Groups Criticize Report on Laurel Plaza Expansion : North Hollywood: Residents fearing an increase in traffic and crime aren’t satisfied with proposed remedies for the $150-million project.

Many North Hollywood residents are not satisfied with proposed solutions to problems that may arise from the expansion of Laurel Plaza Mall, and at least one group has asked the city to withdraw what it called an “inadequate” report on the project.

“There still remain significant impacts, and the proposed mitigation measures are not significant,” said Bob Carcia, president of a group called Slow the Overdevelopment Process (STOP).

Carcia’s group was one of many that submitted written responses to the Los Angeles City Planning Commission’s draft environmental impact report on Laurel Plaza issued in December.

Since it was proposed in 1988, the project has been at the center of a controversy between developers and neighborhood residents, who say the development will increase noise, crime, pollution and traffic.

The $150-million project proposed by Forrest City Commercial Development would place a large mall and a 10-story office building on Oxnard Street where a shopping center now stands. Laurel Hall School would be relocated to make room for the larger mall. In exchange, the developers would build an $8-million school next to Emmanuel Lutheran Church, which owns the school. The developers need a General Plan amendment, a zoning change and a height variance.

The environmental report listed remedies to a series of potential problems such as traffic, noise, crime and pollution that may result from the expansion.

But community groups such as the Homeowners of Encino said the report “overlooked or inadequately dealt with” some environmental concerns and asked the city to revise its findings.

Gerald A. Silver, president of the group, said the development would adversely affect housing.

“The 10-story mega-mall project will raise land prices, and drive out affordable housing or small business in the area,” Silver wrote. “The final EIR should mitigate the number of low-to-moderate housing units that will be lost due to the project.”

The project would also “generate additional demands” for police and fire service. “The final EIR should show how the applicant intends to mitigate the drain on local public services,” Silver wrote.

Although all members of the group live in Encino, Silver said, “We’re vitally affected by what goes on in other parts of the community.”

The group said it submitted a response to the North Hollywood project because the project will adversely affect all Valley communities, not just North Hollywood.

“We’re quite distressed with the project,” Silver said.

For members of STOP, who oppose changing the General Plan to allow the expansion, a major issue is the removal of houses, Carcia said.

According to the draft EIR, nine houses will have to be torn down to make way for the expansion.

“In reality, it’s 150 potential homes” because the land that will be acquired for the expansion could accommodate that many residences, Carcia said.

In addition, Carcia said, the report does not adequately address the issue of parking.

“The draft EIR shows the developer not only wants to build a high-density mega-mall but is 250 parking spaces short of city requirement.”

Traffic problems could be solved by widening the entrance and exit ramps of the northbound Hollywood Freeway at Oxnard Street, installing signals and re-striping streets nearby, the environmental report stated.

But Carcia maintained that this would be inadequate, and he suggested a new study that would also evaluate traffic flow on the Hollywood and Ventura freeways at peak hours.

The community responses will be evaluated and responded to in a final environmental report, said Ruby Justis, project coordinator. The report will be used by the Planning Commission and other “decision-makers to make a decision on the request.”