Appendix Y-2. Environmental Impact Comparison Annenberg Academic Building for the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism

Transcription

1 Appendix Y-2 Environmental Impact Comparison Annenberg Academic Building for the USC Annenberg School for

2 Appendix Y-2 Environmental Impact Comparison Annenberg Academic Building for the USC Annenberg School for A. Introduction USC proposes to develop a new Annenberg Academic Building for the USC Annenberg School for (referred to herein as the Annenberg Academic Building). This building would represent an initial development increment of the. This document provides a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of the new Annenberg Academic Building with the environmental analysis set forth in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the. The analysis provided herein demonstrates that this initial development increment was fully identified and evaluated within the Draft EIR prepared for the. The analysis provided herein also shows that no new or increased impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR would result from construction or operation of the new Annenberg Academic Building. Rather, the environmental impacts have been fully considered within the Draft EIR and the analysis herein. In addition, all of the relevant mitigation measures set forth in this EIR for the USC Redevelopment Plan would be implemented as part of this initial development increment, unless such measures have already been implemented in connection with another initial development. These mitigation measures are listed below. Thus, no further analysis or mitigation measures are required for construction or operation of the Annenberg Academic Building, B. Project Description As described in detail in Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the USC Development Plan would provide approximately 2,500,000 square feet of academic and University uses; up to 350,000 square feet of retail/commercial uses; and approximately 2,135,000 square feet of student and faculty comprised of providing up to 5,400 student beds in a variety of housing types and configurations and approximately 250 faculty housing units. The would also provide for an approximately 165,000-square foot hotel and conference center with up to 150 guest rooms, conference Page 1

3 and banquet facility areas, sit down restaurant area, a swimming pool, and other related amenities. In addition, a new University-affiliated K-8 laboratory school and community educational academy comprised of up to approximately 80,000 square feet may also be developed. Within Subarea 1, the proposes 1,570,000 square feet, including 1,500,000 square feet of Academic/University uses and 70,000 square feet for 200 student beds. As an initial development proposal that is within the scope of the USC Development Plan, USC proposes to construct a new Annenberg Academic Building for the USC Annenberg School for located at 860 Childs Way. As shown in Figure 1 on page 3, the proposed building is located within Subarea 1 of the USC Development Plan Project, which is referred to in the Draft EIR as the Academic Core Area. As shown in Figure II-9 of Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR, this location was specifically identified as a potential development site within the Draft EIR. Proposed development would consist of a single building with approximately 68,000 square feet of floor area as defined in the Planning and Zoning Code. To provide for the new Annenberg Academic Building, removal of an existing 5,312 square foot office building on the site would be necessary. Thus, the net new building area resulting from implementation of this development increment would be approximately 62,688 square feet. This net new building area would represent a small fraction of the 1,570,000 square feet of building area proposed within Subarea 1 of the USC Development Plan and an even smaller fraction of the total 5,230,000 square feet proposed as part of buildout of the entire. The new building would be comprised of four stories with a full basement. As shown in Figure 1 on page 3, the new building would be located on a development site that was identified in the Draft EIR. As shown in the Conceptual Site Plan provided in Figure 2 on page 4, this development site parallels Watt Way and extends from Childs Way south to Downey Way. The maximum height of the building would be approximately 80 feet measured from grade level. Building design and finishes would include sloped clay tile and flat roofing, façades that are a combination of blended brick, cast stone or concrete, and punched windows. The building design and finishes would reflect the Italian Romanesque design that is represented on the University Park Campus historic core of paradigmatic buildings. The Annenberg Academic Building would be developed in accordance with specific urban design guidelines set forth on pages IV.A-48 through IV.A-58 of Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR. These design guidelines promote pedestrian activity, promote an open design, provide for the use of transparent building elements to sustain street level interest, require specific architectural features to create visual interest and compatibility with existing buildings, require screening of rooftop equipment, and provide for plant Page 2

4 W JEFFERSON BLVD S VERMONT AVE. McCLINTOCK AVE. Proposed Annenberg Academic Building Page 3 Page II-31 W 36TH STREET EXPOSITION BLVD Potential Development Sites N Figure 1 Location of Annenberg Academic Building within Potential Development Sites for Subarea 1 Source: University of Southern California.

