iv. environmental impact analysis n. population, … sections/iv.n. population...b. project site the...

Metro Universal Project IV.N Population, Housing, and Employment Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.N-1

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS N. POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT

This section evaluates the Project in terms of the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) population, housing, and employment growth forecasts for the City of Los Angeles subregion. It also evaluates whether the Project would cause growth exceeding that which is projected or planned for the Project area through infrastructure development.

Organization of the Section

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

a) Los Angeles Subregion

b) Project Site

i) Sites A & B

ii) Site C

iii) Site D

iv) Site E

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

a) Thresholds of Significance

b) Project Impacts

i) Construction

ii) Operation

(1) Employment

(a) Phase 1

(b) Phase 2

(2) Housing

(a) Phase 1

(b) Phase 2

City of Los Angeles August 2008


(3) Population

(a) Phase 1

(b) Phase 2

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

a) City of Los Angeles

b) City of Burbank

c) City of Glendale

d) Cumulative Employment Growth

e) Cumulative Housing Growth

f) Cumulative Population Growth

4. MITIGATION MEASURES

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION



1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

a. Los Angeles Subregion

As part of its comprehensive planning process for the Southern California region, SCAG has divided the region into 14 subregions (refer to Figure IV.N-1, SCAG Los Angeles Subregion). The Project Site is located within the City of Los Angeles subregion, which includes all areas within the boundaries of the City of Los Angeles. In 2000, the City of Los Angeles had a population of 3,711,969 persons, 1,339,579 households, and employment for 1,781,863 persons (see Table IV.N-1).1 SCAG forecasts that by the year 2010, the City of Los Angeles will have a total population of 4,057,484 persons (an increase of 9.3 percent from 2000), 1,433,105 households (an increase of 7.0 percent), and will provide employment for 1,820,092 persons (an increase of 2.1 percent). For the period of 2010 to 2015, growth in the City of Los Angeles is forecasted to continue; the citywide population is expected to reach 4,128,125 persons (an increase of 1.7 percent), households will total 1,493,244 (an increase of 4.2 percent), and employment will total 1,864,061 jobs (an increase of 2.4 percent). For the period of 2015 to 2020, SCAG forecasts continue to anticipate growth in the City of Los Angeles; the citywide population is expected to reach 4,204,329 persons (an increase of 1.8 percent), households will total 1,556,604 (an increase of 4.2 percent), and employment will total 1,892,139 jobs (an increase of 1.5 percent).

Table IV.N-1 Population, Housing and Employment Forecasts for the City of Los Angeles Subregion

Area Population Housing Employment City of Los Angeles Subregion 2000 Censusa 3,711,969 1,276,578 1,781,863 SCAG Forecastsb

2010 4,057,484 1,433,105 1,820,092 2015 4,128,125 1,493,244 1,864,061 2020 4,204,329 1,556,604 1,892,139 2025 4,277,732 1,605,959 1,925,148 2030 4,348,281 1,653,585 1,960,393 2035 4,415,772 1,692,682 1,994,134

Percent Change 2000 to 2010c +9.3% +7.0% +2.1% 2010 to 2015 +1.7% +4.2% +2.4% 2015 to 2020 +1.8% +4.2% +1.5% 2020 to 2025 +1.7% +3.2% +1.7% 2025 to 2030 +1.6% +3.0% +1.8% 2030 to 2035 +1.6% +2.4% +1.7%

a SCAG 2008 Growth Projection, City Projections, http://www.scag.ca.gov/. b Ibid. c Represents a 10-year difference and increase rather than a 5-year difference as represented by other years. This is

because 2000 census numbers are available, whereas current year 2008 (or 2007) numbers are not as accurate. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, October 2007.

1 SCAG Forecast 2004. This reflects the 2000 Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2004 Forecast is

used because the 2008 Growth Projection published by SCAG does not include year 2000 data.



Figure IV.N-1, SCAG Los Angeles Subregion



b. Project Site

The approximately 14.34-acre Project Site is located in the Universal City area of the City of Los Angeles and presently operates as a transit/transportation hub associated with the Universal City Metro Red Line station operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). The Metro Red Line runs under the Project Site, and the underground station is located just west of the corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Campo de Cahuenga Way. The existing uses/operations that are located on each of the five parcels that comprise the Project Site are:

i. Sites A & B

Sites A and B of the Project Site are one contiguous land area at the northwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Campo De Cahuenga Way, which wrap around the Campo de Cahuenga historic site. Sites A and B currently contain surface park & ride lots that provide approximately 564 parking spaces for patrons of the Universal City Metro Red Line station. The park & ride lots are accessed by driveways located on Lankershim Boulevard and Campo de Cahuenga Way. An automobile drop-off area for transit patrons (“kiss & ride”) is located in the central part of Sites A and B, just west of the Campo de Cahuenga historic site. An open plaza with landscaping is provided between the kiss & ride facility and the portal entrance to the underground subway station located at the northwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Campo de Cahuenga Way.

