17. Other CEQA Considerations

Transcription

1 17. Other CEQA Considerations

2

3 17 Other CEQA Considerations 17.1 Introduction In addition to the direct and indirect impacts analyzed in Chapters 3 through 16 of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the following impacts are assessed in this chapter: Cumulative Impacts (Section 17.2) Growth-Inducing Impacts (Section 17.3) Unavoidable Significant Impacts (Section 17.4) Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects (Section 17.5) In addition, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this chapter also includes a discussion of alternatives to the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan (Proposed Alternative) (Section 17.6). It also includes a description of the determination of the Environmentally Superior Alternative (Section 17.7) Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Definition CEQA requires that an EIR contain an assessment of the cumulative impacts that could be associated with project implementation. This assessment involves examining the effects of the Proposed Alternative on the environment in the context of similar effects that have been caused by past or existing projects, and the anticipated effects of future projects. Although project-related impacts may be individually minor, the cumulative effects of these impacts, in combination with the impacts of other projects, could be significant under CEQA and must be addressed (CEQA Guidelines, section 15130(a)). An EIR must discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when its incremental effect will be cumulatively considerable. This means that the incremental effects of an individual project would be considerable when viewed in combination with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, section 15065(c)). CEQA Guidelines section defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. This section states further that individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Section 15130(a)(3) of the Guidelines states also that an EIR may determine that a project s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if a project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. Section 15130(b) of the Guidelines indicates that the level of detail of the cumulative analysis need not be as great as for the project impact analyses, that it should reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, and that it should be focused, practical, and reasonable. Page 17-1

4 The resources analyzed for cumulative contribution are as follows: Land use Transportation Visual resources Earth resources Hydrology and water quality Biological resources Cultural resources Hazardous materials Noise and vibration Population, housing, and employment Public services and recreation facilities Utilities Air quality (regional and global) Cumulative Methodology The methodology for assessing cumulative impacts considers the impacts of the Proposed Alternative in combination with other projects that could combine in space and time to result in cumulative impacts. For this assessment, most of the potential combinations of impacts would occur at a sub-regional level based on the potential for the impacts anticipated from the Proposed Alternative to combine with impacts from other projects. Examples of such sub-regional impacts are traffic impacts from the implementation of the Proposed Alternative combining with traffic impacts of other adjacent regional planned developments. Other broader cumulative impacts could also occur. For example, cumulative impacts from climate change would extend beyond the sub-regional geography and have relevance to global considerations. To assess the cumulative impacts of the Proposed Alternative in the context of sub-regional development, this EIR has assessed the maximum demand for each resource topic. In effect, this cumulative assessment considers the worst-case scenario of the Proposed Alternative compared to the existing conditions for all resource topics, and is referred to from this point forward as the worst-case scenario. In addition, this EIR identifies other relevant projects that could combine in space and time to result in cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines (section 15130) recommend using either a "list" or "projection" approach to identify these projects. The list approach requires the identification of all past, present, and probable future projects that could contribute to a significant cumulative environmental impact. A projection approach requires a review of related planning documents that describe regional conditions related to the cumulative impact. This EIR uses a combination of these approaches. Other projects in the vicinity of the Project Area that have either been approved or have submitted an urban development permit or other permit application to a federal or nonfederal agency are listed in Table Page 17-2

