100 North Crescent Drive Beverly Hills Media Center Projectbeverlyhills.org/.../100NCrescent_InitialStudy_5-4... · 100 North Crescent Drive Beverly Hills Media Center Project Initial

100 North Crescent Drive Beverly Hills Media Center Project

Initial Study

prepared by City of Beverly Hills

Community Development Department 455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor

Beverly Hills, California 90210

prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

250 East 1st Street, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California 90012

May 2017


Initial Study

prepared by City of Beverly Hills

Community Development Department 455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor

Beverly Hills, California 90210

prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

250 East 1st Street, Suite 301 Los Angeles, California 90012

May 2017

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

Table of Contents

Initial Study i

Table of Contents

Initial Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Project Title .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Lead Agency Name and Address .................................................................................................... 1 3 Contact Person and Phone Number .............................................................................................. 1 4 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 1 5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ............................................................................................ 1 6 Existing Setting ............................................................................................................................... 1 7 General Plan Designation ............................................................................................................... 1 8 Zoning ............................................................................................................................................ 4 9 Description of Project .................................................................................................................... 4 10 Required Approvals ...................................................................................................................... 16 11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ............................................................................................. 16 12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ................................................................... 17

Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................... 19 1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 19 2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................... 23 3 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................. 25 4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................... 27 5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................. 31 6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................... 35 7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 39 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 47 9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................. 51 10 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................... 55 11 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................. 57 12 Noise ...................................................................................................................................... 59 13 Population and Housing.......................................................................................................... 63 14 Public Service ......................................................................................................................... 65 15 Recreation .............................................................................................................................. 69 16 Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 71 17 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 73 18 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................. 75 19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................................ 81

City of Beverly Hills 100 North Crescent Drive Beverly Hills Media Center Project

ii

References .................................................................................................................................................... 83 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 83 List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... 86

Tables Table 1 Project Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 42

Table 3 Combined Annual GHG Emissions ............................................................................................. 42

Table 4 Net Change in GHG Emissions ................................................................................................... 43

Table 5 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies .................... 44

Table 6 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix ........................................................................................ 61

Table 7 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand Projections ............................................................... 77

Table 8 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ............................................................................................ 79

Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ........................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2 Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 3 Site Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4 Views of the Existing Building ...................................................................................................... 7

Figure 5 Rendering of the Proposed Building ............................................................................................ 8

Figure 6 Proposed Floor Plan – Garden Level............................................................................................ 9

Figure 7 Proposed Floor Plan – Level 1 ................................................................................................... 10





Figure 12 Proposed Landscape Plan .......................................................................................................... 15

Appendices Appendix A Cultural Resources Data and Records

Appendix B Geotechnical Consultation Letter

Appendix C Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheets

Initial Study

Initial Study 1

Initial Study 1 Project Title


2 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Beverly Hills Community Development Department 455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor Beverly Hills, California 90210

3 Contact Person and Phone Number Alek Miller, Assistant Planner (310) 285-1196

4 Project Location The project site is located at 100 North (N.) Crescent Drive in the City of Beverly Hills (City). The site is at the northeast corner of N. Crescent Drive and Wilshire Boulevard. The site is 1.34 acres (58,528 square feet [sf]) and includes Assessor Parcel Number 4343-004-047. The project site is regionally accessible from Interstate 405 (the San Diego Freeway) and State Route 2 (Santa Monica Boulevard), and locally accessible from Wilshire Boulevard. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in the region and Figure 2 depicts the project site in its neighborhood context.

5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Applicant/Owner 100 North Crescent LLC 100 North Crescent Drive, Suite 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90210

6 Existing Setting The project site is currently developed with a three-story, 106,085-sf office building with three levels of subterranean parking. Historically, the existing building has been used as office space by a 3D technology supplier, a recording studio, a car dealer, and a law office. The Crescent Drive Mini Park is a 12,046-sf public park that encompasses the northern portion of the site. Figure 4 shows the existing views of the building from Wilshire Boulevard.

7 General Plan Designation Low Density Commercial General and Parks


2

Figure 1 Regional Location

Initial Study

Initial Study 3

Figure 2 Project Location


4

8 Zoning Commercial Zone (C-3)

9 Description of Project The proposed project involves a comprehensive renovation of the existing three-story office building located at 100 N. Crescent Drive. Construction of the project would include two additional floors of commercial office space that would increase the building height from 43 feet to 72 feet. The project would also include a restaurant dining area and a screening room. The three existing levels of subterranean parking would remain; however, each level would be would be re-planned and parking spaces would be restriped to increase the total number of parking spaces. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed project components compared to existing building components.

Table 1 Project Summary Project Site Area 1.34 acres (58,528 sf)

Building Area Existing Proposed

Restaurant Dining Area 0 sf 4,330 sf

Screening Room 2,550 sf 2,489 sf

Office 103,535 sf 154,336 sf

Total FAR Area 106,085 sf 161,155 sf

Building Core (Non-FAR Area) N/A 40,312 sf

Outdoor Terraces (Non-FAR Area) 2,057 sf 15,051 sf

Community Park (Non-FAR Area) 12,046 sf 12,046 sf

Outdoor Courtyards (Non-FAR Area) 8,914 sf 6,678 sf

Total Non-FAR Area 23,017 sf 74,087 sf

Height, FAR, Setbacks

Height 3 stories, 43 feet max. height 5 stories, 72 feet max. height

FAR 1.81 2.75

Parking Stalls

Standard 303 268

ADA Accessible 14 12

Standard Tandem 511 472

Compact 0 452

Compact Tandem 61 82

Stack Parking (using mechanical lifts) 0 92

24-Hour Valet (Minimum Planned Allowance) 0 762

Parking Provided 317 (3743) 465

BHMC Parking Required 304 461 1 Parking types not counted toward meeting BHMC required parking. 2 Parking types requested to be counted toward meeting BHMC required parking. 3 Total includes required parking spaces and compact and standard tandem spaces.

Initial Study

Initial Study 5

The proposed project would introduce floor to ceiling glass exterior screen wall on the Crescent Drive, Wilshire Boulevard, and Crescent Drive Mini Park façades. The existing black central glass rotunda would be replaced with curved frameless glazing with an internal spiraling staircase. The proposed renovations would remodel the existing 100-seat screening room with stadium seating, and upgrade the digital projection and sound system. The height of the renovated building would increase from 43 feet to 72 feet, resulting in a structure which is similar in height to other surrounding buildings except for one- to two-story multi-family residences to the north. The fifth floor would be set back from the building edge to provide a pavilion-style outdoor patio. In addition, Crescent Drive Mini Park located north of the building would be renovated with new seating, hardscape, and drought-tolerant landscaping.

Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan while Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the existing and proposed views of the building from Wilshire Boulevard and Crescent Drive. Figures 6 through 10 show the floor plans for levels 1 through 5, and Figure 11 shows the proposed landscape plan.

Construction From a structural perspective, the building and parking garage are expected to have minimal excavations adjacent to some of the existing column footings to increase the vertical capacity of the existing foundations. Excavation activities would typically not extend below the depth of the existing footings since construction would involve thickening the slab-on-grade directly over the existing footings. Also, some excavation is expected adjacent to the existing elevator pits to deepen the pits to accommodate new elevators. Currently, the estimated depth of excavation is 30 inches below the existing elevator pit. Excavation activity, which is limited to a minimum horizontal dimension from their associated foundations, will disturb the engineered soil that was graded and compacted during the construction of the existing building. However, the majority of the existing slab-on-grade is not expected to be disturbed under the current scope of structural work. In addition, Crescent Drive Mini Park sits atop the roof of the parking garage below and any movement of soil for the park redesign would not be classified as excavation.

The site is a non-grading intensive project, so no soil stockpiling is anticipated on-site. Upon soil removal from the site for the structural upgrades and existing park, the most appropriate destination for the soil would be sourced. Otherwise, the project soil may be taken to a soil dump site in the City where it would be commingled with other soil until it is needed for another property backfill. Soil hauled from the site would comply with the City’s requirements regarding the hours during which it can be removed from the site. In addition, no soil taken from the site would be transported to a landfill. Total estimated soil export is 260 cubic yards (CY). Imported soil to the project site may be necessary for the renovations to Crescent Drive Mini Park, which would not be sourced from a soil dump site since the park would require nutrient-balanced soil based on the selected park vegetation.

Site Access and Parking Vehicle access to the site would be provided through the existing driveway located along Crescent Drive that would lead to a below-grade parking garage. The new restaurant will include an entry at street level along Wilshire Boulevard and pedestrian access to the building will be at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Crescent Drive, through the rotunda. The loading dock will remain in its current location, accessed from the alley off of Wilshire Boulevard.

All parking for the facility would be contained in the existing three-level subterranean parking garage. The project would not involve expansion of the parking garage area, rather the garage


6

Figure 3 Site Plan

Initial Study

Initial Study 7

Figure 4 Views of the Existing Building


8

Figure 5 Rendering of the Proposed Building

Initial Study

Initial Study 9

Figure 6 Proposed Floor Plan – Garden Level


10

Figure 7 Proposed Floor Plan – Level 1

Initial Study

Initial Study 11



12


Initial Study

Initial Study 13



14


Initial Study

Initial Study 15

Figure 12 Proposed Landscape Plan


16

would be re-planned, parking spaces would be re-painted to increase the total number of parking spaces, and existing column footings would be reinforced to increase the capacity of the existing foundations. Tandem, stacked, and compact parking spaces would be added to the existing garage floor areas to maximize the parking supply. Other minor improvements involve addition of a storage area and extension of the valet station on parking level one. According to project plans, 268 standard spaces and 41 compact spaces are proposed, along with 54 standard tandem spaces and 8 compact tandem spaces. An additional 12 spaces would be ADA accessible. Nine stacked spaces, in which a hydraulic lift is used to place cars in spaces on top of each other, are also proposed. The 24-hour valet parking service would be available to service the full parking structure and utilize drive-aisle parking spaces located throughout all three floors of the garage, which would increase the capacity of the parking garage by 76 spaces. In total, 465 parking stalls would be provided within the existing garage.

Sustainable Design Features The project would be designed to a LEED-Gold standard. Selected exterior building materials, like the existing metal and glass façade, would be re-used on-site as flooring and wall panels within the proposed terrazzo matrix and the three-story atrium. The new building glass façade would include high performance, low emission glazing.

Landscaping Crescent Drive Mini Park, located immediately north of the building, would be enhanced to include a variety of new landscape materials, installation of new updated permanent seating, and updates to the lighting to improve the buffer between the site and adjacent neighbors. New landscaping is also proposed along the perimeters of the building facing Crescent Drive and Wilshire Boulevard, with a proposed new water fountain at the base of the curved glass rotunda.

10 Required Approvals The following entitlements are required for the proposed development:

General Plan Amendment from Low Density Commercial General to Medium Density Commercial, with maximum allowable height of 75 feet and floor area ratio (FAR) not to exceed 2.75:1;

Zone Change Amendment to create an overlay zone to allow for entertainment and media uses (the Entertainment Office Planned Development Overlay Zone 2) and set specific development standards for such uses;

Zone Change to apply the Entertainment Office Planned Development Overlay Zone 2 to the project site;

Planned Development Permit to allow construction of a proposed addition and renovation of an entertainment and media building with street level commercial/restaurant use and subterranean parking; and a

Development Agreement between the Applicant and the City.

11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The project site is located in a commercial zone at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Crescent Drive. The site is surrounded by commercial offices, restaurants, retail, banks, and hotels to the

Initial Study

Initial Study 17

west and south, a hotel and multi-family homes to the north, an assisted living facility to the northwest, and single-family homes to the east. The project site is surrounded by an existing six-story office and medical office building to the east on Wilshire Boulevard; an existing four-story office building to the west on Wilshire Boulevard across N. Crescent Drive; the five story AKA luxury extended stay hotel further north across N. Crescent Drive; the three-story Wilshire Crescent apartment building across the park to the north; and single family homes across the alley to the northeast facing Rexford Drive. A four-story office building is directly across Wilshire Boulevard to the south, and the seven-story The Sixty hotel is across Wilshire Boulevard to the southwest.

