III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS F. TRAFFIC

Transcription

1 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS F. TRAFFIC This section summarizes the traffic impact analysis prepared by Kaku Associates in May, Detailed calculation worksheets are contained in Appendix D to this EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Traffic Analysis Methodology and Background This traffic analysis is intended to determine the effects of traffic movements on persons traveling to, from and through the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area), taking into consideration existing development, future development associated with the three development scenarios (Maximum Possible, Moderate and Minimum) evaluated in this EIR and assumptions regarding the growth in traffic as a result of other background development. The analysis addresses traffic circulation impacts and transit, as well as Congestion Management Plan impacts. As is typical, this traffic impact analysis for the proposed Plan Amendment consists of five primary components: (1) existing conditions for the Proposed Project vicinity were established; (2) Proposed Project generated traffic was estimated; (3) future conditions with and without the proposed Plan Amendment under the three development scenarios were established; (4) the effects of these new vehicle and transit trips on the local transportation network was assessed; and (5) mitigation measures for any potential impacts were identified and evaluated. The Project Area covers a large area and is expected to require many years to be fully implemented. Therefore, detailed intersection volume-to-capacity and level of service analysis was not considered to be the most effective method of analysis. Instead, roadway level of service (LOS) analysis was determined, in coordination with the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), to be the more appropriate method to determine service capacity and projected deficiencies of the roadway network in the Project Area. As a result, link-based analysis was used in this traffic analysis. The buildout year for the Proposed Project is Based on a review of the Project Area roadway network, key street segments were selected for analysis during the morning and afternoon peak hours. These segments are approximately one-quarter mile long and were selected to reflect the most likely locations where potential traffic impacts may occur as a result of project implementation. Traffic Page III.F-1

2 The traffic analysis was performed through the use of established traffic engineering techniques and in accordance with LADOT s most current procedures. The base traffic data, key assumptions and technical methodologies used in analyzing potential traffic impacts resulting from the proposed Plan Amendment were developed in consultation with and approved by LADOT staff. This EIR for the proposed Plan Amendment is also subject to the Land Use Analysis program of the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (CMP). The CMP was adopted in 1992 by the State of California and last amended in The CMP is a state-mandated program designed to address urban congestion. The CMP analysis assesses potential impacts on the freeway network and key intersections in the system of surface streets. The CMP includes a system of highways and roadways with minimum LOS standards, transit standards, a trip reduction and travel demand management element, a program to analyze the impacts of local land use decisions on the regional transportation system, a capital improvement program, and a countywide computer model to evaluate traffic congestion and recommend relief strategies and actions. Proposed projects that have the potential to significantly impact the designated CMP network (mainline freeway segments and principal arterial streets and highways) are required to identify and to mitigate, where feasible and appropriate, their adverse effects on the network. If the level of service standards on CMP-monitored roadways are not maintained, local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan which is in conformance with the Countywide CMP plan. As permitted in the CMP Traffic Impact Analysis guidelines, the CMP arterial and freeway segments within the Project Area (rather than CMP arterial monitoring intersections lying outside the Project Area) are analyzed in this section. Existing Street System The Project Area is generally bounded by La Brea Avenue on the west; Serrano Avenue on the east; Franklin Avenue, the Hollywood Freeway and Hollywood Boulevard on the north; and Fountain Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard on the south. It lies immediately south of the Hollywood Hills, which limit the number of travel routes into and out of the Project Area from the north. The existing surface street system serving the Project Area is comprised primarily of major and secondary arterial streets and several collector streets. In addition, the area contains numerous local streets serving primarily local traffic. These surface streets are oriented along a north-south, east-west grid. The Project Area is served by one freeway, the Hollywood Freeway (US 101), which is oriented in a northwest-southeast direction and transects the eastern portion of the Project Area. Numerous connections are provided to the Hollywood Freeway via ramps at Highland Avenue, Vine Street, Argyle Avenue, Gower Street, Hollywood Boulevard, Sunset Boulevard, Western Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard. Traffic Page III.F-2

3 The street segments analyzed in this section serve the majority of traffic circulating within and through the Project Area. A summary of the physical characteristics of the street segments utilized in the traffic analysis is contained in Appendix D to the EIR. Existing Public Transit Service Bus Transit The Project Area is well served by bus routes. Bus transit service in Hollywood is extensive and comprehensive with few if any locations more than one-quarter mile from at least one bus line. The bus transit system consists of two primary services: (1) the local and regional transit routes; and (2) local shuttle services. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) currently operates approximately 20 bus routes within the Hollywood area. Most of the local bus lines serving Hollywood are extensions of regional lines that provide both circulation within Hollywood and which also provide access to outlying areas. These local and express routes are supplemented by two types of circulator bus routes operated by the City of Los Angeles. Three DASH shuttles routes serve Hollywood and extend into the surrounding area, including West Hollywood and the Wilshire District. The Community Connection shuttle provides a connection between Beachwood Canyon and the Hollywood/Vine Metro Red Line station. Rail Transit In addition to the bus transit lines, the Project Area is served by the Metro Rail Red Line operated by MTA. The Red Line is a two-branch subway, beginning at Union Station, with one branch traveling through Hollywood to North Hollywood and the other terminating at Wilshire Boulevard and Western Avenue. Within the Project Area, the Red Line runs under Hollywood Boulevard, with stations located at Western Avenue, Vine Street and Highland Avenue. Existing Traffic Conditions The effects of vehicle and transit trips on the local transportation network are assessed in accordance with two measures: a calculation of the volume-to capacity (V/C) ratio and the level of service (LOS). As its name suggests, the volume/capacity ratio (V/C) is a measure of the actual traffic volume at a given intersection compared to the theoretical capacity of that intersection to accommodate traffic. For example, a V/C ratio of 0.6 or less is generally considered a free-flow condition, while a V/C ratio of 1.0 is considered a saturated condition. Capacity represents the maximum total hourly movement volume of vehicles in the critical lanes that has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. For planning purposes capacity equates to the maximum value of LOS E (V/C=1.0). Traffic Page III.F-3

4 A system has been developed that assigns a letter grade to describe the operational quality of traffic flow in terms of the Level of Service (LOS) that describes different traffic flow characteristics, as shown in Table III.F-1. LOS A to C operate quite well. LOS D is typically recognized as the satisfactory service level in urban areas. LOS E represents volumes at or near the capacity of the street that might result in stoppages of momentary duration and fairly unsafe flow. LOS F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with stoppages of long duration. Table III.F-1 Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description Volume Capacity Ratio to A Excellent operation. The roadway appears quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. < B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait for more than 60 seconds, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted D E F Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait for more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop-and-go type traffic flow Over Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1985 and Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, MCHRP Circular 212, To provide a baseline for the analysis of potential traffic impacts related to the Proposed Project, a series of traffic counts were taken throughout and adjacent to the Project Area. Counts were conducted at 59 locations throughout the project area in November and December, Recent data available from LADOT and Caltrans were used at the remaining 14 locations. Based on these counts, AM and PM peak 1 No data was collected during the week of Thanksgiving. Traffic Page III.F-4

