IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET

Transcription

1 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/RISK OF UPSET ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Except where footnoted otherwise, this Section is based upon the following site-specific investigation: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Subsurface Investigation, Proposed Emerson College Site, West Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90028, Tetra Tech, Inc., March 11, This technical report is incorporated into Appendix D of this Draft EIR. Existing Project Site The Project Site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and North Gordon Street in the Hollywood Community Plan Area in the City of Los Angeles. The Project Site is located on an approximately 0.86-acre parcel of land. The Project Site is currently developed with a fence-enclosed, asphalt parking lot that serves employees of nearby KTLA Studios. A guard shack exists in the southwestern part of the Site. The parking lot is entered via an entrance on North Gordon Street. A concrete pad with asphalt patches is located in the northern part of the Site. This appears to have been the area of former gasoline pump islands (i.e., the patches are the areas where the pump islands were removed) at a former gas station (discussed further below). During a site reconnaissance survey to identify potentially hazardous materials on the Project Site, Tetra Tech noted the following conditions: No significant areas of surficial staining were observed on the concrete-paved parking. Localized areas of petroleum-type staining related to parked vehicles were observed. This is considered to be a de minimis condition. No visual evidence (i.e., pipes, vents, and dispensers) indicating existing or historic on-site underground storage tanks (USTs) was observed. No visual evidence (i.e., concrete foundation or containment walls, pedestals, or steel support structures) indicating existing or historic on-site above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) was observed. There are no buildings on the Site, and no debris piles with suspect asbestos containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paint (LBP) were observed. As a result, it is unlikely that there is asbestos or LBP on the Site. No hazardous materials usage, hazardous waste generation or storage, or solid waste was observed. No transformers or other PCB-containing equipment were observed at the Site. Page IV.D-1

2 The site reconnaissance and a review of local records did not reveal the presence of on-site water supply or irrigation wells. Industrial or domestic wastewater is not generated at the Site. No surface water or wetland areas were observed. There were no observed Site operations involving emissions that appeared to require permitting, emission controls, or abatement activities. The site reconnaissance, as well as review of available municipal records and regulatory records, did not reveal the presence of current or historic on-site dry cleaning operations. No evidence of potential microbial growth and/or moisture intrusion was observed. No significant environmental non-compliance issues associated with current Site use were noted. Historic Use of Project Site Based on a review of historical photographs and records, Sanborn fire insurance maps, agency files, and other data, the Project Site was historically occupied by a City of Los Angeles maintenance yard (apparently utilized for woodworking activities) from at least 1919 to sometime before By 1938, the Site is reported to have been used for auto maintenance/repair activities. From approximately 1947 to 1962, the site was occupied by four buildings, including a residence and three buildings labeled as Auto Radiator Rep g [sic], Auto Trimming, and Auto Rep & Wash g [sic]. From 1962 until before 1989, the Site was occupied by a gas station, and from at least 1989 to the present, by a parking lot. Surrounding Properties The Project Site and surrounding properties are located within the Hollywood area of the City of Los Angeles, which is a developed area that is supported by existing urban infrastructure. The surrounding area is comprised of a mix of low to medium density residential, commercial, and office uses. The properties immediately surrounding the Project Site are as follows: On the north side of the Project Site, across Sunset Boulevard, are several commercial uses, including a two-story motel (6055 West Sunset Boulevard), a surface parking lot (6019 to 6023 W. Sunset Boulevard), a two-story mini-mart (6017 W. Sunset Boulevard), a one-story import store (6009 W. Sunset Boulevard), a single-story liquor store/delicatessen (6007 W. Sunset Boulevard), a two-story hair salon (6003 W. Sunset Boulevard) and print shop (6001 W. Sunset Boulevard), and the site for the future Sunset and Gordon Mixed-Use Project (5939 W. Sunset Boulevard). To the east toward Tamarind Avenue are commercial uses, including restaurants at 5946 and 5936 W. Sunset Boulevard. Adjacent and south, located at the southwest corner of Sunset Boulevard and N. Tamarind Avenue, are commercial uses that include a one-story deli (1471 N. Tamarind Avenue), a two-story residential use (1461 N. Tamarind Avenue), and commercial office uses, including a psychic reader and a public relations firm (1467 and 1463 N. Tamarind Avenue, respectively). To the south of the Project Site are a commercial office building (1456 N. Gordon Street) and a mix of Page IV.D-2