12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required The City of Beverly Hills is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed project. Approval from other public agencies is not required.

City ot Beverly Hills100 North Crescent Drive Beverly Hills Media Center Project

Environmental Factors Potentially AffectedThis project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one

impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as

indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

B Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest B Air QualityResources

• Biological Resources • Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Hydrology/Water QualityMaterials

• Land Use/Planning Ij Mineral Resources B Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

• Transportation/Traffic B Tribal Cultural Utilities/Service Systems

Resources

• Mandatory Findingsof Significance

DeterminationBased on this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there

will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or

agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

• I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially

significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that

remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or

NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or

mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or

mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

&Z, 5/11 -zIgnatur Date

Aik Mite— 4•Printed Name Title

18

Environmental Checklist Aesthetics

Initial Study 19

Environmental Checklist

1 Aesthetics

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

Would the project have any of the following impacts?

a. Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista □ □ ■ □ b. Substantial damage to scenic resources,

including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway □ □ □ ■

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ■ □ □ □

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area ■ □ □ □

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

The project site is developed with a three-story, 43-foot tall commercial office building. The proposed project involves the addition of two stories, totaling five stories, and 72 feet in height. The surrounding area is developed with commercial and residential buildings along Wilshire Boulevard, Crescent Drive, and Rexford Drive. The topography of the area is generally flat and there are no scenic views available from or through the project site and views in the vicinity are generally urban in character.

The City’s General Plan Policy OS 6.1, Protection of Scenic Views, calls for protection of “scenic views and vistas from public places including City landmarks, hillside vistas and urban views of the City” (Beverly Hills 2010a). Beverly Hills does not have clearly defined scenic vistas; therefore, when analyzing potential scenic view impacts, views from public places (i.e. landmarks and hillsides) are taken into consideration. According to the Beverly Hills Local Register of Historic Properties, the nearest historical landmark is the Beverly Wilshire Hotel; however, at the distance of approximately 0.3 miles west of the project site, the existing urban development blocks street-level views of the project site from the Beverly Wilshire Hotel (Beverly Hills 2012a). Views of the surrounding area from the upper floors of the Beverly Wilshire Hotel would also not be impacted due to the distance separating these two sites. The nearest hillside landform with potential views of the project site and scenic vistas beyond is Greystone Mansion and Park, located approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site. Due to the approximate 350-foot difference in elevation between the project site and Greystone Mansion and Park, the proposed project would not obstruct views of the scenic vistas south of this hillside. In addition, since urban development surrounding the project site already obstructs street-level views of Beverly Wilshire Hotel and Greystone Mansion and Park from the project site, the proposed 27-foot height increase would not significantly


20

worsen current viewing conditions. Specifically, the height of existing urban development on the project site and in the vicinity of the site already obstructs pedestrians’ line-of-sight views of the nearest and hillside from sidewalks. Therefore, due to the project site’s location and distance from the nearest landmark and hillside vista, buildout of the proposed project and increased height would not substantially hinder urban views of the skyline from public viewing areas. Adverse impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a state scenic highway?

The nearest historical landmark is the Beverly Wilshire Hotel; however, at the distance of approximately 0.3 miles west of the project site, the project would not physically damage this historic building. In addition, the nearest state scenic highway is State Route 1 located along the Los Angeles County coast, with the nearest point approximately seven miles southwest of the project site (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2011). Therefore, the project would not damage scenic resources along a state scenic highway. There would be no impact and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

The following discussion is divided into subheadings that focus on temporary construction effects, long term visual effects, and shadow effects as they relate to visual character or quality of the site and surrounding area.

Temporary Construction Effects Construction activities would temporarily alter the visual quality of the site through demolition, the establishment of temporary construction fencing, removal of landscaping, minimal excavation activity associated with increasing the vertical capacity of the columns within the parking garage and building, and general building construction. Soil stockpiling is not expected to occur on-site. When soil removal is necessary from the site as a result of structural upgrades and soil removal for renovations to Crescent Drive Mini Park, the most appropriate destination for the soil will be sourced. If another project needs soil, it may be transported directly from the project site to satisfy the other property’s soil fill needs. Regardless, soil hauled from the site would comply with the City’s requirements regarding the hours during which it can be removed from the site. In addition, no soil taken from the site would be transported to a landfill.

Construction activities would also include the temporary storage of equipment and materials, potentially including placement of a crane or cranes during the construction of the upper levels of the building. Due to the temporary nature of construction, these activities would not permanently degrade or modify the existing aesthetic image of the neighborhood or generate substantial long-term contrast with the visual character of the surrounding area. Temporary impacts due to construction would be less than significant.

Long Term Visual Effects The project is currently occupied by a three-story (45-foot high) office building with a community park (Crescent Drive Mini Park) on the north side of the project site. The current building has multiple windows and reflective surfaces located at the main entrance of the building and wrapped around the building with a band of white metal cladding between each floor level. The buildings to the west, north,

Environmental Checklist Aesthetics

Initial Study 21

and south are all commercial buildings containing similar uses, contemporary architectural styles and range between three to six stories in height. Single-family residences that range from one- to two-stories in height are located to the east.

The proposed project involves exterior renovation and upper floor addition to the existing office building constructed in the 1980s. This renovation involves replacement of the exterior façade with new floor-to-ceiling glass on all four exterior façades. The existing black central glass rotunda would be replaced with curved frameless glazing with an interior spiraling staircase. The eastern wall of the proposed building, facing the existing single-family residential development, would primarily be made of plaster and marble, with the corners of the building being composed of the similar floor-to-ceiling glass as the other three façades. The proposed project would also include the addition of two stories, totaling five stories and building height of 72 feet. The project involves renovation of Crescent Drive Mini Park to include a painted steel picket fence and gate, renovated seating areas and walkways, and 23 new trees and shrubs. The proposed landscaping plan is shown in Figure 12.

The proposed 29-foot increase in height and new architectural design to the existing office building would noticeably change the building appearance and views along Wilshire Boulevard and N. Crescent Drive. Renovations to Crescent Drive Mini Park would also substantially change its current appearance. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the existing and proposed views of the building from Wilshire Boulevard and Crescent Drive. Although the proposed building would be similar in scale to the existing built environment, the modified design would change the visual character of the project site and would alter public and private views. This impact may be potentially significant and will be analyzed in an EIR.

Shadow Effects Shadow impacts are considered significant if the proposed project would “create a new source of shade or shadow which would adversely affect existing shade/shadow-sensitive structures or uses.” Facilities and operations sensitive to the effects of shading include solar collectors; nurseries; primarily outdoor-oriented retail uses (e.g., certain restaurants); or routinely useable outdoor spaces associated with recreational, institutional (e.g., schools), or residential land uses. These uses are considered sensitive because sunlight is important to their function, physical comfort, commerce, or combination thereof. The shadow-sensitive uses nearest to the project include an apartment building adjacent to Crescent Drive Mini Park to the north, a hotel approximately 100 feet west across N. Crescent Drive, and, single-family residences 25 feet to the east. The potential shade and shadow impacts associated with the proposed project will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project site is located in an urbanized area that includes various existing sources of light and glare, including street lights, security lighting, signage, parked vehicles, reflective building surfaces and vehicles entering and exiting the respective sites. The project site is currently built with many windows located at the main entrance of the building and on each floor level. Buildout of the proposed project would potentially increase glare from the building with the construction of two additional stories, and floor-to-ceiling glass along on the façade of the building on N. Crescent Drive, Wilshire Boulevard, and on the northern portion of the building facing Crescent Drive Mini Park. The eastern portion of the building façade would consist mostly of plaster with floor-to-ceiling glass at the northern and southern edges of the building. The use of lighting in the building would be more visible during the nighttime, due to the transparent characteristics of the floor-to-ceiling glass walls. The potential effect on nighttime views in the area would therefore be a potentially significantly impact due to a substantial increase in light


22

emitted from the building towards N. Crescent Drive and Wilshire Boulevard. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses north, northwest, and east of the project site. Therefore, because of the increase in glare during the day and light levels during the evening, project-related light and glare impacts may be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.


Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forest Resources

Initial Study 23

2 Agriculture and Forest Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land.


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use □ □ □ ■

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract □ □ □ ■

c. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)) □ □ □ ■

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use □ □ □ ■

e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use □ □ □ ■

a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section


24

4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?

Based on a review of the Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and Williamson Act maps, neither the project site nor adjacent properties are identified as any farmland type or enrolled in Williamson Act contracts, or support forest land or resources (California Department of Conservation [California DOC] 2016a; California DOC 2016b). The project site has been developed and is not in use for agricultural purposes. The site is not adjacent to agricultural land or forest land and the proposed project would not involve development that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. For these reasons, the project would have no impact with respect to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use; no conflicts with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts would occur; the project would not convert forest land to non-forest use and would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist Air Quality

Initial Study 25

3 Air Quality


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan ■ □ □ □

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation ■ □ □ □

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) ■ □ □ □

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations ■ □ □ □

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people □ □ ■ □

a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that applicable air quality standards are met, and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. The SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that provides a strategy for the attainment of state and federal air quality standards.

The project site is currently developed with a three-story commercial office building. The existing office building use generates vehicle trips that contribute to mobile air pollutant emissions. Renovation of the existing building involves the construction of two additional stories that would increase the total commercial square footage, increase employee numbers and vehicle trips. Construction is expected to have minimal excavations adjacent to some of the existing column footings within the building and parking garage to increase the vertical capacity of the existing foundations. Also, some excavation is expected adjacent to the existing elevator pits to deepen the pits to accommodate new elevators. The soil estimated export is 260 CY. No soil stockpiling is anticipated onsite. The vehicle trips associated with


26

the proposed project construction would generate short-term air pollutant emissions. The new commercial building area and the associated vehicle trips would generate long-term operational emissions, which could result in significant impacts. Emissions have the potential to contribute to an existing air quality violation or cumulatively considerable net increases of criteria pollutants for which the region is in non-attainment. Impacts may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are considered particularly sensitive to air pollution. Sensitive receptors include land uses that are more likely to be used by these population groups. Sensitive receptors include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas.

The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of toxic air contaminants (TAC). TAC emissions are mostly associated with industrial sources as well as with diesel exhaust. The proposed project involves commercial development that would not emit substantial levels of TACs. The proposed project may involve heavy truck usage associated with deliveries and trash hauling; however, heavy truck usage would be similar to existing and surrounding commercial uses and would not generate substantial TAC emissions. As discussed under subparts a, b, c of this section, the proposed project would generate short-term air pollutant emissions associated with construction, as well as long-term operational emissions, which could result in significant impacts that would include exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, impacts to surrounding sensitive receptors may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The proposed project would renovate and expand the existing commercial office building with a restaurant dining area, a screening room, and additional office space. Although the project would not expand the existing subterranean parking garage area, the project would include a re-configuration and re-painting of parking spaces to increase available parking from 317 spaces to 465 spaces.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project could generate odorous emissions from diesel exhaust generated by construction equipment. However, due to the temporary nature of such emissions and the highly diffusive properties of diesel exhaust, nearby receptors would not be adversely affected by diesel exhaust odors associated with project construction. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Restaurant uses have the potential to generate odors associated with cooking and food preparation. However, restaurants odors are not typically offensive and solid waste generated from the restaurant would be stored in designated areas and containers. In addition, restaurants are typically required to have ventilation systems that avoid substantial odor impacts. Furthermore, office, retail, and restaurant uses are not listed or identified as land uses associated with odor complaints within the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook that require analysis of odor impacts (SCAQMD 1999). Substantial objectionable odors are normally associated with uses such as agriculture, wastewater treatment, industrial facilities, or landfills. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis in the EIR is not warranted.


Environmental Checklist Biological Resources

Initial Study 27

4 Biological Resources


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service □ ■ □ □

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service □ □ ■ □

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means □ □ ■ □

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites □ ■ □ □

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance □ □ ■ □

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ ■ □

a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?