5 hour traffic volumes were developed for a total of 73 street or roadway segments (see Appendix D for a tabular listing of volumes for each street segment). A volume-to-capacity method was used to establish the baseline level of service for all street segments. The capacities used in the analysis assume that street segments are controlled by traffic signals at major intersections. The peak hour capacities used are as follows: Major Streets 800 vehicles per hour per lane Secondary Streets One-Way 650 vehicles per hour per lane Two-Way 600 vehicles per hour per lane Collector Streets 450 vehicles per hour per lane The City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has installed a computerized traffic signal system known as Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) throughout the City of Los Angeles. The ATSAC system enables the traffic-carrying capacity of a street to increase by approximately seven percent; for street segments analyzed in the study, that increase has been added to the baseline capacities noted above. LADOT is in the process of upgrading the traffic signal synchronization system in a number of areas of the City, including a portion of the Hollywood area. The Adaptive Traffic Control System [ATCS] increases the capacity of intersections by an additional three percent above that achieved by the ATSAC system. The ATCS system has not been installed at the time of the analysis of the proposed Plan Amendment so street segment capacities utilizing the ATSAC system only is assumed. A comparison of existing traffic volumes to roadway capacities indicates that in both the AM and the PM peak hours, 50 of 73 analyzed segments (68 percent) within the Project Area are presently operating at acceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better). Table III.F-2 provides the existing levels of service for the analyzed street segments for the morning and evening peak travel hours. Traffic Page III.F-5

6 Table III.F-2 Existing Conditions Roadway Segment Class Existing V/C Ratios Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS North/South Streets NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB La Brea Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd Secondary 836 1,107 1, B D D C N. of Sunset Blvd Major 916 1,469 1,237 1, A E C C N. of Fountain Ave Major 981 1,543 1,462 1, A B B A Orange Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd Collector A A B A N. of Sunset Blvd Collector A A D B N. of Fountain Ave Collector A A A A Highland Avenue S. of Franklin Ave Major 1,727 1,921 1,788 2, C A C B N. of Hollywood Blvd Major 1,533 2,032 1,661 1, B D B C N. of Sunset Blvd Major 1,591 1,181 1,742 1, B A C A N. of Fountain Ave Major 1,481 1,617 1,763 1, B B C B Wilcox Avenue S. of Franklin Ave Secondary A D A A N. of Hollywood Blvd Secondary A F D A N. of Sunset Blvd Secondary A B C A N. of Fountain Ave Secondary A B B B Cole Ave N. of Fountain Ave Secondary A N/A N/A A N/A N/A Cahuenga Blvd S. of Franklin Ave Secondary 633 1,327 1, A F F B N. of Hollywood Blvd Secondary 592 1,252 1, A E F B N. of Sunset Blvd Secondary A A B A N. of Fountain Ave Secondary , A C D A Traffic Page III.F-6

7 Roadway Segment Class Table III.F-2 Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Existing V/C Ratios PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Vine St S. of Franklin Ave Major 541 1,306 1, A D D A N. of Hollywood Blvd Major 699 1,566 1,287 1, A E C B N. of Sunset Blvd Major 792 1,260 1, A C D A N. of Fountain Ave Major 982 1,329 1,453 1, B D E B Gower St N. of Hollywood Blvd Secondary 371 1, A D B A N. of Sunset Blvd Secondary A F F C N. of Fountain Ave Secondary A F F C N. of Santa Monica Blvd Secondary A F D E Bronson Ave S. of Franklin Av Secondary A B A B N. of Sunset Blvd Secondary A B C A N. of Fountain Ave Secondary B A B B N. of Santa Monica Blvd Secondary A A A A Van Ness Ave N. of Sunset Blvd Collector A F C F N. of Fountain Ave Collector D F F F N. of Santa Monica Blvd Collector D F F F Wilton Place N. of Hollywood Blvd Secondary C A F A N. of Sunset Blvd Secondary D F F F N. of Fountain Ave Secondary A B B A N. of Santa Monica Blvd Secondary A F B F Traffic Page III.F-7

8 Roadway Segment Class Table III.F-2 Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Existing V/C Ratios PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Western Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd Major 700 1, A B A A N. of Sunset Blvd Major A A B A N. of Fountain Ave Major 584 1, A B A A N. of Santa Monica Blvd Major 1,119 1,263 1,175 1, B C C C East/West Streets EB WB EB WB EB WB EB WB US 101 Freeway W. of Gower St Freeway 7,595 6,905 6,355 8, E D C F W. of Sunset Freeway 7,438 6,762 6,224 7, E D C E E. of Western Freeway 7,386 6,714 6,180 7, E D C E Franklin Ave W. of Highland Ave Secondary 1,164 1,431 1,332 1, E F F E W. of Wilcox Ave Secondary B F D F E. of Vine St Secondary , B B E B Yucca St E. of Highland Ave Local A A A A W. of Wilcox Ave Local A A A A E. of Vine St Local A D D A Hollywood Blvd W. of Highland Ave Major , A B B A W. of Wilcox Ave Major , A A C A E. of Vine St Major , A A B A E. of Gower St Major , A A C A E. of Wilton Pl Major ,256 1, A A C B E. of Western Av Major , A A B B Traffic Page III.F-8

9 Roadway Segment Class Table III.F-2 Existing Conditions Existing Traffic Volumes AM Peak Hour Existing V/C Ratios PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Sunset Blvd W. of Highland Ave Major 1,546 1,363 1,514 1, B A B A W. of Wilcox Ave Major 1,234 1,528 1,705 1, A B C A E. of Vine St Major 1,189 1,429 1,799 1, A A C A E. of Gower St Major 1,084 1,717 1,596 1, A F B E E. of Bronson Ave Major 1,107 1,817 1,888 1, A F C F E. of Wilton Pl Major 1,522 1,335 1,993 1, B D D D E. of Western Av Major 1, ,573 1, A A B C Fountain Ave W. of Highland Ave Secondary E F F F W. of Wilcox Ave Secondary B D F D E. of Vine St Secondary C F F D E. of Gower St Secondary A B F C E. of Wilton Pl Secondary E B F E E. of Western Av Secondary C A A E Santa Monica Blvd E. of Gower St Major 1,048 1,281 1, B C E A E. of Wilton Pl Major 868 1,322 1, A D D B E. of Western Av Major A C D B Street segments currently operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F) are shaded. Source: Kaku Associates Traffic Page III.F-9

10 Future Traffic Conditions Without the Proposed Project One of the key components of a traffic impact analysis is the projection of growth along the studied streets that would be likely to occur without including traffic from the proposed project. For this Proposed Project, the planning time horizon for the growth is the Year Growth assumptions regarding traffic within and adjacent to the Project Area were established in coordination with LADOT. Non-project growth for the Project Area reflects the growth in traffic that would be associated with: (1) the No Project alternative (i.e., the continued development projected to occur under the existing adopted Redevelopment Plan); and (2) traffic forecasts made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for the recently-adopted Regional Transportation Plan (or RTP, the horizon year for which is 2025). SCAG s model is intended primarily as a forecasting tool to address regionally significant transportation issues; it is not calibrated to reflect the intricacies of street-segment level analyses. For this reason, the traffic volume figures obtained from the SCAG forecasts were not used directly to indicate potential future traffic in the Project Area. Rather, the net changes in traffic volumes that are anticipated by SCAG between 2002 and 2025 as a result of regional growth were used. The net change in the regional traffic volume affecting the Project Area was estimated for 2025 to With LADOT, it was agreed that SCAG s forecasted changes would be summarized across eleven screenlines running north-south and eastwest through Hollywood. Traffic growth across the screenlines was found to range from minus 15 percent to plus 10 percent for the daily period. It was determined that to establish future baseline conditions, (1) these growth factors would be applied to the existing volumes on each of the 73 segments studied and (2) traffic generated by the No Project alternative would be added. Table III.F-3 presents the resultant future levels of service (including traffic from the No Project alternative) on the Project Area street network when the forecast future street volumes are compared to the street capacities. Specific assumptions regarding street improvements that would influence street segment capacities are shown in Appendix D to this EIR. Specific projected volume changes by street segment are also shown in the Appendix. In summary, under the future No Project condition, 36 out of 73 (49 percent) of the segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour and 10 out of 73 (14 percent) of the segments are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service in the PM peak hour. 2 The Hollywood Redevelopment Plan would expire in Traffic Page III.F-10