5 Figure 2 Conceptual Site Plan- Annenberg Academic Building for the USC Annenberg School of Source: Harley Ellis Devereaux, Page 4

6 species and landscape designs that are compatible with the existing Campus. The Annenberg Academic Building would also be required to comply with the University Park Core Campus Planning and Design Guidelines that have been approved by the board at the University and incorporated into the Annenberg Academic Building as project design features. These guidelines address maximum building heights that are generally not to exceed five stories, specify that building entrances should be legible and located along public spaces, provide that the architectural vocabulary be compatible with and reflective of the Italian Romanesque style of the historic core of the Campus, encourage interior spaces to be extensions of the public space outside, provide for outdoor courts, provide for pedestrian amenities, and provide for plant materials and landscape design that is compatible with the Southern California Region and the Campus. Uses within the proposed Annenberg Academic Building would include offices, classrooms, conference rooms, an auditorium, research facilities, media content development and computer labs, high technology broadcast and production studios, an all media news floor for TV, radio, and other media, as well as restrooms on each floor of the building. In addition, the proposed use, building height, and massing would be consistent with the uses and building heights for Subarea 1 of the that are evaluated in the Draft EIR. With development of the Annenberg Academic Building, proposed new development within Subarea 1 would be reduced from 1,570,000 square feet to 1,507,312 square feet and the overall new allowable development within the project would be reduced from 5,230,000 square feet to 5,167,312 square feet. 1 In addition, when accounting for the other two initial development increments proposed (i.e., a new Cinematic Arts Building and a new Social Sciences Building), proposed new development within Subarea 1 would be reduced to 1,360,140 square feet and the total allowable development within the project site would be reduced to 5,020,140 square feet. C. Environmental Impact Comparison As indicated by the impact comparison below, based on the size, location, use, and massing of the proposed Annenberg Academic Building, the potential impacts of this initial development proposal would be well within the envelope of environmental impacts set forth 1 As discussed in Section II, Project Description of the Draft EIR, the proposed Project provides for transfer of floor area for Academic/University uses and Student Housing between Subareas 1 and 3A on a per square foot basis. With these transfers, Subarea 1 could include up to 2,041,000 square feet of floor area, However, in no case would the Project entitlement exceed the 5,230,000 square feet maximum total. With this initial development increment, the maximum square footage within Subarea 1 with the transfers would be reduced to 1,978,312 square feet. When accounting for all three initial development increments, the maximum square footage within Subarea 1 with the transfers would be 1,831,140 square feet. Page 5

7 in the Draft EIR prepared for the. No new or increased significant impacts would result and no new mitigation measures would be required.. 1. Aesthetics Under the, up to 1,500,000 square feet of Academic/University uses and a net increase of up to 70,000 square feet of student housing would be developed within Subarea 1. Building heights within Subarea 1 would be limited to a maximum of 150 feet, with the exception of development within the northwest corner, which would be limited to 60 feet. As discussed on pages IV.A-60 through IV.A- 93 of Section IV.A, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, with the exception of impacts related to the potential removal of the Faculty Center and Registration Building, which are considered aesthetic resources, impacts to aesthetics/visual quality resulting from the USC Development Plan would be less than significant. In the event that the Faculty Center and Registration Building are removed, the loss of these resources would constitute a significant aesthetic impact. With regard to views, as discussed on pages IV.A-94 through IV.A-97 of Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, proposed development, including development within Subarea 1, would not result in any significant view impacts. Similarly, as discussed on pages IV.A-97 through IV.A-100 of Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant. Relative to shading, as discussed on pages IV.A-100 through IV.A-128 of Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, the project would result in significant impacts associated with shading. However, with the reduction in building heights made in the Final EIR, shading impacts associated with development within Subareas 1 and 2 would be less than significant, while shading impacts associated with Subarea 3 would be reduced but would remain significant. As shown in Figure 1, the Annenberg building proposed within Subarea 1 would be located on a development site specified in the Draft EIR. In addition, the proposed maximum building height of 80 feet would be much lower than the 150-foot building height allowed within much of Subarea 1 and for this specific site and evaluated on page IV.A-63 of the Draft EIR. In addition, as described above, the Annenberg Academic Building would be developed in accordance with the design guidelines specified in Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR. Thus, as set forth on page IV.A-62 of the Draft EIR, the mass and proportion of the new building would adequately address pedestrian scale, the design would provide variation and visual interest, and the building would be designed in a style that would complement the Campus. Proposed lighting and new landscaped areas would be consistent with existing lighting and landscaping within Subarea 1 and consistent with that analyzed in the Draft EIR. Specifically, as set forth on page IV.A-98 of Section IV.A, Aesthetics of the Draft EIR, as required by the design guidelines, new illumination sources introduced as part of construction of the Annenberg Academic Building would be shielded and directed onto associated walkways and lighting would comply with LAMC lighting Page 6