28

d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The project site is located in an urbanized area of Beverly Hills and has a 12,046-sf public park (Crescent Drive Mini Park) at the northern area of the site. The proposed project involves improvements to the park that would include new plantings, trees, sitting areas, and lighting. The City of Beverly Hills General Plan, Chapter 5: Open Space, contains policies intended to protect, enhance, and expand open space resources, remaining natural areas, and significant wildlife and vegetation in the City (Goal OS 1) including nesting birds (Beverly Hills 2010a). Because the project site is currently developed, it is unlikely that the proposed project would affect sensitive vegetation communities. In addition, the project site is not located adjacent to any hillside areas of the City, which may also be important habitat areas of local wildlife.

The County of Los Angeles has also designated areas of the County as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) and Coastal Resource Areas (CRAs) in the 2035 Los Angeles County General Plan. The nearest SEA to the project site is Griffith Park located approximately six miles northeast of the site. The nearest CRA to the project site are the Ballona Wetlands located approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the site (County of Los Angeles 2015). Therefore, due to the distance from these designated areas, the project would not interfere with established sensitive habitats or movement of any wildlife species.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is one of the nation’s oldest environmental laws passed in 1918. Under the provisions of the MBTA, it is unlawful “by any means or manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or) kill” any migratory birds except as permitted by regulations issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The term “take” is defined by USFWS regulation to mean to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect” any migratory bird or any part, nest or egg of any migratory bird covered by the conventions, or to attempt those activities. Migratory birds include all native birds in the United States, except those non-migratory species such as quail and turkey that are managed by individual states.

There are 12 ornamental palm trees located along Crescent Drive and Wilshire Boulevard. In addition, there are four trees in the northern area of the project site in Crescent Drive Mini Park. No street trees would be removed as part of the proposed project; however, the proposed improvements to the park would include removal and replacement of existing trees. Although unlikely in an urban area, there is potential for migratory bird species to nest in these trees and on the ground. Species with potential to occur at the project site include house finch, California towhee, common yellowthroat, bushtit and mourning dove. There is potential for these and other migratory species to be present during the nesting season at the project site. These species are protected by the MBTA during the nesting season, which typically extends from February 1 to August 15, as defined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan, CDFG, and the MBTA by avoiding any impacts to nesting birds that could otherwise occur from construction activities associated with the proposed project.

Mitigation Measure Implementation of this measure and compliance with MBTA requirements would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level by ensuring that any active bird nests on or adjacent to the site are not disturbed by project construction.

Environmental Checklist Biological Resources

Initial Study 29

BIO-1 Nesting and Breeding Birds. Vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance shall occur outside the nesting bird season, which is typically defined between February 1 and August 31 (as early as January 1 for some raptors). In the event that vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance occur within the nesting bird season, a pre-activity nesting bird survey shall be conducted not more than one week prior to vegetation clearing to determine the locations of any potential nest sites. The nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a city-approved qualified biologist experienced with bird identification and bird behavior. The results of the nesting bird survey(s) shall be documented in a brief letter report and submitted to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), who enforce the Fish and Game Code, prior to commencement of initial project activities. If an active nest is detected, a species-specific nesting bird protection plan shall be prepared by a city-approved biologist and included in the documentation to the City and CDFW. In preparation of the nesting bird protection plan, the CDFW South Coast Region (Region 5) shall be contacted to determine if additional avoidance measures may be necessary, in which these measures shall be included in the plan. The plan shall also include a schedule for a qualified biologist to conduct regular monitoring of the active bird nest(s). The bird nest(s) shall be monitored regularly until the nest is no longer considered active and buffers restricting project activities can be removed. In general, a minimum 100-foot buffer around the nest site shall be avoided by project activities; however, buffers around nests may be expanded if project activities have the potential to disturb nesting activities at greater distances. Raptor nests may require up to a 500-foot buffer around nest sites, as typically recommended by the CDFW. The nesting bird protection plan shall be implemented following approval of the Planning Director (in consultation with CDFW).

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED

b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by pavement and urban structures (office buildings, residential buildings, and commercial buildings). There is no potential for adverse effects to protected habitat or wetlands either directly or indirectly. According to the Wetlands Mapper, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, federally protected wetlands or waters as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) do not occur on-site (USFWS 2017). No threatened, endangered or rare species or their habitats; locally designated species; locally designated natural communities; wetland habitats; or wildlife corridors are known to exist on the site. The site is also not within the area of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Under the proposed project, Crescent Drive Mini Park would be renovated with new shrub plantings, trees, and sitting areas. The types of trees currently within the park are tipuana tipu, which are not included on the City’s list of protected trees, and are not considered rare or endangered species. The


30

removal and replacement of the trees would not conflict with local policies or ordinances regarding tree preservation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted.


Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources

Initial Study 31

5 Cultural Resources


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 ■ □ □ □

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5 ■ □ □ □

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? ■ □ □ □

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ■ □ □ □

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) will prepare a Cultural Resources Study for the project in accordance with the provisions of CEQA that will be included in the EIR. For the purposes of this Initial Study, Rincon conducted a cultural records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. The purpose of the records search was to identify all previously recorded cultural resources, as well as previously conducted cultural resources studies for the project site and a 0.25-mile radius around it. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the California Points of Historical Interest list. The results of the CHRIS records search are provided in Appendix A (Cultural Resources Data and Records) and will also be included in the Cultural Resources Study.

The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (BHMC Section 10-3-3212) authorizes the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) to recommend the nomination of properties as local landmarks to the City Council. The Council may designate local landmarks and historic districts by the procedures outlined in the ordinance. An eligible property may be nominated and designated as a landmark if it satisfies the requirements set forth below.

A. A landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements:

1. It is at least forty five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance; 2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an

architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;

3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and 4. It has continuous historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is

reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purpose of this article.


32

B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:

1. It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places;

2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect; 3. It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance, and was

directly connected to a momentous event in the person’s endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;

4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;

5. It is an iconic property; or

6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property (Ord. 15-0-2682, effective 11-19-2015).

a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

The cultural resources records search did not identify any archaeological or historical resources located on the project site. The project site contains one structure built in 1989. The subject property was not surveyed or evaluated as part of the study as buildings that are less than 45 years of age are not typically eligible for historic designation in accordance with CEQA unless they have achieved exceptional significance. Rincon examined photographs of the property and conducted preliminary title research on the building to conclude that it does not merit consideration as an exceptionally significant property under any of the CRHR significance criteria.

Although the building is less than 45 years in age, the architect responsible for the design of the existing building is Gin Dan Wong, who is considered a Master Architect by the City (Beverly Hills 2016b). Therefore, the building may be considered a cultural resource in the City and a possible contributor to a commercial district of Master Architect designed office buildings along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor.

The records search and city survey data noted that the area surrounding the project is developed with commercial and residential properties. None of these properties were previously identified as eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or for local designation. Nonetheless, due to the status of the original architect of the building, further analysis shall be conducted to review the significance of the existing building as a potential cultural resource. Therefore, impacts may be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the Cultural Resources Study and an EIR.


b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The SCICC records search identified two cultural resources adjacent to the project site and seven cultural resources within a 0.25-mile area surrounding the project site (the search results are provided in Appendix A). Of these nine resources, the two cultural resources adjacent to the site are not eligible for NRHP/CRHR designation. In addition, five of resources within 0.25-mile of the site are potentially eligible, one resource is eligible, and another resource’s eligibility for NRHP/CRHR designation remains unknown (see Appendix A). The records search additionally identified two previously conducted cultural resources

Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources

Initial Study 33

studies located in the project site, three studies adjacent to the project site, and three studies within a 0.25-mile buffer of the project site. The cultural resources records search did not identify any archaeological or historical resources located in the project site.

The project includes the renovation of an existing building and park. From a structural perspective, the building and parking garage are expected to have minimal excavations adjacent to some of the existing column footings to increase the vertical capacity of the existing foundations. Excavation activities would typically not extend below the depth of the existing footings since construction would involve thickening the slab-on-grade directly over the existing footings. Also, some excavation is expected adjacent to the existing elevator pits to deepen the pits to accommodate new elevators. Excavation activity, which is limited to a minimum horizontal dimension from their associated foundations, would disturb the engineered soil that was graded and compacted during the construction of the existing building. However, the majority of the existing slab-on-grade is not expected to be disturbed under the proposed project. In addition, the park sits atop the roof of the subterranean parking garage and any movement of soil for the park redesign would not be classified as excavation. Although ground disturbance associated with project development is expected to be minimal, the potential for encountering unanticipated cultural materials during development activities is possible.

The potential for the recovery of human remains is also a possibility during ground disturbing activities. Human burials outside of formal cemeteries often occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. Human burial remains, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment and protection in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code. Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protects them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. Ground disturbing activity from project development has the potential to impact unanticipated cultural and archeological resources. Impacts to archeological, paleontological, and human remains will be further analyzed in an EIR.



34

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils

Initial Study 35

6 Geology and Soils


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault □ □ □ ■

2. Strong seismic ground shaking □ □ ■ □ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction □ □ ■ □

4. Landslides □ □ ■ □ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss

of topsoil □ □ ■ □ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is

made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse □ □ ■ □

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property □ □ ■ □

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater □ □ □ ■

Amec Foster Wheeler (AFW) performed the geotechnical investigation for the original construction of the existing office building, the results of which were submitted in a report dated February 1987. AFW prepared a follow-up Geotechnical Consultation letter for the proposed project in October 2016 (AFW 2016). The following analysis is based on the information contained in the Geotechnical Consultation letter, which is attached as Appendix B.


36

a1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

The project site is not located in an area that has been identified as having a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone map (California DOC 1986). The closest active fault with the potential for fault surface rupture is the Newport-Inglewood Fault, located 1.1 mile southwest of the site; however, no known fault lines cut through the site (AFW 2016). Therefore, the project site would not be subject to ground rupture from a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted

NO IMPACT

a2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?

No known faults cross the project site and the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Nonetheless, the project site is located in the highly seismic Southern California region where several fault systems are considered to be active or potentially active. Nearby active faults include the Hollywood Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, and the Newport-Inglewood Fault (Beverly Hills 2010c). The proposed site may be subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults designated as active or potentially active in the vicinity of the project site. This hazard is common throughout California and the proposed building would pose no greater risk to public safety or destruction of property than is already present for the region. Development in Beverly Hills is required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC). The CBC and UBC regulate the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking. The impact to people, buildings, or structures on the project site from strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced by the required conformance with applicable building codes, and accepted engineering practices. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


a3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Liquefaction is a condition that occurs when unconsolidated, saturated soils change to a near-liquid state during ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine- to medium-grained sands, and most commonly occurs in areas where the groundwater table is less than 10 to 30 feet below the ground surface, although analysis is typically performed to a depth of 50 feet. When these sediments are shaken, a sudden increase in pore water pressure causes the soils to lose strength and behave as a liquid. Liquefaction-related effects can include loss of bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading and flow failures. The project site is located in a seismically active region and is subject to ground shaking from an earthquake event along major active regional faults. However, the project site is not mapped in the State of California’s Seismic Hazard Zones or in the liquefaction zone on the Beverly Hills’ Seismic Hazards map (California DOC 1999; Beverly Hills 2010c). Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils

Initial Study 37

a4. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

The topography of the project site and its immediate built environment is relatively flat. According to the State of California’s Seismic Hazard Zones map and the landslide zone on the Beverly Hills’ Seismic Hazards map, the site is not located in an area identified to have a potential for seismic slope instability (California DOC 1999; Beverly Hills 2010c). There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. The project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The project site is generally flat, which limits the potential for substantial soil erosion. In addition, the site was previously graded and excavated for development of the existing building. Therefore, major grading and excavation activities, which would typically introduce the highest potential for erosion, would not occur for construction of the proposed project. Rather, the building and parking garage are expected to have minimal excavations adjacent to some of the existing column footings to increase the vertical capacity of the existing foundations. Excavation activities would typically not extend below the depth of the existing footings since construction would involve thickening the slab-on-grade directly over the existing footings. Also, some excavation is expected adjacent to the existing elevator pits to deepen the pits to accommodate new elevators. However, the majority of the existing slab-on-grade is not expected to be disturbed under the current scope of structural work. In addition, Crescent Drive Mini Park sits atop the roof of the parking garage below and any movement of soil for the park redesign would not be classified as excavation.