11 Roadway Table III.F-3 Future Traffic Conditions - No Project Alternative Segment North/South Streets AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS NB SB NB SB La Brea Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd C E E C N. of Sunset Blvd C E F F N. of Fountain Ave B B F F Orange Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd A A C A N. of Sunset Blvd A A F D N. of Fountain Ave A A F D Highland Ave S. of Franklin Ave B C C D N. of Hollywood Blvd D F F F N. of Sunset Blvd C A E C N. of Fountain Ave B B E D Wilcox Ave S. of Franklin Ave A E A A N. of Hollywood Blvd A F F F N. of Sunset Blvd B C F F N. of Fountain Ave A B F F Cole Ave N. of Fountain Ave A N/A A N/A Cahuenga Blvd S. of Franklin Ave C F F F N. of Hollywood Blvd B F F F N. of Sunset Blvd A C C D N. of Fountain Ave A C C E Vine St S. of Franklin Ave A E E B N. of Hollywood Blvd B F F F N. of Sunset Blvd B E E E N. of Fountain Ave C C C F Gower St N. of Hollywood Blvd B F F E N. of Sunset Blvd D F F F N. of Fountain Ave C F F F N. of Santa Monica Blvd B F F F Bronson Ave S. of Franklin Av A B A B N. of Sunset Blvd A C F B N. of Fountain Ave A A D C N. of Santa Monica Blvd A A A A Van Ness Ave N. of Sunset Blvd A F C F N. of Fountain Ave D F F F N. of Santa Monica Blvd F E F F Traffic Page III.F-11

12 Roadway Table III.F-3 Future Traffic Conditions - No Project Alternative Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Wilton Place N. of Hollywood Blvd D A F A N. of Sunset Blvd D F F F N. of Fountain Ave A A C B N. of Santa Monica Blvd A F B F Western Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd A C C B N. of Sunset Blvd B A F E N. of Fountain Ave B C F F N. of Santa Monica Blvd F D F F East/West Streets EB WB EB WB US 101 Freeway W. of Gower St E D D F W. of Sunset E E E F E. of Western E E D F Franklin Ave W. of Highland Ave E F F F W. of Wilcox Ave D F F F E. of Vine St C C F F Yucca St E. of Highland Ave A A D E W. of Wilcox Ave A A E C E. of Vine St A C D A Hollywood Blvd W. of Highland Ave D 0785 C F F W. of Wilcox Ave D D F F E. of Vine St C F F F E. of Gower St C F F F E. of Wilton Pl A D F F E. of Western Av A A E D Sunset Blvd W. of Highland Ave E B F F W. of Wilcox Ave D D F F E. of Vine St C D F F E. of Gower St B F F F E. of Bronson Ave B F F F E. of Wilton Pl C F F F E. of Western Av A B D F Traffic Page III.F-12

13 Roadway Table III.F-3 Future Traffic Conditions - No Project Alternative Segment AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Fountain Ave W. of Highland Ave F F F F W. of Wilcox Ave D E F F E. of Vine St C F F F E. of Gower St A C F D E. of Wilton Pl D D F F E. of Western Av C F F F Santa Monica Blvd E. of Gower St C E F D E. of Wilton Pl A E F D E. of Western Av A D F E Street segments projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F) under the No Project condition are shaded. Source: Kaku Associates ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Thresholds of Significance The City of Los Angeles has established significance criteria that are used to determine whether a project has a significant traffic impact. These criteria are based on the projected ratio of traffic volume to street capacity ( V/C Ratio ) and resulting LOS for the street segment. Under the LADOT standard, a project would be considered to result in a significant impact if any of the following conditions are met: Resulting LOS Resulting V/ C Ratio Project Related V/C Ratio C Increase is equal to or greater than D Increase is equal to or greater than E, F > Increase is equal to or greater than SOURCE: LADOT; Kaku Associates Using these criteria, a project would not have a significant impact on a segment if, for example, the segment operates at LOS C after the addition of project traffic and the incremental change in the V/C ratio is less than However, if the segment operates at LOS F after the addition of project traffic and the Traffic Page III.F-13

14 incremental change in the V/C ratio is or greater, the project would be considered to have a significant impact at this location. On the three freeway segments and seven roadway segments that were analyzed under the CMP Land Use Analysis program, the impact criteria set forth in the CMP requirements were applied. For the purpose of a CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA), a project impact is considered to be significant if the proposed project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by two percent of capacity (V/C change greater than or equal to 0.02), causing or worsening a level of service F (V/C > 1.00) condition at a location. Summary of Street Segment Level of Service Table III.F-4 presents a summary of the projected changes in roadway segment LOS values under the Maximum Possible, Moderate and Minimum development scenarios, compared to existing and No Project conditions. Traffic associated with the potential development scenarios would increase the number of street segments operating at level of service E or F during the AM peak hour from 23 segments at present and 37 in 2026 without the Proposed Project to as many as 51 under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Traffic associated with the potential development scenarios would increase the number of street segments operating at level of service E or F during the PM peak hour from 23 segments at present and 63 in 2026 without the Proposed Project to as many as 65 under the Maximum Possible development scenario. Table III.F-4 Summary of Street Segment Level of Service 2026 Alternatives Existing No Project Maximum Moderate Minimum AM PEAK HOUR (2026) Possible LOS A-D LOS E & F PM PEAK HOUR LOS A-D LOS E & F SOURCE: Kaku Associates The overall projected change in traffic on the analyzed street segments is summarized in Table III.F-5. The Proposed Project alternatives would increase traffic volumes on the analyzed segments by as much as 93 percent over existing traffic levels and as much as 32 percent over 2026 levels assuming No Project. Traffic Page III.F-14

15 Significant impacts associated with these projected increases in traffic levels are addressed in the following sections. Table III.F-5 Summary of Projected Total Peak Hour Traffic On Analysis Segments Existing AM PEAK HOUR 2026 Alternatives No Project Maximum Moderate Minimum (2026) Possible Total Traffic 151, , , , ,141 Change from Existing N/A 19% 41% 22% 19% Change from 2026 Base N/A N/A 19% 3% + 0% PM PEAK HOUR Total Traffic 165, , , , ,707 Change from Existing N/A 46% 93% 53% 46% Change from 2026 Base N/A N/A 32% 5% - 0% SOURCE: Kaku Associates Trip Generation Projected impacts that would be associated with increased traffic generated under the potential development scenarios would result from two primary factors: Generation of new trips; and The geographic distribution of travel to and from the Project Area and the specific streets to which project-generated trips are assigned. The daily trips that would be associated with the projected land uses included under the potential development scenarios are shown in Table III.F-6. Peak hour trip generation estimates are contained in Appendix D to the EIR as well as additional details on the location of the trip generators within the project area. These trip generation estimates for the Proposed Project were based on national average rates found in the 6 th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation publication. In order to provide a reasonable evaluation of the potential impacts of the Proposed Project, total future trips generated within the Project Area were reduced by approximately 17% to reflect certain conditions of the Project Area that would reasonably be assumed to reduce trip generation, including: Traffic Page III.F-15