8 standards. In addition, there are no off-site shade sensitive uses that are close enough to be affected by shading from the proposed Annenberg Academic Building. Furthermore, as listed below, all of the mitigation measures regarding aesthetics set forth in the Draft EIR would be implemented under this initial development increment. Thus, potential impacts associated with aesthetics, views, light and glare and shading would be less than significant. Such impacts would be well within the impact envelope for aesthetics, views, light and glare, and shading set forth in the Draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 2. Air Quality a. Construction A detailed analysis of construction air quality impacts is provided on pages IV.B-48 through IV.B-55 of Section IV.B, Air Quality of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concluded that with implementation of mitigation measures, construction of the would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds for NO X and VOC during the most intense construction period. In addition, even with incorporation of mitigation measures, construction the would remain in exceedance of the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) threshold for PM 10 and NO 2. No notable impacts related to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction are anticipated to occur. As such, potential impacts associated with the TACs would be less than significant. With regard to odors, the is not anticipated to generate a substantial amount of objectionable odor emissions during construction due to mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules. As such, potential impacts associated with odors would be less than significant. Construction air quality impacts are generally determined based on the peak construction day where the maximum amount of construction equipment and maximum amount of area would be graded. The air quality analysis for construction activities assumed these conditions as well as overlap of construction components within all three subareas of the project site. For Subarea 1, the construction air quality analysis specifically assumed that one-acre would be disturbed and 150,000 square feet of building area would be developed at a given time. As described above, the Annenberg Academic Building would be located within a potential development site within Subarea 1 that is identified in the EIR. Thus, peak construction activities for the 68,000-square foot building and associated grading would be well below the peak-level construction activities evaluated in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, all of the relevant air quality mitigation measures related to construction set forth in the Draft EIR and included below would also be implemented under this initial development increment. Given the size of this initial development increment, proposed impacts associated with construction of the Annenberg Page 7

9 Academic Building would be less than significant and well within the level of impact identified in the Draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures would be required. b. Operation A detailed analysis of operational air quality impacts is provided on pages IV.B-55 through IV.B-72 of Section IV.B., Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Although the USC Development Plan would incorporate numerous project design features to reduce operational emissions, the Draft EIR concluded that regional operational emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD daily emission threshold for regional NO X, VOC, and PM 10 after implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Therefore, operation of the USC Development Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact on regional air quality. No significant impacts related to local CO concentrations, consistency with the AQMP, TAC emissions, or odors would occur. In addition, impacts with associated with climate change would be less than significant. Regional operational air quality impacts are generally based on the average daily trips (ADT) and energy use associated with a project. Thus, the operational air quality analysis within the Draft EIR is based on the number of daily trips and energy use associated with the 5,230,000 square feet proposed by the project. The proposed 68,000- square foot Annenberg Academic Building within Subarea 1 would represent a small portion of the 5,230,000 square feet of new uses evaluated in the Draft EIR. In addition, the Annenberg Academic Building would not result in an increase in student enrollment levels for the Campus, and any increase in staffing would be nominal. Therefore, the Annenberg Academic Building would not generate significant increases in ADT. Furthermore, all of the air quality mitigation measures related to operation of the USC Development Plan set forth in the Draft EIR and listed below would be implemented under this initial development increment. As such, operational mobile air emissions associated with the Annenberg Academic Building would be well within the envelope of operational air quality impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR, and such emissions would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required. A detailed analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts is provided on pages IV.B-77 through IV.B-80 of the Draft EIR. GHG emissions resulting from an incremental increase in usage of on-road mobile vehicles, electricity, natural gas, and water were calculated in which the proposed Project with incorporation of project design features would result in an increase of approximately 46,297 metric tons per year over the baseline condition and 29.8 percent reduction of GHG emissions in comparison to the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. With incorporation of the project design features, the proposed Project would be considered consistent with the goals set forth in AB 32 and would result in an equivalent or larger break from business-as-usual than has been determined by CARB to be necessary Page 8