Although development of the proposed project would not include grading or major excavation activities for additional parking, other construction activity associated with site development and renovation of the existing office building, including the planting of new landscaping within Crescent Drive Mini Park, may result in the erosion of soils from wind and water during construction. However, the use of standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the construction site, as required by BHMC Section 9-4-507, would reduce any potentially significant soil erosion impacts. Such BMPs include use of plastic coverings on unprotected areas to eliminate erosion; removal of any sediments tracked offsite by construction vehicles; and use of temporary sediment barriers where necessary (Beverly Hills 2016a). As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, dust control measures would be implemented during construction as required by the SCAQMD Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions may include watering exposed surfaces, which is also effective for reducing soil erosion. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

The project site does not have any conditions that pose unusual risks relating to soils or other potential secondary seismic hazards. Subsidence can occur as a result of excessive groundwater or petroleum withdrawals which cause the ground surface to sink. Subsidence often occurs in alluvial valleys filled to great depth with alluvial fan and lake-deposited sediments. Subsidence produces cracks in pavements and buildings and may dislocate wells, pipelines, and water drains. Beverly Hills has experienced limited subsidence over the years (Beverly Hills 2010c). However, development in Beverly Hills is required to


38

adhere to the UBC and CBC. The CBC and UBC regulate the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of adverse soil conditions. In addition, the project’s geotechnical report includes guidelines and recommendations for the design of new foundations, analysis of the existing foundations, and for seismic design parameters in accordance with current code requirements (see Appendix B, AFW 2016). Impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?

Expansive soils are primarily comprised of clays that increase in volume when water is absorbed and shrink when dry. Expansive soils are of concern because building foundations may rise during the rainy season and fall during dry periods in response to the clay’s action. If movement varies under different parts of the building, structural portions of the building may become distorted. According to the City’s Safety Element, the City has clay soils that have the potential for expansion and would swell and shrink with changes in moisture content (Beverly Hills 2010c). However, the proposed project is a renovation of an existing building. Concerns involving expansive soils would have been addressed during construction of the existing building and the subterranean garage. In addition, redevelopment activities and construction of the proposed project would continue to adhere to the requirements in the UBC and CBC. Impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

The project would be served by the City’s wastewater disposal system. The project does not include a septic system; therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility. No impact would occur. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Initial Study 39

7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment □ □ ■ □

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases □ □ ■ □

Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” which is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat, known as infrared radiation, back towards the atmosphere. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) may be adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, and as a result may be contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature.

GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Since 1750, it is estimated that the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased over by 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs may affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere and by contributing emissions to the atmosphere. Potential impacts of global climate change in California may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2009).

California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires ARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.


40

Senate Bill (SB) 97, signed in August 2007, acknowledges that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. In March 2010, the California Resources Agency (Resources Agency) adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted guidelines give lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.

Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing ARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the state’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, ARB adopted final regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. Most recently, on September 8, 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, formally codifying the 40 percent GHG emission reduction target adopted by Governor Brown in April 2015 through an executive order (B-30-15) into California legislation. SB 32 became effective on January 1, 2017 and requires the ARB to develop technologically feasible and cost effective regulations to achieve the targeted 40 percent GHG emission reduction. The ARB is currently working to update the Scoping Plan to provide a framework for achieving the 2030 target.

The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. In the latest guidance provided by the SCAQMD’s GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group in September 2010, SCAQMD has considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects (SCAQMD, 2010). The draft-tiered approach is outlined in the meeting minutes, dated September 29, 2010.

Tier 1 - If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered.

Tier 2 - Consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the proposed project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate.

Tier 3 - Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 3,000 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year for commercial projects.

The Association of Environmental Planners (AEP) Climate Change Committee white paper also identified seven thresholds for project operational emissions. The following four methods described are the most widely used evaluation criteria.

1 Consistency with a qualified GHG reduction plan. For a project located within a jurisdiction that has adopted a qualified GHG reduction plan (as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5), GHG emissions would be less than significant if the project is anticipated by the plan and fully consistent with the plan. However, projects with a horizon year beyond 2020 should not tier from a plan that is qualified up to 2020.


Initial Study 41

2 Efficiency thresholds. Land use sector efficiency thresholds are currently based on AB 32 targets and should not be used for projects with a horizon year beyond 2020. Efficiency metrics should be adjusted for 2030 and include applicable land uses in order to be consistent with SB 32.

3 Bright line thresholds. There are two types of bright line thresholds: a. Standalone thresholds: Emissions exceeding standalone thresholds would be considered

significant. b. Screening thresholds: Emissions exceeding screening thresholds would require evaluation

using a second tier threshold, such as an efficiency threshold or other threshold concept to determine whether project emissions would be considered significant.

However, projects with a horizon year beyond 2020 should take into account the type and amount of land use projects and their expected emissions out to the year 2030.

4 Percent below “Business as Usual” (BAU). GHG emissions would be less than significant if the project reduces BAU emissions by the same amount as the statewide 2020 reductions. However, this method is no longer recommended following the Newhall Ranch case ruling, which provided the opportunity for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts under CEQA.

Beverly Hills has adopted a Sustainable City Plan (SCP) which includes initiatives, goals, and actions to reduce the City’s GHG emissions; however, the SCP is not a qualified GHG reduction plan and does not set a 2030 goal. Therefore, the SCP is not consistent with SB 32. At this time the updated Scoping Plan is still in draft form and the final state reduction measures and methodologies are not clear. Therefore, there is no applicable per person efficiency threshold. Furthermore, due to the findings of the Newhall Ranch ruling, a business as usual approach was not followed. Therefore, an applicable bright line threshold was chosen. Because the previously established threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e was not developed to meet the targets established by SB 32, it must be adjusted to meet the new, more conservative, emission reduction target. As such, to be consistent with SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15, the threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e was reduced by 40 percent to establish a threshold for this project, consistent with the 40 percent reduction required under SB 32. Therefore, for the purposes of SB 32, the threshold for this project is 1,800 MT of CO2e per year. In addition, the proposed project is evaluated for consistency with applicable goals in the City’s SCP as well as the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2016-2040 (RTP/SCS).

a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

The proposed project would involve the renovation of an existing three-story commercial office building that would generate short-term GHG emissions associated with construction, as well as long-term operational emissions associated with the new building square footage, including additional vehicle trip emissions. GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1. Operational emissions from the existing building were modeled to account for the GHG emissions associated with the current use and design of the building, including the parking lot. Construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project, including renovations to Crescent Drive Mini Park and increased number of parking spaces, were modeled to quantify the estimated increase in GHG emissions. However, the project would be designed to a LEED Gold standard by implementing energy saving strategies such as high performance glazing on the east façade. Therefore, as shown Table 4, the net change in GHG emissions associated with the project would not exceed thresholds. The analysis focuses on CO2, N2O, and CH4 because these are the GHG emissions that onsite development would generate in the largest quantities. Emissions of


42

fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 would not be significant since fluorinated gases are primarily associated with industrial processes. Complete CalEEMod results and assumptions can be viewed in Appendix C.

Based on the CalEEMod results, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 363.6 MT CO2e (shown in Table 2). Construction CO2e emissions would occur over an approximate two year construction period, beginning in April 2018. When amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project), construction of the project would generate about 12.2 MT of CO2e per year.

Table 2 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions Construction Year Annual Emissions MT/yr CO2e

2018 338.5

2019 26.1

Total 364.6

Amortized over 30 years 12.2

See Appendix C for CalEEMod worksheets

Table 3 combines the construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with development of the project. As shown in Table 4, the net change of annual emissions from new construction of proposed additions and operation of the building would total an estimated 1,488.7 MT of CO2e per year. These emissions do not exceed the adjusted 1,800 MT of CO2e per year threshold.

Table 3 Combined Annual GHG Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions MT/yr CO2e

Construction 12.2

Operational

Area 0.2

Energy 562.7

Solid Waste 49.7

Water 78.2

Mobile

CO2 and CH4 752.6

N2O 33.2

Proposed Project Emissions 1,488.8

See Appendix C for CalEEMod worksheets.


Initial Study 43

Table 4 Net Change in GHG Emissions Emission Source Annual Emissions MT/yr CO2e

Existing Operational Emissions 1,906.5

Proposed Project Emissions 1,488.8

Total 3,395.3

Net Change (from existing) 1,488.8

Threshold 1,800

Exceeds Threshold? No


While Beverly Hills does not have an applicable GHG reduction plan or 2030 GHG emissions goal, project-related emissions do not exceed the adjusted 1,800 MT of CO2e per year threshold emissions. Furthermore, this project has shown consistency with the applicable RTP/SCS GHG reduction strategies and the City’s SCP as discussed below in Impact b. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the State’s 2030 GHG reduction goals as outlined in SB 32 and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Beverly Hills adopted a SCP, which contains goals intended to support sustainable development within the City. Implementation of this plan would contribute to a reduction in the City’s overall GHG emissions. The proposed project is particularly consistent with the Goal 3 Energy, which encourages “the use of energy in a clean and efficient manner and the use of renewable resources.” The proposed project would be designed to a LEED Gold standard by implementing energy saving strategies such as high performance glazing on the east façade, which has a low Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and thus can significantly reduce the cooling energy use. The design and implementation of the proposed project would comply with Cal Green Building Standards, which includes measures to reduce emissions. The project would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 that limits reactive organic gases (ROGs) from building architectural coatings to 50 g/L.

Table 5 illustrates the project’s consistency with relevant goals and strategies embodied in the 2016 RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. The preparation process includes input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non-profit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders within the counties of Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. (SCAG, RTP/SCS, 2016)


44

Table 5 Consistency with Applicable SCAG RTP/SCS GHG Emission Reduction Strategies Land Use Strategies Project Consistency

Focus new growth around transit The 2016 RTP/SCS land use pattern reinforces the trend of focusing growth in the region’s High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs). While many residents and employees within half a mile of a transit stop or corridor can walk or bike to transit, not all of these areas are targeted for new growth and/or land use changes. The 2016 RTP/SCS assumes that 46 percent of new housing and 55 percent of new employment locations developed between 2012 and 2040 will be located within HQTAs, which comprise only three percent of the total land area in the SCAG region.

Consistent Renovation of the existing building would focus growth of a commercial office building, including a restaurant dining area, along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor, one of the City’s main arterial roads. The project is also located approximately 100 feet north across Wilshire Boulevard from a Metro Line 20 bus stop and 0.23 mile east from a Metro Rapid Line 720 stop , which would also incentivize employees to take public transportation. In addition, Metro’s Purple Line Extension project includes a planned station at the Wilshire Boulevard/Rodeo Drive intersection, which is located approximately 0.3 mile west of the project site.

Plan for growth around livable corridors The Livable Corridors strategy seeks to create neighborhood retail nodes that would be walking and biking destinations by integrating three different planning components: 1. Transit improvements

2. Active transportation improvements (i.e. improved safety for walking and biking)

3. Land use policies that include the development of mixed-use retail centers at key nodes and better integrate different types of retail uses.

Consistent The proposed project would be located in an urban area and in close proximity to commercial and residential uses. The site is transit-oriented as it is located approximately 0.02 miles north of a bus stop, which provides for public access to retail, commercial uses, and services throughout Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Downtown Los Angeles. In addition, N. Crescent Drive also includes bike facilities in the form of sharrows (shared lanes used for both motorized vehicles and bicyclists). As such, project employees and restaurant patrons would have accessibility to other modes of transportation.

Provide more options for short trips 38 percent of all trips in the SCAG region are less than three miles. The 2016 RTP/SCS provides two strategies to promote the use of active transport for short trips. Neighborhood Mobility Areas are meant to reduce short trips in a suburban setting, while “complete communities” support the creation of mixed-use districts in strategic growth areas and are applicable to an urban setting.