16 Mixture of land uses proximate to one another, including live-work developments, that allows for a greater number of daily trips to be made by walking or bicycling, rather than driving; The extent of the transit system and the frequency of service in the Project Area, which is greater than any other area of the City, with the possible exception of downtown Los Angeles, and allows for a higher-than-average transit patronage than would be expected elsewhere; Proximity of stores, restaurants and services that allows retail trips to be made by foot or other means of transportation besides the automobile from within the Project Area (or local capture); Retail trips made by vehicles already on the street network for other purposes (or pass-by trips). Table III.F-6 Daily Trip Generation Daily Trips Development Scenario Retail Office Industrial Single-Family 3 Multi-Family Total Maximum Possible Development 382,274 58,314 9, , ,399 Moderate Minimum No Project SOURCE: Kaku Associates 204,777 32,962 4,163 1,540 13, , ,926 27,181 3,869 1,714 15, , ,860 29,714 3,908 1,097 7, ,933 Trip Distribution The projected future traffic volumes were assigned to the area roadway network based on the future distribution of households, population and employment opportunities within a ten-mile radius of the Project Area, as forecast by the SCAG RTP model in the Future (2025) Baseline condition. The general trip distribution percentages utilized in the traffic analysis are summarized in Table III.F-7. 3 Single family residential is not a prominent land use within the Project Area and only a small part of the area is presently zoned R1 for single family detached units. However, under the development scenarios, it is possible that a small portion (less than 10%) of potential residential development could consist of single family attached units (i.e., town homes) or other forms of residential development that could have similar impacts as single family detached units. These impacts are typically slightly higher than impacts associated with multi-family units, on a per-unit basis. Therefore, in order to provide a conservative analysis, projected residential development under each development scenario includes a small proportion of single family units, which would most likely encompass town home or similar type units. The proportion of single family units projected under each development scenario was based upon the same real estate data on existing land use that was used in the calculation of the development scenarios. Traffic Page III.F-16

17 Table III.F-7 Project Trip Distribution Direction Percent North 20% South 41% East 21% West 18% Total 100% SOURCE: Kaku Associates Project Impacts Maximum Possible Development. Future growth under the Maximum Possible development scenario would significantly impact 61 street segments, or 83% of the 73 street segments analyzed in the EIR, during the AM peak period and 66 street segments, or 90% of the 73 street segments during the PM peak period. These impacts would not be geographically concentrated; rather they are spread throughout the Project Area. Street segments that would be significantly impacted under the Maximum Possible development scenario are indicated in Table III.F-8 and Figure III.F-1. Moderate. Future growth under the Moderate development scenario would significantly impact 41 street segments or 56% of the 73 street segments analyzed in the EIR during the AM peak period, and 56 street segments, or 77% of the 73 street segments during the PM peak period. These impacts would also not be geographically concentrated but would be spread throughout the Project Area. Street segments that would be significantly impacted under the Moderate development scenario are indicated in Table III.F-8 and Figure III.F-2. Minimum. Future growth under the Minimum development scenario would significantly impact 12 street segments or 16% of the 73 street segments analyzed in the EIR during the AM peak period, and 8 street segments, or 11% of the 73 street segments during the PM peak period. Most of these impacts would occur in the central portion of the Project Area, with a few occurring in the eastern and western ends. Street segments that would be significantly impacted under the Minimum development scenario are indicated in Table III.F.8 and Figure III.F-3. Traffic Page III.F-17

18 Table III.F-8 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments Future (2026) Alternatives Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum North/South Street Segments - AM Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB La Brea Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Orange Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave - Yes Highland Avenue S. of Franklin Ave - Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes N. of Fountain Ave Wilcox Avenue S. of Franklin Ave - Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Cole Ave N. of Fountain Ave Cahuenga Blvd S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd - Yes - Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave - Yes - Yes - - Vine St S. of Franklin Ave - Yes - Yes - - N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Gower St N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - Yes Bronson Ave S. of Franklin Av N. of Sunset Blvd - Yes N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Traffic Page III.F-18

19 Table III.F-8 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments Future (2026) Alternatives Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Van Ness Ave N. of Sunset Blvd - Yes - Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes - Yes - - N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Yes Wilton Place N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Western Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd - Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes East/West Street Segments - AM Peak Hour EB WB EB WB EB WB US 101 Freeway W. of Gower St Yes W. of Sunset Yes E. of Western - Yes Franklin Ave W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yucca St E. of Highland Ave Yes W. of Wilcox Ave - Yes E. of Vine St Hollywood Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Western Av - Yes Sunset Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Gower St Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Bronson Ave Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Western Av - Yes Traffic Page III.F-19

20 Table III.F-8 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments Future (2026) Alternatives Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Fountain Ave W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Gower St - Yes E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - E. of Western Av Yes Yes - Yes - - Santa Monica Blvd E. of Gower St Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl - Yes - Yes - - E. of Western Av - Yes - Yes - - North/South Street Segments - PM Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB La Brea Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Orange Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Highland Avenue S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Wilcox Avenue S. of Franklin Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Cole Ave N. of Fountain Ave Cahuenga Blvd S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Vine St S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Traffic Page III.F-20

21 Table III.F-8 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments Future (2026) Alternatives Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Gower St N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Bronson Ave S. of Franklin Av N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes N. of Santa Monica Blvd Van Ness Ave N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes - Yes - - Wilton Place N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd - Yes Western Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - East/West Street Segments - PM Peak Hour EB WB EB WB EB WB US 101 Freeway W. of Gower St - Yes W. of Sunset Yes Yes E. of Western Yes Yes Franklin Ave W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Yucca St E. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Hollywood Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Western Av Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Traffic Page III.F-21

22 Table III.F-8 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments Future (2026) Alternatives Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Sunset Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes E. of Bronson Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Western Av Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Fountain Ave W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Western Av Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Santa Monica Blvd E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Western Av Yes Yes Yes Yes - - "Yes" = Significant Impact " - " = No Significant Impact Source: Kaku Associates Traffic Page III.F-22

23 Source: Kaku Associates, May Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.F-1 Maximum Possible Alternative - Significant Impacts

24 Source: Kaku Associates, May Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.F-2 Moderate Alternative - Significant Impacts

25 Source: Kaku Associates, May Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.F-3 Minimum Alternative - Significant Impacts