5 Project Name Blossom Plaza Chinatown Gateway Chinatown Metro Apartments Grandview Garden Lotus Gardens White Memorial Linda Vista Senior Housing Whittier Apartments Las Alturas Senior Housing Address 900 North Broadway North Broadway 808 North Spring Street 940 North Hill Street Yale Street 1828 Cesar Chavez 610 South Saint Louis Street 3555 East Whittier Boulevard 3551 Whittier Boulevard Table 17-1: Other Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Area Project Owner Developer to be selected Equity Residential Meta Housing Ling's Property, Inc. Affirmed Housing Group White Memorial Hospital AMCAL Retirement Housing Foundation Retirement Housing Foundation Program Description New 7 story building with 209 units of housing (53 affordable units), 40,000 square feet of retail, and a 17,000 square feet plaza 280 residential units and 18,000 square feet of retail in a new 6-story building Adaptive reuse of a 9 story building with 123 units of affordable housing 18 "loft style" units with retail on first floor New 5-story building with 59 units of affordable housing New Addition to hospital Adaptive Reuse of 97 affordable senior units New Construction of 60 family housing units New Construction of 78 units of senior housing Square Footage Parking Spaces Status (Timetable) 360, Enter Exclusive Right to Negotiate with selected developer in October , Groundbreaking in April 2011, Completion in Spring ,489 0 Construction anticipated to begin Fall ,000 0 Design stage 67, Completion Fall , Schematic drawings 195,390 (site) 51 Conceptual drawings 51, Construction drawings 35, Construction drawings First and Mission 110 South Boyle Avenue Joint Development New two-story building with 5 live/work units 25, Schematic drawings Marengo Center 1902 Marengo Street Private Development New three story commercial building with retail on the first floor; and offices above 27, Construction drawings 1526 Cesar E. Chavez Avenue 1526 Cesar E. Chavez Avenue Pacifica Development New building with six units 12, Conceptual drawings Source: Los Angeles Department of City Planning, Los Angeles, Page 17-3

6 These projects were selected based on their status (they are approved or have submitted a permit application), their location in relationship to the Project Area, size, and context (i.e., infill, green field development, redevelopment). It is considered that these projects could potentially combine in space and time with the worst-case scenario to result in cumulative impacts. However, the sphere of influence, or area, considered in the cumulative assessment is specific to each resource area assessed, and is noted in that specific resource assessment. The majority of the projects shown in Table 17-1 are small-scale and would be constructed within a relatively short timeframe. Two of these projects are directly next to a fixed rail route (Blossom Plaza and Chinatown Gateway), which provides benefits in terms of potential traffic reductions Land Use The projects considered in the land use cumulative assessment are shown in Table The potential impacts from these projects in combination with impacts from the worst-case scenario could combine in space and time to result in cumulative impacts to land use. As discussed in Chapter 3, there are no potentially significant impacts to land use from implementing the Proposed Alternative. The projects described in Table 17-1 conform with the City of Los Angeles General Plan (General Plan). The Proposed Alternative will be incorporated into this framework through an approved General Plan Amendment by the City of Los Angeles. Generally, land use is consistent with existing designations, and the other projects in combination with the worstcase scenario would not result in cumulative impacts to land use. On a regional scale, all the other projects noted in Table 17-1 contribute to the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) growth management strategy to accommodate growth within the existing urban framework and service limits Transportation As described in more detail in Chapter 4, the traffic forecasting process that provides the basis for addressing operational traffic impacts associated with the Proposed Alternative under cumulative (2035) conditions was performed using a travel demand model developed from the SCAG 2008 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) travel demand forecasting (TDF) model. The SCAG 2008 RTP model focuses on estimating regional travel for the entire Southern California region. Since the Proposed Alternative is located in a localized area of the region, it was necessary to supplement the SCAG 2008 RTP model with a more detailed sub-area model. Following the modification of the roadway network and traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure, the sub-area model was validated to ensure the model replicated 2009 traffic conditions and would respond to changes in the built environment. The next step in the forecasting process was to develop a cumulative (2035) no project subarea model. The same roadway network and TAZ structure modifications made to the base year SCAG 2008 RTP model were made to the 2035 SCAG 2008 RTP model to ensure that the cumulative (2035) no project analysis scenario was consistent with the traffic analysis guidelines of Los Angeles Department of Transport (LADOT). By using this scenario as the basis of comparison for evaluating cumulative (2035) conditions with the implementation of the Proposed Alternative cumulative contribution to traffic impacts can be identified. As discussed in Chapter 4, the Proposed Alternative would generate approximately 2,506,000 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per day, an increase of approximately 159,000 Page 17-4