Consistent The proposed project would involve construction of a commercial office building adjacent to residential development and approximately 100 feet north from Metro Line 20 and approximately 0.23 mile east of a Metro Rapid Line 720 bus stop. In addition, the project is located along N. Crescent Drive which includes bike sharrows. As such, alternative means of transportation (i.e. biking, walking, and busing) would be available for accessibility to the project site.

Transportation Strategies Project Consistency

Preserve our existing transit system Ensuring that the existing transportation system is operating efficiently is critical for the success of HQTAs, Livable Corridors, and other land use strategies outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS.

Consistent The project site is located in an area surrounded by existing development. The proposed project would be infill development near existing transit roadways; however, construction is not expected to result in temporary roadblocks.


Initial Study 45

Transit Initiatives Project Consistency

Develop first-mile/last-mile strategies on a local level to provide an incentive for making trips by transit, bicycling, walking, or neighborhood electric vehicle or other ZEV options.

Consistent The proposed project would be located approximately 0.02 mile north from a Metro Line 20 bus stop. In addition, the project is located along N. Crescent Drive which includes bike sharrows. The location of the project would incentivize project employees, restaurant patrons, and other visitors to use alternative means of transportation to access the project site.

Other Initiatives Project Consistency

Reduce emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures. Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy.

Consistent The design and implementation of the proposed project would comply with CALGreen Building Standards, which includes measures to reduce emissions. In addition, the project is located along N. Crescent Drive which includes bike sharrows. The project would also comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 that limits ROGs from building architectural coatings to 50 g/ L.

Source: SCAG, RTP/SCS, 2016.

The project would be constructed in accordance with the California Green Building Standards, which require energy efficiency, water efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. The project would also be located approximately 100 feet from a Metro Line 20 bus stop, and 0.23 mile from a Metro Line 720 bus stop. The project’s location along N. Crescent Drive, which includes bike lanes, would also incentivize project employees, restaurant patrons, and other visitors to use alternative means of transportation to the project site. The project would also include renovations to the publicly accessible Crescent Drive Mini Park, which is open to all patrons and employees of the proposed project, and could reduce vehicle trips to parks in the vicinity.

The project would be consistent with applicable land use and zoning designations upon approval of the proposed General Plan amendment to change the project site from Low Density Commercial General to Medium Density Commercial, and Zone Change to apply the Entertainment Office Planned Development Overlay Zone 2 to the project site. The project would not conflict with any State regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions statewide, and would be consistent with applicable plans and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any plan, policy, or legislation related to GHG emissions and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.



46


Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 47

8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


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 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school □ □ ■ □

d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ □ □ ■

e. For a project located in 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area □ □ □ ■

f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it 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 □ □ □ ■

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 residences are intermixed with wildlands □ □ □ ■


48

a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Would the project 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?

The proposed project would involve the renovation of an existing office building. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the existing building was constructed in 1989. However, the use of asbestos-containing materials for fireproofing and insulation purposes was banned by the EPA in 1973; the consumer use of lead-based paints were banned by the federal government in 1978; and manufacturing of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, (i.e. from light fixtures) was banned the by federal government in 1979 (U.S. EPA 2017a). Therefore, the presence of these hazardous materials in the existing building is unlikely given the year of construction.

A mix of uses is proposed within the renovated structure, including a restaurant, a screening room, office space, and three levels of subterranean parking. The proposed project would not involve the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials other than those typically used for maintenance and landscaping. Potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used during construction of the project. However, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during the construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Materials Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

The school nearest to the project site is Beverly Vista School, located approximately 0.2 mile south of the project site. Horace Mann School is located approximately 0.8 mile east of the project site. The proposed project involves renovation of an existing office building and operation of commercial office uses do not emit or involve the handling of hazardous materials. The transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during the construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The following databases and listings compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked (February 22, 2017) for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site:

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) o Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System

(CERCLIS) / Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) / Envirofacts database search

Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 49

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) o GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and other cleanup sites

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) o Envirostor database for hazardous waste facilities or known contamination sites o Cortese list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites

The project site is not located on or adjacent to any known hazardous or contaminated sites. The EPA is retiring the CERCLIS database and is replacing it with SEMS. The SEMS database search did not produce any results associated with the project site, indicating that the site is free of known hazards and contaminants (U.S. EPA 2017b).

A search of the Envirostor database did not identify any hazardous waste facilities or other cleanup sites within 1,000 feet of the project site. The Envirostor listing nearest to the site is approximately 0.75 mile to the north at 9315 Civic Center Drive. This property has been identified as having possible arsenic contamination. The contaminated site is currently owned by the Beverly Hills Land Company (BHLC) and was previously owned by Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR). UPRR entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement with DTSC in 2004 for to implement a remedial investigation, risk assessment, and removal action work plan (DTSC 2007a). Potential impacts to the project site would not occur due to the distance of the cleanup site from the proposed project. In addition, there are no hazardous waste and substance sites in Beverly Hills according to the Cortese list (DTSC 2007b).

According to GeoTracker, a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup site was located on the project site. However, this parking lot gasoline contamination case was closed as of November 2013 and no leaks have since been reported (SWRCB 2015). Another listed LUST cleanup site is located approximately 300 feet southwest of the project site at the former Chevron gasoline station, which is now the location of an East West Bank branch, for potential contamination from a non-petroleum hydrocarbon or other solvent. However, the case was closed as of September 2004 and no leaks have since been reported (SWRCB 2015). Therefore, given the results of the database searches, the potential impacts related to hazardous material sites would be less than significant.

NO IMPACT

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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is located approximately 4.3 miles northeast of the Santa Monica Airport. The project site is not located in an area covered by an airport land use plan, nor is it located in the vicinity of a private air strip. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The project applicant would be required to comply with all applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the Beverly Hills police and fire departments. Construction activities associated with the project would not include permanent or temporary street closures. The proposed project would not involve the development of structures that


50

could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

h. Would the project 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 residences are intermixed with wildlands?

The project site and surrounding areas are located in an urbanized setting. Flammable brush, grass, or dense trees do not exist on the project site. Prior to final plan approvals, the City would require the project applicant to comply with all applicable codes, regulations, and standard conditions of approval for fire protection. The applicant would be also required to provide proof of compliance with all applicable building and fire code requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to, types of roofing materials, building construction, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, fire sprinkler systems, and other hazard reduction programs, as set forth by the Beverly Hills Fire Department (BHFD) and the Uniform Fire Code. Therefore, significant impacts to people or structures as the result of wildland fires would not occur. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality

Initial Study 51

9 Hydrology and Water Quality


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements □ □ ■ □

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) □ □ ■ □

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite □ □ ■ □

e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff □ □ ■ □

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality □ □ ■ □ g. Place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area

as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map □ □ □ ■

h. Place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows □ □ □ ■


52


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam □ □ ■ □

j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow □ □ ■ □

a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. EPA has established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control both construction and operation (occupancy) storm water discharges. In California, the State Water Quality Control Board administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements. The project would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting system. Under the conditions of the permit, the project applicant would be required to eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges, develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project construction activities, and perform inspections of the SWPPP measures and control practices to ensure conformance. The SWPPP identifies BMPs that control surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. The applicant would be required to control pollutant discharge by utilizing BMPs such as the Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) and the Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) in order to avoid discharging pollutants into the storm drain system. BMPs would be required during general operation of the project to ensure that storm water runoff meets the established water quality standards and waste discharge requirements by implementing Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs. The state permit also specifies that construction activities must meet all applicable provisions of Sections 30 and 402 of the CWA. Conformance with Section 402 of the CWA would ensure that the proposed project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, substantially decrease groundwater, or interfere with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Beverly Hills is located on the Central Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin. The project site is located in the Hollywood Sub-basin, which lies beneath the northeastern part of the Coastal Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin. Currently, the City receives about ten percent of its water supply from this groundwater resource.

Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality

Initial Study 53

The existing commercial building currently operates a groundwater dewatering system located on the third subterranean parking level. The dewatering is necessary to protect the integrity of the building structure from rising groundwater. Discharge from the site is currently regulated under the General NPDES permit, consisting of the Order No. R4-2013-0095 and Monitoring and Reporting Program No. CI-6904, issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). Analytical results of representative groundwater samples are submitted regularly to the LARWQCB in order to continue enrollment under the General NPDES Permit. Since dewatering activities are regulated and monitored by the NPDES permit, monitoring program, and the LARWQCB, development under the proposed project would not result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the groundwater table. The project would not result in an exceedance of safe yield or a significant depletion of groundwater supplies, nor would it increase the need for on-site dewatering. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including by altering the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite?

d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite?

The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing office building located in an urbanized area of Beverly Hills. According to the Technical Background Report for the General Plan Update, the City is situated within the Ballona Creek Watershed. The City’s storm drain system is designed to prevent flooding by carrying away excess rainwater from the City streets to the ocean via Ballona Creek. The project site is located within Region 2 of the City’s hydrologic regions as designated by the Storm Drain System Management Plan, which drains the south-central area of the City to the Rexford Channel (Beverly Hills 2005). The Rexford Channel is an underground channel that is part of the City’s drainage system and would not be distorted or altered by any runoff from construction or operation of the proposed project. No other surface water features are identified in the project area.

The applicant would be required to comply with BHMC Section 9-4-506, which requires the implementation of BMPs (Beverly Hills 2016a). Such BMPs include use of catch basin protection and sediment control BMPs during construction and excavation. BMPs for post-construction should be evaluated and then implemented to reduce urban runoff contribution to the storm drain system. Such BMPs include use of plastic coverings on unprotected areas to eliminate erosion; removal of any sediments tracked offsite by construction vehicles; and use of temporary sediment barriers where necessary. These construction and erosion control practices would reduce the potential for adverse effects caused by excavation and general construction. In particular, the proposed project would not adversely alter the water quality of the Ballona Creek Wetlands.

Due to the existing building on the project site, two additional floors would not introduce new paved areas to the extent that the rate or amount of surface runoff would substantially increase. The project would, however, include renovations to the adjacent Crescent Drive Mini Park that would alter the area of impervious surfaces. Currently, the park is an impervious area. Although planting areas are pervious at the top, percolating water would eventually hit an impervious surface at the structural deck and drain to a site storm drain. Under existing conditions, the park consists of 2,213 sf of paving and 8,902 sf of landscaping. Under the proposed project, the total paved area would increase to 4,200 sf and landscaped area would decrease to 6,915 sf. Regardless, as under existing conditions, stormwater would be diverted to the existing storm drainage system. Therefore, the proposed changes to the impervious surface area


54

would not result in a substantial increase in stormwater runoff. In addition, renovation of Crescent Drive Mini Park would not result in flooding on- or off-site. Impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map?

h. Would the project place in a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

The proposed project would renovate the existing commercial office building and park area; no residential housing is proposed. The project site is located in Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06037C1585F for the City, which is an area outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain (FEMA 2008). In addition, the project site is also not located in a flood area on the City’s High Risk Flood Areas map (Beverly Hills 2010c). The project would not place housing or other structures in a 100-year flood hazard area, nor would it impede or redirect flood flows. There would be no impact and no further analysis of this issue in an EIR is warranted.

NO IMPACT

i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding including that occurs as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

The City lies in the inundation path of the Lower Franklin Canyon Dam, which is located north of the City. In the event of a breach of the Lower Franklin Reservoir, the residential area north of Carmelita Avenue would be exposed to immediate and severe danger. Below that point, the danger diminishes rapidly (Beverly Hills 2010c). The project site is not located in the residential area north of Carmelita Avenue and would not be significantly affected by dam inundation. Impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

The project site is located approximately seven miles inland of the Pacific Ocean at an approximate elevation of 215 feet above mean sea level; therefore, the risk of a tsunami is negligible. The project site is flat and surrounded by residential and commercial development away from crests and very steep ridges. According to the City’s Safety Element, mudflows and seiches are not identified as issues for the City (Beverly Hills 2010c). Therefore, the project site is located in a low hazard area for a tsunami, seiche, and mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning

Initial Study 55

10 Land Use and Planning


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Physically divide an established community □ □ □ ■ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan,

policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect ■ □ □ □

c. Conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan □ □ □ ■

a. Would the project physically divide an established community?

