financial analysis of the cost and revenues to determine the feasibility of renovating and retaining the building. These studies are provided in Appendix 7.0 of this Draft EIR and also summarized below.

M2A Milofsky, Michali and Cox Architects, Structural Focus, Donald F. Dickenson and Associates, and MEP Engineers prepared an architectural and engineering study that identifies the work required for basic repair and replacement of existing systems, upgrades required to meet current building code requirements, additional upgrades to improve the building’s performance for current market needs, and upgrades to extend the life of the building for another 40 to 50 years. Based upon the findings of the preliminary architectural and engineering study, Warner Construction, Inc., estimated the total cost of renovations including permitting, demolition, materials, and labor costs at approximately $8 million dollars.

Ramsey Shilling Co., Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc., estimated that after completion of the Class A tenant improvements as identified by the architectural and engineering study, the project applicant could expect to achieve residential rents of $2.30 to $2.75 per rentable square foot per month. These estimates are based upon current residential space available within the North Hollywood area.

The costs to rehabilitate the building to current standards in relation to the current rentable rates produce an anticipated rate of return of approximately 3 percent. A rate of return of approximately 10 percent would be required for the applicant to be able to obtain the financing for the renovations. Based on the costs to renovate the building and the projected rental income, the rate of return would be approximately

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-16 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 7.0 Alternatives

3 percent. Based on these studies it was determined that it is not feasible to renovate and retain the Existing Building for the following reasons:

 The major cost to upgrade the structural system necessary to provide adequate life safety for the occupants.

 The cost to upgrade the outdated mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and elevator systems.

 The cost to repair the exterior of the building to meet current energy standards.

 The declining office leasing market.

 The lack of available debt and equity for speculative office buildings at the resulting rate of return.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0-17 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT

INTRODUCTION

Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires an environmental impact report (EIR) to briefly describe any possible significant effects that were determined by the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency not to be significant and therefore, were not discussed in detail in the EIR. This section addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project that have been found not to be significant as a result of the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and the responses. The items listed below that were not found to be significant are contained in the environmental checklist form included in Appendix G of the most recent update of the State CEQA Guidelines. Any items not addressed in this section were addressed in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

 Would the project convert Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area and has been previously developed as an urban, non-agricultural use. As a result, the site supports no native vegetation and holds no value as farmland. The project site is within an area designated as Urban and Built-Up Land on the State Important Farmland Maps prepared by the State Department of Conservation. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site have been developed for commercial, residential, school, and recreational uses; hence, the proposed project site has no value as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project site is not shown as farmland of any type pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. No further analysis of this topic is necessary.

 Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The project site is currently zoned C4, Commercial, and R4, Multiple Dwelling. These zoning classifications do not support agricultural land activities and the project site is not subject to any Williamson Act contract; as a result, the proposed project will not create an impact. No further analysis of this topic is required.

 Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. As mentioned above, the project site is in a highly urbanized area with no nearby agricultural land uses. Further, the existing environment would not support the conversion of the project site to farmland. No further analysis of this topic is necessary.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Los Angeles, and the entire site is currently covered with the six-story office building located at 5077 Lankershim Boulevard (Existing Building) and associated parking structure, a commercial building and associated parking, and pavement. No threatened, endangered, or rare species or their habitats, locally designated species, locally designated natural communities, wetland habitats, or wildlife corridors exist on this site. The site is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or similar plan. The site is neither within nor proximate to any significant ecological area, land trust, or conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under these categories, and no further analysis of these topics is necessary.

 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are completely developed and disturbed. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural community is located in the surrounding area or on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The project site is neither in proximity to, nor does it contain, wetland habitat or a blue-line stream. Therefore, the proposed project implementation would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impact would occur.

 Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

No Impact. The local area consists of established, highly urbanized, and developed properties. The project site and the immediate area are almost entirely paved or otherwise developed and do not contain

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

native resident or migratory species or native nursery sites. In addition, there are no wildlife migration corridors in the vicinity of the project site. No impact would occur.

 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Los Angeles, and the entire site is currently covered with the Existing Building and associated parking structure, a commercial building and associated parking, and pavement. The site is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or similar plan. The City has a “Protected Tree Ordinance” (Ordinance 177404) which dedicates certain California native trees as protected. None of the trees located on the project site are species of trees designated as protected under this ordinance. The site is neither within nor proximate to any significant ecological area, land trust, or conservation plan.

 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Los Angeles, and the entire site is currently covered with the Existing Building and associated parking structure, a commercial building and associated parking, and pavement. The site is not within an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or similar plan. The site is neither within nor proximate to any significant ecological area, land trust, or conservation plan.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

 Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

 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?

 Strong seismic ground shaking?

 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

 Landslides

Less Than Significant Impact. Generally, any development that occurs within the geographical boundaries of Southern California has the potential of exposing people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, a strong seismic ground

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

shaking, seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), or landslides. A geotechnical report has been prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc., for the proposed project sites located at 5059 and 5077 Lankershim Boulevard and 5056–5058 Fair Avenue; its findings have been incorporated into this EIR section.1 The geotechnical report is available for review at the City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA/LA) Records Department, located on the 1200 West 7th Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90017. The portion of the project site at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard is located 70 feet south of the project site, with similar geophysical characteristics. Also, the parcel at 5047 Lankershim Boulevard would be used for a surface parking lot, and no excavation would occur; no habitable structures would be developed. For these reasons, results of the geotechnical report for the northern portion of the project site are applicable to the southerly parcel and a separate report has not been prepared.

For purposes of planning, zoning, and building regulation functions, the state provides maps designating Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones to City and County agencies. The project site is not located within a state-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.2

The project site may be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along an active or potentially active fault. Southern California is a seismically active region and ground shaking is common during seismic events. The nearest faults are the Hollywood Fault and Verdugo Fault, located 2.2 miles and 3.7 miles from the project site, respectively.3 Given the distance from the two fault zones, the potential for surface rupture at the project site is low. The proposed project will be designed and constructed in conformance with Chapter 16 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) and accepted engineering practices. The building will also be designed to meet the standards of the Uniform Building Code and will comply with all applicable portions of the City of Los Angeles Building Code and seismic safety requirements of the Department of Building and Safety. For these reasons, the impact to people or structures on the project site from surface rupture would be less than significant.

