RECIRCULATED PORTIONS-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CORNFIELD ARROYO SECO SPECIFIC PLAN. Volume I of II

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525 LOS ANGELES, CA AND 6262 VAN NUYS BLVD., SUITE 351 VAN NUYS, CA C CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WILLIAM ROSCHEN PRESIDENT REGINA M. FREER VICE-PRESIDENT SEAN O. BURTON DIEGO CARDOSO GEORGE HOVAGUIMIAN JUSTIN KIM ROBERT LESSIN BARBARA ROMERO MICHAEL K. WOO - JAMES WILLIAMS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT II (213) City of Los Angeles CALIFORNIA Antonio R. Villaraigosa MAYOR EXECUTIVE OFFICES MICHAEL J. LOGRANDE DIRECTOR (213) ALAN BELL, AICP DEPUTY DIRECTOR (213) EVA YUAN-MCDANIEL DEPUTY DIRECTOR (213) VACANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR (213) FAX: (213) INFORMATION RECIRCULATED PORTIONS-DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CORNFIELD ARROYO SECO SPECIFIC PLAN Volume I of II Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan ENV EIR CPC SP State Clearinghouse No Council District 1 Project Location: The Plan is located entirely within Los Angeles City Council District One, and comprises portions of the Central City North, Northeast, and Silverlake-Echo Park Community Project Areas. The Plan includes two of the opportunity areas identified in the Los Angeles River Revitalization Masterplan the Cornfield and Arroyo Seco (City of Los Angeles 2007b). Project Description: Broadly, Plan includes the following: The designation of new mixed-use zoning districts, and the identification of the types and intensities of uses permitted within these districts, as well as building height, massing, and façade standards; The designation of new open spaces and parks and the establishment of open space requirements for new developments; Circulation and parking standards; Revised street designations and standards; Resource conservation standards. PREPARED BY: Los Angeles Department of City Planning May 2012

2

3 CORNFIELD ARROYO SECO SPECIFIC PLAN RECIRCULATED PORTIONS OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Volume I 1 Executive Summary A. Introduction 1.A-1 B. Summary of Project Impacts 1.B-1 2 Revised Environmental Impact Analysis A. Air Quality 2.A-1 B. GHG Emissions 2.B-1 C. Noise 2.C-1 D. Transportation 2.D-1 E. Other CEQA Consideration: Unavoidable Significant Impacts 2.E-1 3 Preparers of the EIR 3-1 Volume II Appendix I SCAQMD Facility Identification Database (FINDs) Appendix II CalEEMod emissions calculation worksheets Appendix III Cornfield/Arroyo Seco Specific Plan Transportation Analysis

4

5 1. Executive Summary A. Introduction I. Purpose The City of Los Angeles (City), as the lead agency, prepared this document, Recirculated Portions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (RP-DEIR), to analyze potential environmental impacts of the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan (CASP) (Proposed Alternative). Broadly, the Proposed Alternative includes the following: The designation of new mixed-use zoning districts, and the identification of the types and intensities of uses permitted within these districts, as well as building height, massing, and façade standards; The designation of new open spaces and parks and the establishment of open space requirements for new developments; Circulation and parking standards; Revised street designations and standards; Resource conservation standards. On September 22, 2011, the City circulated the Original Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for public review. This RP-DEIR replaces several portions of the Original DEIR in response to comments received during the public comment period which ended on November 21, 2011 and further review by City staff. The City is recirculating this RP-DEIR pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section , Subdivisions a(1), a(4) and (c), which requires modified portions of an EIR to be recirculated. The full Original DEIR is available at the Department of City Planning, Room 667 City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, or on-line at II. Preparation of the RP-DEIR The City has prepared and circulated this RP-DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Subdivision (g). This RP-DEIR contains the following revised and updated sections to be recirculated for public comment: (1) The Executive Summary for the RP-DEIR, which includes a revised Summary of the impacts on construction air quality emissions, health risks due to Toxic Air Contaminate (TAC) emissions, construction noise, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation limited to the Existing Plus Project scenario; (2) Revised analysis of construction air quality emission impacts (Air Quality); 1.A-1