26 Congestion Management Program Impacts There is one CMP freeway monitoring location within or in the vicinity of the proposed project area, US 101 south of Santa Monica Boulevard (post mile 5.20). Existing conditions at this location and at two additional nearby freeway locations were obtained from Caltrans and are shown in Table III.F-2. In addition, this analysis includes segments of the two CMP arterial streets lying within the project area (Santa Monica Boulevard from east of Gower Street to east of Western Avenue and Highland Avenue from south of Franklin Avenue to north of Fountain Avenue, a total of seven separate roadway segments). Future traffic without the Proposed Project was projected as described above and is shown in Table III.F-3. Traffic from the Proposed Project was assigned based on the trip generation shown in Table III.F-6 and the trip distribution described in Table III.F-7. Maximum Possible Development. For the regional/cmp analysis, under the Maximum Possible development scenario, increased traffic on each of the three CMP freeway segments (101 Freeway West of Gower, 101 Freeway West of Sunset, 101 Freeway East of Western) and six of the seven CMP arterial street segments analyzed (Santa Monica Blvd East of Gower, East of Wilton Place and East of Western; and Highland Avenue North of Hollywood Boulevard, North of Sunset and North of Fountain) would cause the V/C ratio to increase by greater than 0.02 to a resulting LOS of F. Thus, impacts at these locations would be significant under the Maximum Possible development scenario (see Table III.F-8 and Figure III.F-1). Moderate. CMP impacts under the Moderate development scenario would occur on one of the CMP freeway segments (101 Freeway East of Western) and five of the seven CMP arterial segments analyzed (Santa Monica Blvd East of Gower, East of Wilton Place and East of Western; and Highland Avenue North of Hollywood Boulevard and North of Sunset, see Table III.F-8 and Figure III.F-2). Minimum. No CMP impacts would occur on the analyzed freeway and arterial segments under the Minimum development scenario (see Table III.F-8 and Figure III.F-3). CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The analysis of traffic impacts of the Maximum Possible, Moderate and Minimum development scenarios considers the effects of both background growth in the region as well as the projected growth in traffic under the No Project alternative (i.e., continuation of the policies of the existing Redevelopment Plan). Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth are already incorporated into the traffic model and are equivalent to those indicated for the No Project condition in Table III.F-3 above. In the absence of the Proposed Project, without considering mitigation measures that might be implemented by projects developed under the No Project scenario, conditions at study intersections would result in decline in the level of service, with a resulting LOS E or worse, on 37 of the 73 roadway segments during the AM peak hour and 63 of the 73 roadway segments during the weekday PM peak hour. Impacts of cumulative traffic Traffic Page III.F-26

27 growth under the No Project scenario would exceed LADOT significance thresholds on 69 of 73 street segments in the AM peak, hour, PM peak hour, or both. Mitigation measures for future projects that contribute to cumulative traffic growth at the study intersections would be expected to be implemented by these projects in coordination with LADOT. However, impacts of cumulative traffic growth within the Project Are would be significant. MITIGATION MEASURES Street Segment Impacts Mitigation of traffic impacts may be accomplished either by implementing measures to increase the capacity of the street system to accommodate traffic or by reducing the demand to use the street system. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to address the significant impacts of the Maximum Possible, Moderate and Minimum development scenarios: Implementation of Adaptive Traffic Control System [ATCS] throughout the Project Area -- Upgrading the existing traffic signal controller system to ATCS throughout the Project Area would increase the capacity of the street system by three percent beyond what has already been achieved with the Automated Traffic Control and Surveillance [ATSAC] system. This improvement is currently planned for implementation in the western portion of the Project Area and could also be implemented in the eastern portion of the Project Area. Implementation of this mitigation measure would be under the jurisdiction of LADOT and would involve collection of mitigation fees from individual projects as they are developed. Temporary parking restrictions -- On some street segments, peak hour no parking / no stopping restrictions can be implemented to provide an additional lane in either direction during both the AM and the PM peak traffic periods. This measure was only considered feasible on the segments of the five streets listed below where peak hour parking is currently permitted and where the existing curb-to-curb width is of sufficient width. Hollywood Boulevard: La Brea Avenue to Serrano Avenue - Imposition of no parking/no stopping provisions on the both sides of the street, during both AM and PM peak traffic hours which would increase capacity to three lanes in each direction. Fountain Avenue: La Brea Avenue to Highland Avenue and Vine Street to Gower Street - Imposition of no parking/no stopping provisions on both sides of the street during the AM and PM peak traffic hours which would increase capacity to two lanes in each direction. Traffic Page III.F-27

28 Gower Street: Franklin Avenue to Santa Monica Boulevard - Imposition of no parking/no stopping provisions on both sides of the street during both AM and PM peak traffic hours which would increase lane capacity to two lanes in each direction. Bronson Avenue: Hollywood Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard - Imposition of no parking/no stopping provisions on both sides of the street during both AM and PM peak traffic hours which would increase lane capacity to two lanes in each direction. Vine Street: Franklin Avenue to Fountain Avenue - Imposition of no parking/no stopping provisions on both sides of the street during both AM and PM peak traffic hours, which would increase capacity to three lanes in each direction. Provision of turning lanes at intersections -- The provision of additional lanes at intersections to accommodate turning movements would effectively increase the capacity of the adjacent street segments. Intersection improvements within the existing street right-of-way would be consistent with the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan and would be implemented as project-level mitigation based upon project information that cannot be known at present. Intersection improvements that would require widening of the street and narrowing a sidewalk could be implemented if found not to conflict with Redevelopment Plan goals to improve the pedestrian environment. Transportation Demand Management [TDM] strategies to increase use of transit, carpooling and non-motorized transportation alternatives -- A wide range of TDM strategies could potentially be employed to reduce the amount of vehicle trips made to destinations within the project area as listed below. The Agency shall develop, in conjunction with and subject to the approval of LADOT, a comprehensive Transportation Plan for the Project Area that includes the following measures, to the maximum extent feasible: Enhancements to the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as sidewalk and crosswalk enhancements and bicycle lanes, to encourage more non-motorized trips within the Project Area. "Unbundled"4 office parking is a way of passing along to tenants and possibly employees the true cost of providing parking. Research has shown that this market strategy can reduce the demand for parking spaces on-site so that the rate of employees who drive alone is lowered. 4 Unbundled parking refers to parking which is not provided to employees and residents as part of a lease arrangement, but rather is made available on a fee basis. This arrangement can potentially reduce demand for on-site parking by reducing vehicle usage. Traffic Page III.F-28

29 "Unbundled" residential parking is a way of passing along to tenants and possibly employees the true cost of providing parking. While there is little documentary evidence on its effect, anecdotal experience in cities like New York and San Francisco suggests that this TDM measure could be an effective means of reducing vehicle trips. Expansion of the existing DASH shuttle routes to additional destination areas within and outside the Project Area would complement the existing web of public transit services and encourage additional trips to be made by pubic transit. Customized subscription bus service could be arranged by individual project applicants to provide commuters with a non-automotive alternative to reach destinations that are not well served by public transit. Telecommuting is defined as working at home either full-time or part-time. Most such employees would be connected to their offices via a computer network and would not need to travel to work on one or more days per week. New office and residential development in the project area could be "wired" to accommodate telecommuting. Parking cash out is a TDM strategy under which an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. The employee can then use the money on any desired travel mode. This type of travel allowance is most commonly tied to parking charges whereby employees can apply the allowance to their parking fees, or use the allowance to purchase a transit pass or share the cost of commuting in a carpool or vanpool. Transportation Management Plans [TMPs] for office buildings are well-documented as an effective trip reduction strategy. A TMP would include rideshare matching, subsidies for vanpools and carpools, preferential parking for vanpool and carpool vehicles, subsidized transit passes, guaranteed rides home in case of an emergency, promotion of non-motorized commute options and a transportation information center. Of the potential mitigation measures listed above, the first two (implementation of ATCS throughout the project area and temporary parking restrictions) are considered feasible for the Proposed Project. This is based on discussions with LADOT staff which determined that mitigation measures must be achievable without the acquisition of private property. The TDM measures listed above shall be evaluated by the Agency, in conjunction with LADOT, for inclusion in a comprehensive transportation strategy for the Project Area. Traffic Page III.F-29