ii. Site C

Site C is parallel to Sites A and B, south of Campo de Cahuenga Way at the southwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Campo de Cahuenga Way. The existing land uses on Site C are Metro bus loading/drop-off, transfer, and layover facilities and another portal entrance to the subway station. Access to this facility is provided from Campo de Cahuenga Way. An open plaza with landscaping is provided between the bus bays and the portal, located at the southwest corner of Lankershim Boulevard and Campo de Cahuenga Way. Similar to the portal on the north side of Campo de Cahuenga Way, this portal provides stairway and escalator access to a mezzanine level that crosses under Campo de Cahuenga Way and an elevator providing access to the mezzanine and station platform levels is housed in a single-story tower adjacent to the escalator/stairway entrance.

iii. Site D

Site D is located immediately south of the Hollywood Freeway and is bounded on the southern perimeter by Ventura Boulevard. Site D is currently used as a park & ride surface lot and contains 68 parking spaces. A pedestrian tunnel and sidewalk along Lankershim Boulevard under the Hollywood Freeway provides direct access to Site C.

iv. Site E

Site E is also south of the Hollywood Freeway and north of Ventura Boulevard, located immediately west of Site D. Sites E and D are separated by a southbound on-ramp for the Hollywood Freeway. Site E is currently used as a park & ride surface lot and contains 161 parking spaces. This lot is underutilized during the day. From early Spring to late Fall, Site E is utilized as a park & ride facility for the Hollywood Bowl.



As the existing on-site uses at the Project Site currently operate as a transit/transportation hub, there is no generation of permanent employment, housing units, or an existing permanent population.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

a. Thresholds of Significance

The City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) requires the analysis of population, housing, and employment to address the following two areas of study: (1) population and housing growth; and (2) population and housing displacement. With respect to population and housing growth, the Guide states (page J.1-3) that the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors:

• The degree to which the project would cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment;

• Whether the project would introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan; and

• The extent to which growth would occur without implementation of the project.

Based on these factors, the Project would have a significant impact if:

• It would cause growth (i.e., new population, housing, or employment), or accelerate development in an undeveloped area, that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of project buildout and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment;

• It is not compatible with adopted local and regional employment, housing, or population growth policies, as set forth in the City’s General Plan and the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide;

• The project would introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan; and

• The project represents a substantial amount of growth which would not occur without implementation of the project.

The Initial Study for the Project (see Appendix A to this EIR) concluded that no significant impact would occur with respect to population and housing displacement and that further evaluation of this issue in an EIR is not required.

b. Project Impacts

i. Construction

Construction of the Project, including new development on Sites A and B in Phase 1 and Site C in Phase 2, would result in increased employment opportunities in the construction field, which could potentially



result in increased permanent population and demand for housing in the vicinity of the Project Site. However, the employment patterns of construction workers in Southern California are such that it is not likely that they would relocate their households as a consequence of the construction employment associated with the Project. The construction industry differs from most other industry sectors in several ways:

• There is no regular place of work. Construction workers regularly commute to job sites that change many times over the course of a year. Their sometimes lengthy daily commutes are facilitated by the off-peak starting and ending times of the typical construction workday;

• Many construction workers are highly specialized (e.g., crane operators, steelworkers, masons, etc.) and move from job site to job site as dictated by the demand for their skills; and

• The work requirements of most construction projects are highly specialized. Workers remain at a job site only for the time frame in which their specific skills are needed to complete a particular phase of the construction process.

Therefore, Project-related construction workers would not be likely to relocate their place of residence as a consequence of working on the Project. As such, construction activity associated with the Project would not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. Therefore, housing and population impacts associated with the construction of the Project would be less than significant.

ii. Operation

(1) Employment

(a) Phase 1

(i) Sites A and B Operation of Phase 1 of the Project, which consists of the development of approximately 970,200 square feet of office and media production facility uses with a maximum of 25,000 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, and a total of up to 3,709 parking spaces (2,909 designated for the Project and up to 800 set aside for the Metro park & ride), would provide employment for approximately 3,448 persons (see Table IV.N-2). This increase would be consistent with the SCAG forecast of 82,198 additional jobs in the City of Los Angeles subregion between 2000 and 2015. The potential concentration of employment in this area of the City that would occur under Phase 1 development would be consistent with the regional growth management policies discussed in detail in Section IV.A.1, Land Use Plans and Policies. These policies promote development activity in existing developed areas that are well-served by existing transit and transportation infrastructure, such as the Project Site. These policies also promote growth and development in areas within the developed urban core of the City that do not require extension of other major infrastructure systems. Projected employment growth under Phase 1 of the Project would be more easily accommodated with fewer environmental impacts within the Project Site than if such growth were



to occur in outlying areas. Moreover, the Project Site is designated as a Regional Center in the City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework and the Community Plan and the Project is regional in scope. Therefore, this projected employment growth would not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. In addition, because the Project Site is designated as a Regional Center, employment growth would likely occur on the Project Site even without implementation of the Project. Therefore, projected employment growth associated with Phase 1 under the Project would be less than significant.