10 to meet AB 32 s goals (approximately 28.4 percent for 2020). Therefore, the proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the environment due to its GHG emissions. The proposed 68,000-square foot Annenberg Academic Building within Subarea 1 would represent a small portion of the 5,230,000 square feet of new uses evaluated in the Draft EIR. Given that the proposed building would be designed and constructed to achieve the equivalent of LEED certification and would implement proposed project design features, GHG impacts associated with the Annenberg Academic Building would be well within the envelope of GHG impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR, and such impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 3. Cultural Resources A detailed analysis of potential impacts to cultural resources is provided on pages IV.C-73 through IV.C-81 of Section IV.C, Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR determined that the would result in the removal of two individually eligible resources, the Registration Building and the Faculty Center, located within Subarea 1. If these buildings are not successfully relocated, impacts to historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts to the historic district would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures would ensure that potential impacts associated with archeological and paleontological resources would be less than significant. Impacts associated with historic and archaeological resources are based on whether a substantial adverse change to a historic or archaeological resource would result. Impacts associated with paleontological resources are generally determined based on whether the project would have the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a paleontological resource. Such impacts typically are associated with the discovery of such resources during project excavation activities. To provide for the Annenberg Academic Building, an existing 5,312 square foot administrative office building would be removed. As discussed in Section IV.C, Cultural Resources of the Draft EIR, this structure is not an individually eligible resource, nor does it contribute to the identified historic district. In addition, as described in the Draft EIR, Subarea 1 is not known to contain any archaeological or paleontological resources. As discussed on page IV.C-80 of the Draft EIR, the analysis of potential impacts associated with archeological and paleontological resources assumed excavation of depths of up to 40 feet below ground surface. As the Annenberg Academic Building proposes only one level below grade, the depth of excavation would be much less than the 40 foot depth evaluated in the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the relevant mitigation measures related to cultural resources set forth in the Draft EIR and listed below would be implemented under Page 9

11 this initial development increment. Thus, potential impacts to historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources associated with development of the Annenberg Academic Building would be within the envelope of impacts set forth in the Draft EIR and less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 4. Geology and Soils As discussed on pages IV.D-15 through IV.D-20 of Section IV,D, Geology of the Draft EIR, geology and soils impacts associated with implementation of the USC Development Plan, including impacts associated with fault rupture, seismic groundshaking, liquefaction, inundation, soil conditions, sedimentation and erosion, and landform alteration would be less than significant with implementation of regulatory requirements. Mitigation measures are also proposed to ensure compliance with City requirements. The Annenberg Academic Building would be developed within Subarea 1 of the area on a development site that was evaluated in the Draft EIR (refer to Figure 1). The regulatory requirements and all of the mitigation measures set forth in Section IV.D. Geology of the Draft EIR would be implemented for the Annenberg Academic Building. A list of the mitigation measures is also provided below. Thus, potential impacts associated with this initial increment of development would be less than significant and within the envelope of impact set forth in the Draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials As discussed on pages IV.E-35 through IV.E-43 of Section IV.E, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR for the, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, including impacts associated with the use, storage, and disposal/transport of hazardous materials; underground storage tanks; asbestos-containing materials; leadbased paint; methane; and emergency access and preparedness would be reduced to a level that is less than significant through compliance with regulatory requirements and implementation of mitigation measures. Potential hazards impacts are generally based on the potential to uncover hazards on a given site during construction to emit or handle hazardous materials during operation of a project. As discussed above, construction of the Annenberg Academic Building would be located on a potential development site that was evaluated in the Draft EIR. In addition, as an academic use, the Annenberg Academic Building is consistent with the types of uses expected and evaluated in the Draft EIR. As discussed on page IV.E-38 the Page 10

12 academic/university serving uses, including the new Annenberg Academic Building, may use and store hazardous materials. However, the regulatory requirements and mitigation measures regarding construction and operation set forth in Section IV.E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR would be implemented for the Annenberg Academic Building. These mitigation measures are also listed below. Thus, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Annenberg Academic Building would be less than significant and within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 6. Surface Hydrology and Water Quality The analysis of impacts associated with surface water hydrology is provided on pages IV.F-19 through IV.F-21 of Section IV.F.1 Surface Water Hydrology of the Draft EIR and the analysis of impacts associated with surface water quality is provided on pages IV.F-46 through IV.F-50 of Section IV.F.2 Surface Water Quality of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, with implementation of regulatory requirements including compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements including implementation of Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements and preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), impacts on surface water quality and hydrology would be less than significant. Thus, no mitigation measures would be required under the. Impacts associated with surface water hydrology and surface water quality are generally determined based on whether construction or operation of the project has the potential to cause flooding or an adverse change in the movement of flows or to result degrade water quality as a result of construction or operation of a project. The Annenberg Academic Building is located within a potential development site identified for development within Subarea 1 of the and evaluated in the Draft EIR (refer to Figure 1). In addition, the proposed Annenberg Academic Building is the specific type of use assumed in the Draft EIR to be operating within Subarea 1and the site is currently covered with impervious surfaces. Furthermore, construction and operation of the Annenberg Academic Building would occur in accordance with the NPDES requirements described in Sections IV.F.1 Surface Water Hydrology and IV.F.2 Surface Water Quality of the Draft EIR. Thus, as described in the Draft EIR, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be incorporated as part of both SUSMP requirements and a SWPPP that would ensure that impacts to water quality would be less than significant. As set forth in the Draft EIR, no mitigation measures would be required. Thus, hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than significant and within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. Page 11