7 VMT when compared to the cumulative (2035) No Project Alternative. However, as a large, regional-scale project, the new land uses added by Proposed Alternative would influence overall traffic patterns in the region as discussed in Chapter 4. Thus, simply adding projectrelated VMT on top of regional VMT does not provide a realistic representation of how the Proposed Alternative would change overall travel in the area. The Proposed Alternative s true impact on regional VMT is estimated by subtracting the total regional VMT estimated under the cumulative (2035) no project scenario from the cumulative (2035) plus project scenario. Once this step is taken, the Proposed Alternative s true cumulative impact on VMT on Los Angeles County Roadways is a reduction of approximately 296,000 VMT Visual Resources The Proposed Alternative establishes zoning strategies and development standards to transform the Project Area by combining the goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan to help create a vibrant 24-hour, 7-day-aweek community of mixed-use neighborhoods that acts as a magnet for new residents, jobs, and visitors. As set out in the Proposed Alternative, the Project Area will change from its current condition to accommodate a range of new urban uses including residential, commercial, and industrial. As demonstrated in Chapter 5, no potentially significant visual resources impacts have been identified as a result of implementation of the Proposed Alternative and none are expected in the cumulative condition Earth Resources The Project Area has been evaluated with respect to its potential impacts on the existing geologic conditions, as generally outlined by CEQA. Additionally, the impacts of potential geologic hazards on the future development have been evaluated. As discussed in Chapter 6, no potentially significant earth resources impacts have been identified as a result of implementing the Proposed Alternative and none are expected in the cumulative condition Hydrology and Water Quality Approximately 28 acres of the Project Area are within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year floodplain. These areas are located along the south eastern extent of the Project Area downstream from Broadway to Main Street. This impact would be potentially significant without mitigation as discussed in Chapter 7. Development of the Project Area with the mitigation proposed in Chapter 7 would provide an opportunity to integrate flood control and/or flood protection actions along the portion of the Los Angeles River where the 100-year floodplain extends beyond the flood channel. This would result in a net positive cumulative impact Biological Resources The vegetation communities in the Project Area have the potential to support nesting birds. Bird species observed in the Project Area may potentially nest in buildings, shrubs, and trees within the ornamental and scrub communities that could be disturbed or removed as a result of implementation of the Proposed Alternative. This includes impacts to American Peregrine Falcons that nest in tall buildings within urban areas. This impact is considered to be potentially significant and could have cumulative effects in the region. However, the mitigation to be applied includes avoiding the birds nesting season when possible; conducting surveys prior to construction activities; and by limiting future construction in the Page 17-5

8 Project Area to periods when nesting birds are not present, it is possible to implement the Proposed Alternative without affecting migratory or resident birds at the Project Area. The same requirements could be placed on other future projects in the proximity of the Project Area and this would reduce the potential for cumulative impacts to biological resources Cultural Resources The development of new buildings, structures, or infrastructure as a result of the implementation of the Proposed Alternative could cause adverse changes to currently unknown cultural resources in the area, potentially including paleontological or archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, or the disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemetery or burial ground. This could result in a cumulative impact since these adverse changes would potentially result in a loss of both temporal and geographical knowledge of cultural resources extending beyond the Project Area site. However the mitigation measures described in Chapter 9 will preclude this impact, so no cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated Hazardous Materials Potential environmental impacts related to the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste is discussed in Chapter 10. Hazardous materials are substances with certain chemical and physical properties that could pose a substantial hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed. A large portion of the Project Area has a long history of industrial uses which may have resulted in the improper management of hazardous materials and waste. These sites and the regulations affecting them are also enumerated in Chapter 10. The analysis assumes that all applicable regulations will be complied with during future development and operations in the Project Area. Further, construction of infrastructure will be required to remediate, as appropriate, areas of prior contamination before erecting new structures. It is understood that the same standards that will be applied in the Project Area will also be applied in other parts of the City of Los Angeles and other communities in Los Angeles County in compliance with applicable federal, State and regional regulations. Therefore, negative cumulative impacts from hazardous materials and waste are not anticipated Noise and Vibration Noise and vibration impacts from implementation of the Proposed Alternative have been described in Chapter 12. The increase in population, industrial uses, and vehicle traffic that is expected due to the development will induce a net increase in noise in the Project Area and in nearby communities. Numerous mitigation measures are proposed in Chapter 12 and these will serve to reduce the significance of these noise and vibration impacts. However, development of residential and other noise-sensitive land uses in some areas is likely to occur,, resulting in an increase in the amount of sensitive receptors that may experience noise levels higher than are Conditionally Acceptable or are Clearly Unacceptable according to the City of Los Angeles Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use Population, Housing, and Employment As discussed in Chapter 13, implementation of the Proposed Alternative would not indirectly induce additional population growth, above and beyond that projected by the City of Los Angeles. Regarding infrastructure-induced growth, the Proposed Alternative would provide for public works improvements to existing streets, sidewalks, pedestrian areas, and the utilities infrastructure within and immediately surrounding the Project Area. Also provided will be transportation improvements and the revitalization of major thoroughfares servicing Page 17-6