(ii) Sites C, D, and E Phase 1 of the Project on Site C would consist of continuation of operations associated with the existing bus facility. Phase 1 activities on Sites D and E would consist of operation of the relocated park & ride lots. None of these activities would generate additional permanent employment. However, on Site E, during the construction period of Phase 1, approximately eight to ten additional jobs would be associated with the attendant parking and shuttle bus operations. These would be temporary jobs, which would only occur during the Phase 1 construction period. Because no permanent employment would occur on Sites C, D, and E during Phase 1, impacts related to employment generation would be less than significant.

(b) Phase 2

(i) Sites A and B In Phase 2 of the Project, Sites A and B would continue in operation as an office building, media production facility, retail/restaurant and parking uses. Bus operations would be relocated to the new Metro Bus Transit Plaza on the ground level of the garage on Site B prior to commencement of construction activity on Site C in Phase 2. No new employment beyond that generated in Phase 1 would be associated with activities on Sites A and B in Phase 2. Impacts related to employment generation would be less than significant as identified above for Phase 1.

(ii) Site C Option A Operation of Option A under Phase 2, consisting of approximately 489,100 square feet of office development and an eight level parking structure (six levels aboveground and two levels below ground) with up to 1,467 parking spaces, would provide employment for approximately 1,711 persons (see Table IV.N-2). Combined with the estimated employment generation for Phase 1, the Project would result in a total increase in employment of 5,159 jobs under Phase 2 Option A. This increase would be consistent with the SCAG forecast of 82,198 additional jobs in the City of Los Angeles subregion between 2000 and 2015. The potential concentration of employment in this area of the City that would occur under the Project would be consistent with the regional growth management policies discussed in detail in Section IV.A.1, Land Use Plans/Zoning. These policies promote development activity in existing developed areas that are well-served by existing transit and transportation infrastructure, such as the Project Site. These policies also promote growth and development in areas within the developed urban core of the City



that do not require extension of other major infrastructure systems. Projected employment growth under Phase 2 of the Project would be more easily accommodated with fewer environmental impacts within the Project Site than if such growth were to occur in outlying areas. Moreover, the Project Site is designated as a Regional Center in the City of Los Angeles General Plan Framework and the Community Plan. Therefore, this projected employment growth would not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. In addition, because the Project Site is designated as a Regional Center, employment growth would likely occur even without implementation of the Project. Therefore, projected employment growth associated with operation of Option A under Phase 2 on Site C of the Project would be less than significant.

Option B Operation of Option B under Phase 2, consisting of a 300-unit hotel with ancillary uses and 400-unit residential building and an eight level parking structure (six levels aboveground and two levels below ground) with up to 1,467 parking spaces, would provide employment for approximately 230 persons (see Table IV.N-2). Combined with the estimated employment generation for Phase 1, Phase 2 of the Project would result in a total increase in employment of 3,678 jobs. This increase would be consistent with the SCAG forecast for the City of Los Angeles subregion between 2000 and 2015. Impacts related to employment growth on Site C under Phase 2 Option B would be less than significant for the same reasons cited above, because the projected growth would be consistent with SCAG forecasts and would occur within a transit station area.

(iii) Sites D and E In Phase 2, Sites D and E would be used as park & ride lots or for construction staging. No permanent employment generation would be associated with this activity. No impacts related to employment generation would occur on Sites D and E during Phase 2 of the Project.

(iv) Pedestrian Bridge No permanent employment generation would be associated with the pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Lankershim Boulevard in Phase 2. No impacts related to employment generation would occur during Phase 2 of the Project with respect to the pedestrian bridge.

Table IV.N-2 Estimated Permanent Employment Generation for the Project

Type of Development Size Employee Generation Factora Total Employees

Phase 1 Retail and Services 25,000 sf 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq.ft. 56 Office/Media Production 970,200 sf 3.4965 employees/1,000 sq.ft. 3,392

Total Under Phase 1 3,448 Phase 2-Option A Office 489,100 sf 3.4965 employees/1,000 sq.ft. 1,711

Total Under Phase 2-Option A 1,711



Type of Development Size Employee Generation Factora Total Employees Phase 2-Option B Hotel 180,000 sf 1.1325 employees/1,000 sq.ft. 204 Ancillary to Hotel 8,000 sf 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq.ft. 18 Health/Spa to Hotel 1,000 sf 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq.ft 2 Restaurant to Hotel 2,000 sf 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq.ft 4 Residential 400 units N/Ab >5b

Total Under Phase 2-Option B 230 Total Under Project with Option A 5,159 Total Under Project with Option B 3,678

a Los Angeles Unified School District, School Fee Justification Studies for Los Angeles Unified School District, Table ES-1, September 2002.

b The School Fee Justification Studies for Los Angeles Unified School District do not include employee generation factors for multi-family residential uses. A small number of employees (estimated at less than 5), in addition to the projected hotel employees, was assumed to be required to provide management and maintenance for the multi-family residential uses included within the hotel/residential building.

Note: The proposed parking uses were not included in the estimated employment generation, as these uses would not generate permanent employment. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, 2007.