13 7. Land Use As discussed on pages IV.G-50 through IV.G-116 of Section IV.G, Land use of the Draft EIR, with approval of the discretionary actions requested for the USC Development Plan, impacts with regard to land use consistency would be less than significant. In addition, land use impacts with regard to compatibility and urban decay would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required for the USC Development Plan. Impacts associated with land use are generally determined based on whether a project would result in substantial conflict with adopted land use plans, introduce a use or structure that would disrupt or divide a community, or substantially change land use relationships in the area. The Annenberg Academic Building is located within a potential development site identified for Subarea 1 of the as shown in Figure 1. The new Annenberg Academic Building would be consistent with land use and zoning regulations and floor area ratios set forth for Subarea 1 and evaluated in the Draft EIR. The development the Annenberg Academic Building is permitted under the existing zoning, subject to a plan approval. The proposed use, height, and massing of the new building are consistent with the types of uses assumed for the particularly Subarea 1, and are consistent with adjacent uses. In addition, as described above, the Annenberg Academic Building would be developed in accordance with the design guidelines set forth in the Draft EIR. Thus, the proposed Annenberg Academic Building would be consistent with land use plans and compatible with surrounding uses. In addition, based on its location within an internal area of Subarea 1, the Annenberg Academic Building would not have the potential to disrupt or divide a community or substantially change land use relationships in the area. Impacts would be less than significant and within the envelope of land use impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. No mitigation measures would be required. 8. Noise a. Construction As discussed on pages IV.H-25 through IV.H-30 of Section IV.H, Noise of the Draft EIR, compliance with the recommended mitigation measures would reduce construction noise levels to the extent feasible. However, temporary construction noise impacts associated with on-site construction activities would remain significant and unavoidable. As discussed on pages IV.H-30 through IV.H-31 of Section IV,H, Noise of the Draft EIR, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. Construction noise impacts are generally determined based on the type and amount of construction equipment and the proximity of construction activities to noise sensitive uses. The type of Page 12

14 construction equipment expected to be used for the Annenberg Academic Building would be similar to that set forth on page IV,H-26 of the Draft EIR. However, the amount of equipment to be used would likely be less than that assumed in the construction noise analysis for Subarea 1. As shown in Figure1, the proposed Annenberg Academic Building would be located within a potential development site within Subarea 1 that was identified and evaluated within the Draft EIR. Due to location of this initial increment of the USC Development Plan, which is more distant from off-site sensitive receptors than other development sites, and the likely reduction in construction equipment, construction noise impacts would be less than the maximum noise impacts disclosed in the Draft EIR. In addition, the noise mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR would be implemented as part of construction of the Annenberg Academic Building. Accordingly, construction noise and vibration impacts would be well within the envelope of impact evaluated in the Draft EIR and such impacts would be less than significant. No additional mitigation measures would be required. b. Operation As discussed on pages IV.H-31 through IV.H-44 of Section IV.H, Noise of the Draft EIR, with implementation of project design features, operation of the uses proposed as part of the would not result in significant impacts at off-site receptors. In addition, traffic noise impacts under the would also be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Operational noise impacts are generally determined based on the type and location of the use proposed, as well as the amount of traffic generated by a project. The academic use of the proposed Annenberg Academic Building was identified and evaluated as part of the EIR. In addition, as shown in Figure 1, the proposed Annenberg Academic Building would be located within a potential development site within Subarea 1 that was identified and evaluated within the EIR. Thus, noise sources from stationary equipment and daily operation of the Annenberg Academic Building have been accounted for in the Draft EIR. In addition, the Annenberg Academic Building would not result in an increase in student enrollment levels for the Campus, and any increase in staffing would be nominal. Therefore, the Annenberg Academic Building would not generate substantial increases in traffic as the traffic generated would represent only a fraction of the traffic generated by the 5,230,000 square feet of operational uses evaluated in the Draft EIR. Thus, the noise impacts associated with operation of this new building would be well within the envelope of operational noise impacts set forth in the Draft EIR and well below the maximum traffic noise impacts set forth in the Draft EIR and less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. Page 13