The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing office building. The existing office building is comprised of three stories with three levels of subterranean parking. The proposed project would construct two additional stories and utilize the three existing levels of subterranean parking. The project would be compatible with the existing use of the site and would not create conflicts with surrounding land uses, which consist of commercial offices, restaurants, retail, banks, and hotels to the west and south, a hotel and multi-family homes to the north, an assisted living facility to the northwest, and single-family homes to the east. No new through streets are proposed and project development, including landscaping improvements to Crescent Drive Mini Park, would be located within the project site. Therefore, the project would not divide an established community and there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT

b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The project site is designated as Low Density Commercial General by the City’s General Plan, and is zoned Commercial District (C-3) (Beverly Hills 2008a; Beverly Hills 2008b). The northern 12,046 sf area of the project site is designated Parks and is occupied by Crescent Drive Mini Park (Beverly Hills 2008b). The proposed five-story, 72-foot high, commercial office building would have a FAR of 2.75. The proposed commercial office building would not be allowed under the C-3 zoning and Low Density Commercial General designation. The project requires approval of the following discretionary actions:

General Plan Amendment from Low Density Commercial General to Medium Density Commercial, with maximum allowable height of 75 feet and FAR not to exceed 2.75:1;


56

Zone Change Amendment to create an overlay zone to allow for entertainment and media uses (the Entertainment Office Planned Development Overlay Zone 2 (E-O-PD-2 zone) and set specific development standards for such uses; and

Zone Change to apply the E-O-PD-2 Zone to the project site.

The E-O-PD-2 zone would provide the following changes to the C-3 standards and to support the office use by entertainment and media companies and related users:

Increase the allowable FAR from 2:1 to 2.75:1; Increase the allowable height from 45 feet/three stories to 75feet/five stories1; Allow the additional 76 valet-attendant drive-aisle parking spaces and 55 tandem parking spaces to

be counted towards the required parking for the project; and Other modifications as may be necessary to complete the project, based on environmental review

and building design.

Impacts from the proposed general plan amendment and zone change may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR. The EIR will include a consistency analysis that will consider the proposed project’s compliance with the applicable City land use regulations, General Plan Land Use Element policies, and the BHMC. In particular, the analysis will discuss the potential impacts associated with implementation of the E-O-PD-2 zone. The compatibility analysis will consider the combined effects of the potential environmental issues in relation to the land uses adjacent to the project site.


c. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

The project site is located in an entirely urbanized area of Beverly Hills. There are no natural communities or habitats located on the project site, and no habitat/natural community conservation plans apply to the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat/natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

1 Although the requested E-O-PD-2 zone change would allow development up to a height of 75 feet, the proposed project would increase the height of the existing building to 72 feet.

Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources

Initial Study 57

11 Mineral Resources


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

Would the project have any of the following impacts:

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■

a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

The project site is in an urbanized area that is not suitable for mineral resource extraction. Chapter 6 of the Beverly Hills General Plan Update Technical Background Report discusses mineral resources of the City in the form of oil and gas wells from the East Beverly Hills, San Vicente, and South Salt Lake oil fields (Beverly Hills 2005). The City’s Mineral Resource Zones Map shows the project site is located in the MRZ-1 zone (Beverly Hills 2010d). MRZ-1 zones are areas where adequate geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence (Anderson et al. 1979).

The project would therefore not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT


58


Environmental Checklist Noise

Initial Study 59

12 Noise


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

Would the project result in any of the following impacts?

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ■ □ □ □

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels ■ □ □ □

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above those existing prior to implementation of the project ■ □ □ □

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above those existing prior to implementation of the project ■ □ □ □

e. For a project located in 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels □ □ □ ■

f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise □ □ □ ■

Noise is defined as unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz).

Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted arithmetically. If a sound’s physical intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dBA, regardless of the initial sound level. For example, 60 dBA plus 50 dBA equals 63 dBA. Where ambient noise levels are high in comparison to a new noise source, the change in noise level would be less than 3 dBA. For example, if 70 dBA ambient noise levels are combined with a 60 dBA noise source, then the resulting


60

noise level equals 70.4 dBA. Based on the logarithmic scale, a sound that is 10 dBA less than the ambient sound level has no effect on ambient noise. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes are generally not perceived.

Noise that is experienced at any receptor can be attenuated by distance or the presence of noise barriers or intervening terrain. Sound from a single source (i.e., a point source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or drops off) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. For acoustically absorptive, or soft, sites (i.e., sites with an absorptive ground surface, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), ground attenuation of about 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance normally occurs. A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by this shielding depends on the size of the object, proximity to the noise source and receiver, surface weight, solidity, and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (such as hills and dense woods) and human-made features (such as buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receiver specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receiver will typically result in at least 5 dBA of noise reduction.

Vibration is a unique form of noise because its energy is carried through buildings, structures, and the ground, whereas noise is simply carried through the air. Thus, vibration is generally felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from passing trucks. This phenomenon is caused by the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB) in the U.S.

The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads.

The Office of Planning and Research has adopted guidelines based on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services in order to assess the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. These guidelines are utilized by the City and are presented in Table 6. An exterior noise level up to 65 dBA CNEL is “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses, without special noise insulation requirements. A noise level of 75 dBA CNEL or more is identified as "clearly unacceptable" for all residential uses. A “normally acceptable” designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements.

Environmental Checklist Noise

Initial Study 61

Table 6 Land Use Noise Compatibility Matrix

Land Use Category

Community Noise Exposure Level

Normally Acceptable

Conditionally Acceptable

Normally Unacceptable

Clearly Unacceptable

Residential (Low Density, Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes)

50-60 55-70 70-75 75-85

Residential (Multiple Family) 50-65 60-70 70-75 70-85

Transient Lodging (Hotel, Motel) 50-65 60-70 70-80 80-85

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes

50-70 60-70 70-80 80-85

Office Buildings, Business Commercial, Professional 50-75 67.5-77.5 75-85 N/A

N/A = Not Applicable

Source: Beverly Hills General Plan, Noise Element, 2010d.

a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project?

d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Currently, the main noise source on the project site is traffic noise from adjacent roadways, including traffic on Wilshire Boulevard along the southern edge of the project site as well as traffic on N. Crescent Drive, which borders the project site on its western side. Project occupants and nearby residents may be exposed to unacceptable noise levels from traffic. In addition, the proposed project could generate temporary noise increases during construction and long-term increases associated with project operation. Nearby noise sensitive receptors include hotels to the west, south, and north, multi-family homes to the north, Crescent Drive Mini Park to the north, an assisted living facility to the northwest and single-family homes to the east. Potential noise sources associated with renovation of the office building include traffic noise from construction vehicles and operation of construction machinery. Noise associated with operation of the proposed project may be periodically audible at adjacent uses. Noise sources that are typical of commercial office developments include rooftop ventilation, heating systems, trash hauling, and vehicles entering/existing the site including loading/delivery trucks. Increased traffic from additional vehicles trips on the roadway system would also increase local traffic noise levels. The proposed project would also include renovations to Crescent Drive Mini Park, which would potentially increase noise levels associated with an increase in park visitors. In addition, the proposed project would have a more usable outdoor roof deck (on the fourth floor) and rooftop space (on the fifth floor) than the current building, which would generate noise from potential outdoor conversations and general use. However, noise from these activities would potentially be imperceptible due to roadway noise below. Regardless, increases in operational noise from multiple aspects of the proposed project may potentially be audible at nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.



62

b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Operation of the proposed project’s office and commercial uses would not perceptibly increase groundborne vibration or groundborne noise above existing conditions, as these uses are not typically associated with the generation of vibration. However, the proposed project would involve standard construction activities that would generate some vibration that may be felt from properties in the immediate vicinity of the project site, as commonly occurs with construction projects. Project construction would generate temporary vibration that could reach sensitive receptors near the project site, including nearby hotels to the west, south, and north, multi-family homes to the north, Crescent Drive Mini Park to the north, an assisted living facility to the northwest and single-family homes to the east. Impacts may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


e. For a project located in 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise?

The project site is located approximately 4.3 miles northeast of the Santa Monica Airport. The project site is not located in an area covered by an airport land use plan, nor is it located in the vicinity of a private air strip. At a distance of 4.3 miles, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to significant aircraft-generated noise. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist Population and Housing

Initial Study 63

13 Population and Housing


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) □ □ □ ■

b. Displace substantial amounts of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere □ □ □ ■

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere □ □ □ ■

a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The California Department of Finance (California DOF) estimates the current population of Beverly Hills at 34,763 (California DOF 2016). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates a population increase to 37,200 by 2040, or an increase of 2,437 residents (SCAG 2016). The proposed project would involve the renovation of an existing commercial office building. The office building would not include any residences and would not directly increase population growth. In addition, the number of jobs associated with building expansion would not be of a magnitude that would directly, or indirectly, cause a need for additional housing development in the City There would be no impacts. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed project involves renovation of an existing commercial office building on the project site. There are no housing units or people residing on the project site. Therefore, the project would not displace any existing housing units or people, necessitating construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT


64


Environmental Checklist Public Service

Initial Study 65

14 Public Service


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1. Fire protection □ □ ■ □ 2. Police protection □ □ ■ □ 3. Schools □ □ □ ■ 4. Parks □ □ ■ □ 5. Other public facilities □ □ ■ □

a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?

Fire protection, rescue services, and emergency medical (paramedic) services are provided by the Beverly Hills Fire Department (BHFD). The fire stations closest to the project site are Fire Station No. 3, located at 180 S. Doheny Drive approximately 0.4 mile southwest of the project site, and the BHFD headquarters (Fire Station No. 1), located approximately 0.5 mile north at 464 N. Rexford Drive.

The proposed project would not directly increase the City’s population, but would bring additional employees to the renovated office building due to the increase in commercial space. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Fire Code, UBC, and BHFD standards, including specific construction specifications, access design, location of fire hydrants, and other design requirements. BHFD has a response time average of three minutes for fire suppression and emergency medical responses (Beverly Hills 2017). With continued implementation of existing practices of the City, including compliance with the California Fire Code and the UBC, the proposed project would not significantly affect community fire protection services and would not result in the need for construction of fire protection facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.



66

a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?

Police protection is provided by the Beverly Hills Police Department (BHPD). Protection services include emergency and nonemergency police response, routine police patrols, investigative services, traffic enforcement, traffic investigation, and parking code enforcement. The station closest to the project site is BHPD headquarters located at 464 North Rexford Drive, approximately 0.5 mile north of the project site. The BHPD currently has an estimated ratio of 3.8 officers per 1,000 residents; however the BHPD does not utilize a standard personnel-to-population ratio due to the disparity of night-time population (approximately 35,700 residents) to daytime population (approximately 250,000 people). The agency’s main indicator of effectiveness is its response time to emergency calls. In their March 2017 monthly report, the Department reported an overall emergency response time of approximately 2.4 minutes from the time the emergency call is received to the time an officer arrives at the scene (Beverly Hills 2016b).

The proposed renovation of the existing office building would not increase the City’s population, but would bring additional employees to the renovated office building. However, the project would not cause a substantial delay in police response times, degraded service ratios or necessitate construction of new facilities, due to the site’s location in an already developed and well-served area with a low emergency response time of 2.4 minutes. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?

The project site is served by the Beverly Hills Unified School District (BHUSD). The proposed project would not include new residences, and therefore, would not result in any additional students in the school district. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks?

The Beverly Hills Recreation and Parks Department is responsible for maintaining and planning for parkland in the City. Crescent Drive Mini Park is located on the northern 12,046 sf of the project site. The proposed project includes improvements to the park (see Figure 12). The proposed increase in commercial square footage would likely bring new employees to the site, which could increase the use of the park by project employees. Employee use of the park would likely be passive, which includes activities such as meditation or relaxation, or use of the space to eat lunch. Passive activities would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the park and this impact would be less than significant.