(2) Housing

The subject property is developed with parking and bus layover facilities which do not include any form of residential units or housing. The Project would remove the existing facilities and redevelop the site with several uses including office, retail, restaurant and possible residential/hotel uses. The Project would not result in the displacement of any form of housing. (See Tables IV.A.1-2 and IV.A.1-5, Land Use, regarding consistency with applicable Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Objectives.)

(a) Phase 1 Operation of Phase 1 of the Project would not include development of residential uses. The Project Site would not include any residential zoning, but would allow for commercial land uses. Therefore, no permanent housing units would be associated with Phase 1 of the Project.

Approximately 3,448 jobs would be generated on Sites A and B during Phase 1 of the Project, which could result in induced housing growth in the area of the Project Site. Typical skills required for some of the uses proposed within the Project (i.e., retail, restaurant, maintenance, media, production, etc.) are of the type that can be filled by workers who are already present in the local labor force. It is reasonable to expect, therefore, that some of the new employees will be drawn from the local labor force readily available in the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area and surrounding communities. In addition, many of the employees associated with uses relocating to the Project Site are long-term residents of other communities, such as the Cities of Burbank and Glendale, and are unlikely to relocate as a result of the Project.

Nevertheless, the labor force requirements of the more specialized positions in entertainment services and production may cause some workers to look for new housing in the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area and surrounding communities, and therefore, the Project may result in increased demand for housing. According to the City of Los Angeles Population & Housing



Profile for the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area2, the Community Plan Area contained 41,300 housing units, with a vacancy rate of 4.16 percent, in 2006. According to SCAG projections, this total is expected to grow to approximately 43,000 units by 2010. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the vacancy rate in the year 2010 would remain at 4.16 percent. Based on this assumption, approximately 1,780 units would be vacant and available for occupancy in the Community Plan Area in the year 2010. The projected availability of approximately 1,780 housing units in the Community Plan Area in 2010 reflects a wide variety of housing types (single family and multi-family). Many of the jobs associated with the Project are higher-skill, higher-wage jobs that provide a greater range of housing choices to employees who are highly skilled and experienced (i.e., low proportion of first time home buyers). This combination suggests that employees desiring to relocate to the Community Plan Area would not be precluded from doing so based on the availability of housing supply. In addition, the Project’s location adjacent to the regional rail transit system increases the range of locations where employees could relocate in order to access the new jobs that would be generated by the Project. It is likely that many of the employees who would be associated with the future office use would be long-term residents of other nearby communities, such as the Cities of Burbank and Glendale, that are unlikely to relocate as a result of the Project. All of the factors listed above suggest that employee-related housing growth would be limited. As such, the Project would not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. In addition, because the Project Site is designated as a Regional Center, employment growth on the Project Site would likely occur even without implementation of the Project because this is a targeted growth area pursuant to City policy. Therefore, employee-related housing growth associated with Phase 1 of the Project would be less than significant.

(b) Phase 2

(i) Sites A and B In Phase 2 of the Project, Sites A and B would continue in operation as an office building, media production facility, retail, and parking uses. Bus operations would be relocated to Site B prior to commencement of construction activity on Site C in Phase 2. No housing development would be associated with activities on Sites A and B in Phase 2. Employment generation on Sites A and B would be the same as under Phase 1. Therefore, as identified above, impacts associated with employee-related housing growth for Sites A and B in Phase 2 would be less than significant.

(ii) Site C Option A Under Option A, operation of this portion of the Project would not include development of residential uses. The Project Site would not include any residential zoning, but would allow for commercial land uses. This portion of the Project Site is expected to generate approximately 1,711 additional jobs of 2 City of Los Angeles Planning Department, Statistical Information, http://cityplanning.lacity.org, November 20,

2007.



which a small percentage of employees may require new housing. Considering the scale of future housing demand associated with the regional growth forecast, any addition to the future housing supply would not be expected to alter the overall supply-demand balance. In addition, it is likely that many of the employees who would be associated with the future office use would be long-term residents of other nearby communities, such as the Cities of Burbank and Glendale, that are unlikely to relocate as a result of the Project. Therefore, employment-induced housing growth on Site C under Option A in Phase 2 would be less than significant.

Option B Under Option B, operation of this portion of the Project Site would include the development of up to 400 residential units (and 300 hotel rooms) in a 34-story hotel and residential building, with ancillary meeting rooms, retail, restaurant/lounge areas, and spa. The proposed 400 residential units would be consistent with the SCAG forecast of 148,123 additional housing units in the City of Los Angeles subregion between 2000 and 2015. Phase 2 Option B would therefore not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. Impacts related to housing on Site C under Phase 2 Option B would be less than significant.

(iii) Sites D and E In Phase 2, Sites D and E would be used as park & ride lots or for construction staging. No permanent housing units would be associated with these activities. No impacts related to housing would occur on Sites D and E during Phase 2 of the Project.

(iv) Pedestrian Bridge No housing would be associated with the pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Lankershim Boulevard in Phase 2. No impacts related to housing would occur during Phase 2 of the Project with respect to the pedestrian bridge.