According to the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) map of Seismic Hazards Zones for the Burbank Quadrangle dated March 25, 1999, the site is within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. A liquefaction evaluation was included in the geotechnical report based on groundwater, soil type,

1 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005. 2 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005. 3 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

estimated settlement, and surface manifestations. Groundwater was not encountered in the four borings drilled, as part of the geotechnical analysis, to 55.5 feet or less below existing grade. Based on historic groundwater data, the groundwater could rise or has been as shallow as 20 feet below the surface of the site. Therefore, a site-specific liquefaction evaluation was performed based on an assumption that groundwater could rise to 20 feet below the ground surface. Primarily sands and silty sands were encountered on the project site to a depth of approximately 40 feet and gravelly sand from 40 feet to 50 feet below the surface. In all of the hollow-stem borings conducted as part of the geotechnical analysis, except boring No. 3 (B-3), fines content ranged from 24 percent to 61 percent below 15 feet. In B-3, fines content at depths below 30 feet were 2 to 4 percent. As indicated in the geotechnical report, estimated settlements induced by liquefaction resulting from a large-magnitude earthquake at the project site would range from negligible to approximately 1.25 inches. In addition, liquefaction is not anticipated to be within more than 20 feet of the surface due to the depth of the groundwater. Therefore, the geotechnical report determined that there would be “no manifestation” as a result of potential liquefaction on the project site.

Based on the above, the geotechnical report concluded that the potential for damaging liquefaction at the project site is low. If liquefaction was to occur on in the deeper sandy soils, potential settlement due to liquefaction would be less than 1.25 inches. The geotechnical report indicates that the settlement is not expected to significantly damage the proposed structure and would much less likely result in a structural collapse of a building constructed in accordance with the 2002 City of Los Angeles Building Code. The geotechnical report concluded that mitigation of liquefaction at the project site is not required and the probability of damaging liquefaction occurring at the project site during a 30-year project life is extremely low.4 Given that the structures on the project site shall be constructed in accordance with the 2002 City of Los Angeles Building Code, impacts associated potential liquefaction on the project site is less than significant, and no further study is required.

If near-surface soils vary in composition both vertically and laterally, strong seismic ground shaking can cause non-uniform compaction of the soil strata, resulting in movement of the near-surface soils. As indicated in the geotechnical report, because the subsurface soils encountered at the project site are generally uniform silty sand to sand and do not appear to change in thickness or consistency abruptly over short distances, the probability of differential compaction at the site is low.5 Therefore, impacts

4 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005. 5 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

associated with differential compaction on the project site are less than significant, and no further study is required.

The topography of the site and the vicinity is relatively flat and devoid of any distinctive landforms. Given the relatively flat nature of the site and the amount of impervious surfaces in the area, there is no potential for significant landslides in the surrounding area.

Based on the distance of the project site from active faults, the geologic conditions of the site and compliance with standard Best Management Practices during construction, the project would not expose people to substantial adverse effects from fault rupture, ground shaking, ground failure or landslides. Impacts would be less than significant.

 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction associated with site development would result in ground surface disruption during site clearance. The project applicant would prepare and comply with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would feature standard erosion control measures contained within the California Stormwater Best Management Practice (BMP) Construction Handbook. In addition, the project applicant would comply with the Stormwater Construction Activities General Permit, issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with the requirements of the SWPPP and the Stormwater Construction Activities General Permit would minimize soil erosion and the loss of topsoil and would reduce any impact to a less than significant level, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. The soil on the site consists primarily of sands and silty sands, which were encountered to a depth of approximately 40 feet, and gravelly sand from 40 feet to 50 feet below the surface. In all of the hollow-stem borings conducted as part of the geotechnical analysis, except boring No. 3 (B-3), fines content ranged from 24 percent to 61 percent below 15 feet. In B-3, fines content at depths below 30 feet were 2 to 4 percent.6 These native soils are in the very low expansion range.7

According to the CDMG map of Seismic Hazards Zones for the Burbank Quadrangle dated March 25, 1999, the site is within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. As stated above, the potential for damaging

6 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005. 7 Communication with Thomas Benson, Jr., Geotechnical Engineer, Leighton and Associates, August 17, 2006.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-6 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

liquefaction at the project site is low. If liquefaction was to occur on in the deeper sandy soils, potential settlement due to liquefaction would be less than 1.25 inches. The geotechnical report indicates that the settlement is not expected to significantly damage the proposed structure and would much less likely result in a structural collapse of a building constructed in accordance with the 2002 City of Los Angeles Building Code.

As stated above, given the relatively flat nature of the site and the amount of impervious surfaces in the area, there is no potential for significant landslides in the surrounding area. As indicated in the geotechnical report, because the subsurface soils encountered at the project site are generally uniform silty sand to sand and do not appear to change in thickness or consistency abruptly over short distances, the probability of differential compaction at the site is low.8 Therefore, impacts associated with differential compaction on the project site are less than significant, and no further study is required.

Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. Generally, in soils, this movement is due to failure along a weak plane, and may often be associated with liquefaction. Given that, there are no creeks or open bodies of water within an appropriate distance from the site for lateral spreading. The geotechnical report determined that the probability of lateral spreading to occur on the project site during a seismic event is low. Therefore, impacts associated with potential lateral spreading on the project site are less than significant.

Subsidence is not known to occur in the vicinity of the site.9 Site development would implement all recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. In addition, the project would comply with all applicable local and regional codes and regulations, and project design will incorporate City-approved geotechnical recommendations for site development. Therefore, impacts under these categories would be less than significant.

 Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. The soil on the site consists primarily of sands and silty sands, which were encountered to a depth of approximately 40 feet, and gravelly sand from 40 feet to 50 feet below the surface. In all of the hollow-stem borings conducted as part of the geotechnical analysis, except boring No. 3 (B-3), fines content ranged from 24 percent to 61 percent below 15 feet. In B-3, fines content at

8 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005. 9 Communication with Thomas Benson, Jr., Geotechnical Engineer, Leighton and Associates, August 17, 2006

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-7 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

depths below 30 feet were 2 to 4 percent.10 These native soils are in the very low expansion range.11 Therefore, the project would not be located on an expansive soil.

 Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

No Impact. Septic tanks would not be used for the project. The project will use the City of Los Angeles sewage conveyance system. Therefore, no impact would occur.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

 Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently almost entirely paved and covered with impervious surfaces or buildings. The site is located in a developed area of Los Angeles, which contains an existing stormwater collection and conveyance system. Development of the site will result in continued coverage of the site with impermeable surfaces, thereby requiring stormwater to be collected and drained into storm drains beneath the adjacent roadways. As part of the proposed project, storm water drainage plans will be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the development of any drainage improvements. These plans must meet all minimum water quality requirements as outlined in the City of Los Angeles Public Agencies Activities Stormwater Guide (2004) so that no impact to water quality at downstream facilities would occur. In addition, during construction, the project applicant would be required to implement standard BMPs contained in the City of Los Angeles References Guide for Stormwater Best Management Practices (2000) and outlined by the State Water Resources Control Board. Implementation of required BMPs would substantially reduce erosion, deposition, and related effects. In addition, the project applicant would prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). As such, the project would comply with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Based on the above, impacts to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to

10 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Lankershim Lofts Development 5075+/- Lankershim Boulevard North Hollywood, California, Leighton and Associates, Inc., November 23, 2005. 11 Communication with Thomas Benson, Jr., Geotechnical Engineer, Leighton and Associates, August 17, 2006.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-8 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less Than Significant Impact. A majority of the City’s water supply is imported from outside the South Coast Basin. The project would not utilize groundwater from beneath the project site or increase the City’s use of local groundwater resources. As previously discussed in this section, the project site is currently almost entirely paved and covered with impervious surfaces. Therefore, groundwater recharge from the site is minimal. As a result of the proposed project, the site would continue to be covered with impermeable surfaces. Therefore, the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge from the site. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?

Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. The project site is currently almost entirely paved, as previously discussed, and storm flows drain into the City’s stormwater collection and conveyance system. The proposed project would be covered with impervious surfaces, with the exception of landscaped areas. As a result, the proposed project would have a runoff volume similar to the current runoff volume of the site and adjacent developments. The project would be designed with drainage systems, such as gutters, that would collect and attenuate storm flows. Consequently, the opportunity for the proposed project to contribute to substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on or off site is minimal. As a result, impacts to the existing drainage pattern would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less Than Significant Impact. Impervious surfaces such as buildings and parking lots can increase runoff rates by impeding infiltration of rainfall and increasing overland flow velocities. The site is currently primarily developed with structures and paved impervious surfaces. Though the site does have some drainage features, during storm events sheet flow from the existing parking lots on the site passes into the curb storm drains along Lankershim Boulevard, Otsego Street, and Fair Avenue. The proposed project would also be entirely covered with impervious surfaces. As a result, the proposed project would have a runoff volume similar to the current runoff volume of the site and adjacent developments.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-9 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Furthermore, the project would be designed with new drainage systems, such as gutters, that would collect and attenuate storm flows. As such, impacts from stormwater flows from the project site would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning would review the project design for compliance with the requirements of the NPDES permit during both construction and operation. The applicant is required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan that would specify BMPs designed to reduce impacts to water quality from site runoff during construction. The site is less than 5 acres and is, therefore, categorized as a small construction site under NPDES requirements. Based on compliance with this process, the project would have less than significant impacts with regard to water quality, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. The site is not within a 100-year flood zone.12 Therefore, no impact with regards to structures within a 100-year flood hazard area would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.

 Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?

No Impact. The site is not within a 100-year flood zone.13 Therefore, no impact with regards to structures within a 100-year flood hazard area would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.

 Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Los Angeles County Safety Element (1996), the project site is not located within a potential inundation area from an earthquake-induced dam failure. Therefore, there is no potential for flooding due to inundation as a result of a seismic event.

 Would the project be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. The County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazards Map indicates that the site is not within a mapped tsunami inundation area. The project site is located approximately 13.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not a significant hazard to the site. Additionally, the site is not located close to any large bodies of water that could adversely affect the site

12 City of Los Angeles Department of Planning, Parcel Profile Report, July, 2010. 13 City of Los Angeles Department of Planning, Parcel Profile Report, July, 2010.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-10 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

in the event of a seiche (seismic wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water). Given the relatively flat nature of the site and the amount of impervious surfaces in the area, mudflows are unlikely to occur. Therefore, no impacts related to tsunamis, seiches, or mudflows would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

MINERAL RESOURCES

 Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

 Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

No Impact. The project site is located in an area that is already heavily urbanized. The City of Los Angeles General Plan does not indicate an important mineral resource located on or near the site. Therefore, no impact associated with mineral resources would occur.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

 Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the Census 2000, the population of the North Hollywood Community Plan Area was 135,954, with a per person household rate of 2.59.14 The estimated population for the North Hollywood Community Plan area in 2009 is 147,647 with an estimated per person household rate of 2.66.15 The project, as proposed, would introduce 156 residential units. These 156 units would house approximately 412 persons (156 × 2.64). The North Hollywood Community Plan projects a population total of 156,181 persons, an increase of 20,299 persons in the year 2010. The project’s population would represent 2 percent of the projected increase of 20,299 persons. In addition, due to its small scale, the proposed project would be more likely to capture residents currently residing within the City of Los Angeles or the greater metropolitan area, as opposed to drawing residents from other parts of the state or out of state. Therefore, the population that would be generated by the proposed project has been accounted for in the North Hollywood Community Plan and the impact would be less than significant.

14 City of Los Angeles Planning Department, Demographics Research Unit, Census 2000 Statistics for the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Planning Area http://cityplanning.lacity.org/. Accessed March 10, 2011. 15 City of Los Angeles Planning Department, Demographics Research Unit, Census 2000 Statistics for the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Planning Area http://cityplanning.lacity.org/. Accessed March 10, 2011.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-11 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

 Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

 Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No impact. No residential dwelling units currently exist on the project site. Therefore, no housing or residential populations would be displaced by development of the proposed project, and the construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessary. No impact would occur.