3 single-family and multi-family residential uses located further to the south along both Gordon Street and N. Tamarind Avenue. To the west across Gordon Street are several studio-related commercial uses, including the two-story EastWest Studios building at the southwest corner of Sunset Boulevard and Gordon Street (6000 W. Sunset Boulevard), the one-story Alley Kat Studios building (1455 N. Gordon Street), and a five-level parking structure for the Sunset Gower Studios property (1438 N. Gower Street). A summary of the historic uses of property surrounding the Project Site is presented in Table 4.2 of Appendix D. Database Review of Project Site and Surrounding Properties The Phase I ESA and Phase II Subsurface Investigation prepared by Tetra Tech included a database search of hazardous material sites that are listed on current federal, State, and local environmental regulatory agency databases. While the Project Site is not listed in any of the databases searched, several database listings for sites located within the American Society for Testing and Materials ( ASTM ) designated search radius (i.e., generally one, one-half, or one-quarter mile radius) of the Project Site were identified, and are presented in Table IV.D-1, below. However, an inspection of the abutting properties from curbside and a review of the database records did not reveal the presence of off-site sources that are considered to be of concern to the Project Site. Phase II Subsurface Investigation A focused Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted by Tetra Tech to evaluate the likelihood that: (1) USTs or other former subgrade features related to prior auto repair and/or gas station uses are still present at the Project Site; and (2) Elevated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); VOCs, including BTEX; methane gas; and metals are present in near-surface soils (to a depth of approximately 30 feet bgs at the Site). Table IV.D-1 Summary of Regulatory Agency Database Search Database Radius Target Property Surrounding Facilities Federal National Priorities List (NPL) 1 mile No 0 Proposed NPL 1 mile No 0 Delisted NPL 1 mile No 0 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) ½ mile No 0 CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites (NFRAP) ½ mile No 0 Page IV.D-3

4 Table IV.D-1 Summary of Regulatory Agency Database Search Database Radius Target Property Surrounding Facilities Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Facilities (CORRACTS) 1 mile No 0 RCRA Non-Corrective Action (TSD) Facilities ½ mile No 0 RCRA Waste Generators Site and adjacent No 1 US Brownfields ½ mile No 0 Institutional Control/Engineering Control (IC/EC) Site No - Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Site No - State Bond Expenditure Plan (BEP) 1 mile No 0 Hist Cal-Sites 1 mile No 0 Response 1 mile No 0 EnviroStor 1 mile No 11 California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) Site No - Cortese 1 mile No 7 Notify 65 1 mile No 0 Toxic Pits 1 mile No 0 Solid Waste Information System (SWF/LF) ½ mile No 0 Waste Management Unit Database System / Solid Waste Assessment Test (WMUDS/SWAT) ½ mile No 0 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) databases ½ mile No 7 Underground Storage Tank (UST) databases Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Site and adjacent Site and adjacent No 0 No 0 Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup (SLIC) ½ mile No 4 Voluntary Cleanup Plan (VCP) ½ mile No 0 Deed Restriction Listing (DEED) ½ mile No 0 Tribal databases Various No 0 SCH ¼ mile No 0 Drycleaners ¼ mile No 1 Source: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Subsurface Investigation, Proposed Emerson College Site, West Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90028, Table 5.0, Tetra Tech, Inc., March 11, Page IV.D-4

5 Soil samples and soil gas samples were analyzed for COPCs, and the results compared to published screening criteria (commonly used for evaluating potential human health and ecological concerns related to compounds detected in soil) to evaluate the significance of the compounds detected in the analyzed soil and soil gas. No elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), methane gas, or California Code of Regulations (CCR) metals were found in analyzed soil gas and/or soil samples. Based on these results, a 2007 soil vapor investigation performed by Geomatrix Consultants (GC 2007b), and the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted by Ninyo & Moore concurrently with this Phase I ESA, the historic auto-related and gas station facilities at the Project Site and methane gas were not considered to be a recognized environmental condition (REC) or potential environmental concern (PEC). The Project Site is not located within a Methane hazard Site. 1 With regard to the potential presence of subgrade features, no evidence of former underground storage tanks (USTs) or oil/gas wells was found during the geophysical survey. Because no indications of significant impacts were found in the analyzed soil and soil gas samples, groundwater sampling was not considered necessary and, therefore, was not conducted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance State CEQA Guidelines Initial Study Checklist In accordance with Appendix G to the State CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact with regard to hazards and hazardous materials would occur if the Project were to result in any of the following conditions: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; 1 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, ZIMAS Property Report, website: accessed 5/27/09. Page IV.D-5