6 (3) Revised analysis of health risks due to Toxic Air Contaminate (TAC) emissions impacts (Air Quality); (4) Revised analysis of construction noise impacts (Noise); (5) Revised analysis of greenhouse gas emissions impacts (Greenhouse Gas); (6) Revised analysis of transportation impacts limited to the Existing Plus Project scenario (Transportation); and (7) Revised Other CEQA Considerations to add significant and unavoidable impacts. In Summary, the analysis of the localized and regional construction air quality emissions, health risks due to Toxic Air Contaminate (TAC) emissions, construction noise, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions presented in this RP-DEIR supersede the corresponding portions of the Original DEIR. The operational traffic impact analysis specific to the Existing Conditions plus Proposed Alternative Scenario is also included in the RP-DEIR, as it was mistakenly not included in the Section 4 Transportation, of the Original DEIR. It is important to note that none of the Sections in their entirety are subject to recirculation, as only portions of the analysis meets the requirement of Section (a)(1) and (a)(4). In addition, in the Original DEIR, these subjects were included in sections with identifiers that were not in alphabetical sequence. In order to present the RP-DEIR in a format that facilitates its review by the public and decision makers, the revised portions are assigned section identifiers that are in alphabetical sequence starting with A. The following table summarizes the section identifiers of these portions as presented in the Original DEIR and the RP-DEIR: Section Identifier Section Name RP-DEIR Original DEIR Air Quality (Construction and TAC emissions) 2.A 11 GHG Emissions 2.B 16 Noise (Construction) 2.C 12 Transportation (Traffic)* 2.D 4 *The Existing plus Project Table was not included in the Original EIR Section 4. III. Environmental Review Process The City is recirculating this RP-DEIR pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section , Subdivisons a(1), a(4) and (c), which requires modified portions of an EIR to be recirculated. The full Original DEIR is available at the Department of 1.A-2

7 City Planning, Room 667 City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, or on-line at A 45-day review period has been set for the RP-DEIR during which written comments on the scope and adequacy of this draft document can be submitted to the Department of City Planning, Room 667 City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California by July 16th, As CEQA Guidelines Section , Subdivision (f)(2) permits, the City requests that reviewers limit scope of their comments to that material which is within the text of the revised portions included in the RP-DEIR. Pursuant to this, the City also requests that reviewers not make any new comments on old matters not included in this RP-DEIR. Following the 45-day public review period, the City will prepare responses to the comments on the RP-DEIR and will compile the comments and responses into the Final EIR (FEIR), which will consist of the following documents: (1) The Original DEIR; (2) The RP-DEIR; (3) Comments and Response to Comments on the Original DEIR and the RP-DEIR, received during the public comment periods; (4) Correction and Additions to the Original DEIR and the RP-DEIR, if any; and (5) A Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP); The FEIR will provide the basis for decision makers, such as the City Planning Commission, and the City Council, to consider the environmental implication of the Proposed Alternative as well as possible ways to mitigate any significant environmental impacts. Prior to making a decision on the Proposed Alternative, the City must certify that the FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, was presented to the City s decision-making body who reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR prior to approving the Proposed Alternative, and that the FEIR reflects the lead agency s independent judgment and analysis. 1.A-3

8 1. Executive Summary B. Summary of Project Impacts Health Risks Due to Toxic Air Contaminate (TAC) emissions Section 11, Air Quality of the Original DEIR discussed the potential of the Proposed Alternative to increase risk of cancer and other negative health effects due to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) from siting sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the freeways. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 2 was proposed to require a buffer distance of 300 feet for any project that would include sensitive land uses adjacent to a freeway. The Original DEIR concluded that this would mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. Public comments received during the Original Draft EIR circulation period stated that analysis failed to demonstrate how the impacts were fully mitigated without the reliance on a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), that CARB s recommended buffer distances were not applied, and that the analysis failed to address other industrial sources of TACs within and in proximity to the Project Area. The revised analysis replaces the Original DEIR analysis of the Proposed Alternative impacts related to health risks due to TACs. The analysis concludes that because sensitive receptors would potentially be permitted in proximity to TAC sources under the siting distances to industrial uses prescribed in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, the health risk impacts related to siting sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources is revised to be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation measures are included to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Regional Construction Ari Quality Emission Impacts The Original Draft EIR evaluated the potentially significant construction air quality impacts of implementing the Proposed Alternative compared to the existing conditions in the Project Area. SCAQMD s regional mass-based thresholds were applied to determine the significance of such an impact. Impacts that were considered to be significant were accompanied by an explanation of why the application of a threshold resulted in a determination that the impact would be significant. Mitigation measures that addressed the potential impact were presented, along with a determination of whether the impact would continue to be significant after implementation of the mitigation measure. Table 11-6 of the Original DEIR identified that the thresholds for the following criteria pollutants would be exceeded as the result of the construction phase of the project: reactive organic gases (ROGs), oxides of nitrogen (NO x ), and particulate matter PM 10. Table 11-6 also indicated that the Proposed Alternative would exceed the thresholds of significance for ROG and NO x during project construction even after mitigation measures were accounted for. However, the Page of the Original DEIR mistakenly stated that after application of Mitigation Measure Air Quality 3, construction air quality impacts would be less the significant. In order to verify that construction emissions were adequately evaluated, a revised air quality analysis was performed in CalEEMod. The following section revises the conclusion to state that construction air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable for ROG, NO x CO and PM 10, emissions. 1.B-1