Prior to operation of the proposed project, construction activities associated with renovation of the park would require temporary closure of Crescent Drive Mini Park, which would displace current park users and potentially prompt them to other park facilities in the area. Reeves Park is the nearest off-site park,

Environmental Checklist Public Service

Initial Study 67

located approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the project site. The proposed project would not increase the use of off-site recreational facilities such that physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated due to the distance from the project site. The proposed project would not increase the use of this off-site recreational facility or other facilities such that substantial alteration or physical deterioration of the facilities would occur due to the distance from the project site. The number of displaced park users that would utilize Reeves Park in place of Crescent Park would be nominal and a short-term effect of park renovation. In addition, the use of parks for recreational purposes is not typical for an office use. In the event that employees would use parks, it would likely be for passive activities that would not result in substantial deterioration of Reeves Park.

The project would also be required to pay Parks and Recreation City fees, which are calculated at the time of project permitting based on linear feet of the façade being replaced. Therefore, overall impacts to park facilities would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities?

The proposed project would incrementally increase the use of the City’s public services and facilities. Impacts to the storm drain system (discussed in Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality), public parks (discussed above in this section), solid waste disposal, water usage and wastewater disposal (discussed in more detail in Section 18, Utilities) would be less than significant. There are no public services or public facilities, such as libraries or hospitals, for which significant impacts are anticipated. Impacts to public facilities would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.



68


Environmental Checklist Recreation

Initial Study 69

15 Recreation


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated □ □ ■ □

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment □ □ ■ □

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

The proposed project involves renovation of the Crescent Drive Mini Park, a City-owned public park located on the northern portion of the project site. The proposed renovation to the park would include a redesign of the existing landscaping that would remove and replace existing trees, construction of new seating areas, an expansion of the public open space, and a new lighting design (refer to Figure 12). Renovation activity would require temporary closure of Crescent Drive Mini Park, which would displace current park users and potentially prompt them to use other park facilities in the area. However, as discussed under Section 14, Public Services, Reeves Park is the nearest off-site park, located approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the project site. The proposed project would not increase the use of this off-site recreational facility or other facilities such that physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated due to the distance from the project site. The number of displaced park users that would utilize Reeves Park in place of Crescent Drive Mini Park would be nominal and a short-term effect of park renovation.

Completion of the proposed park improvements and the addition of two stories to the existing building would likely increase the use of the park at project operation. Based on the proposed improvements and amenities (seating areas and open space), use of the park would include passive activities, such as meditation and relaxation, or it would be a place for people to each lunch. Passive activities would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the park and this impact would be less than significant.


b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The proposed landscaping improvements include new shrub plantings, trees, walkways, and sitting areas. These improvements are depicted in Figure 12. Although the project would involve construction activities within Crescent Drive Mini Park, construction would be confined to previously disturbed areas. Construction could cause potential impacts (i.e. construction noise) on adjacent uses; however, these


70

impacts would be temporary in nature and limited to the duration of construction. Long-term operation and use of the park would not change, and project development would not cause additional expansion from the current boundaries of the park facility. Therefore, impacts associated with park enhancements would be less than significant.


Environmental Checklist Transportation

Initial Study 71

16 Transportation


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ■ □ □ □

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ■ □ □ □

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? □ □ □ ■

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? ■ □ □ □

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ■ □ □ □ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or

programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ■ □ □ □

a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways, and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?


72

b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?

e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

The proposed project involves the renovation of an existing three-story commercial office building with three levels of subterranean parking. The proposed project would construct two additional stories, for a total of five, and utilize the three existing levels of subterranean parking. Project-generated traffic during construction would include worker-related commuter trips, trucks used for delivering construction equipment, and trucks used for delivering and hauling construction materials and wastes. Project-generated traffic during operation would include employee-related vehicle trips, vehicle trips from restaurant patrons, and vehicle trips associated with loading/delivery trucks. The park would not generate substantial vehicle trips due to its size and location. Generally, park visitors would consist of project-employees, employees of adjacent businesses, and passing pedestrians. Regardless, trips generated as a result of the proposed project have the potential to impact area intersections and roadway segments and contribute to cumulative traffic increases. As such, a traffic analysis will be prepared to analyze the project’s potential traffic impacts based on the City’s impact criteria. The proposed project may also result in hazards, inadequate emergency access, or conflict with applicable plans and policies. Traffic impacts may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

Santa Monica Airport is approximately 4.3 miles southwest of the project site. The proposed project would involve the renovation of an existing commercial office building that would be no more than 72 feet or five stories in height. The closest airport is approximately 4.3 miles away and therefore the proposed project would not affect air operations, alter air traffic patterns or in any way conflict with established Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight protection zones based on its distance to the nearest airport and maximum building height of 72 feet. There would be no impacts and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources

Initial Study 73

17 Tribal Cultural Resources


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ■ □ □ □

b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Cod Section 2024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significant of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ■ □ □ □

a., b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is (a) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or (b) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 2024.1?

Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code 21074 as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either: Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical

Resources Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1

A California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search was conducted and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project site and a 0.25-mile radius surrounding it. The purpose of the SLF search is to identify lands or resources important to Native Americans, and to assess the potential for project-related development to impact Native American resources. All correspondence and records search results are included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.


74

The NAHC responded stating that the SLF search was negative, but that the area may potentially be sensitive for tribal cultural resources. The NAHC additionally provided a list of Native American individuals and tribal organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Rincon mailed anticipatory letters to the NAHC-listed contacts to inform them of the project, and to inquire about any known cultural resources. Rincon received a response from Andrew Salas, Chairperson of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, stating that the Tribe was requesting Native American and archaeological monitoring during all project-related ground disturbances.

Although the records search did not identify important Native American resources, the project area may potentially impact tribal cultural resources. Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources may be significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems

Initial Study 75

18 Utilities and Service Systems


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact


a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board □ □ ■ □

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects □ □ ■ □

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects □ □ ■ □

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed □ □ ■ □

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments □ □ ■ □

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs □ □ ■ □

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste □ □ □ ■

a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?


76

e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

The City’s Department of Public Works maintains sewer collection and distribution systems located throughout Beverly Hills. The existing sanitary sewer system consists of over 95 miles of sewer mains that connect to the City of Los Angeles’ sewer facilities at the southeastern border of Beverly Hills (Beverly Hills 2005). The City sewer system currently serves of a mix of land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development. The City’s system allows pass-through for flow generated in the portion of the City of Los Angeles north of Beverly Hills. Permanent flow monitors are placed at one inflow point and three outfall points to measure the amount of flow from Los Angeles that enters the City and the flows leaving Beverly Hills, to determine the volume of wastewater generated within the limits of Beverly Hills. The maximum recorded daily flow generated in the City is approximately 12 million gallons per day and the average flow is approximately 6 million gallons per day (gpd) (Beverly Hills 2005).

All of the wastewater flows generated in the City (not including storm water) are collected and treated at the Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant (HTP), located on the coast at 12000 Vista Del Mar in the City of Los Angeles. The HTP is the largest of four wastewater treatment plants in the area surrounding the City of Los Angeles that is currently permitted by the LARWQCB to discharge treated wastewater into receiving waters. Its primary treatment is completed with retention ponds, chemical coagulants and settling tanks. The HTP can accommodate a dry weather flow of 450 million gallons per day (mgd) and a wet weather flow of 850 mgd (LA Sanitation [LASAN] 2017). Currently, the HTP treats an average of 275 mgd, which is 175 mgd below the dry weather capacity of 450 mgd (LASAN 2017). The HTP is currently operating at approximately 175 mgd below dry weather capacity. A substantial increase in wastewater flow diverted to the HTP could impact the treatment capacity of the HTP and conflict with pollutant standards and regulations of the LARWQBC permit.

Conservatively assuming that wastewater generation would be approximately 80 percent of water demand, which is 20,740 gpd (discussed under impact analysis d. of this section), the project would generate an estimated 16,592 gallons of wastewater per day. This wastewater output represents approximately 0.3 percent of the average flow generated in the City and about 0.01 percent of the HTP’s 175 mgd of available capacity. Therefore, the project’s additional wastewater demands would not significantly impact the average service flow of the City’s existing sewer lines. In addition, sufficient treatment capacity at the HTP is available to serve the proposed project. The project would not generate wastewater exceeding the wastewater limits of the HTP. Therefore, there is adequate capacity to treat the sewage generated by the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

As discussed in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that the project could accommodate all stormwater runoff. BMPs would be required during construction and operation of the project to lessen the amount of runoff from the project site to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the City requires applicants to prepare an urban runoff mitigation plan prior to construction of a project. This plan must comply with the most recent LID standards and the current municipal NPDES permit. This process is intended to reduce storm water discharges by requiring the applicant to increase pervious surface area on the project site and to reduce


Initial Study 77

the amount of runoff to the City’s storm drain system. The NPDES permit issued to the Los Angeles RWQCB provides regulations for urban runoff discharges in the County of Los Angeles. New storm drain facilities and expansion of existing facilities would not be necessary. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to ultimately reduce pollutants from the site that enter the storm drain system since the new development would be subject to current regulatory requirements, which are more stringent than regulations to which the existing onsite development was subject. In addition, because the project site is already developed, the proposed project would not substantially alter storm water runoff patterns or require the construction of substantial new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

The City receives water from local groundwater extracted from the Hollywood Sub-basin and imported surface water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The City receives 90 percent of its water supply from the MWD, which comes from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. The other 10 percent of the City’s water supply comes from groundwater pumped from the Hollywood Basin totaling approximately 1,500 acre-feet per year.

The residential sector of the City is comprised of single and multi-family residential customers. Residential uses accounted for approximately 69 percent of citywide consumption in the year 2015. The commercial/industrial/municipal/fire sector comprised approximately 25 percent of citywide consumption while other unaccounted water use comprised approximately six percent (Beverly Hills 2015a). Normal year future projected supply and demand is shown in Table 7.

Table 7 Normal Year Water Supply and Demand Projections

Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Supply (AF) 11,659 11,741 11,825 11,911 11,999

Demand (AF) 11,659 11,741 11,825 11,911 11,999

Note: AF = acre feet

Source: Beverly Hills Urban Water Management Plan, 2015 for years 2020 through 2040, Table 4-1B, 2015a

In response to drought conditions and mandatory statewide conservation of urban water use, MWD’s commercial conservation programs provide rebates for water saving devices to businesses and institutions throughout Southern California, including Beverly Hills. The programs are comprised of SoCal Water$mart, member agency commercial programs, and the Water Savings Incentive Program. The incentive program facilitates conservation projects within all MWD member agencies, including residential turf removal, low flow toilet distribution and replacement, direct-installation of clothes washers and residential water audits. MWD incentives have similarly provided funding for member districts to implement commercial conservation projects, including turf removal, direct installation of high efficiency toilets and multi-stream rotating nozzle distribution (MWD 2016). MWD’s rebate programs incentivize the use of water efficient fixtures and equipment for residences, businesses, industry, institutions, and large landscapes in southern California. The rebate programs also assist customers with installing high-efficiency toilets, clothes washers, plumbing fixtures, HVAC, sprinkler controllers, soil moisture sensors and more (MWD 2016).


78

In May 2015, the City passed an emergency Stage D water conservation program, which includes water scheduling that allows outdoor watering only two days per week, other outdoor watering restrictions, and possible penalties for users who do not reduce water use by 30 percent (Beverly Hills 2015b). Additionally, rebates are available to residential and commercial customers through the City for installation of high efficiency appliances, including toilets, and weather-based irrigation controllers (Beverly Hills 2012b). Regardless of Stage D conservation efforts and available rebates, Beverly Hills requires new development to comply with its water efficient landscaping ordinance in which all new developments must submit a landscaping design plan, irrigation design plan, grading design plan and a soil management report. These must be approved by the City in order to receive a building permit (Beverly Hills 2012c).

The proposed project would increase demand for potable water.

Based on the estimated water demand,) the project would demand 20,740 gallons of water per day, or 23 acre-feet per year (AFY). Table 7 shows the available water supply that is projected through 2040. The proposed project’s water demand is within the forecast citywide demand. No new or expanded entitlements would be needed to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of public water facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.


f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

State law requires a 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills. The City has achieved this diversion through recycling and collection of green waste, and has diverted at least 57 percent of its solid waste since 2001 and achieved a waste diversion rate of 78 percent in 2011 (Beverly Hills 2005).