15 9. Employment, Population and Housing As discussed in detail in the impact analyses contained within Sections IV.I.1 Employment, IV.I.2 Housing and IV.I.3 Population of the Draft EIR, the USC Development Plan would comprise a small percentage of the employment, housing, and population within the Subregion in 2030 as well as the forecasted growth within the Subregion between 2009 and Furthermore, the would be consistent with the adopted employment, housing, and population policies of the City of Los Angeles and SCAG. In addition, the would not displace a substantial number of housing units resulting in the replacement of housing elsewhere. Therefore, impacts with respect to employment, population, and housing would be less than significant. Impacts associated with employment, population, and housing are generally determined based on whether a project is consistent with SCAG projections or whether the project would result in the displacement of housing. As described above, to provide for the Annenberg Academic Building, an existing two-story administrative office building and three temporary one-story trailers comprising a total of 5,312 square feet would be removed. The new Annenberg Academic Building would not result in an increase in student enrollment levels for the Campus or an increase in housing or population. Any increase in staffing would be nominal and would be well below the increase in employees evaluated in the Draft EIR. Such impacts would not require any mitigation and would be well below the employment, housing, and population forecasts for the evaluated in the Draft EIR and substantially below the 2030 SCAG forecasts. 10. Public Services The Draft EIR provided a comprehensive analysis of potential impacts associated with police protection (refer to pages IV.J-14 through IV.J-19), fire protection (refer to pages IV.J.-40 through IV.J-47), schools (refer to pages IV.J-72 through IV.J-85), parks (refer to pages IV.J-109 through IV.J-114), and libraries (refer to pages IV.J-130 through IV.J-134). With the proposed s project design features, impacts to police, fire protection, and library services would be less than significant. Mitigation measures have been proposed to further reduce impacts to police and fire protection services. Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures regarding construction and associated impacts to school traffic, pedestrian routes, and transportation safety issues would ensure that potentially significant school safety impacts associated with construction of the would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, with payment of requisite developer fees in accordance with SB 50, impacts on public schools would be less than significant, and thus no mitigation measures would be required. Finally, compliance with regulatory requirements and the provision of new on-site Page 14

16 recreational amenities, impacts on parks and recreation would be less than significant. Thus, no mitigation measures regarding park and recreational facilities would be required for the. Impacts on public services are generally determined based on whether a project introduces a new residential or daytime population that could generate a demand for public services. As discussed above, the Annenberg Academic Building would not result in an increase in student population. In addition, the increase in University staff associated with operation of the Annenberg Academic Building would be nominal. Thus, this initial development increment would not result in a substantial increase in demand for police protection, fire protection, schools, parks and recreation or library services. Furthermore, this initial increment of the would be implemented in accordance with the regulatory requirements, and would include all of the project design features related to fire protection, police protection, and schools set forth in the Draft EIR for the. In addition, the construction-related mitigation measures relative to school safety would be implemented as part of construction of the Annenberg Academic Building. Thus, impacts associated with police protection, fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries would be minimal and would be less than significant. Such impacts would also be well below the level of impact evaluated for the 5,230,000 square feet of uses proposed as part of the project and evaluated in the Draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures would be required. 11. Traffic, Access and Parking a. Construction As discussed on pages IV.K-53 through IV.K-58 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR, with implementation of the project design features, which include the preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan, a Construction Period Pedestrian Routing Plan, and a Construction Worker Parking Plan, construction-related traffic, access and parking impacts associated with the would be less than significant. Construction traffic impacts are determined based on the amount of constructionrelated traffic generated by the project during peak hours. As shown in Figure 1, the Annenberg Academic Building is located on a development site that was evaluated throughout the Draft EIR. The amount of construction activity and associated traffic generated by construction of the Annenberg Academic Building would represent a fraction of the construction activity identified and evaluated in the Draft EIR. In addition, as part of the construction of the Annenberg Academic Building, the project design features identified in the Draft EIR, including a Construction Traffic Management Plan, a Construction Period Page 15