9 Localized Construction Air Quality Emission Impacts The RP-DEIR adds a discussion on the evaluation of localized construction air quality impacts utilizing local significant thresholds (LSTs). The RP-DEIR concludes that there is no reasonable means to determine if an impact of one project in the Project Area will result in a significant localized construction air quality impact to an existing or future sensitive receptor, so therefore this impact is considered to be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 12 is added to reduce localized construction related air quality impacts to the extent feasible. Since it cannot be determined, at this time, if the Mitigation Measure Air Quality 12 will reduce localized construction related air quality impacts to below the level of significance, the RP-DEIR concludes that localized construction emission could potentially exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds after mitigation and therefore, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Appreciated coherency you proved to be an indispensible asset. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Original DEIR stated that it adopted a zero-emission threshold in evaluating the Proposed Alternative s GHG impacts. However, in making the impact conclusion, the analysis failed to quantify the mitigation measures (implementation of the City s Climate Action Plan) that would be necessary in making a less than significant determination. For this reason, the lead agency finds the lack of analysis sufficient to qualify for recirculation subject to the CEQA Guidelines Section (a)(4). The portions of the GHG analysis that relate to the regulatory framework, threshold of significance and project impact replace and supersede the respective portions of the Original Draft EIR. The revised analysis concludes that the Proposed Alternative will have a less than significant cumulative impact on GHG emissions with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Construction Noise The Original DEIR evaluated construction noise impacts of the Proposed Alternative and concluded that noise and vibration impacts would be less than significance after the implement of mitigation measures. However, this EIR is a programmatic document and there are no specific development projects currently proposed and the extent of construction activities that would occur under implementation of the Proposed Alternative are uncertain at this time. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately determine, even after the implementation of mitigation measures, if noise and vibration impacts, as a result of construction activity, would be reduced to below levels of significance. The impact determination related to construction noise and vibration has been revised to reflect this change. As each project will vary in the scale of construction activities and the proximity of sensitive receptors, it is uncertain if the implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce construction activities, lasting more than one day to less than the existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dba or more at a noise sensitive use, or lasting more than 10 days in a three month period to less than the existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dba or 1.B-2

10 more at a noise sensitive use. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts related to construction activities would be considered significant and unavoidable, albeit temporary. However, there are many feasible construction measures that can be implemented to reduce noise and vibration associated with implementation of the Proposed Alternative. When approved construction of new development in the Project Area shall be routinely monitored to ensure required noise mitigations are implemented. Traffic As is consistent with industry standards, the Original DEIR Traffic Section analyzed the potential transportation impacts of the Proposed Alternative by comparing the cumulative (2035) No Project Alternative conditions to the cumulative (2035) conditions with Proposed Alternative (Cumulative Growth 2035 Conditions Analysis). The evaluation of Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Conditions, consistent with the opinion of the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District on the case Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Association v. City of Sunnyvale City Council (the Sunnyvale ruling), was conducted in the supporting traffic analysis in the Original DEIR. The level of service analysis and impact assessment table is included at the end of Appendix 4B (Technical Calculations). An Appendix 4E, which was completed and referenced in the Original DEIR, but mistakenly omitted in the on-line version of the Original DEIR, included the Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Conditions analysis, as well as text and table documentation equivalent to the Original DEIR Chapter 4. However, as the evaluation of Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Conditions was not included the Original Draft EIR, it is included here in order to provide the public with meaningful opportunity to review and comment. In addition, the impact evaluation of two stop-controlled intersections was mistakenly omitted from Chapter 4 of the Original Draft EIR. They were included in the Traffic Study included in Appendix 4E. However, as stated above, Appendix 4E was mistakenly omitted in the on-line version of the Original DEIR. The two stop controlled intersections that were mistakenly omitted are: 32.) North Main Street & West College Street 33.) North Alameda Street & North Main Street/Ord Street The portions of the traffic impact analysis regarding the Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Conditions and the Cumulative Growth 2035 Conditions Analysis is hereby added to the traffic analysis of the Original Draft EIR. Aside from the additional analysis for the two stop-controlled intersections at North Main Street & West College Street and North Alameda Street & North Main Street/Ord Street, no other changes have been made to the traffic analysis in the Cumulative Growth 2035 Conditions Analysis included in the Original DEIR. The Table showing the impacts of the other 41 intersection evaluated in the Original DEIR Cumulative 1.B-3

11 Growth 2035 Conditions Analysis is provided for reference only. The only other changes are that intersection identified as 32 through 41 in Table 4-6 of the Original DEIR have been restored here to the original enumeration (34-43 respectively) found through-out the Original DEIR traffic section. The revised analysis concludes that the Proposed Alternative will have a significant and unavoidable impact at 18 of the 43 study area intersections (including 9 signalized study intersections outside the Project Area) under the Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Condition after the incorporation of mitigation measures. Other CEQA Considerations This RP-DEIR adds the following impacts that are considered to be significant and unavoidable after the application of feasible mitigation measures: Localized construction air quality emissions that temporarily exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds; Regional construction air quality emissions that temporarily exceed the SCAQMD regional mass-based significance thresholds; Health risk air quality impacts related to siting sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources; Construction noise impacts (temporary); and Operational traffic impacts to 18 of the 43 study area intersections based on the Existing (2009) Plus Proposed Alternatives Conditions evaluation, including 9 signalized study intersections outside the Project Area. 1.B-4