9 the area, public parks and plazas, recreation areas, and improvements to the river embankments. These infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to induce substantial additional population growth in areas beyond the Project Area boundaries above levels anticipated in the General Plan, since this is an underutilized area within an already developed urban area located close to the center of the Los Angeles region. Some existing businesses may choose to move out of the Project Area to seek areas that do not restrict specific uses such as trucking and warehouse uses. This induced and cumulative effect would be beneficial to the areas receiving the relocates. Therefore, negative cumulative impacts regarding population, housing, and employment are not anticipated Public Services and Recreation Facilities Chapter 14 discusses public community facilities such as police protection, fire and emergency response services, libraries, parks, schools (K-12), community colleges and universities, and community/ cultural centers. The area surrounding the Project Area provides less than 1.3 acres of public open space per 1,000 people, well below the City of Los Angeles objective to provide 4 acres per 1,000 people and significantly below the 6.25 to 10.5 acres per 1,000 people recommended by the National Recreation and Park Association. The Proposed Alternative when taken in combination with other development and redevelopment projects in the Los Angeles area would lead to an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities. However, the Proposed Alternative calls for a significant increase in park and open space that will be available to residents of the Los Angeles region and reduce the immediate region s shortage of these amenities. Therefore, negative cumulative impacts regarding public services or recreation facilities are not anticipated Utilities Chapter 15 addresses the following utilities: water supply and wastewater management, including recycled water, stormwater management, solid waste management, electrical supply, natural gas supply, and information technology/communications. Wastewater from the Project Area will be treated at the Hyperion Treatment Plant which is currently operating well below capacity. Cumulative impacts will be mitigated by the City of Los Angeles as the contributions from other development projects may in future approach the full capacity of the treatment plant. If this occurs, potentially undeveloped parts of the Project Area and/or other projects may be subject to discharge limits and would require a discretionary approval by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles (Regional Board). The additional demand for electricity in the Project Area together with other projects should be readily satisfied by purchases of electricity from the national grid. Natural gas supplies should be adequate for the Project Area in combination of demands from other development in the Los Angeles area. The Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) will include the increased demands as the Proposed Alternative and other Specific Plans are incorporated into the General Plan framework. SCGC has sufficient resources to meet the increased energy demands resulting from the Proposed Alternative as well as other land use plans as their growth is anticipated in the General Plan Framework. Private information technology / communications suppliers at this time have sufficient capacity to integrate the future Project Area site demand into their service schemes. The suppliers will need to demonstrate that they have the ability to provide services before the City of Los Angeles will approve their development plans. Therefore, no significant negative cumulative impacts regarding utilities are anticipated. Page 17-7