17 Pedestrian Routing Plan, and a Construction Worker Parking Plan would be implemented. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and within the envelope of environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR for the. No additional mitigation measures would be required. b. Operation (1) Intersections As discussed on pages IV.K-53 through IV.K-73 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR, even with incorporation of mitigation measures that include both physical improvements and additional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, traffic generated by the would result in significant impacts at up to seven intersections. The proposes academic/university serving uses, commercial uses, hotel uses, student and faculty housing and laboratory school uses. Traffic impacts associated with these uses were generally determined based on the amount of commercial square footage proposed, number of hotel rooms, cinema seats, the student population and staff and faculty growth, and the number of faculty and staff and faculty units proposed. As stated above, the Annenberg Academic Building would not result in an increase in student population, and the increase in University staff and faculty associated with operation of the Annenberg Academic Building would be nominal. Thus, the Annenberg Academic Building would result in a nominal increase in traffic. This nominal increase would represent a small fraction of the traffic associated with buildout of the proposed uses set forth in the that comprise 5,230,000 square feet. However, since the traffic analysis for the did not specify the amount of development that would trigger the significant impact, it is conservatively recommended that traffic mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR be implemented as part of this initial development increment. These measures are set forth below. In the event that a mitigation measure has already been implemented by another development increment (i.e., the new Cinematic Arts Building or the new Social Sciences Building), the mitigation measure would not be required as part of this development increment. Based on the above, traffic impacts associated with this initial development increment would be less than significant and within the envelope of impact set forth in the Draft EIR. No additional mitigation measures would be required. (2) Regional Transportation System As discussed on pages IV.K-74 through IV.K-85 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR, implementation of the would result in Page 16

18 less than significant impacts on freeway segments. As described above, the Annenberg Academic Building would generate limited traffic and such traffic would represent a small fraction of the traffic generated by buildout of the. Thus, regional transportation system impacts associated with the Annenberg Academic Building would be less than significant and would be well within the impact envelope evaluated in the Draft EIR. No mitigation measures would be required. (3) Neighborhood Streets Impacts to neighborhood streets are evaluated on page IV.K-85 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR. As set forth in the analysis within the Draft EIR, to address potential traffic impacts on neighborhood streets, a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan would be implemented as part of a mitigation measure for the USC Development Plan. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan would identify measures to make local routes less attractive to through traffic, such as traffic circles, speed humps, roadway narrowing effects, landscaping features, roadway striping changes, and stop sign patterns. Because implementation of neighborhood traffic controls on one street can cause intruding traffic to shift to other streets, an effective Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan can only be implemented on an area-wide basis with all affected parties, including neighborhood residents, involved in development of the plan. Since USC cannot unilaterally impose neighborhood traffic improvements/traffic calming measures, impacts at the neighborhood street segment would be considered significant and unavoidable. As described above, the Annenberg Academic Building would generate limited traffic and such traffic would represent a small fraction of the traffic generated by buildout of the. Thus, this initial increment of the would not result in significant impacts to neighborhood streets and such impacts would be well within the impact envelope set forth in the Draft EIR. However, since the traffic analysis for the did not specify the amount of development that would trigger the potential significant impact, it is conservatively recommended that the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (set forth below) be implemented as part of this initial development increment in accordance with the measures established in the Draft EIR, unless such measures have already been implemented in connection with another initial development increment (i.e., the new Cinematic Arts Building or the new Social Sciences Building). (4) Public Transit As discussed on pages IV.K-85 through IV.K-88 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR, impacts of the on public transit would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As the Page 17

19 Annenberg Academic Building would not generate any increase in student population and any increase in staff would be limited, impacts to public transit associated with this initial development increment would be less than significant and well within the impact envelope set forth in the Draft EIR. No mitigation measures would be required. (5) Access As discussed on pages IV.K-88 through IV.K-91 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR the could improve the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection of Vermont Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard with implementation of a proposed mitigation measure. However, the intersection would continue to operate at an LOS E during both morning and evening peak hours after mitigation. In addition, even without traffic associated with the, the intersections of Vermont Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard and Exposition Boulevard and Figueroa Street would operate at a LOS E or F during peak hours in Nonetheless, based on the City s significance thresholds, the access impacts at the three access points that are near these intersections have been conservatively concluded to remain significant and unavoidable. As described above, the Annenberg Academic Building would generate limited traffic and such traffic would represent a small fraction of the traffic generated by buildout of the. In addition, the relevant traffic mitigation measures for Subarea 1 set forth in the Draft EIR would be implemented as part of this initial development increment. Furthermore, the access points that were determined to be significantly impacted by the overall do not provide direct access to the development site on which the Annenberg Academic Building would be located. Thus, access impacts associated with this initial development increment would be within the envelope of impact set forth in the Draft EIR, and new mitigation measures would not be required. (6) Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety The analysis presented on pages IV.K-91 through IV.K-92 of Section IV.K.1 Traffic, Access and Parking of the Draft EIR. concluded that the University s near-term and longterm bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, impacts of the on pedestrian/bicycle safety would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. The Annenberg Academic Building is located within Subarea 1 of the USC Development Plan. As part of this initial development increment, bicycle and pedestrian access would be provided within the vicinity of the building. As the Annenberg Academic Page 18