(3) Population

(a) Phase 1 Operation of this portion of the Project would not include development of residential uses; the Project Site would not include any residential zoning, but would allow for commercial land uses. Therefore, no permanent population would be associated with Phase 1 of the Project. As discussed above, the jobs created by this portion of the Project Site would not create a significant demand for housing, and similarly would not result in significant population growth. Therefore, Phase 1 development would not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. Impacts related to population in Phase 1 of the Project would be less than significant.



(b) Phase 2

(i) Sites A and B In Phase 2 of the Project, Sites A and B would continue in operation as office building, media production facility, retail/restaurant and parking uses. Bus operations would be relocated to Site B prior to commencement of construction activity on Site C in Phase 2. No housing development and therefore, no permanent population growth, would be associated with activities on Sites A and B in Phase 2. As identified above for Phase 1, impacts related to population on Sites A and B in Phase 2 would be less than significant.

(ii) Site C Option A Under Option A, operation of this portion of the Project would not include development of residential uses; the Project Site would not include any residential zoning, but would allow for commercial land uses. This portion of the Project Site is expected to generate approximately 1,711 additional jobs of which a small percentage of employees may require new housing. As discussed above, the jobs created by this portion of the Project Site would not create a significant demand for housing, and similarly would not result in significant population growth. Therefore, Phase 2 development would not cause growth (i.e., new housing or employment generators) or accelerate development in an undeveloped area that exceeds projected/planned levels for the year of Project occupancy/buildout, and that would result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted Community Plan or General Plan. Therefore, employment-induced population growth on Site C in Phase 2 would be less than significant.

Option B Under Option B, Phase 2 would be expected to result in approximately 1,251 new residents in the City of Los Angeles.3 The addition of the Project’s estimated 1,251 new residents would be consistent with the SCAG forecast of 416,156 additional residents in the City of Los Angeles Subregion between 2000 and 2015. The potential concentration of population in this area of the City that would occur under Phase 2 Option B development would be less than significant for the same reasons that the concentration of employment in a transit station area would be less than significant, as detailed above. Impacts related to population on Site C under Phase 2 Option B would be less than significant.

(iii) Sites D and E In Phase 2, Sites D and E would be used as park & ride lots or for construction staging. No permanent population would be associated with these activities. No impacts related to population would occur on Sites D and E during Phase 2 of the Project.

3 Based on an average of 3.127 persons per household, State of California, Department of Finance, E-5

Population and Housing Estimates, for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2007, with 2000 Benchmark, at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E5/E5-06/E-5text2.asp.



(iv) Pedestrian Bridge No permanent population would be associated with the pedestrian bridge to be constructed over Lankershim Boulevard in Phase 2. No impacts related to population would occur during Phase 2 of the Project with respect to the pedestrian bridge.

3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The related projects list was generated from three separate jurisdictions: City of Los Angeles, City of Burbank, and the City of Glendale. Therefore, the following is a brief discussion of the SCAG forecasts for the City of Los Angeles, the City of Burbank, and the City of Glendale.4

a. City of Los Angeles

As previously discussed, in 2000, the City of Los Angeles had a population of 3,711,969 persons, 1,339,579 households, and employment for 1,781,863 persons.5 SCAG forecasts that by the year 2015, the City of Los Angeles will have a total population of 4,128,125 persons (an increase of 11.2 percent from 2000), 1,493,244 households (an increase of 11.4 percent), and will provide employment for 1,864,061 persons (an increase of 4.6 percent).6

b. City of Burbank

In 2000, the City of Burbank had a population of 100,316 persons, 43,089 households, and employment for 91,450 persons.7 SCAG forecasts that by the year 2015, the City of Burbank will have a total population of 116,430 persons (an increase of 16.1 percent from 2000), 47,266 households (an increase of 9.7 percent), and will provide employment for 101,490 persons (an increase of 11.0 percent).8

c. City of Glendale

In 2000, the City of Glendale had a population of 195,781 persons, 73,729 households, and employment for 85,715 persons.9 SCAG forecasts that by the year 2015, the City of Glendale will have a total

4 SCAG forecasts for the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale account for the nearby unincorporated

area of Los Angeles County located within Universal City east of the Project Site.

5 SCAG Forecast 2004. This reflects the 2000 Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2004 Forecast is used because the 2008 Growth Projection published by SCAG does not include year 2000 data.

6 SCAG 2008 Growth Projection, City Projections, http://www.scag.ca.gov/.






population of 214,200 persons (an increase of 9.4 percent from 2000), 77,444 households (an increase of 5.0 percent), and will provide employment for 96,495 persons (an increase of 12.6 percent).10

d. Cumulative Employment Growth

Combined, Phase 1 and Phase 2-Option A would generate employment for approximately 5,159 people. Phase 1 and Phase 2-Option B would generate employment for approximately 3,678 people. As shown in Table IV.N-3, the related projects would generate approximately 34,726 jobs, and when combined with the Project, would result in approximately 39,885 jobs under Phase 2-Option A and 38,404 jobs under Phase 2-Option B in the Project area.

Cumulative growth within the region would be consistent with SCAG projections for the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale and impacts would be less than significant. The Project, therefore, would have a less than significant cumulative effect.

e. Cumulative Housing Growth

Under Option B, the Project would result in 400 new housing units. As shown in Table IV.N-4, related projects would develop approximately 19,824 new units within the Project area. When combined with the Project this would result in a total of 21,959 new housing units. The Project’s contribution to this total would be approximately 1.8 percent of the total. Cumulative growth within the region would be consistent with SCAG projections for the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale; therefore, cumulative growth impacts would be less than significant.

Table IV.N-3 Estimated Employment Generation for Related Projects

Type of Development Size Employee Generation Factora Total Employees City of Los Angeles Retail 5,223,273 sq. ft. 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 11,685 Office 3,261,821 sq. ft. 3.4965 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 11,405 Industrial 110,146 sq. ft. 2.6954 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 297 Schoolb 10,026 studentsc 1 employee/13 students 771 Schoold 69,790 sq. ft. 1 employee/1,000 sq. ft. 70 Hotel 48,628 sq. ft. 1.1325 employee/1,000 sq. ft. 55 Hoteld 425 rooms 0.9 employee/room 383 Theaterd 3,359 seats 0.005 employees/seat 17 Theaterd 111,335 sq. ft. 1 employee/5,000 sq. ft. 22 Churchd 173,690 sq. ft. 1 employee/500 sq. ft. 347

Subtotal Related Projects 25,052 City of Burbank Retail 134,545 sq. ft. 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 301 Office 1,878,234 sq. ft. 3.4965 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 6,567 Industrial 87,089 sq. ft. 2.6954 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 235 Theaterd 300 seats 0.005 employees/seat 2




Table IV.N-3 Estimated Employment Generation for Related Projects

Type of Development Size Employee Generation Factora Total Employees Churchd 17,500 sq. ft. 1 employee/500 sq. ft. 35 Day-Care/Schoolb 7,500 sq. ft. 1 employee/1,000 sq. ft. 8

Subtotal Related Projects 7,148 City of Glendale Retail 480,000 sf 2.2371 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 1,074 Office 295,000 sf 3.4965 employees/1,000 sq. ft. 1,031 Theaterd 3,500 seats 0.005 employees/seat 18 Hoteld 448 rooms 0.9 employee/room 403

Subtotal Related Projects 2,526 Total Under Project with Option A 5,159 Total Under Project with Option B 3,678

Cumulative Employees with Option A 39,885 Cumulative Employees with Option B 38,404

SCAG Projection for Cumulative Employment Growth for the Cities of Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles 103,018

a Los Angeles Unified School District, School Fee Justification Studies for Los Angeles Unified School District, Table ES-2, September 2002.

b The employment factor for schools is based on data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. The factors were based on data collected for estimating the trip generation per employee, student, and square footage on a weekday. The factors also represent the approximate number of square feet or students that would generate one employee (i.e., one employee per 1,000 square feet or one employee per 13 students).

c School uses with square footage are estimated on the following assumption: 50 sf.=1 student. d Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 2008.



Table IV.N-4 Related Projects with Residential Components

No. Land Use Address Number of

Residential Unitsa City of Los Angeles

1 Apartments 5651 W. Santa Monica Boulevard 437 2 Apartments 5555 Hollywood Boulevard 108 3 Apartments 6142 Franklin Avenue 130 4 Condominiums 1714 McCadden Place 218 5 Condominiums 15212-15222 Ventura Boulevard 50 6 Condominiums 11238-11244 Huston Street 15 7 Condominiums 11323-11329 Huston Street 12 8 Condominiums 1427 Cole Place 48

12 Apartments 11209 Otsego Street 100 14 Condominiums 5019 Fair Avenue 258

17 Condominiums Southwest Corner of La Brea Avenue/Marshfield Way 180

18 Condominiums 7046 W. Hollywood Boulevard 42 23 Apartments 6121 W. Sunset Boulevard 400 25 Condominiums 1617 Cosmo Street 47 27 Condominiums 6253 Hollywood Boulevard 60 31 Condominiums 6290 Hollywood Boulevard 40

32 Condominiums North side of Hollywood Boulevard

between Western Avenue and Garfield Place

160

37 Senior Housing 5473 Santa Monica Boulevard --b 42 Apartments 1830 N. Bronson Avenue 45 45 Condominiums 6100 W. Hollywood Boulevard 140 47 Apartments 1614-1736 Argyle Avenue 1,042 48 Condominiums 1802 Whitley Avenue 32 49 Condominiums 1717 Vine Street 57 50 Condominiums 11150 La Maida Street 48 51 Apartments 10945 Bluffside Drive 188 53 Apartments 5165 Fountain Avenue 110 55 Apartments Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street 151 56 Apartments 5400 W. Hollywood Boulevard 42 59 Apartments 4041 Lankershim Boulevard 145

60 Live/Work Condominiums Northwest corner of Cahuenga Boulevard and Universal Studios Boulevard 68

61 Condominiums 10057 Riverside Drive 92 63 Apartments 11154 Aqua Vista Street 122 64 Apartments 10601 Riverside Drive 82 65c Condominiums/Apartments Universal City 1,500 66 Condominiums 11617 Ventura Boulevard 392 67 Condominiums 11011 Huston Street 65 68 Condominiums 5031 Fair Avenue 257 69 Apartments 11049 Magnolia Boulevard 196 71 Apartments 11021 McCormick Street 152 72 Apartments 11049 McCormick Street 78 73 Live/Work Studios 5355 Cartwright Avenue 82


Table IV.N-4 (Continued) Related Projects with Residential Components



Residential Unitsa 74 Apartments 4043 Radford Avenue 149 76 Condominiums 6911 W. Santa Monica Boulevard 374 77 Apartments 11324 Cumpston Street 191 78 Condominiums 11927 Magnolia Boulevard 107 79 Condominiums 12629 Riverside Drive 247 80 Condominiums/Apartments 6100 Laurel Plaza 1,060 81 Apartments 6333 Laurel Canyon Boulevard 742 83 Apartments 13401 Riverside Drive 142 87 Apartments 13103 Victory Boulevard 100 88 Apartments 14121 Ventura Boulevard 105 89 Apartments 7401 Lankershim Boulevard 106 91 Apartments 3716-3720 Barham Boulevard 307 92 Apartments 4454 Van Nuys Boulevard 98 97 Condominiums 14117 Vanowen Street 118 99 Condominiums Sunset Boulevard & Doheny Street 66

100 Apartments 4805 Sepulveda Boulevard 500 118 Apartments 801 N. Fairfax Avenue 93 120 Apartments 5920 Melrose Avenue 54 121 Apartments 922 Western Avenue 63 122 Condominiums/Apartments 100 N. La Cienega Boulevard 239 123 Apartments 6298 3rd Street 300 126 Apartments 6411 Wilshire Boulevard 130 127 Condominiums 7950 W. Sunset Boulevard 183 128 Apartments 6300 W. 3rd Street 300 129 Apartments 5600 Wilshire Boulevard 288 131 Apartments 915 N. La Brea Avenue 203 133 Apartments 5500 W. Wilshire Boulevard 175 134 Condominiums 4500 W. Las Feliz Boulevard 80 136 Condominiums 6735 W. Yucca Street 54 140 Apartments 6201 W. Hollywood Boulevard 952 141 Condominiums 6915 W. Melrose Avenue 13 142 Condominiums 5935 W. Sunset Boulevard 311 143 Apartments 1538 N. Vine Street 306 144 Condominiums/Apartments 6250 W. Hollywood Boulevard 525 145 Apartments 1800 N. Argyle Avenue 73 147 Senior Housing 1602 N. Ivar Avenue 106 148 Apartments 101 S. La Brea Avenue 118 151 Condominiums 5663 W. Melrose Avenue 96 153 Apartments 100 N. Western Avenue 187 154 Apartments 5863 W. 3rd Street 60 156 Condominiums 5550 W. Hollywood Boulevard 240 157 Condominiums 6001 W. Carlton Way 42 159 Apartments 6677 W. Santa Monica Boulevard 787 161 Apartments 11036 Weddington Street 103 162 Condominiums 11126 Chandler Boulevard 1,283


Table IV.N-4 (Continued) Related Projects with Residential Components



Residential Unitsa

164 Live/Work Condominiums 6230 Yucca Street 10

85 166 Apartments NoHo Art Wave 562

Subtotal for City of Los Angeles 19,824 City of Burbank

2 Apartments 3901 Riverside Drive 8

9 Condominiums Bounded by Alameda Avenue, Olive Avenue, Lima Street, and Avon Street 220

10 Independent Living 600 S. San Fernando Boulevard 18

11 Apartments and Condominiums

Southwest corner of Buena Vista Street and Empire Avenue 276

17 Apartments 3805 Olive Avenue 5 18 Condominiums AMC Phase 2 118

Subtotal for City of Burbank 645 City of Glendale

1 Condominiums/Apartments Glendale Town Center 338 3 Condominiums/Townhouses North Brand Mixed-Use Development 752

Subtotal for City of Glendale 1,090 Subtotal 21,559

Plus Project Housing Units (Under Option B) 400 Cumulative Housing Units 21,959

SCAG Projection for Cumulative Housing Growth 161,557 a This is a conservative estimate of residential units currently under development to the extent that demolished units are not reflected. b The number reflects the conversion of 48 single-occupancy units to 27 efficiency units for HIV seniors. While this related project would result in a decrease in residential units, the related projects list conservatively assumes that no net change in size would occur. c Represents projected number of residential units to be constructed within Universal Vision Plan area by 2015. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 2008.

f. Cumulative Population Growth

Under Option B, the Project would generate approximately 1,251 residents. As shown in Table IV.N-5, development of the Project combined with related projects would result in a cumulative population growth of approximately 70,111 residents, which would be well within SCAG’s and the Cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Glendale’s anticipated growth rates for the period of 2000 to 2015. The Project’s contribution to this growth would be approximately 1.8 percent of the total cumulative population growth. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.



Table IV.N-5 Estimated Population Generation for Related Projects

No. Number of Residential Units Population Generation Factora Total Residents

City of Los Angeles 1 437 3.127 residents/household 1,366 2 108 3.127 residents/household 338 3 130 3.127 residents/household 407 4 218 3.127 residents/household 682 5 50 3.127 residents/household 156 6 15 3.127 residents/household 47 7 12 3.127 residents/household 38 8 48 3.127 residents/household 150

12 100 3.127 residents/household 313 14 258 3.127 residents/household 807 17 180 3.127 residents/household 563 18 42 3.127 residents/household 131 23 400 3.127 residents/household 1,251 25 47 3.127 residents/household 147 27 60 3.127 residents/household 188 31 40 3.127 residents/household 125 32 160 3.127 residents/household 500 42 45 3.127 residents/household 141 45 140 3.127 residents/household 438 47 1,042 3.127 residents/household 3,258 48 32 3.127 residents/household 100 49 57 3.127 residents/household 178 50 48 3.127 residents/household 150 51 188 3.127 residents/household 588 53 110 3.127 residents/household 344 55 151 3.127 residents/household 472 56 42 3.127 residents/household 131 59 145 3.127 residents/household 453 60 68 3.127 residents/household 213 61 92 3.127 residents/household 288 63 122 3.127 residents/household 381 64 82 3.127 residents/household 256 65b 1,500 3.127 residents/household 4,691 66 392 3.127 residents/household 1,266 67 65 3.127 residents/household 203 68 257 3.127 residents/household 804 69 196 3.127 residents/household 613 71 152 3.127 residents/household 475 72 78 3.127 residents/household 244 73 82 3.127 residents/household 256 74 149 3.127 residents/household 466 76 374 3.127 residents/household 1,169 77 191 3.127 residents/household 597 78 107 3.127 residents/household 335 79 247 3.127 residents/household 772


Table IV.N-5 (Continued) Estimated Population Generation for Related Projects


No. Number of Residential Units Population Generation Factora Total Residents 80 1,060 3.127 residents/household 3,315 81 742 3.127 residents/household 2,320 83 142 3.127 residents/household 444 87 100 3.127 residents/household 313 88 105 3.127 residents/household 328 89 106 3.127 residents/household 331 91 307 3.127 residents/household 960 92 98 3.127 residents/household 306 97 118 3.127 residents/household 369 99 66 3.127 residents/household 206

100 500 3.127 residents/household 1,564 118 93 3.127 residents/household 291 120 54 3.127 residents/household 169 121 63 3.127 residents/household 197 122 239 3.127 residents/household 747 123 300 3.127 residents/household 938 126 130 3.127 residents/household 407 127 183 3.127 residents/household 572 128 300 3.127 residents/household 938 129 288 3.127 residents/household 901 131 203 3.127 residents/household 635 133 175 3.127 residents/household 547 134 80 3.127 residents/household 250 136 54 3.127 residents/household 169 140 952 3.127 residents/household 2,977 141 13 3.127 residents/household 41 142 311 3.127 residents/household 972 143 306 3.127 residents/household 957 144 525 3.127 residents/household 1,642 145 73 3.127 residents/household 228 147 106 3.127 residents/household 331 148 118 3.127 residents/household 369 151 96 3.127 residents/household 300 153 187 3.127 residents/household 585 154 60 3.127 residents/household 188 156 240 3.127 residents/household 750 157 42 3.127 residents/household 131 159 787 3.127 residents/household 2,461 161 103 3.127 residents/household 322 162 1,283 3.127 residents/household 4,012 164 95 3.127 residents/household 297 166 562 3.127 residents/household 1,757

Subtotal for City of Los Angeles 63,434 City of Burbank

2 8 3.127 residents/household 25 9 220 3.127 residents/household 688

10 18 3.127 residents/household 56


Table IV.N-5 (Continued) Estimated Population Generation for Related Projects


No. Number of Residential Units Population Generation Factora Total Residents 11 276 3.127 residents/household 863 17 5 3.127 residents/household 16 18 118 3.127 residents/household 369

Subtotal for City of Burbank 2,017 City of Glendale

1 338 3.127 residents/household 1,057 3 752 3.127 residents/household 2,352

Subtotal City of Glendale 3,409 Subtotal 68,860

Plus Project Population 1,251 Cumulative Population 70,111

SCAG Projection for Cumulative Population Growth 450,689 a Based on an average of 3.127 persons per household, State of California, Department of Finance, E-5

Population and Housing Estimates, for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2007, with 2000 Benchmark, at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E5/E5-06/E-5text2.asp.

b Represents projected number of residential units to be constructed within Universal Vision Plan area by 2015.

Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 2008.

4. MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures are required.

5. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION

The Project would result in less than significant impacts to employment, housing, and population.

iv. environmental impact analysis n. population, … sections/iv.n. population...b. project site the...

Documents