10 Air Quality (Regional and Global) Regional Impacts Most of the potential air quality cumulative impacts are sub-regional in nature. Air quality impacts, however, have the potential to result in cumulative regional impacts and in global impacts from climate change. This subsection discusses the regional cumulative impacts for air quality. The following subsection of the document discusses the more expansive climate change impacts. The region of influence for this cumulative assessment of regional air quality varies depending on the significance criteria; it ranges from the area regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to the area immediately surrounding the Project Area within the City of Los Angeles. This comprises the area in which potential impacts from the worst-case scenario, in combination with the other projects impacts, could combine in space and time to result in cumulative regional impacts to air quality. As discussed in Chapter 11, not all potential direct or indirect impacts to air quality from implementing the Proposed Alternative could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Proposed Alternative would result in unavoidable significant air quality impacts associated with population growth, as discussed in Section Similarly, the Proposed Alternative would generate VMTs greater than the existing situation, but lower than the No Project Alternative. As discussed in Chapter 11, the Proposed Alternative has been considered in the context of the Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), prepared by the SCAQMD, which prescribes a comprehensive control approach aimed at achieving the PM 2.5 standard by 2015 and achieving the 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 based on implementation of shortterm, medium-term, and long-term measures. A number of mitigation measures have been specified in the Specific Plan component of the Proposed Alternative to reduce air quality impacts. These include numerous measures to reduce the length and frequency of trips taken by residents in the Project Area. Examples of these measures include transit-oriented development, provision of shuttle services, local-serving retail, and bike lanes and sidewalks. Although these measures would increase the efficiency of mobility within the Project Area cumulative impacts will remain significant until the SCAQMD AQMP is updated with the new forecast population that takes into account the mitigation and increased efficiencies of the worst-case scenario Global Impacts/Climate Change Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions lead to impacts that are by definition cumulative and global in scope. Due to projected population growth in Los Angeles and the state of California, there will be an increase in GHGs whether they occur in the Project Area or elsewhere in the state. As specified in Chapter 16 (Energy and Greenhouse Gases), if a project contributes an increase in GHG emissions, then the project s GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable and mitigation would be required where feasible. The assumption of this zero-threshold indicates that the Proposed Alternative will be required to adopt all feasible mitigation measures. These have been taken into consideration in the quantitative assessment of GHG emissions discussed in Chapter 16. They are also the basis for the measures specified in the City of Los Angeles Climate Action Plan, which is being implemented and applies also to future development in areas beyond the Project Area. All measures to reduce VMT associated with the Proposed Alternative will also reduce GHG emissions from mobile sources (see Chapter 4: Transportation and Chapter 11: Air Quality). Page 17-8

11 When combined with stationary source reductions, the mobile source emission reductions will help reduce the overall GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Alternative and help meet the targets that have been established in the Climate Action Plan Growth-Inducing Impacts As required by section (d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Redevelopment Projects, by their nature, are growth-inducing. This is because they eliminate blight which is an impediment to growth, and encourage economic growth and revitalization of an area. Growth that would result from implementation of the Redevelopment Plan component of the Proposed Alternative can be induced in a number of ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth. Although growth inducement itself is not considered an environmental effect, it could potentially lead to environmental effects. In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if the project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service; the provision of new access to an area; a change in zoning or general plan amendment approval); or economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., changes in revenue base; employment expansion; etc.). These circumstances are further described as follows: Elimination of Obstacles to Growth. This refers to the extent to which a proposed project removes infrastructure limitations or provides infrastructure capacity, or removes regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. Economic Effects. This refers to the extent to which a proposed project could cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic effects can include effects such as the multiplier effect. A multiplier is an economic term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the economy. The multiplier effect provides a quantitative description of the direct employment effect of a project, as well as indirect and induced employment growth. The multiplier effect acknowledges that the on-site employment and population growth of each project is not the complete picture of growth caused by the project. As described in Chapter 13 (Population, Housing, and Employment), implementation of the Proposed Alternative would generate new jobs and housing. The projected increases in both jobs and housing, however, are consistent with planned regional growth. The Proposed Alternative could accommodate SCAG s projected population increases, assist in meeting SCAG s regional housing objectives, and conform with SCAG s strategy of providing jobs and housing in close proximity. In this respect, the implementation of the Proposed Alterative is growth managing rather than growth inducing by directing urban infill within an existing service area, restoring decaying industrial sites, adding parks, and preserving open space. Page 17-9