20 Building would only represent a small fraction of the overall development under the USC Development Plan, the Annenberg Academic Building would generate only a small fraction of the bicycle and pedestrian traffic that would be generated by the overall USC Development Plan. Therefore, impacts associated with bicycle and pedestrian safety would be less than significant and well within the envelope of impacts identified in the Draft EIR. No mitigation measures would be required. (7) Parking As set forth in the analysis presented on pages IV.K-142 through IV.K-148 of Section IV.K.2 Parking of the Draft EIR, to adequately satisfy the incremental parking demand associated with the, Mitigation Measure K.2-1 would be implemented to ensure that the University would implement an annual monitoring process to ensure that the demand for parking is met. With compliance with this Mitigation Measure, parking impacts would be less than significant. As the Annenberg Academic Building would not generate an increase in student population and any increase in staff would be limited, the demand for parking generated by this initial development increment would be nominal. In addition, the same mitigation (see below) measure would be implemented as part of this initial development increment. Thus, parking impacts would be less than significant and well within the envelope of impacts indentified in the Draft EIR. 12. Utilities a. Water and Wastewater As described on pages IV.L-42 through IV.L-51 and pages IV.L-71 and IV.L-84 of Sections IV.L.1, Water and IV.L.2, Wastewater, respectively of the Draft EIR, the USC Development Plan would not result in significant impacts associated with water or wastewater. No mitigation measures were required or proposed for these environmental topics. Within the Draft EIR, water and wastewater impacts have been determined based on the square footage of commercial uses proposed, the increase in student population of the University, the number of restaurant seats proposed, the number of cinema seats proposed, the number of hotel rooms proposed, and the number of student and faculty units proposed. The USC Annenberg Academic Building would result in an increased demand for water and an increase in wastewater generation. As the 68,000-square foot building and associated minimal increase in employment represents a fraction of the 5,230,000 square feet of new development and employees evaluated in the Draft EIR, this Page 19

21 initial development increment would result in a fraction of the water demand and wastewater generation evaluated in the Draft EIR. In addition, the water conservation features proposed in the Draft EIR would be implemented as part of this initial development increment. Thus, impacts would be less than significant and well within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. No mitigation measures would be required. b. Solid Waste As discussed on pages IV.L-106 through IV.L-108 of Section IV.L.3 Utilities of the Draft EIR, construction-related impacts on solid waste facilities would be less than significant. With regard to operational impacts, as discussed in the impact analysis provided on pages IV.L-108 through IV.L-117 of Section IV.L.3, Utilities of the Draft EIR, the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan (ColWMP) annual reports assesses future County landfill disposal needs over a 15-year planning horizon based, in part, on forecasted waste generation and available landfill capacity. While it is anticipated that future iterations of the CoIWMPs would provide for improvements beyond 2022 to serve future waste disposal needs, it is conservatively assumed that no new landfills or increases in capacity would occur to provide for full buildout of the in Thus, based on this worst-case assumption, the County may not be able to accommodate the disposal needs associated with the. Therefore, operational solid waste impacts were conservatively concluded to be significant and unavoidable. Solid waste impacts associated with construction are typically determined based on the square footage proposed by a project. Construction of the Annenberg Academic Building would represent a small fraction of the square footage of the USC Development Plan. Therefore, construction solid waste generated by the construction of the Annenberg Academic Building would represent only a small fraction of the solid waste estimated to be generated by the 5,230,000 square feet of new development evaluated for the USC Development Plan. Thus, impacts associated with construction waste for the Annenberg Academic Building would be less than significant and well within the envelope of impacts set forth in the Draft EIR. Solid waste impacts associated with construction are typically determined based on the square footage proposed by a project. Operation of the Annenberg Academic Building would generate an increase in solid waste. However, based on the limited number of employees that would be generated and the square footage of the building, this increase would represent a small fraction of the amount of solid waste that would be generated by the 5,230,000 square feet of University and community-serving uses and associated employment proposed as part of the. Moreover, unlike later phases of the, the Annenberg Academic Building would be Page 20