12

13 2. Revised Environmental Impact Analysis A. Air Quality I. Health Risks Due to Toxic Air Contaminate (TAC) emissions Introduction Section 11, Air Quality of the Original DEIR discussed the potential of the Proposed Alternative to increase risk of cancer and other negative health effects due to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) from siting sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the freeways. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 2 was proposed to require a buffer distance of 300 feet for any project that would include sensitive land uses adjacent to a freeway. The Original DEIR concluded that this would mitigate impacts to less than significant levels. Public comments received during the Original Draft EIR circulation period stated that analysis failed to demonstrate how the impacts were fully mitigated without the reliance on a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), that CARB s recommended buffer distances were not applied, and that the analysis failed to address other industrial sources of TACs within and in proximity to the Project Area. The following analysis replaces the original analysis of the Proposed Alternative impact related the health risks and TACs in the Original Draft EIR. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors refer to individuals and places that are more sensitive to poor air quality than the general population. This includes children, senior citizens, and individuals who suffer from asthma or other respiratory ailments. Schools, child daycare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals all represent land uses that constitute sensitive receptors. People who conduct arduous labor or exercise frequently represent other populations that are more susceptible to ailments associated with poor air quality. Because people generally spend longer periods of time at home, residential areas are considered more sensitive to poor air quality conditions than commercial and industrial areas. Lastly, recreational areas are sensitive receptors because air pollution affects both the aesthetic value and ambient air quality of the recreation spot. Figure 2.A-1 displays the locations of select existing sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Area. Sensitive receptors such as residential zones, hospitals, parks, and schools are depicted on the figure, relative to the Project Area. SCAQMD Regulations SCAQMD Rule 201 Permit to Construct 2.A-1

14 The SCAQMD requires developers who build, install, or replace any equipment or agricultural permit unit, which may cause new emissions, or reduce, eliminate, or control emissions of air contaminants to obtain a permit to construct from the Executive Officer of SCAQMD. AQMD Rule 1401 New Source Review of TACs Rule 1401 specifies limits to maximum individual cancer risks (MICR), cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic hazard index (HI), from new permitted facilities or facilities with modified permits which emit TACs. This rule allows the AQMD to deny the issuance of a permit to a facility that emits TACs unless they are able to demonstrate that the facility emission of TACs will not increase the cumulative MICR by one in one million if they do not incorporate Best Available Control Technologies (BACT), or ten in one million if they do incorporate BACTs; will not increase the total chronic hazard index by 1.0 at any receptor location; and will not increase the total acute hazard index by 1.0 at any receptor location. This rule does not apply to continually operated facilities that existed prior to rule adoption date of September 8, AQMD Rule Requirements for New and Relocated Facilities Near Schools Rule provides additional health protection to children, at schools, or schools under construction, from new or relocated facilities emitting TACs. This rule allows the AQMD to deny the issuance of a permit to a facility that emits TACs unless they are able to demonstrate that the facility s emissions of TACs will not increase the cumulative MICR by one in one million at any school or school under construction, within 500 feet of the toxic-emitting permit unit(s) at the facility; will not result in cumulative increase in the total chronic hazard index by 1.0 at any school or school under construction within 500 feet of the facility; and will not result in the cumulative increase in total acute hazard index by 1.0 at any school, or school under construction, within 500 feet of the facility. This rule does not apply to continually operated facilities that existed prior to rule adoption date of September 8, AQMD Rule 1402 Control of Toxic Air Contaminates from Existing Sources Rule 1402 reduces the health risk associated with emissions of TACs from existing sources by specifying limits for MICR, cancer burden, and noncancer acute and chronic HI to total facility emissions and by requiring facilities to implement risk reduction plans to achieve specified risk limits, as required by the Hot Spots Act and this rule. The rule also specifies public notification and inventory requirements. This rule requires risk reduction requirements for any facility operator whose emissions exceed the facility-wide risk greater than, or equal to, the action risk levels. The action risk levels are defined as MICR of twenty-five in one million, cancer burden of 0.5, or a total acute or chronic HI of three (3.0) at any receptor location. 2.A-2

15 Daly Griffin St Ave Griffin Ave y Rio Los Angeles State Park 5 5 Riverside Dr Golden State Fwy Los Angeles River N San Fernando Rd Cypress Av W Avenue 26 5 W Avenue N Figueroa St 5 Marmion Way Arroyo Seco E Avenue 43 5 Lacy St 5 Dodger Stadium Academy Dr Elysian Park 5 Elysian Park Solano Ave N Ave 19 N San Fernando Rd 5 Humboldt St Pasadena Ave N Broadway E Ave 26 N Broadway Manitou Ave wood Fwy Centennial St N Figueroa St N Hill St N Broadway N Alameda St N Broadway Los Angeles State Historic Park N Main St Wilhardt St S Ave 18 Pasadena Ave Grand Ave Legend 5 Stadium Way W Cesar E Chavez Ave 5 Temple St Alpine St W College St 5 Los Angeles City Hall Los Angeles Union Station Old Age / Retirement Facility Medical Facility School Day Care Residential (in Plan Area only) N Vignes St 5 Spring St E Cesar E Chavez Ave 300 foot Buffer from Freeway Albion St N Mission Rd Project Area Boundary Metro Line and Station Sources City of Los Angeles, 2011, 2012; Arup, S Ave N Main St 5 Baldwin St Zonal Ave Marengo St 0 1,000 feet 2,000 Av Park Lincoln Valley Blvd Figure 2.A-1 Location of Existing Sensitive Receptors in the Vicinity of the Site Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR April 10,