30 Congestion Management Program Impacts Implementation of ATCS throughout the Project Area would increase the capacity of the analyzed CMP arterial street segments. No further mitigation measures are available to reduce impacts on the analyzed CMP freeway and arterial street segments. In accordance with the goals of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, this Program EIR has used the criterion that to be feasible, a mitigation measure should not require the acquisition of private property. Without extensive further study beyond the scope of the Program EIR and outside the authority of the Lead Agency, it is not possible to define freeway-related improvements adequate to provide the needed mitigation. This analysis would be within the jurisdiction of Caltrans. Such a comprehensive study, the "US 101 Freeway Corridor Improvement Study," has recently been undertaken by Caltrans and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and is due to be completed by June It is unknown at present the extent to which this study will be capable of feasibly addressing traffic conditions in the 101 Freeway corridor. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Street Segment Impacts The potential effectiveness of the two feasible mitigation measures described above in reducing the significant impacts on specific street segments is shown in Table III.F-9 and Figures III.F-4 through III.F- 6. Identified mitigation measures would reduce significant impacts to less than significant levels on: 13 street segments during the AM peak and 15 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Maximum Possible development scenario; 34 street segments during the AM peak and 26 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Moderate development scenario; and 12 street segments during the AM peak and 8 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Minimum development scenario. Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain on 48 street segments during the AM peak hour and 51 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Maximum Possible development scenario; and on 7 street segments during the AM peak hour and 30 street segments during the PM peak hour under the Moderate development scenario. No street segments would remain significantly and unavoidably impacted during either the AM or PM peak hours under the Minimum development scenario. Traffic Page III.F-30

31 Table III.F-9 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments after Mitigation Future (2026) Alternatives after Mitigation Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum North/South Street Segments - AM Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB La Brea Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Orange Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave - Yes Highland Avenue S. of Franklin Ave - Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes N. of Fountain Ave Wilcox Avenue S. of Franklin Ave - Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Cole Ave N. of Fountain Ave Cahuenga Blvd S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes - Yes - - N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes N. of Sunset Blvd - Yes N. of Fountain Ave - Yes Vine St S. of Franklin Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave Gower St N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Bronson Ave S. of Franklin Av N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Van Ness Ave N. of Sunset Blvd - Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Traffic Page III.F-31

32 Table III.F-9 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments after Mitigation Future (2026) Alternatives after Mitigation Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Wilton Place N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Western Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - East/West Street Segments - AM Peak Hour EB WB EB WB EB WB US 101 Freeway W. of Gower St Yes W. of Sunset Yes E. of Western - Yes Franklin Ave W. of Highland Ave Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yucca St E. of Highland Ave Yes W. of Wilcox Ave - Yes E. of Vine St Hollywood Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes E. of Vine St Yes Yes E. of Gower St Yes Yes E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes E. of Western Av - Yes Sunset Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes E. of Vine St Yes Yes E. of Gower St Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Bronson Ave Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes - Yes - - E. of Western Av - Yes Traffic Page III.F-32

33 Table III.F-9 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments after Mitigation Future (2026) Alternatives after Mitigation Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Fountain Ave W. of Highland Ave W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes E. of Vine St E. of Gower St E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes E. of Western Av Yes Yes Santa Monica Blvd E. of Gower St Yes Yes E. of Wilton Pl - Yes E. of Western Av - Yes North/South Street Segments - PM Peak Hour NB SB NB SB NB SB La Brea Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Orange Avenue N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Highland Avenue S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Wilcox Avenue S. of Franklin Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Cole Ave N. of Fountain Ave Cahuenga Blvd S. of Franklin Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - Vine St S. of Franklin Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave Traffic Page III.F-33

34 Table III.F-9 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments after Mitigation Future (2026) Alternatives after Mitigation Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Gower St N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Bronson Ave S. of Franklin Av N. of Sunset Blvd N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Van Ness Ave N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Wilton Place N. of Hollywood Blvd N. of Sunset Blvd Yes N. of Fountain Ave N. of Santa Monica Blvd Western Ave N. of Hollywood Blvd Yes N. of Sunset Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Fountain Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - N. of Santa Monica Blvd Yes Yes Yes Yes - - East/West Street Segments - PM Peak Hour EB WB EB WB EB WB US 101 Freeway W. of Gower St - Yes W. of Sunset Yes Yes E. of Western Yes Yes Franklin Ave W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes - Yes - - Yucca St E. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Hollywood Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes E. of Vine St Yes Yes E. of Gower St Yes Yes E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes E. of Western Av Yes Yes Traffic Page III.F-34

35 Table III.F-9 Significantly-Impacted Street Segments after Mitigation Future (2026) Alternatives after Mitigation Roadway Segment Max. Possible Moderate Minimum Sunset Blvd W. of Highland Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Bronson Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Western Av Yes Yes - Yes - - Fountain Ave W. of Highland Ave W. of Wilcox Ave Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Vine St E. of Gower St E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes E. of Western Av Yes Yes Santa Monica Blvd E. of Gower St Yes Yes Yes Yes - - E. of Wilton Pl Yes Yes Yes E. of Western Av Yes Yes "Yes" = Significant Impact " - " = No Significant Impact Source: Kaku Associates Traffic Page III.F-35

36 Source: Kaku Associates, May Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.F-4 Maximum Possible Alternative - Significant Impacts After Mitigation

37 Source: Kaku Associates, May Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.F-5 Moderate Alternative - Significant Impacts After Mitigation

38 Source: Kaku Associates, May Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.F-6 Minimum Alternative - Significant Impacts After Mitigation

39 Congestion Management Program Impacts Under the Maximum Possible development scenario impacts to each of the CMP freeway segments and six of the seven CMP arterial street segments analyzed would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Under the Moderate development scenario, impacts on one CMP freeway segment and one CMP arterial street segment would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. Under the Minimum development scenario, CMP impacts would be less than significant on all analyzed freeway and arterial segments. Traffic Page III.F-39

40 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS G. AIR QUALITY An air quality analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Terry A. Hayes Associates in April, A summary of the air quality analysis is provided below. The complete air quality analysis is included in Technical Appendix E to the EIR. The analysis contained herein focuses on air pollution from two perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant concentrations. Emissions refer to the actual quantity of pollutant, measured in pounds per day (ppd). Concentrations refer to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air. Concentrations are measured in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m 3 ). ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Pollutants & Effects Air quality studies generally focus on five pollutants that are most commonly measured and regulated: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),sulfur dioxide (SO2), and respirable particulate matter (PM10). Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide, a colorless and odorless gas, interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. It can cause dizziness and fatigue, and can impair central nervous system functions. CO is emitted almost exclusively as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels. In urban areas, CO is emitted by motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. Automobile exhausts release most of the CO in urban areas. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, so ambient carbon monoxide concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban areas between November and February. 1 1 Inversion is an atmospheric condition in which a layer of warm air traps cooler air near the surface of the earth, preventing the normal rising of surface air. Air Quality Page III.G-1

41 The highest CO concentrations measured in the Los Angeles region are typically recorded during the winter. Ozone Ozone (O3), a colorless toxic gas, is the chief component of urban smog. O3 enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of oxygen, depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. O3 also damages vegetation by inhibiting growth. O3 is not directly emitted, rather, it forms in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction between reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) under sunlight. 2 O3 is present in relatively high concentrations within Southern California, and the damaging effects of photochemical smog are generally related to the concentration of O3. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in ozone formation. Ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. The greatest source of smog-producing gases is the automobile. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen dioxide, a brownish gas, irritates the lungs. It can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like O3, NO2 is not directly emitted, but is formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as nitrogen oxides (NOx) and are major contributors to ozone formation. NO2 also contributes to the formation of PM10 (see discussion of PM10 below). At atmospheric concentration, NO2 is only potentially irritating. In high concentrations, the result is a brownish-red cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase in bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been observed at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm). Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a product of high-sulfur fuel combustion. Main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power stations, in industries, and for domestic heating. Industrial chemical manufacturing is another source of SO2. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs. It can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO2 can also cause plant leaves to turn yellow, as well as erode iron and steel. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels. SO2 concentrations have been reduced to levels well below the state and national 2 ROG and NOX are emitted from automobiles and industrial sources. Air Quality Page III.G-2