6 (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; (f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airport strip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residence are intermixed with wildlands. City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide As set forth in the City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), the determination of significance shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors: (a) The regulatory framework (for the potential accidental release or explosion of a hazardous substance); (b) The probable frequency and severity of consequences to people or property as a result of a potential accidental release or explosion of a hazardous substance; (c) The degree to which the project may require a new, or interfere with an existing, emergency response or evacuation plan, and the severity of the consequences; (d) The degree to which the project design will reduce the frequency or severity of a potential accidental release or explosion of a hazardous substance; (e) The regulatory framework for the health hazard; (f) The probable frequency and severity of consequences to people from exposure to the health hazards; or (g) The degree to which the project design would reduce the frequency or severity of consequences of exposure to the health hazard. Project Impacts Following is a discussion of the Proposed Project s impacts during construction and operation with respect to hazardous materials and risk of upset. Specific areas that are discussed include routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; accidental release of hazardous materials; and conflict with emergency response or evacuation plans. Page IV.D-6

7 Construction Construction of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. During the construction phase, the Proposed Project is anticipated to require the routine transport, use, and disposal of cleaning solvents, fuels, paints and paint-related products, waste oil, spent solvents, oily rags and other hazardous materials commonly associated with construction projects. All hazardous materials used during demolition and construction activities would be handled in accordance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations, which include requirements for disposal of hazardous materials at a facility licensed to accept such waste, based on its waste classification and the waste acceptance criteria of the permitted disposal facilities. As compliance with existing regulations is mandatory for all development projects, adherence to all applicable rules and regulations would reduce potentially significant impacts with respect to routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction to less-than-significant levels While construction of the Proposed Project would not result in a potentially significant impact with respect to the accidental release of hazardous materials including ACMs, LBPs, and PCBs, potentially significant impacts could result if hydrocarbon contaminated soils are encountered during proposed site grading and excavation. However, this impact would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure. As presented above under Environmental Setting, there are no buildings or debris piles with suspect ACMs or LBPs on the Project Site. Under the Proposed Project, the existing guard shack would be relocated from the Project Site, not demolished. No transformers or other PCB-containing equipment were observed at the Site, and no evidence of significant concentrations of petroleum products was found during the focused Phase II subsurface investigation. Thus, it is unlikely that PCBs are present in subsurface soils at the Site. As such, impacts with regard to accidental release of these hazardous materials would be less than significant. The focused phase II ESA conducted by Tetra Tech found no evidence of former USTs or oil/gas wells during the geophysical survey or elevated concentrations of VOCs, TPH, methane gas, or CCR metals in analyzed soil gas and/or soil samples. Nevertheless, the potential for encountering localized areas of impacted soil during proposed site grading and excavation activities cannot be ruled out based on historic Site use. Thus, impacts would be potentially significant and a soil management plan would be required. This plan, required in Mitigation Measure D-1 below, would addresses compliance procedures, requirements and protocols applicable to the excavation, monitoring, and disposal of impacted soils if encountered during site development. In the event that such soils are encountered, adherence to the soils management plan would provide for the proper management of impacted soils as required by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. Therefore, with mitigation, potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Page IV.D-7

8 The Proposed Project has the potential to result in a potentially significant impact with respect to impeding or restricting emergency access to or from the Project Site or surrounding area during the construction process. This impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. The Proposed Project is not located on or near a City-designated selected disaster route. 2 Nevertheless, Project-related construction activities may require temporary and/or partial street closures on adjacent roadways due to construction activities. While such closures may cause temporary delays or detours along Sunset Boulevard or Gordon Street, such activities would be temporary in nature and would not be expected to substantially interfere with peak-hour traffic. A potentially significant impact could occur, however, on a temporary basis with respect to delays in emergency access to or from the Project Site or surrounding area during the construction process. Emergency response and evacuation plans and would be conducted in accordance with City permitting requirements. Furthermore, any lane closures would need to be reviewed and approved in advance by the LADOT prior to construction. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures below to avoid delays and deliveries during peak traffic hours and to ensure that emergency access is provided during the construction period would mitigate this impact to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be expected to interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and a less than significant impact would occur. Operation Operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials resulting from the routine transport, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials. Under the Proposed Project, only minor amounts of potentially hazardous materials would be stored or used on the Property as a part of the planned mixed-use trade school; no industrial land uses are planned. For example, cleaning solvents would be used in association with janitorial cleaning and general maintenance in the mixed-use trade school buildings, including the academic/administrative floor area, student rooms, faculty/staff apartments, ground floor retail and restaurant space, and parking areas. As such, no substantial quantities of hazardous materials would be used, transported, or disposed of in conjunction with routine day-to-day operations of the Proposed Project. The limited quantities of hazardous materials that would be used would be handled, transported, and disposed in accordance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Therefore, impacts related to routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation would be less than significant. 2 City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Environmental and Public Facilities Maps, Critical Facilities & Lifeline Systems in the City of Los Angeles, September Page IV.D-8