16 BLANK PAGE

17 CARB, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective In this guidance document, CARB cites several studies that demonstrate adverse health effects (such as reduced lung function of children, increased cancer risks, or premature death in elderly individual with heart disease) of sensitive receptors when placed within 300 to 1,000 ft. of a freeway. CARB also finds that the adverse effects diminish with distance from the freeway. The carcinogenic risks are largely attributed to diesel particulate matter (DPM) from trucks and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. CARB has identified DPM as a TAC that 1 contributes to 70 percent of the known cancer risks from air toxics in California. CARB air quality monitoring and risk analysis further demonstrates that estimated risks vary with local meteorology, including wind patterns. As an example, potential cancer risks at 300 feet from a freeway were found to be much greater when sensitive receptors were located downwind from a facility as opposed to upwind. The CARB studies further confirm that health risks drop substantially within the first 300 feet of the freeway, and suggest not exposing children to elevated air pollution levels immediately downwind and within 500 feet of a freeway. TAC Sources Within Proximity to the Project Area Freeway Sources The I-5 and SR-110 are the only roadways within the Project Area that carry the volumes specified in the ARB s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to substantially contribute to a health hazard risk to adjacent sensitive receptors. As stated above, freeways are a major source of such TAC as DPM from trucks and benzene and 1,3-butadiene from passenger vehicles. However, trucks are prohibited on the segment of SR-110 freeway between the 101 and where it terminates in Pasadena, indicating the DPM is not a TAC source on the SR-110 in the proximity of the Project Area. The regulatory environment, in confluence with new technology, continues to evolve to reduce mobile source DPM emissions. CARB is continually implementing new regulations to reduce DPM and TACs from mobile emission sources. Specifically, programs targeted to reduced emissions from diesel-powered trucks will result in lower DPM through fuel reformulation and engine catalysts enhancements. The following are a selection of such programs: On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks Regulations (2007), the Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (GMERP) and the Proposed On-Road In-Use Truck Regulations Also, the confluence of higher State-required fuel efficiency standards required by the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and State Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley), along with 1 CARB Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles 2.A-5

18 consumer preference, will result in a higher percentage of hybrid- and electric-powered vehicles, which will yield lowered pollution levels over the long-term. Industrial Sources Aside from the freeways, other potential sources of TAC emissions within or in close proximity to the Project Area include but are not limited to: food and commercial distribution facilities, railyards, fuel dispensing facilities, utility transmission facilities, forging and dye shops, chrome plating operations and other industrial uses. Industrial sources of TACs within, and in close proximity to the Project Area were identified using SCAMQD Facility Identification Database (FINDs) and are listed in Table I.1 in Appendix I. Distribution facilities in the Project Area have the potential to be a contributing source of DPM. Two factors that contribute to DPM at food distribution facilities are the emissions resulting from truck idling and the diesel powered transport refrigeration units (TRU). In 2004, CARB adopted two control measures aimed to limit DPM from distribution facilities that included the prohibition of diesel-fueled truck idling of more than five minutes (CARB Rule 2480), and the required phase-in of cleaner TRU engines over time. This second regulation, TRU Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM), establishes performance standards for existing TRU engines with the highest standards phase-in for new engines starting in Because CARB regulation restricts the truck idling from distribution centers, the largest source of DPM is from the TRU operation, and the truck travel to and from distribution centers. Based on their exposure modeling and evaluation of associated potential cancer risks for a typical distribution center, CARB developed a series of siting recommendations that varied over time depending on the phase of the TRU ATCM regulation. For example, with phase in of the TRU ATCM regulation, in 2010 the potential cancer risks could exceed 10 in one million for sensitive receptors located less than approximately 550 feet, while by 2020, the distance to related risks that could exceed 10 in one million for sensitive receptors will be reduced to less than approximately 225 feet. 2 In addition to reduced risks resulting from regulation over time, CARB notes that locating sensitive land uses away from the main entry and exit points also helps to reduce the risk and health impacts to sensitive receptors in proximity to distribution centers. An estimate of TAC sources in the Project Area can be inferred from other HRAs conducted nearby. In the Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) HRA, CARB evaluated the health 3 impacts from off-site pollution sources that were not attributed to the LATC railyard. DPM offsite emissions used in CARB s off-site modeling runs, representing emissions for 2005 consisted of 31.7 tons per year from roadways and 1.3 tons per year from stationary facilities. In the 2 CARB. April Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective 3 CARB, Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard, Pg A-6