PUBLIC SERVICES

 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) provides fire prevention, fire suppression, and life safety services to the project site and the surrounding area. Fire protection service needs are generally related to the size of the population and geographic area served, the number and types of calls for service, and other community and physical characteristics. The site is not located within a Mountain Fire District, a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, or a Fire Buffer Zone as designated by the City of Los Angeles.16

The closest station to the project site is Fire Station 60, located at 5320 Tujunga Avenue, approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the project site. Station 60 has primary response duties to the project site. Fire Station 86, located at 4305 Vineland Avenue, approximately 1.0 mile south of the project site, and Fire Station 102, located at 13200 Burbank Boulevard, approximately 3.0 miles northwest of the project site, would also respond to emergency calls from the project site.

As part of the review process, LAFD will review the project and make recommendations for fire protection services and fire flow rates. Depending on the outcome of the review, improvements to the water system (e.g., additional hydrants) may be required, at the cost of the developer, to provide the required fire flow for the project. In addition, the proposed project would comply with all applicable state and local codes and ordinances, and the guidelines found in the Fire Protection and Prevention Plan, as well as the Safety Plan, both of which are elements of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Construction and operation of the proposed project would occur in compliance with Los Angeles Municipal Code

16 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Parcel Profile Report, July 2010.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-12 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

(LAMC) Chapter 5, Public Safety and Protection, Article 7, Fire Protection And Prevention (Fire Code), which was amended in entirety, Ordinance No. 162,123, effective May 12, 1987. The Fire Code regulates the provision of hydrants, fire flow, access, signage, etc.

Implementation of LAFD regulations and City municipal codes and incorporation of project-specific mitigation measures recommended by LAFD upon their review of final site plans would ensure that impacts on fire protection services are less than significant.

 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) provides police protection services to the project area. LAPD is divided into four bureaus—the Central, West, Valley and South bureaus, which are subsequently sub-divided into 18 areas. The project site is located within the North Hollywood Area of the Valley Bureau. The North Hollywood Area covers 24.84 square miles and is bounded by the Golden State Freeway to the north, Mulholland Drive to the south, the Los Angeles City boundary to the east, and Coldwater Canyon Avenue to the west. The project site is served by the North Hollywood Area Community Police located at 11640 Burbank Boulevard, approximately 0.9 mile northwest of the project site. For resource purposes and statistical analysis, the North Hollywood Area is further subdivided into reporting districts. The proposed project falls within the service boundaries of Reporting District (RD) 1557, which is bound by Magnolia Boulevard to the north, the Ventura Freeway (Highway 101) to the south, Tujunga Avenue to the west, and Vineland Avenue to the east.

Implementation of the project would increase residential density on the project site, which would increase calls for service to the project site. However, implementation of the project would generate fewer vehicle trips on surrounding roadways compared to existing uses and, therefore, would create less congestion on surrounding roadways and allow for easier access to the project site. Please see Transportation/Traffic for further discussion of project trip generation and potential project impacts related to transportation and traffic. The proposed project will comply with all applicable codes and regulations pertaining to police protection and site security. In addition, the proposed project would implement design features to enhance security such as gated parking, fencing, and an alarm system.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-13 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Incorporation of project design features; mitigation measures recommended by LAPD, and project design measures recommended by LAPD upon their review of final site plans would reduce impacts on police protection services to a less than significant level.

 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) provides public education services to the North Hollywood Community and the project site. The North Hollywood Community located in the boundaries of District B. Students from the project would attend Lankershim Elementary School, located at 5250 Bakman Avenue; Walter Reed Middle School, located at 4525 Irvine Avenue; and North Hollywood High School, located at 5231 Colfax Avenue, all of which are in North Hollywood. The current enrollment for Lankershim Elementary School was 493 students; the current enrollment of Reed Middle School is 1,601 students; and North Hollywood High School has a current enrollment of 3,089 students.

Senate Bill (SB 50) and Proposition 1A, both of which passed in 1998, provided a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program. The provisions of SB 50 prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and reinstate the school facility fee cap for legislative actions (e.g., general plan amendments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments) as was allowed under the Mira, Hart, and Murrieta court cases. Government Code Section 65996, which states that the development impact fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation” for the impact caused by new development on school facilities. The legislation also recognized the need for the fee to be adjusted periodically to keep pace with inflation. The legislation indicated that in January 2000, and every two years thereafter, the State Allocation Board will increase the maximum fees according to the adjustment for inflation in the statewide index for school construction. LAUSD collects the maximum fee for new construction. Mitigation for impacts to school facilities is governed exclusively by Government Code Section 65996, and the Lead Agency does not have independent authority under CEQA or other legal means to impose additional fees or mitigation requirements for impacts to school facilities from the project.

Development of the proposed project each generate approximately 30 elementary school students, 15 middle school students, and 17 high school students.17 The payment of school impact fees, as provided

17 Based upon student generation rates of 0.1958 elementary school students, 0.0933 middle school students, and 0.1062 high school students per dwelling unit. Los Angeles Unified School District Commercial/Industrial School Fee Justification Study. LAUSD. February 2009.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-14 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

under California Government Code Section 65996(a) would be required and would reduce impacts to schools to a less than significant level.

 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the North Hollywood area of the City of Los Angeles. Currently there are over 40 City of Los Angeles recreation and parks facilities located within a 5-mile radius of the project site. These City facilities include 11 recreation centers and 30 public parks. Even with the provision of these parks and recreation facilities, the City of Los Angeles is considered to be parks poor. The proposed project would increase the local population by approximately 412 residents. Project amenities include 18,854 square feet of usable open space for tenants which is comprised of 7,300 square feet of private open space, a 3,882-square-foot courtyard, a second 5,246-square-foot courtyard, a 600-square-foot gym, a 575-square-foot screening room, a 518-square-foot computer room and 733 square feet of landscaped yard along Fair Ave with 15-foot minimum width. Therefore, the provision of project amenities would reduce the level of demand for park space provided by the City. The City’s current standard is 4 acres of park per 1,000 persons; therefore, the proposed project would be required to provide 1.65 (412 × 4 / 1,000 = 1.65) acres of park and recreational facilities to serve the project population. However, because many developments cannot provide acreage for parkland, payment of Quimby Act fees in lieu of the provision of land may be made. In accordance with the requirements of the City of Los Angeles (Ordinance No. 141422, amending Chapter 1, Article 7 of the LAMC), the project applicant will either pay the in-lieu fee to the City and/or develop public park or recreation land on the project sites using equivalent funding or greater. The proportion of total land on the site to be set aside for parks and recreation, or the amount of in-lieu fees to be paid, shall be determined by the City at the time of final plan approval. With payment of this fee, impacts related to parks would be less than significant.