42 standards, but further reductions in emissions are needed to attain compliance with standards for sulfates and PM10, of which SO2 is a contributor. Suspended Particulate Matter Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when industry and gases emitted from motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM10 and PM2.5 represent fractions of particulate matter. Respirable particulate matter (PM10) refers to particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, about one/seventh the thickness of a human hair. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, roughly 1/28th the diameter of a human hair. Major sources of PM10 include motor vehicles; wood burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. PM10 and PM2.5 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM10 and PM2.5 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances, such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly. These substances can be absorbed into the blood stream and cause damage elsewhere in the body. These substances can transport absorbed gases, such as chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs and cause injury. Whereas, particles 2.5 to 10 microns in diameter tend to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, particles 2.5 microns or less are so tiny that they can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and reduce regional visibility. Regulatory Setting Air quality in the United States is governed by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition to being subject to the requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). At the federal level, the CAA is administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). In California, the CCAA is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the statewide level, and by individual Air Quality Management Districts at the regional and local levels. Air Quality Page III.G-3

43 United States Environmental Protection Agency The USEPA is responsible for enforcing the Federal CAA. The USEPA is also responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are required under the 1977 CAA and subsequent amendments. The USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. The agency has jurisdiction over emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission standards established by the CARB. California Air Resources Board In California, the CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in 1991, is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the Federal CAA, administering the CCAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CCAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. The CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. The agency is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. The CARB established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective on March The CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which in turn administer air quality activities at the regional and county level. South Coast Air Quality Management District The SCAQMD monitors air quality within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area). The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management Act created the SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning efforts throughout southern California. This Act merged four county air pollution control agencies into one regional district to better address the issue of improving air quality in southern California. Under the Act, renamed the Lewis-Presley Air Quality Management Act in 1988, the SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB. Specifically, the SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality, as well as planning, implementing and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain state and federal ambient air quality standards in the district. Programs that were developed include air quality rules and regulations that regulate stationary source, area source, point source and certain mobile source emissions. The SCAQMD is also responsible for establishing permitting requirements for stationary sources and ensuring that new, modified or relocated stationary Air Quality Page III.G-4

44 sources do not create net emission increases and therefore, are consistent with the region s air quality goals. The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 10,743 square mile area of the SCAB. This area includes all of Orange County, Los Angeles County (except for Antelope Valley), the western urbanized portions of San Bernardino County, and the western and Coachella Valley portions of Riverside County. The SCAB is bounded by Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east; and the San Diego County line to the south (see Figure III.G-1). Ambient pollution concentrations recorded in Los Angeles County are among the highest in the four counties comprising the SCAB. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards As required by the Federal CAA, the NAAQS have been established for six major air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and lead. Pursuant to the CCAA, the State of California has also established ambient air quality standards, known as the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. Since the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS, the CAAQS are used as the comparative standard in the air quality analysis contained in this report. Both State and Federal standards are summarized in Table III.G-1. The primary standards have been established to protect the public health. The secondary standards are intended to protect the nation s welfare and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation and other aspects of the general welfare. Attainment Status CARB designates geographic areas within the State of California as attainment or non-attainment. An attainment area is an area that is in compliance with the CAAQS for a given pollutant. CARB will designate an area as non-attainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that State standard for a pollutant has been violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as non-attainment. Areas designated as non-attainment under the CCAA are required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the state air quality standards by its attainment dates. Air Quality Page III.G-5

45 Source: California Air Resources Board, State and Local Air Monitoring Network Plan, October Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.G-1 SQAMD Jurisdiction

46 Table III.G-1 State And National Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Period California Standard Primary Federal Standards Secondary 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m 3 ) 0.12 ppm (235 µg/m 3 ) Ozone (O3) 8 hour ppm (157 µg/m 3 ) Same as Primary Standard Annual Geometric Mean 30 µg/m 3 -- Same as Primary 24 hour 50 µg/m µg/m 3 Standard Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 3 Annual Arithmetic Mean µg/m 3 -- Carbon 8 hour 9.0 ppm (10 µg/m 3 ) 9.0 ppm (10 µg/m 3 ) Monoxide(CO) 1 hour 20 ppm (23 µg/m 3 ) 35 ppm (40 µg/m 3 ) None Annual Arithmetic Mean ppm (100 µg/m 3 ) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1 hour 0.25 ppm (470 µg/m 3 ) -- Same as Primary Standard Annual Arithmetic Mean ppm (80 µg/m 3 ) hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m 3 ) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m 3 ) -- Sulfur Dioxide 3 hour ppm (1300 µg/m 3 ) (SO2) 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m 3 ) SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Federal and State Air Quality Standards 1999 (1/25/99). 3 The NAAQS for PM2.5 was adopted in Presently, no methodologies for determining impacts relating to PM2.5 have been developed or adopted by federal, state, or regional agencies. Additionally, no strategies or mitigation programs for PM2.5 have been developed or adopted by Federal, State, or regional agencies. Currently, this standard is not enforceable. Thus, this air quality analysis does not analyze PM2.5. However, the standard may be reinstated in the future. Air Quality Page III.G-7

47 Under the CCAA, the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter. The air basin is designated as an attainment area for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, sulfates, and lead. 4 Air Quality Management Plan All areas designated as non-attainment under the CCAA are required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the state air quality standards by its attainment dates. The AQMP is the region s plan for improving air quality in the region. It addresses the Federal CAA and CCAA requirements and demonstrates attainment with ambient air quality standards. The AQMP was prepared by the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The 1997 AQMP, amended in 1999, has been prepared to reflect the requirements of the 1990 CAA Amendments and is consistent with the approaches taken in the 1994 AQMP. Regional & Local Setting Air Pollution Climatology The Project Area is located within the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB. Ambient pollution concentrations recorded in Los Angeles County are among the highest in the four counties comprising the Basin. The SCAB is an area of high air pollution potential due to its climate and topography. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The SCAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usual mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The mountains and hills within the area contribute to the variation of rainfall, temperature, and winds throughout the region. The SCAB experiences frequent temperature inversions. Temperature typically decreases with height. However, under inversion conditions, temperature increases as altitude increases, thereby preventing air close to the ground from mixing with the air above it. As a result, air pollutants are trapped near the ground. During the summer, air quality problems are created due to the interaction between the ocean surface and the lower layer of the atmosphere. This interaction creates a moist marine layer. An upper layer of warm air mass forms over the cool marine layer, preventing air pollutants from 4 California Air Resources Board: Proposed Area Designations and Maps, September Air Quality Page III.G-8