19 Figure V-4: Estimated Cancer Risk near the UP LATC Railyard (Off-Site) Legend Project Area Boundary LATC Railyard Risk Level (units?) Highway/Freeway Source Figure 2.A-2 Estimated Cancer Risk of the Project Area and Near Proximity Not Associated with the LATC Railyard Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR May 15, 2012 California Air Resources Board, California Air Resources Board Page 70

20 BLANK PAGE

21 Project Area, the estimated potential cancer risks attributed to area specific non-latc DPM emissions range between 100 and 250 in a million as illustrated in Figure 2.A-2. 4 This is in addition to estimated regional background risk level in the South Coast Air Basin, estimated to be about 1,000 in a million caused by all toxic air pollutants in 2000 (CARB, 2006). 5 Also as part of the LATC HRA, CARB evaluated non-dpm TACs within the Project Area. 6 According to CARB s Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles (CARB, 2000), DPM, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, carbon tetrachloride, and formaldehyde are defined as the top five cancer risk contributors, based on ambient concentrations. Among the off-site toxic air contaminant emissions for the LATC Railyard, the top five cancer risk contributors (without DPM) impart an estimated 1.9 tons per year. 7 In the Project Area, the estimated potential non-cancer hazard index attributed to area specific non- LATC TAC emissions range between 0.05 to 0.3 as illustrated in Figure 2.A-3. Railyard Sources Railyards are another potential source of DPM pollution in the project area. The LATC railyard directly borders the Project Area on the southeast side. A CARB study of health risk of DPM from the Roseville Railyard in Northern California predicted a potential cancer risk greater than 500 in a million (based on 70 years of exposure) in a acre area immediately adjacent to the Yard s maintenance operations. 8 However, CARB cautions against applying the findings from other areas, especially as the Roseville Railyard study is largely dependent upon local meteorological conditions and the large number of locomotives, particularly idling locomotives (given the Yards is one of the largest servicing and maintenance yards in the West emitting 25 tons of DPM per year 9 ). Nevertheless, CARB recommends that land use planners avoid placing new sensitive receptors into the highest exposure areas. A more detailed report on LATC s emissions and potential health risk is included below. Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) In accordance with a 2005 MOU with CARB, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) prepared a facility wide emission inventory for the Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) Railyard. The LATC Railyard is an intermodal container facility. The inventory quantifies emissions of specified toxic air contaminants (TACs) (including DPM) from stationary, mobile, 4 Ibid,, Pg-21, ARB, 2006a. The California Almanac of Emission & Air Quality, 2006 edition. 6 CARB, Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard, Pg 44 7 CARB, Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard, Pg 44 8 ibid. 9 CARB, Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard 2.A-9

22 area, and portable sources at LATC. 10 Emission sources include, but are not limited to, locomotives, light-heavy-duty Diesel fueled trucks, heavy-heavy-duty (HHD) diesel-fueled trucks, cargo handling equipment, transport refrigeration units (TRUs) and refrigerated rail cars, and fuel storage tanks. An air dispersion modeling analysis was also conducted for LATC. The purpose of the analysis was to estimate ground-level concentrations of DPM and other TACs, emitted from railyard operations, at receptor locations near the railyard. Emission sources included in the modeling analysis were locomotives, HHD diesel-fueled trucks, diesel-fueled cargo handling equipment (CHE), diesel-fueled heavy equipment, and a gasoline storage tank. The total facility-wide DPM emissions were reported as 7.3tons per year (tpy) in , contributing to 17 % of DPM emissions within a mile of the LATC, with locomotives and diesel-fueled CHE constituting 46 % and 30.3 % of the LATC DPM emissions respectively. 12 To put this in perspective, Roseville is the highest emitting source of DPM emissions of California railyards at 25 tons per year. The analysis concluded that the weighted cancer risk by source category was locomotives (46 %), diesel-fueled CHE (23.7 %), HHD diesel-fueled trucks (14.4 %), TRUs and reefer cars (6.6 %), and heavy equipment (2.4%) and the weighted non-cancer risk by source category was locomotives (36 %), diesel-fueled CHE (30 %), gasoline storage tanks (22 %), HHD dieselfueled trucks (11.2 %), and TRUs and reefer cars (5.2 %). 13 The estimated potential cancer risks associated with the LATC are represented in the isopleths in Figure 2.A-4. The maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) attributed to the LATC is estimated at about 250 per million, 14 and an average potential cancer risk of 185 in a million. 15 As shown in Figure 2.A-4, the estimated cancer risks decline with distance from the LATC to 50 in a million within a half mile of the railyard boundary, to 25 in a million within a mile of the railyard boundary, and to 10 in a million at about two miles from the railyard boundary. 16 As shown in Figure 2.A-5, the estimated potential non-cancer chronic risk health hazard index levels from the LATC Railyard TAC emissions do not exceed CARB has developed a host of regulations and incentive programs to reduce statewide DPM emissions from railyard facilities. In 2005, the ARB entered into a statewide railroad pollution reduction agreement (2005 Statewide Railroad Agreement) with UPRR and BNSF Railway 10 Robert G. Ireson, Toxic Air Contaminant Emission Inventory and Dispersion Modeling Report for the Los Angeles Transportation Center, Los Angeles, California. Sierra Research, Inc. (Accessed on May/2/2012) 11 CARB Draft Diesel Particulate Matter Mitigation Plan for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) Rail Yard, Pg 3 12 Robert G. Ireson, pg Ibid. pg CARB, Health Risk Assessment for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center Railyard, Pg Ibid. pg Ibid, Pg Ibid, Pg 20 2.A-10

23 Legend Project Area Boundary LATC Railyard Risk Level (units?) Highway/Freeway Source California Air Resources Board, Figure 2.A-3 Estimated Non-Cancer Chronic Risk Levels of the Project Area and Near Proximity Not Associated with the LATC Railyard Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR May 15, 2012

24 BLANK PAGE

25 Risk (Chances per Million People) From the UP LATC Railyard Legend Project Area Boundary LATC Railyard Risk Level (Chances per Million People) California Air Resources Board Highway/Freeway Source California Air Resources Board, Figure 2.A-4 Estimated Regional Cancer Risk (Chances per Million People) From the UP LATC Railyard Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR Page 63 May 15, 2012

26 BLANK PAGE

27 Legend Project Area Boundary LATC Railyard Health Hazard Index Level Highway/Freeway Source California Air Resources Board, Figure 2.A-5 Estimated Non-Cancer Chronic Risk Health Hazard Index From the LATC Railyard Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR May 15, 2012

28 BLANK PAGE

29 Company (BNSF) to implement near-term measures to reduce DPM emissions in and around California railyards by approximately 20% (ARB, 2005). 18 In addition to the 2005 Statewide Railroad Agreement, other regulations and programs to reduce locomotive and railyard based DPM include: CARB Diesel Fuel Regulations Extended to Intrastate Locomotives (2007) CARB Cargo Handling Equipment Regulations (2007) CARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks Regulations (2007) U.S. EPA Locomotive Emission Standards (1998) and (2008) South Coast Locomotive NOx Fleet Average Agreement (2010), CARB Port and intermodal Railyard Truck Regulations (2010) Transport Refrigeration Unit (TRU) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) (2010)CARB Existing Private Truck Fleet Regulation (2010) CARB Tier 4 Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Emission Standards ( ) CARB Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan (GMERP) Proposed On-Road In-Use Truck Regulations, and the California Yard Locomotive Replacement Program In 2009, UPRR prepared a Mitigation Plan for the LATC railyard to satisfy the requirements of the 2005 Railroad Statewide Agreement. UPRR updated the LATC emissions inventory as part of a DPM Mitigation Plan and reported 5.2 tpy DPM emissions in 2007, a 29 % reduction in two years as a result of Statewide efforts that included idle control devices of locomotives, aggressive fuel efficiency standards and deployment of cleaner, low emitting locomotives. 19 With implementation of proposed mitigation measures indentified in the DPM Mitigation Plan, the LATC railyard is projected to emit 2.7 tpy of DPM by 2020, a 63 % reduction from the 7.3 tpy DPM emissions reported in These mitigation measures comprise the continued phase-in of cleaner emitting locomotives, continued reduction in equipment idling, modernization of CHE, cleaner HHD diesel-fueled drayage truck fleet, and cleaner TRUs. Project Impacts This EIR is a programmatic document and there are no specific Proposed Alternatives proposed at this time. Methodological inputs about specific site location and orientation of TAC sources, and sensitive receptor locations, emission profiles and local meteorology are a few of the factors required for an HRA to produce a quantitative health risk impact conclusion. 21 Performing a quantitative analysis to determine the significant health risk impact to future residents could only CARB, ARB/Railroad Statewide Agreement: Particulate Emissions Reduction Program at the California Railyards. Sacramento, CA. June, CARB Draft Diesel Particulate Matter Mitigation Plan for the Union Pacific Railroad Los Angeles Transportation Center (LATC) Rail Yard, Pg 12 ibid, Pg 3 CAPCOA Health Risk Assessment for Land Use Projects. 2.A-17