 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library?

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. The City of Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) operates 72 libraries, including the Central Library plus regional, branch, or community libraries. The community libraries are designed to serve 25,000 to 50,000 residents or an area within a 2-mile radius. The larger regional libraries have a greater selection of books, magazines, records, compact discs,

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-15 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

videotapes, film, etc., and provide additional services such as Internet access, research materials, and audio-visual learning equipment.

The North Hollywood Regional Branch Library, located 0.5 mile northwest of the project site at 5211 Tujunga Avenue, would serve the proposed project. Other area libraries serving the proposed project area include the Studio City Branch Library at 7935 Vineland Avenue and the Valley Plaza Branch Library, located at 12311 Vanowen Street, in North Hollywood. These three libraries were expanded and remodeled to accommodate increased population in the east San Fernando Valley.

The proposed project would house approximately 412 persons. This increase in population has been accounted for in growth projections contained in the General Plan and in the North Hollywood Community Plan. However, the increase in residential population will have a direct impact on library services with increased demand for library materials, computers, and information services. The project applicant would be required to pay a fee per unit, to be used for books, computers, and other library materials. With payment of fees, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, and no further study is required.

Mitigation Measures:

PUB-1 The applicant shall be required to pay library fees at the applicable rate per residential unit.

RECREATION

 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the North Hollywood area of the City of Los Angeles. Currently, there are over 40 City of Los Angeles recreation and parks facilities located within a 5-mile radius of the project site. These City facilities include 11 recreation centers and 30 public parks. Even with the provision of these parks and recreation facilities, the City of Los Angeles is considered to be parks poor. The proposed project would increase the local population by approximately 412 residents. Project amenities include 18,854 square feet of usable open space for tenants which is comprised of 7,300 square feet of private open space, a 3,882-square-foot courtyard, a second 5,246-square-foot courtyard, a 600-square-foot gym, a 575-square-foot screening room, a 518-square-foot computer room and 733 square feet of landscaped yard along Fair Ave with 15-foot minimum width. Therefore, the provision of project amenities would reduce the level of demand for park space provided by the City. The City’s current standard is 4 acres of park per 1,000 persons; therefore, the proposed project would be

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-16 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

required to provide 1.44 acres (359 × 4 / 1,000 = 1.436) of park and recreational facilities to serve the project population. However, because many developments cannot provide acreage for parkland, payment of Quimby Act fees in lieu of the provision of land may be made. In accordance with the requirements of the City of Los Angeles (Ordinance No. 141422, amending Chapter 1, Article 7 of the LAMC), the project applicant will either pay the in-lieu fee to the City and/or develop public park or recreation land on the project sites using equivalent funding or greater. The proportion of total land on the site to be set aside for park and recreation, or the amount of in-lieu fees to be paid, shall be determined by the City Planning Department at the time of final plan approval. With payment of this fee, impacts related to parks would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

REC-1 In accordance with the requirements of the City of Los Angeles (Ordinance No. 141422, amending Chapter 1, Article 7 of the LAMC), the project applicant shall either pay the in-lieu fee to the City and/or develop public park or recreation land on the project sites using equivalent funding or greater

 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed project would include recreational facilities for the residential units including: 7,300 square feet of private open space, a 3,882-square-foot courtyard, a second 5,246-square-foot courtyard, a 600-square-foot gym, a 575-square-foot screening room, a 518-square-foot computer room and 733 square feet of landscaped yard along Fair Ave with 15-foot minimum width. Less than significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

 Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

 Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less Than Significant Impact. An estimate of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project was prepared and subsequently reviewed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-17 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

(LADOT) to determine the potential for significant traffic impacts.18 The trip generation of the proposed project was compared against the LADOT established threshold of 500 daily trips and 43 peak-hour trips requiring preparation of a traffic study.

The proposed project trip generation estimate includes credits for the existing uses, pass-by trips, and the reduction of trips that would result from the mix of commercial and residential uses in the project. The calculations also include a 10 percent transit credit, based on the location of the project within the NoHo Commons area, with good access to the Metro Red Line and Orange Lines and RapidBus, and LADOT policy on such credits. Based on these trip generation calculations, the proposed project would generate 156 daily trips, 44 weekday AM peak-hour trips, and six weekday PM peak-hour trips more than existing uses. As a result, the proposed project is below the LADOT thresholds requiring preparation of a full traffic study.

Under the LADOT traffic study guidelines, focused traffic studies can be required of projects when 25 or more peak-hour trips would be generated. As the proposed project would generate more than 25 peak-hour trips during the weekday AM period, an analysis was conducted to determine whether additional study intersections would require examination, based on impact status at the analyzed intersection. This focused analysis addressed the intersection of Lankershim Boulevard/Magnolia Boulevard, located north of the project site, which currently operates at level of service (LOS) F. Based on this analysis; the proposed project would not create any significant traffic impacts at this intersection. When an intersection is operating at LOS F and has a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio higher than 1.000, the impact threshold is a change in v/c of 0.005 or more based on LADOT traffic study guidelines. The proposed project would not increase the v/c ratio at the analyzed intersection beyond this threshold in either the weekday AM peak or PM peak hours. There would not be any significant project impacts at this intersection, and impacts at intersections at a greater distance from the project site would not occur.

 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The uses proposed by the project are not associated with a substantial increase in air traffic. The project is not located within an airport safety zone nor does the project propose any structure that will conflict with air traffic patterns. As a result, no impact on air traffic patterns would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?

18 KOA Corporation, Memorandum Traffic Study Waiver Request Update – Lankershim Lofts Mixed-Use Project (5077) Lankershim Boulevard), January 12, 2010. Appendix 8.0.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-18 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Less Than Significant Impact. The project will utilize the existing network of regional and local roadways that serve the project area. No major changes to the design or configuration of roadways are planned. Any roadway improvements would be designed in accordance with the regulations contained within the LAMC and would be subject to City review.

 Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project applicant would comply with applicable LAFD and Department of Building and Safety regulations relating to emergency access. The project would not obstruct any existing roadways. As a result, impacts with regard to emergency access would be less than significant.

 Result in inadequate parking capacity?

Under the LAMC, a total of 319 spaces are required for the proposed project, if developed with 156 apartment units and 11,200 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed project would provide 350 spaces, which is an additional 31 parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would exceed the municipal code parking requirements.

 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

No Impact. The Transportation Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan includes the following policies to promote alternative transportation:

Policy 2.3: Promote the development of transportation facilities and services that encourage transit ridership, increase vehicle occupancy, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access such as:

 Locally based Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs);

 Enhanced transit services and improved transit safety;

 Merchant initiatives;

 Preferential parking;

 Bicycle access and parking facilities; and

 Adequate and appropriate lighting for pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle, and transit use.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-19 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Policy 3.8: Promote the provision of shuttles and other services that increase access to and within regional centers.

The County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and LADOT operate several bus routes with stops located in close proximity to the project site. Bus stops for MTA’s Routes 156 and 160 are located along Lankershim Boulevard near the northeast and southwest corners of Lankershim Boulevard and Magnolia Boulevard and near the northwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Hesby Street. In addition, an MTA transfer station is located near the northeast corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Chandler Boulevard, approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site. From this station, the Orange Line heads east below Chandler Boulevard and the Red Line heads south below Lankershim Boulevard. Given the above, the project is well located to facilitate the use of MTA bus and tram routes by residents. As such, the project would encourage travel by alternative modes of transportation and would not conflict with the policies identified above or with the existing transit routes. Therefore, no impacts would occur as a result of the project, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the service area of the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP), located in Playa del Rey, which is owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles. The HTP is also responsible for disposal of the treated wastewater. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) regulates the treatment of wastewater at treatment plants and the discharge of the treated wastewater into receiving waters. The HTP is responsible for adhering to LARWQCB regulations as they apply to wastewater generated by the project. The HTP has been designed to treat typical wastewater flows from residential, office, and retail uses in the City of Los Angeles. The project would generate wastewater flows typical of residential, office, and retail uses and would, therefore, not be expected to exceed any wastewater treatment requirements of the LARWQCB. As such, impacts upon treatment requirements would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

 Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Water:

The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP) provides water service to the project site. Water is conveyed to users in the North Hollywood Community along several circulating water mains of varying sizes. The DWP has an ongoing program of facility replacement and upgrade to meet

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-20 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

the anticipated water demands based upon the City’s adopted General Plan Framework. The proposed project would modify the existing on-site water lines as necessary, and connect to existing lines along Lankershim Boulevard, Otsego Street, and Fair Avenue. Project plans would be reviewed by the DWP to determine if any additional infrastructure is needed on or off site and if developer funding for the construction of such infrastructure would be necessary.

The project is consistent with growth projections contained in the City’s General Plan and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) forecasts. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The construction or relocation of the water lines would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the project’s impact to the existing and water distribution system would be less than significant.

The proposed project would be required to adhere to the City’s Landscape Ordinance (No. 170,978) which became effective in May 1996 and includes requirements for water management and irrigation specifications, planting techniques, plant materials, and source reduction of waste. The City adopted this ordinance to comply with the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Assembly Bill 325 (AB 325).

For these reasons, the project’s impact on the water system would be than significant.

Wastewater:

The City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works provides sewer service to the project site. The existing sewage conveyance system consists of a series of local and collector lines of 8 inches to 18 inches run throughout the North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area. The local collector system conveys sewage flows to trunk lines and outfall sewers that carry wastewater directly to the HTP.

To handle increased wastewater flow, some lines may need to be replaced with lines of greater capacity or additional lines will need to be installed. Wastewater facility upgrades are based on the City’s General Plan Framework and SCAG regional projections. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Framework and SCAG forecasts as well as the North Hollywood Community and Redevelopment plans. Therefore, any potential increases in sewage flow from the proposed project site into local sewer lines and the HTP has been incorporated into future expansion plans.

The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The construction or relocation of the water lines would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the project’s impact to the existing and water distribution system would be less than significant.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-21 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Project implementation will require that the developer coordinate with the City Department of Public Works regarding design, operation, and maintenance of the building. The project is also required to pay sewage connection fees and make any necessary upgrades to the wastewater collection and treatment system to provide relief for existing lines nearing capacity. The project would be required to comply with the City’s Water Conservation Ordinance Nos. 165,004, 165,615, 166,080, and subsequent ordinances. The project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the impact to the sewer system would be less than significant.

 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less Than Significant Impact. The storm drainage system in the Los Angeles basin is designed to reduce and prevent flooding from storm water on City streets. The project site is currently served by the City storm water drainage facilities. The project site is fully developed with impervious surfaces; therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase the level of stormwater flow from the site. Therefore, impact of the proposed project on storm water drainage facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary.

 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less than Significant Impact. The California Urban Management Planning Act requires every municipal water supplier who serves more than 3,000 customers or provides more than 3,000 acre-feet per year of water to prepare an urban water management plan (UWMP). In the UWMP the water supplier must describe the water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet the total water use of the service area. The City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has prepared an UWMP that includes estimates of past, current, and projected probable and recycled water use, identifies conservation and reclamation measures currently in practice, describes alternative conservation measures, and provides an urban water shortage contingency plan. The UWMP relies on SCAG’s projections of regional population growth. Implementation of the proposed project would create an increase in demand for water supplies compared to the existing site use. The existing and proposed water demand rates for the project site are provided in Table 8.0-1, Water Demand. Current on-site uses demand approximately 10,808 gallons of water per day. Proposed project uses would demand 35,120 gallons of water per day. Therefore, an additional 24,312 gallons of water per day would be used by the proposed project over the existing uses. Adequate water exists to accommodate the proposed project as the project is within the growth forecasts of the UWMP. The proposed project is not of sufficient size to require a Water Supply Assessment.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-22 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Table 8.0-1 Water Demand