48 dispersing upward. Additionally, hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide react under strong sunlight, creating pollution, commonly referred to as smog. Light, daytime winds, predominantly from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving air pollutants inland, toward the mountains. During the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions. CO concentrations are generally worse in the morning and late evening (around 10:00 p.m.). Morning levels are relatively high due to the large number of cars during the commute and colder temperatures. The high levels during the late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area. Since CO is produced almost entirely from automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the SCAB are associated with heavy traffic. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels are also generally higher during autumn or winter days. High levels of NO2 in the fall and winter usually occur on days with summer-like conditions. Local Climate The mountains and hills within the SCAB contribute to the variation of rainfall, temperature and winds throughout the region. Within the project site and its vicinity, the average wind speed is approximately 5.4 miles per hour, with calm winds occurring approximately 7.9 percent of the time. Wind in the vicinity of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area predominantly blows from the southwest. 5 The annual average temperature in the Project Area is approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The Project Area experiences an average winter temperature of approximately 58 degrees Fahrenheit and an average summer temperature of approximately 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Total precipitation in the Project Area averages approximately 14.8 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Precipitation during the winter is approximately 8.8 inches and approximately 0.1 inches during the summer. 6 Existing Air Quality Air Monitoring Data The SCAQMD monitors air quality conditions at 37 locations throughout the SCAB. The proposed project is located in the SCAQMD s Central Los Angeles County Air Monitoring Area (No. 1), which is served by the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station, located at 1630 North Main Street, in the City of Los Angeles, approximately 4.5 miles east of the Project Area (see Figure III.G-2). 5 6 Based on data from the Downtown Los Angeles wind monitoring station. Western Regional Climate Center, Air Quality Page III.G-9

49 Historical data from the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station was used to characterize existing conditions within the vicinity of the Project Area and to establish a baseline for estimating future conditions with and without the Proposed Project. Criteria pollutants monitored at the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxides (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM10). A summary of the data recorded at the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station is located in Appendix E to this EIR. Table III.G-2 shows the number of violations recorded at the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station during the period. The CAAQS for the criteria pollutants are also shown in the table. As Table III.G-2 indicates, criteria pollutants, CO, NO2 and SO2 did not exceed the CAAQS between the years 1998 and However, O3 and PM10 exceeded the State standard at least eight times in the period. Table III.G Criteria Pollutant Violations Los Angeles North Main Street Monitoring Station Pollutant State Standard Number of Days Above State Standard Ozone 0.09 ppm (1-hour) Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) Nitrogen Dioxide 0.25 ppm (1-hour) Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm (24-hour average) PM10 50 mg/m 3 (24-hour average) SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, see Appendix E. Background Carbon Monoxide Conditions Carbon monoxide concentrations are typically used as an indicator of conformity with the CAAQS because: (1) CO levels are directly related to vehicular traffic volumes, the main source of air pollutants and (2) localized CO concentrations and characteristics can be modeled using USEPA and SCAQMD methods. In other words, the operational air quality impacts associated with a project are generally best reflected through the estimated changes in related CO concentrations. Air Quality Page III.G-10

50 Central Los Angeles Monitoring Station Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Monitoring Areas Map, 1989, and Terry A. Hayes Associates, LLC April Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.G-2 Air Monitoring Areas

51 For purposes of this assessment, the ambient, or background, concentration of CO is first established. This background level is typically defined as the highest of the second-maximum eight-hour readings over the past two years. 7 A review of data from the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station for the period indicates that the average eight-hour background concentration is approximately 5.38 ppm. 8 Assuming a typical persistence factor of 0.7, the estimated one-hour background concentration is approximately 7.69 ppm. 9 The existing eight- and one-hour background concentrations do not exceed the State CO standard of 9.0 ppm and 20.0 ppm, respectively. Existing Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Project Area Intersections Carbon monoxide is a localized gas that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. Therefore, CO concentrations decrease substantially as distance from the source (roadway) increases. The highest CO concentrations are typically found along sidewalk locations directly adjacent to congested roadways. To provide a worst case simulation of CO concentrations within the area that might be affected by the proposed project, CO concentrations at sidewalks adjacent to 57 roadway segments were modeled. The study intersections were selected based on the traffic level of service (LOS). The modeled roadway segments are representative of conditions throughout the Project Area in that the adjacent sidewalks are regularly used by pedestrians and also contain bus stops where transit riders congregate. At each intersection, traffic related CO contributions were added to the background CO conditions, as discussed above. Traffic CO contributions were estimated using the California Department of Transportation Garza, Vicente J., Peter Graney, Daniel Sperling. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. May Source: California Air Resources Board. See Appendix B to Technical Appendix E to the EIR. Persistence factor is the ratio between the eight- and one-hour second annual maximum CO concentrations measured at a continuous air monitoring station. A persistence factor of 0.7 is typically used in urban areas. Air Quality Page III.G-12

52 Table III.G-3 Existing Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations Roadway Segment CO Concentration (parts per million) /a/ 1-hour 8-hour La Brea Blvd North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave Orange Ave North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave Highland Ave South of Franklin Ave North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave Wilcox Ave South of Franklin Ave North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave Cahuenga Blvd South of Franklin Ave North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave Vine St South of Franklin Ave North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave Air Quality Page III.G-13

53 Roadway Segment CO Concentration (parts per million) /a/ 1-hour 8-hour Gower St North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave North of Santa Monica Blvd Bronson Ave North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave North of Santa Monica Blvd Van Ness Ave North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave North of Santa Monica Blvd Wilton Place North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Santa Monica Blvd Western Ave North of Hollywood Blvd North of Sunset Blvd North of Fountain Ave North of Santa Monica Blvd Freeway West of Gower St West of Sunset East of Western Ave Air Quality Page III.G-14

54 Roadway Segment CO Concentration (parts per million) /a/ 1-hour 8-hour Franklin Ave West of Highland Ave West of Wilcox Ave East of Vine St Yucca St East of Highland Ave West of Wilcox Ave Hollywood Blvd West of Highland Ave West of Wilcox Ave East of Vine St East of Gower St East of Wilton Pl East of Western Ave Sunset Blvd West of Highland Ave West of Wilcox Ave East of Vine St East of Gower St East of Bronson Ave East of Wilton Pl East of Western Ave Fountain Ave West of Highland Ave West of Wilcox Ave East of Vine St East of Gower St East of Wilton Pl East of Western Ave Air Quality Page III.G-15

55 Roadway Segment CO Concentration (parts per million) /a/ 1-hour 8-hour Santa Monica Blvd East of Gower St East of Wilton Pl East of Western Ave State Standard /a/ All concentrations include one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 7.7 ppm and 5.4 ppm. SOURCE: Terry A. Hayes Associates, CAL3QHC output, see Appendix C to Technical Appendix E to this EIR. (CALTRANS) CALINE4 dispersion model, which utilizes traffic volume inputs and EMFAC7F emissions factors. Existing conditions at the roadway segments are shown in Table III.G-3 above. One-hour CO concentrations range from approximately 7.8 ppm to 21.0 ppm. Eight-hour CO concentrations range from approximately 5.5 ppm to 14.7 ppm. Presently, one roadway segment exceeds the State one-hour CO standard of 20.0 ppm (101 Freeway west of Gower Street), and three roadway segments exceed the State eight-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm (101 Freeway West of Gower Street, 101 Freeway West of Sunset and 101 Freeway East of Western). These violations occur on the 101 Freeway, which presently experiences high traffic volumes, particularly during peak hours. Sensitive Receptors Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the types of population groups and the activities involved. CARB has identified the following people who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain high concentrations of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, schools, and parks. These locations are classified as sensitive receptors. Nineteen specific representative sensitive receptors have been identified within the Project Area. These sensitive receptors are shown in Figure III.G-3 and listed in Table III.G-4. It should be noted that these sensitive receptors do not constitute a comprehensive list of all sensitive uses within the vicinity. Rather, they are intended to represent a sampling of the different types of sensitive uses in the project area. For purposes of providing a worst-case analysis, CO concentrations Air Quality Page III.G-16

56 Source: Terry A. Hayes Associates, LLC April Christopher A. Joseph & Associates environmental planning and research Figure III.G-3 Air Quality Sensitive Receptors