30 be conducted at the time of the development of a specific project. However, because sensitive receptors would potentially be permitted in proximity to TAC sources under the siting distances to industrial uses prescribed in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, and within an area that currently exceeds threshold values for TAC related health risks, the health risk impacts related to siting sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC sources is revised to be considered a potentially significant impact and would require mitigation as included below. Mitigation Measures State law restricts siting new schools within 500 feet of freeway, though no such requirement exists for siting other sensitive receptors such as residential uses, play grounds, or medical facilities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure Air Quality 2 includes a requirement for any use that includes a sensitive receptor located within 500 feet of a freeway to conduct an HRA and provides for any resulting mitigation as an integral part of the design of the facilities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure Air Quality 2 is applied to reduce the risk to residents and other sensitive receptors in the Project Area. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 2: Based on the recommended buffer distances of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), for all projects that proposes sensitive land uses, which may include residential uses, daycare centers, medical facilities, and other sensitive receptors within at least 500 feet from either the I-5 or SR-110 freeways, the Project Applicant shall submit a health risk assessment (HRA) prepared in accordance with policies and procedures of the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to the Director of Planning or their designee, prior to issuance of building permit. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), or the appropriate non-cancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant shall be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics (T-BACTs) are capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. T-BACTs may include, but are not limited to installation of Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters rated at 13 or better at all residential units. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 3: As described in the proposed zoning for the Specific Plan applicants for new developments that proposes sensitive land uses, which may include residential uses, daycare centers, medical facilities, and other sensitive receptors in the Project Area within 500 feet of either the SR-110 or I-5 freeways; or within 1,000 feet of a heavy railway (ie LATC railyard), distribution center (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week), or other industrial facility which emits toxic air contaminants; or within 300 feet of dry cleaners; or within 50 feet of a fuel dispensing facility shall be required to install and maintain air filters meeting or 2.A-18

31 exceeding the ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) filters of MERV 13 in the intake of ventilation systems, to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety. Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk from SR-110 or I-5 freeways, or other TAC sources for all affected units. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 4: For any project that proposes sensitive land uses, which may include residential uses, daycare centers, medical facilities, and other sensitive receptors located at or within 1,500 feet of a freeway or TAC sources including heavy railways (ie LATC railyard) and other sources of DPM and other known carcinogens shall be required to install and maintain air filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 12 in the intake of ventilation systems, to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety. Developer, sale, and/or rental representative shall provide notification to all affected tenants/residents of the potential health risk from TAC sources for all affected units. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 5: For any project that proposes sensitive land uses, which may include residential uses, daycare centers, medical facilities, and other sensitive receptors located beyond 1,500 feet of a freeway or other industrial TAC sources shall be required to install and maintain air filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE Standard 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11 in the intake of ventilation systems, to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 6: If the installation of an air filtration system is determined to be necessary to reduce exposure of on-site occupants to TACs, the following additional measures shall occur to guarantee long-term maintenance and replacement of the air filters in the individual units: a) For rental units the owner/property manager shall maintain the air filtration system and replace air filters in accordance with the manufacture s recommendations. The property owner shall inform renters of increased risk of exposure to TACs when windows are open. b) For residential owned units the Homeowner s Association (HOA) shall incorporate requirements for long-term maintenance in the Covenant Conditions and Restrictions and inform homeowners of their responsibility to maintain the air filtration system in accordance with the manufacturer s recommendations. The HOA shall inform homeowner s of increased risk of exposure to TACs when windows are open. 2.A-19

32 c) Air filtration system may create more resistance to airflow because the filter media becomes denser as efficiency increases. Heating, air conditioning and ventilation (HVAC) systems shall be installed with a fan unit designed with sufficient power to force air through the air filters. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 7: For any project that proposes a sensitive land use within 500 feet of freeways, or within 1,000 feet of heavy railways (ie LATC railyard) and other sources of DPM or known carcinogens shall plant appropriate vegetation to screen the receptor from the DPM source to reduce exposure unless it is determined by an HRA to not be necessary to reduce health impacts. The vegetation shall be selected (such as certain types of coniferous trees) on the demonstrated effectives in filtering air pollution. A Covenants and Agreement shall be recorded on the property to maintain the vegetation in good condition. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 8: Sensitive land uses shall be oriented to reduce exposure from the main entry and exit points of distribution centers (that accommodates more than 100 trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU operations exceed 300 hours per week), unless an HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk is less than one in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), or the appropriate non-cancer hazard index is less than 1.0. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 9: All outdoor active-use public recreational areas associated with Proposed Alternatives shall be located more than 500 feet from the nearest lane of traffic on the SR-110 or I-5 freeways, unless an HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk is less than one in one hundred thousand (1.0E-05), or the appropriate non-cancer hazard index is less than 1.0. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 10: The applicant/developer may be permitted to install an alternative design feature or mitigation than those measures that are prescribed by the City if the developer carries out a health risk assessment (HRA) that demonstrates the air quality impacts to on site occupants would be less than significant after inclusion of specific site design features. The HRA shall include a dispersion model acceptable to SCAQMD, meteorological data and estimation of both cancer and non-cancer risks. If the HRA shows that the incremental cancer risk exceeds one in one hundred thousand (1.0E- 05), or the appropriate non-cancer hazard index exceeds 1.0, the applicant shall be required to identify and demonstrate that Best Available Control Technologies for Toxics capable of reducing potential cancer and non-cancer risks to an acceptable level, including appropriate enforcement mechanisms. 2.A-20