The Beverly Hills Public Works Department, Solid Waste Division is responsible for solid waste collection in the City. The City contracts with Recology Los Angeles for the removal of waste from residences and commercial businesses. The disposal of solid waste occurs at one of three designated landfills: Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Sunshine Canyon Landfill and the Calabasas Sanitary Landfill. It is estimated that Chiquita, Sunshine Canyon and Calabasas Sanitary landfills have a remaining capacity of approximately 135 million cubic yards (CY), taking into account reduction estimates for usage that has occurred since the date of remaining capacity was documented on the Solid Waste Information System website. Together, these three landfills are permitted to receive 21,600 tons/day. The Chiquita Canyon Landfill is projected to operate through 2019, while the Calabasas Sanitary Landfill is projected to operate through 2025 and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill is projected to operate through 2037.

The proposed project has two components (construction and operation) that would result in the generation of solid waste. Construction of the proposed project would involve site preparation activities that would generate waste materials. During construction, the handling of all debris and waste would be subject to the City’s and State’s (AB 939) requirements for salvaging, recycling, and reuse of materials from construction activity. Due to the reduction in waste, the proposed project would not result in an increase in solid waste beyond the capacity of the three designated landfill sites. This impact would be less than significant.

The project’s solid waste generation was also estimated using CalEEMod at the following rates, which can be found in Appendix D of the CalEEMod User’s Guide (SCAQMD, 2016):


Initial Study 79

General Office Building: 93 tons/year per 1000sf City Park: 0.09 tons/year per acre Sit Down Restaurant: 11.9 tons/year per 1000sf

Project operation would generate approximately 197,400 pounds (98.7 tons) of solid waste per year based on project estimated CalEEMod operational waste generation. With a diversion rate of 57 percent, which the City has been achieving over the past decade, the proposed project would generate 56.3 tons per year, or 0.3 tons per day, of solid waste to be disposed of at area landfills. Given the remaining capacity of the three area landfills of 135 million cubic yards, and the daily permitted throughput of 21,600 tons per day, the proposed project represents 0.001 percent of the daily permitted throughput. Continued compliance with solid waste diversion requirements and implementation of standard building regulations would be sufficient to address impacts related to solid waste generation. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

Table 8 Estimated Solid Waste Generation

Land Use Waste Disposed

(tons/year) Waste Disposed

(tons/day)

City Park 0.02 <.0001

General Office Building 47.2 0.1

Restaurant 51.5 0.1

Total 98.7 0.3

Note: Exact totals may not add up due to rounding.




80


Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study 81

19 Mandatory Findings of Significance


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ■ □ □ □

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ■ □ □ □

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ■ □ □ □

a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

The project site is adjacent to trees that could possibly be used by birds for nesting. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be applied to the proposed project to minimize impacts to migratory bird species during vegetation removal and ground disturbance, and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, the project would involve disturbance of soils on the site which could potentially disturb cultural resources and/or tribal cultural resources. These impacts will be further analyzed in an EIR.



82

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

As concluded throughout Sections 1 through 17, the proposed project would have no impact or a less than significant impact with respect to most environmental issues except aesthetics, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, and transportation. The project would also have a less than significant impact to nesting birds with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. In combination with other planned and pending development in the area, the proposed project could contribute to significant cumulative impacts. The cumulative effects of the project will be evaluated in an EIR.


c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As described in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were found to be less than significant. However, impacts to air quality and noise may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.


References

Initial Study 83

References Bibliography Amec Foster Wheeler (AFW). 2016. Geotechnical Consultation [for the] Proposed Building Addition: 100

North Crescent Drive, Beverly Hills, California. [Document]

Anderson, Thomas P., Ralph C. Loyd, William B. Clark, Russell V. Miller, Richard Corbaley, Susan Kohler, and Marjorie M. Bushnell. 1979. Part II: Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, San Fernando Valley Production-Consumption Region. Accessed February 2017 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartII/SR_143_PartII_Text.pdf.

Beverly Hills, City of. 2010a. General Plan. Open Space Element. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10282--5_OpenSpace%2001122010.pdf.

_____. 2010b. General Plan. Historic Preservation Element. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10279--3_HistoricPreservation%2001122010.pdf.

_____. 2010c. General Plan. Safety Element. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10285--9_Safety%2011152011.pdf.

_____. 2010d. General Plan. Noise Element. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10284--8_Noise%2001122010.pdf.

_____. 2005. City of Beverly Hills General Plan Update. Technical Background Report. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/business/constructionlanduse/generalplan/technicalbackgroundreports/.

_____. 2008a. Planning Division City of Beverly Hills Zoning Map. [map]. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/64529851516564397/FinalZoningMap.pdf.

_____. 2008b. Community Development Department. General Plan Land Use Designations. [map]. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/8403--03_Map_LU1_GeneralPlanLandUseDesignations_45_reduced.pdf.

_____. 2012a. Community Development Department. Local Register of Historic Properties. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/citygovernment/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/historicpreservation/localhistoriclandmarks/.

_____. 2012b. Public Works. Rebates. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/living/recyclingandconservation/waterconservation/rebates/web.jsp.

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_143/PartII/SR_143_PartII_Text.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10282--5_OpenSpace%2001122010.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10282--5_OpenSpace%2001122010.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10279--3_HistoricPreservation%2001122010.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10279--3_HistoricPreservation%2001122010.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10285--9_Safety%2011152011.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10284--8_Noise%2001122010.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/business/constructionlanduse/generalplan/technicalbackgroundreports/

http://www.beverlyhills.org/business/constructionlanduse/generalplan/technicalbackgroundreports/

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/64529851516564397/FinalZoningMap.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/8403--03_Map_LU1_GeneralPlanLandUseDesignations_45_reduced.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/8403--03_Map_LU1_GeneralPlanLandUseDesignations_45_reduced.pdf

http://www.beverlyhills.org/citygovernment/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/historicpreservation/localhistoriclandmarks/

http://www.beverlyhills.org/citygovernment/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/historicpreservation/localhistoriclandmarks/

http://www.beverlyhills.org/living/recyclingandconservation/waterconservation/rebates/web.jsp

http://www.beverlyhills.org/living/recyclingandconservation/waterconservation/rebates/web.jsp


84

_____. 2012c. Community Development Department. Water Efficient Landscaping. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/business/constructionlanduse/commercialbuildings/waterefficientlandscaping/.

_____. 2015a. Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed March 2017 at: http://beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/111351990244297813/5-31-16CityofBeverlyHills2015FinalDraftUWMPReport.pdf.

_____. 2015b. In Focus: An Official Publication of the City of Beverly Hills. “Water Conservation is Mandatory.” Accessed February 2017 at: https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/148628529117688931/InFocusNewsletterMay2015Hweb.pdf.

_____. 2016a. Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC). Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=466.

_____. 2016b. Cultural Heritage Commission Report. Master Architect List. Accessed April 2017 at: http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=36&clip_id=4683&meta_id=281963.

_____. 2017a. Beverly Hills Police Department. Monthly Report March 2017. Accessed April 2017 at: http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/8286744501366707109/2017MarReport.pdf

_____. 2017b. Beverly Hills Fire Department. Personal telephone communication with Roger Askin, Secretary of the Fire Department on March 2, 2017.

California Department of Conservation (California DOC). 2016a. Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Los Angeles County Important Farmland Map of 2014. [map]. Accessed February 2017 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/los14.pdf.

_____. 2016b. Division of Land Resource Protection. Conservation Program Support. Los Angeles County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016. [map]. Accessed February 2017 at: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/LA_15_16_WA.pdf.

_____. 1986. Division of Mines and Geology. Special Studies Zones. Beverly Hills Quadrangle. [map]. Accessed February 2017 at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/BEVERLY_HILLS/maps/BEVHILLS.PDF.

_____. 1999. Division of Mines and Geology. Seismic Hazards Zones. Beverly Hills Quadrangle. [map]. Accessed February 2017 at: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/BEVERLY_HILLS/maps/ozn_bevh.pdf.

California Department of Finance (California DOF). 2016. E-5 County/State Population and Housing Estimates. 2016. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2007a. EnviroStor Database. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

_____. 2007b. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.

http://www.beverlyhills.org/business/constructionlanduse/commercialbuildings/waterefficientlandscaping/

http://www.beverlyhills.org/business/constructionlanduse/commercialbuildings/waterefficientlandscaping/

http://beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/111351990244297813/5-31-16CityofBeverlyHills2015FinalDraftUWMPReport.pdf

http://beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/111351990244297813/5-31-16CityofBeverlyHills2015FinalDraftUWMPReport.pdf

https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/148628529117688931/InFocusNewsletterMay2015Hweb.pdf

https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/148628529117688931/InFocusNewsletterMay2015Hweb.pdf

http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=466

http://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=36&clip_id=4683&meta_id=281963

http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/8286744501366707109/2017MarReport.pdf

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/los14.pdf

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/LA_15_16_WA.pdf

http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/BEVERLY_HILLS/maps/BEVHILLS.PDF

http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/BEVERLY_HILLS/maps/ozn_bevh.pdf

http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/

http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm

References

Initial Study 85

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Los Angeles County. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-038/CEC-500-2009-038-D.PDF.

CalRecycle. 2016. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed February 2017 at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates.

County of Los Angeles. 2015. 2035 General Plan. Chapter 9: Conservation and Natural Resources Element. Accessed February 2017 at: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_final-general-plan-ch9.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map # 06037C1585F. Accessed February 2017 at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=100%20N%20Crescent%20Drive%2C%20Beverly%20Hills%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor.

LA Sanitation (LASAN). 2017. Hyperion Water Reclamation Plan. Accessed February 2017 at: https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/wcnav_externalId/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p-hwrp?_adf.ctrl-state=16on21rkhm_4&_afrLoop=14659912088456904#!.

Metropolitan Water District (MWD). 2016. Water Tomorrow Regional Progress Report: An Annual Report to the California State Legislature on Achievements in Conservation, Recycling, and Groundwater Recharge. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_In_The_Community/3.1_1.2_Regional_Progress_Report.pdf.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1999. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-08-12_Attachemt_AQ1-1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF.

_____. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15: “Proposed Tier 3 Quantitative Thresholds – Option 1”. Accessed December 2017 at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf.

_____. 2016. CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendix D: Default Data Tables. Accessed February 2017 at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 2016-2040 (RTP/SCS), Demographics and Growth Forecast Appendix. 2016. Accessed February 2017 at: http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2015. GeoTracker Database. Accessed February 2017 at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2017a. Laws and Regulations. Accessed March 2017 at: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-038/CEC-500-2009-038-D.PDF

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates

http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_final-general-plan-ch9.pdf

http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_final-general-plan-ch9.pdf

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=100%20N%20Crescent%20Drive%2C%20Beverly%20Hills%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=100%20N%20Crescent%20Drive%2C%20Beverly%20Hills%2C%20CA#searchresultsanchor

https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/wcnav_externalId/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p-hwrp?_adf.ctrl-state=16on21rkhm_4&_afrLoop=14659912088456904

https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/wcnav_externalId/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p-hwrp?_adf.ctrl-state=16on21rkhm_4&_afrLoop=14659912088456904

http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_In_The_Community/3.1_1.2_Regional_Progress_Report.pdf

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-08-12_Attachemt_AQ1-1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-08-12_Attachemt_AQ1-1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF

http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/05_appendix-d2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast.pdf

https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations


86

_____. 2017b. SEMS Search. Accessed February 2017 at: https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sems-search.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper [database]. Accessed February 2017 at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML.

List of Preparers Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of Beverly Hills. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Joe Power, Principal-In-Charge Susanne Huerta, Project Manager Vanessa Villanueva, Associate Environmental Planner Christopher Duran, Archaeological Resources Principal Investigator Meagan Szromba, Associate Archaeologist Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, Architectural Historian

https://www.epa.gov/enviro/sems-search

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML