Organization of the Section. a) Los Angeles Subregion. b) Project Site. i) Sites A & B. ii) Site C. iii) Site D. iv) Site E

Transcription

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 Page IV.N-1

2 (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 Page IV.N-2

3 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 Census a 3,711,969 1,276,578 1,781,863 SCAG Forecasts b ,057,484 1,433,105 1,820, ,128,125 1,493,244 1,864, ,204,329 1,556,604 1,892, ,277,732 1,605,959 1,925, ,348,281 1,653,585 1,960, ,415,772 1,692,682 1,994,134 Percent Change 2000 to 2010 c +9.3% +7.0% +2.1% 2010 to % +4.2% +2.4% 2015 to % +4.2% +1.5% 2020 to % +3.2% +1.7% 2025 to % +3.0% +1.8% 2030 to % +2.4% +1.7% a SCAG 2008 Growth Projection, City Projections, 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 SCAG Forecast 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. Page IV.N-3

4 Figure IV.N-1, SCAG Los Angeles Subregion Page IV.N-4

5 b. Project Site The approximately 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. Page IV.N-5

6 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 Page IV.N-6

7 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 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 Page IV.N-7

8 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 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 Page IV.N-8

9 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 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 Factor a Total Employees Phase 1 Retail and Services 25,000 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft. 56 Office/Media Production 970,200 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft. 3,392 Total Under Phase 1 3,448 Phase 2-Option A Office 489,100 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft. 1,711 Total Under Phase 2-Option A 1,711 Page IV.N-9

10 Type of Development Size Employee Generation Factor a Total Employees Phase 2-Option B Hotel 180,000 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft. 204 Ancillary to Hotel 8,000 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft. 18 Health/Spa to Hotel 1,000 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft 2 Restaurant to Hotel 2,000 sf employees/1,000 sq.ft 4 Residential 400 units N/A b >5 b 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 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, (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 Page IV.N-10

11 Profile for the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan Area 2, the Community Plan Area contained 41,300 housing units, with a vacancy rate of 4.16 percent, in According to SCAG projections, this total is expected to grow to approximately 43,000 units by 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 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, November 20, Page IV.N-11

12 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 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. Page IV.N-12

13 (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 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 persons per household, State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, for Cities, Counties, and the State, , with 2000 Benchmark, at Page IV.N-13

14 (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 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, 7 SCAG Forecast 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. 8 SCAG 2008 Growth Projection, City Projections, 9 SCAG Forecast 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. Page IV.N-14

15 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 Factor a Total Employees City of Los Angeles Retail 5,223,273 sq. ft employees/1,000 sq. ft. 11,685 Office 3,261,821 sq. ft employees/1,000 sq. ft. 11,405 Industrial 110,146 sq. ft employees/1,000 sq. ft. 297 School b 10,026 students c 1 employee/13 students 771 School d 69,790 sq. ft. 1 employee/1,000 sq. ft. 70 Hotel 48,628 sq. ft employee/1,000 sq. ft. 55 Hotel d 425 rooms 0.9 employee/room 383 Theater d 3,359 seats employees/seat 17 Theater d 111,335 sq. ft. 1 employee/5,000 sq. ft. 22 Church d 173,690 sq. ft. 1 employee/500 sq. ft. 347 Subtotal Related Projects 25,052 City of Burbank Retail 134,545 sq. ft employees/1,000 sq. ft. 301 Office 1,878,234 sq. ft employees/1,000 sq. ft. 6,567 Industrial 87,089 sq. ft employees/1,000 sq. ft. 235 Theater d 300 seats employees/seat 2 10 SCAG 2008 Growth Projection, City Projections, Page IV.N-15

16 Table IV.N-3 Estimated Employment Generation for Related Projects Type of Development Size Employee Generation Factor a Total Employees Church d 17,500 sq. ft. 1 employee/500 sq. ft. 35 Day-Care/School b 7,500 sq. ft. 1 employee/1,000 sq. ft. 8 Subtotal Related Projects 7,148 City of Glendale Retail 480,000 sf employees/1,000 sq. ft. 1,074 Office 295,000 sf employees/1,000 sq. ft. 1,031 Theater d 3,500 seats employees/seat 18 Hotel d 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 b The employment factor for schools is based on data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6 th 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, 6 th Edition. Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April Page IV.N-16

17 Table IV.N-4 Related Projects with Residential Components No. Land Use Address Number of Residential Units a City of Los Angeles 1 Apartments 5651 W. Santa Monica Boulevard Apartments 5555 Hollywood Boulevard Apartments 6142 Franklin Avenue Condominiums 1714 McCadden Place Condominiums Ventura Boulevard 50 6 Condominiums Huston Street 15 7 Condominiums Huston Street 12 8 Condominiums 1427 Cole Place Apartments Otsego Street Condominiums 5019 Fair Avenue Condominiums Southwest Corner of La Brea Avenue/Marshfield Way Condominiums 7046 W. Hollywood Boulevard Apartments 6121 W. Sunset Boulevard Condominiums 1617 Cosmo Street Condominiums 6253 Hollywood Boulevard Condominiums 6290 Hollywood Boulevard Condominiums North side of Hollywood Boulevard between Western Avenue and Garfield 160 Place 37 Senior Housing 5473 Santa Monica Boulevard -- b 42 Apartments 1830 N. Bronson Avenue Condominiums 6100 W. Hollywood Boulevard Apartments Argyle Avenue 1, Condominiums 1802 Whitley Avenue Condominiums 1717 Vine Street Condominiums La Maida Street Apartments Bluffside Drive Apartments 5165 Fountain Avenue Apartments Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street Apartments 5400 W. Hollywood Boulevard Apartments 4041 Lankershim Boulevard Live/Work Condominiums Northwest corner of Cahuenga Boulevard and Universal Studios Boulevard Condominiums Riverside Drive Apartments Aqua Vista Street Apartments Riverside Drive c Condominiums/Apartments Universal City 1, Condominiums Ventura Boulevard Condominiums Huston Street Condominiums 5031 Fair Avenue Apartments Magnolia Boulevard Apartments McCormick Street Apartments McCormick Street Live/Work Studios 5355 Cartwright Avenue 82 Page IV.N-17

18 Table IV.N-4 (Continued) Related Projects with Residential Components No. Land Use Address Number of Residential Units a 74 Apartments 4043 Radford Avenue Condominiums 6911 W. Santa Monica Boulevard Apartments Cumpston Street Condominiums Magnolia Boulevard Condominiums Riverside Drive Condominiums/Apartments 6100 Laurel Plaza 1, Apartments 6333 Laurel Canyon Boulevard Apartments Riverside Drive Apartments Victory Boulevard Apartments Ventura Boulevard Apartments 7401 Lankershim Boulevard Apartments Barham Boulevard Apartments 4454 Van Nuys Boulevard Condominiums Vanowen Street Condominiums Sunset Boulevard & Doheny Street Apartments 4805 Sepulveda Boulevard Apartments 801 N. Fairfax Avenue Apartments 5920 Melrose Avenue Apartments 922 Western Avenue Condominiums/Apartments 100 N. La Cienega Boulevard Apartments rd Street Apartments 6411 Wilshire Boulevard Condominiums 7950 W. Sunset Boulevard Apartments 6300 W. 3 rd Street Apartments 5600 Wilshire Boulevard Apartments 915 N. La Brea Avenue Apartments 5500 W. Wilshire Boulevard Condominiums 4500 W. Las Feliz Boulevard Condominiums 6735 W. Yucca Street Apartments 6201 W. Hollywood Boulevard Condominiums 6915 W. Melrose Avenue Condominiums 5935 W. Sunset Boulevard Apartments 1538 N. Vine Street Condominiums/Apartments 6250 W. Hollywood Boulevard Apartments 1800 N. Argyle Avenue Senior Housing 1602 N. Ivar Avenue Apartments 101 S. La Brea Avenue Condominiums 5663 W. Melrose Avenue Apartments 100 N. Western Avenue Apartments 5863 W. 3 rd Street Condominiums 5550 W. Hollywood Boulevard Condominiums 6001 W. Carlton Way Apartments 6677 W. Santa Monica Boulevard Apartments Weddington Street Condominiums Chandler Boulevard 1,283 Page IV.N-18

19 Table IV.N-4 (Continued) Related Projects with Residential Components No. Land Use Address Number of Residential Units a 164 Live/Work Yucca Street Condominiums 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 Independent Living 600 S. San Fernando Boulevard Apartments and Southwest corner of Buena Vista Street Condominiums and Empire Avenue Apartments 3805 Olive Avenue 5 18 Condominiums AMC Phase Subtotal for City of Burbank 645 City of Glendale 1 Condominiums/Apartments Glendale Town Center 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 Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 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 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. Page IV.N-19

20 Table IV.N-5 Estimated Population Generation for Related Projects No. Number of Residential Units Population Generation Factor a Total Residents City of Los Angeles residents/household 1, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household 1, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household , residents/household 3, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household b 1, residents/household 4, residents/household 1, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household 1, residents/household residents/household residents/household 772 Page IV.N-20

21 Table IV.N-5 (Continued) Estimated Population Generation for Related Projects No. Number of Residential Units Population Generation Factor a Total Residents 80 1, residents/household 3, residents/household 2, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household 1, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household 2, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household 1, residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household residents/household 2, residents/household , residents/household 4, residents/household residents/household 1,757 Subtotal for City of Los Angeles 63,434 City of Burbank residents/household residents/household residents/household 56 Page IV.N-21

22 Table IV.N-5 (Continued) Estimated Population Generation for Related Projects No. Number of Residential Units Population Generation Factor a Total Residents residents/household residents/household residents/household 369 Subtotal for City of Burbank 2,017 City of Glendale residents/household 1, 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 persons per household, State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, for Cities, Counties, and the State, , with 2000 Benchmark, at b Represents projected number of residential units to be constructed within Universal Vision Plan area by Source (table): Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, April 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. Page IV.N-22