Demand Daily Annual Factor1 Demand Demand Annual Demand Land Use Quantity (gal/day) (gal/day) (gal/year) (acre-feet/year) Existing Water Demand Commercial/Retail (sf) 9,000 0.1 900 328,500 1 Office (sf) 13,200 0.19 2,508 915,420 3 Health Club (sf) 7,400 1 7,400 2,701,000 8 Total Existing Demand 10,808 3,944,920 12

Project Water Demand Condominiums (du) 156 250 34,000 12,410,000 38 Commercial/Retail (sf) 11,200 0.1 1,120 408,800 1 Total Project Demand 35,120 12,818,800 39

Net Total Project Demand 24,312 8,873,880 27

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Water generation factor is 125 percent sewage generation factor. sf = square feet; du = dwelling unit

 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Less than Significant Impact. The HTP has a dry weather design capacity of 450 million gallons per day (mgd) for full secondary treatment and an 850 mgd wet weather capacity.19 The HTP is currently processing 360 million gallons per day, which is 90 mgd below The existing and proposed wastewater generation for the project site are provided in Table 8.0-2, Wastewater Generation. Current on-site uses generate approximately 8,620 gallons of wastewater per day. Proposed project uses would generate 28,101 gallons of wastewater per day. Therefore, an additional 23,476 gallons of wastewater per day would be generated by the proposed project over the existing uses. Because the HTP has 90 mgd per day available capacity, the additional effluent generated by the project could be accommodated without physical improvements or upgrades to the system capacity or its operation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

19 City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation Web site, accessed August, 2010. http://www.lacity.org/SAN/wpd/WPD/general/hypern1.htm.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-23 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Table 8.0-2 Wastewater Generation

Daily Annual Generation Generation Generation Use Quantity Factor (gal/day) 1 (gal/day) (gal/year) Existing Wastewater Generation 262 Commercial/Retail (sf) 9,000 0.08 720 262,800 Office (sf) 13,200 0.15 1,980 722,700 Health Club (sf) 7,400 0.8 5,920 2,160,800 Total Existing Generation 8,620 3,146,300

Project Wastewater Generation Condominiums (du) 156 200 31,200 11,388,000 Commercial/Retail (sf) 11,200 0.08 896 327,040 Total Project Generation 32,096 11,715,040

Net Total Project Generation 23,476 8,568,740

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Sewage Generation Factors from the City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation. sf = square feet; du = dwelling unit

 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less than Significant Impact. Solid waste management is guided by the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. The City of Los Angeles adopted a solid waste management policy plan in 1994. The County of Los Angeles Solid Waste Management Plan sets forth strategies that would provide adequate landfill capacity for approximately 26 years. Solid waste generated by the proposed project would be disposed of at the Sunshine Canyon landfill. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill is classified as a major landfill, which includes facilities that receive more than 50,000 tons of solid waste per year. The capacity for the City of Los Angeles portion of the landfill is 5,500 tons per day.

Waste materials generated during construction and operation are expected to be typical construction debris, including concrete, stucco, asphalt, rocks, building materials, wood, paper, glass, plastic, metals, cardboard, other inert wastes (i.e., wastes that are not likely to produce leachates of environmental concern), and green wastes. Based on a construction solid waste generation rate of 0.0065 tons per 1,000 square feet per day,20 construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 1.1 tons of solid waste per day. These wastes would result in an incremental and intermittent increase in solid waste disposal at landfills and other waste disposal facilities under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles. No new facilities would be required as a result of project construction. Therefore, the potential for

20 California Integrated Waste Management Board

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-24 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

significant impacts with regard to the generation of solid waste by construction activities would be less than significant.

The existing and proposed solid waste generation rates for the project site are provided in Table 8.0-3, Solid Waste Generation. Current on-site uses generate approximately 545 pounds per day of solid waste, assuming no waste diversion. Proposed project uses would generate 1,857 pounds per day of solid waste, assuming no waste diversion. Therefore, an additional 1,312 pounds per day of solid waste would be generated by the proposed project over the existing uses. However, these quantities represent a worst-case scenario, with no recycling activities in place. The uses within the project would be designed to provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in concert with citywide efforts and programs to reduce the volume of solid waste entering landfills. The waste that is not diverted would be disposed of at the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, which has adequate capacity through 2026. As adequate capacity exist, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 8.0-3 Solid Waste Generation

Solid Waste Generation Solid Waste Disposed Factor Generation Generation Diverted In Landfills Use Quantity (lbs/day)1 (lbs/day) (tons/year) (tons/year)2 (tons/year) Existing Solid Waste Generation Commercial/Retail (sf) 9,000 0.046 414 76 38 32 Office (sf) 13,200 0.006 79 14 7 6 Health Club (sf) 7,400 0.007 52 9 5 4 Total Existing Demand 545 99 50 43

Project Solid Waste Generation Condominiums (du) 156 8.6 1,342 245 123 123 Commercial/Retail (sf) 11,200 0.046 515 93 47 47 Total Project Generation 1,857 338 170 170

Net Project Generation 1,312 239 120 127

Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 Factor obtained from California Integrated Waste Management Board Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates for Commercial and Residential Establishments. 2 Based on a diversion rate of 50 percent. 1 ton = 2,000 pounds lbs = pounds; sf = square foot

 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is subject to review and approval by the City of Los Angeles. During construction and operation of the project, the project would follow all goals set forth by the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and its updates, the City of Los Angeles Solid Waste

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-25 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 8.0 Effects Found Not To Be Significant

Management Policy Plan (CiSWMMP), Framework Element, Curbside Recycling Program, and the LAMC. Compliance with these regulations and mandates would assist in reducing the amount of waste deposited in the Los Angeles County landfills. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with these solid waste policies and objectives, impacts would be less than significant, and no further study is required.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0-26 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 9.0 LIST OF EIR PREPARERS

LIST OF PREPARERS

Impact Sciences, Inc., has prepared this environmental document while under contract to the City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. Persons directly involved in the review and preparation of this report include:

Impact Sciences, Inc. – EIR Preparation

 Tony Locacciato, AICP – Principal

 Alan Sako – Air Quality Manager

 Evan Sharp – Project Planner

 Christopher Graham – Project Planner

 Arpi Arman – Air Quality Scientist

 Ian Hillway – Publications Manager

 Lisa Cuoco – Publications Coordinator

 Emily Chitiea – Publications Assistant

City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency

 Dr. Robert Manford – Senior Planner

 Dr. Gazala Pirzada – Project Manager, North Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area

PCR Services Corporation – Historic Resources Assessment

 Margarita Wuellner – Director of Historic Resources

 Jon Wilson – Senior Architectural Historian

KOA Corporation – Traffic Consultants

 Brian Marchetti – Traffic Engineer

Impact Sciences, Inc. 9.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 10.0 REFERENCES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

REFERENCES

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. 2008.