9 Operation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to the accidental release of hazardous materials. The Project Site is located within one-quarter mile of Montessori Shir-Hashirim / Jewish Montessori School of Hollywood located at 6047 Carlton Way, and Joseph Le Conte Middle School located at 1316 N. Bronson Avenue. However, as described above, only minor amounts of potentially hazardous materials would be stored or used on the Property as a part of the planned mixed-use trade school. The students and faculty at Emerson College would work with digital video and photography as opposed to film. Therefore, no chemicals that are typically required for film processing would be used. No industrial operations are planned and no substantial quantities of hazardous materials would be used, transported, or disposed of in conjunction with the routine day-to-day operations of the Project once completed. Therefore, while the accidental release of hazardous materials such as janitorial or household chemicals could occur, such releases would be minor and would not be expected to affect neighboring uses or nearby schools. Further, such use of hazardous materials would not involve hazardous emissions or handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous emissions or hazardous materials handling within ¼ mile of a school would be less than significant. Operation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to impeding emergency access or response to the Project Site or surrounding area during an evacuation or emergency. With respect to off-site impacts, the Project Site is not located on or near a City-designated selected disaster route. 3 Therefore, operation of the Proposed Project would not cause any permanent alterations to evacuation routes and patterns, or impede emergency access or travel upon public rights-of-way. With respect to on-site emergency response, as shown in Figure II-3, Proposed Site Plan, in Section II., Project Description, access to the proposed subterranean parking garage for Emerson College uses would be through one ingress/egress driveway located on Gordon Street at the southwest corner of the Project Site, while access to the proposed retail uses would be through a separate ingress/egress driveway also located on Gordon Street, on the western side of the Project Site. Gordon Street is a City-designated Local Street that would be able to accommodate the frequent entry and exit of patrons and employees of both Emerson College and the associated retail uses. In addition, the Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit an emergency response plan for approval by the City of Los Angeles Planning Department and the City of Los Angeles Fire Department during the site plan check process. Therefore, during operation, the Proposed Project would not be expected to interfere with any off-site adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. While operational impacts to emergency access would be less than significant prior to mitigation, implementation of mitigation measure D-3, below, would further ensure adequate on-site emergency access plans are developed and approved. 3 Ibid. Page IV.D-9

10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Development of the Proposed Project in combination with the 70 related projects has the potential to increase the risk for accidental release of hazardous materials. Each of the 70 related projects would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction and operation, emergency response, transport/use/disposal of hazardous materials, and hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools). Because hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific, this would occur on a case-by-case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with development proposals on these properties. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures D-1 through D-3 would reduce the Proposed Project s potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during construction and operation as well as emergency response to less-than-significant levels, such that the Proposed Project would not combine with any of the related project to cause a cumulatively significant impact. Further, each related project would be required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials and other hazards. Therefore, with compliance with local, State, and federal laws pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES Project-Specific Mitigation Measures D-1: D-2: D-3: Prior to site demolition at the Project Site, a soil management plan shall be prepared to address how localized area(s) of impacted soil, if encountered during Site development, are to be monitored, excavated from the Site, and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory standards. In the event that contaminated soils are identified onsite, appropriate remediation steps such as soil removal and disposal shall be taken and a No Further Action letter shall be obtained by the LARWQCB and submitted to the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety prior to construction of the building s foundation. The Proposed Project shall maintain appropriate fire and police access to the Project Site by keeping driveways and/or alternative accessways clear of construction equipment, building material, and debris during the construction process. The Project Applicant shall prepare and submit an emergency response plan for approval by the City of Los Angeles Planning Department and the City of Los Angeles Fire Department. The emergency response plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: mapping of emergency exits, evacuation routes for vehicles and pedestrians, location of nearest hospitals, and fire departments. Page IV.D-10

11 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended, the Proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to hazardous materials and risk of upset. Page IV.D-11