California Air Resources Board. “2008 Estimated Annual Average Emissions – South Coast Air Basin.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/basins/abscmap.htm. 2010.

California Air Resources Board. “Area Designations (Activities and Maps).” http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig /desig.htm. 2010.

California Air Resources Board. “California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category - Summary.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. 2010.

California Air Resources Board. Draft CEQA Functional Equivalent Document for Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. 2010.

California Air Resources Board. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375. 2010.

California Building Standards Commission. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. 2009.

California Building Standards Commission. “CALGreen.” http://www.bsc.ca.gov/CALGreen/default.htm. 2010.

California Climate Action Registry. General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 3.1. 2009.

California Code of Regulations. California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14, Chapter 11.5), Section 4852(c).

California Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-1008, with 2000 Benchmark.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports /estimates/e-5/2009/. 2010.

California Department of Finance. “Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product, California,” http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/FS_Misc.htm. 2010.

California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement; A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 1998.

California Department of Transportation. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences), Technical Advisory, Vibration TAV-02-01-R9601. 2002

Impact Sciences, Inc. 10.0-1 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 10.0 References and Persons Consulted

California Energy Commission. “Diesel Use in California,” Remarks by Commissioner James D. Boyd. 2002.

California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. 2006.

California Energy Commission. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California, PIER Final Project Report (CEC-500-2006-118). 2006.

California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2005.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 2006.

California Natural Resources Agency, Climate Action Team. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. (2009).

California Office of the Attorney General. The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. (2008).

California Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1

Canter, Larry W. “Prediction and Assessment of Impacts on the Noise Environment.” Environmental Impact Assessment. 1996.

City of Los Angeles. Climate LA: Municipal Program Implementing the Green LA Climate Action Plan. 2008.

City of Los Angeles. Draft Citywide CEQA Thresholds Technical Guide. 1998.

City of Los Angeles. General Plan. 1999.

City of Los Angeles. General Plan, “Conservation Element.” 2001.

City of Los Angeles. General Plan, “Transportation Element,” Map E. 1999.

City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles CEQA Threshold Guide. 2006.

The Climate Registry, Local Government Operations Protocol, Version 1.1, (2010) 208.

Code of Federal Regulations, 36 Section 60.2.

Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 2006.

Houghton, John T., L. G. Meiro Filho, B. A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenburg, K. Maskell, eds. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change – Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 10.0-2 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 10.0 References and Persons Consulted

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. 1997.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM _PlenaryApproved.pdf. 2007.

Kleeman, M. J., S. Chen, and R. A. Harley. Climate Change Impact on Air Quality in California: Report to the California Air Resources Board. 2010.

KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering. Traffic Study Waiver Request Update [v2b] – Lankershim Lofts Mixed-Use Project. 2010.

Los Angeles Municipal Code.

Natural Resources Agency. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97. 2009.

“North Hollywood Gardens Residential Apartment Project Initial Study Final Mitigated Negative Declaration.” October 2003.

PCR Services Corporation. Historic Resources Assessment, Commonwealth Savings and Loan Building, 5077 North Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood (Los Angeles), Los Angeles County, California. September 2010.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook.” http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/hdbk.html. 2009.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Facility Information Detail (FIND).” http://www.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/default.htm. 2009.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993),” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/oldhdbk.html. 2007.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “EMFAC 2007 (v2.3) Emission Factors (On-Road),” http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/onroad/onroad.html. 2008.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. 2008.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds. 2006.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Frequently Asked CEQA Questions.” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/faq.html. 2007.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 10.0-3 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 10.0 References and Persons Consulted

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Fugitive Dust.” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/ mitigation/fugitive/MM_fugitive.html. 2007.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting #6.” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2008/oct22mtg /oct22.html. 2008.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting #14.” http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2009/nov19mtg /nov19.html. 2009.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III) – Draft Report. 2008.

South Coast Air Quality Management District, written communication with Steve Smith, November 20, 2003.

Southern California Association of Governments. 2001 Regional Transportation Plan. 2001.

Southern California Association of Governments. “Regional Transportation Plan.” http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2004/2004/FinalPlan.htm. 2004.

Southern California Association of Governments. “Regional Transportation Improvement Program.” http://www.scag.ca.gov/RTIP/rtip2006/adopted.htm. 2006.

State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 2008.

State of California Department of Transportation. “California Scenic Highway Mapping System,” http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. 2010.

U.S. Census Bureau. “Data Finders.” http://www.census.gov/. 2009

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. “Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride.” http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg00rpt /other_gases.html. n.d.

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 1997.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years. 1979. Revised 1990, 1996, 1998.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Noise Fundamentals. 1980.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act.” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange /anpr.html. 2008.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 10.0-4 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011 10.0 References and Persons Consulted

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 4.3.5. 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA and NHTSA Propose Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks.” http://epa.gov/otaq/climate /regulations/420f09047a.htm. 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Glossary of Climate Change Terms.” http://www.epa.gov /climatechange/glossary.html#Climate_change. 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “High GWP Gases and Climate Change.” http://www.epa.gov/ highgwp/scientific.html#sf6. n.d.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990– 2006.” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2006 (EPA 430-R-08-005). 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Methane: Sources and Emissions.” http://www.epa.gov /methane/sources.html. n.d.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Management of Selected Materials in Municipal Solid Waste (EPA-530-R-98-013). 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Emission Facts– Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle (EPA420-F-05-004). 2005.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Annex I Parties – GHG total without LULUCF.” http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ghg_data_from_unfccc/time_series_annex_i /items/3841.php

Western Regional Climate Center. “North Hollywood, California (Station 046256).” http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca6256. n.d.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 10.0-5 Lankershim Lofts Project Draft EIR 1027.003 April 2011