12 17.4 Unavoidable Significant Impacts This section summarizes the potential significant unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Alternative for which either no mitigation (or only partial mitigation) is feasible. Additional discussion on these impacts is provided in Table 17-1, which summarizes by resource area the significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. The resource areas in which some impacts are significant and unavoidable are transportation, air quality, and noise and vibration. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for these unavoidable impacts will be required for explaining why the stated economic, social, and other benefits of the Proposed Alternative override the remaining significant impact. This statement of overriding considerations will have to be approved before the Final EIR can be certified as being in compliance with CEQA. Page 17-10

13 Table 17-2 Significant Impacts of the Proposed Alternative That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level That Is Less Than Significant Impact Mitigation Measure Impact Transportation 1: The new land uses and the resulting roadway capacity changes that would occur with implementation of the Proposed Alternative would cause significant changes at 9 of the 43 study area intersections (9 of the 29 signalized intersections studied) in the cumulative (2035) condition, including 6 signalized study intersections outside the Project Area. This potential impact is considered to be significant. Mitigation Measure Transportation 1: The project will result in impacts to transportation and traffic systems. While it was determined that the additional right-of-way improvements would not be feasible to implement and that the impact would be significant and unavoidable, the transportation demand management (TDM) strategies proposed in the Project Alternative coupled with the Specific Plan s mixed-use districts and urban design and complete street standards have the potential to increase pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activities. Impact Air Quality 1: The Proposed Alternative would result in the total vehicular emissions of ozone precursors exceeding the South Coast Air Quality Management District quantitative thresholds. This potential impact is considered to be significant. Mitigation Measure Air Quality 1: Prior to approving future development in the Project Area as a result of implementation of the Proposed Alternative, the City of Los Angeles shall ensure that the proposed project includes feasible measures for reducing automobile dependence and potential vehicle emissions as part of the basic project design. These measures include providing for a mix of uses, local and regional transit, and peak-hour shuttle services, bicycle and pedestrian measures such as sidewalks and bike lanes, and local-serving retail. Even with the implementation of this mitigation measure, this potential impact will remain significant and unavoidable. Page Septermber 2011

14 Impact Impact Noise and Vibration 1: Changes to Land Use Districts that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Alternative would allow the development of noise-sensitive land uses in some areas with existing ambient noise levels in excess of Normally Acceptable, Conditionally Acceptable, or Clearly Unacceptable noise levels according to the City of Los Angeles Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use. This potential impact is considered to be significant. Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Noise and Vibration 1a: Before the City grants planning approval for any residence, hospital, or nursing home on parcels of land adjacent to Spring Street, North Broadway, Main Street, San Fernando Road, I-5, or SR 110, the City of Los Angeles shall require developers to conduct a detailed acoustical analysis and submit it to the Department of City Planning or other appropriate department in the City of Los Angeles. All exterior windows having a line of sight of a major or secondary highway shall be constructed with double-pane glass and use exterior wall construction, which provides a Sound Transmission Coefficient (STC) value of 50, as determined in accordance with the requirements of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E90 and ASTM E413, or any amendment thereto. The applicant, as an alternative, may retain an acoustical engineer to submit evidence, along with the application for a building permit, identifying any alternative means of sound insulation sufficient to mitigate interior noise levels below a CNEL of 45 dba in any habitable room. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles shall require that new residential developments incorporate best practice measures to minimize noise levels in exterior living spaces, including but not limited to Locating exterior living spaces away from busy roadways Incorporating noise-screening elements in the building design such as barrier walls, and/or locating exterior living spaces set back from the façade on higher levels Page Septermber 2011

15 Impact Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Noise and Vibration 1b: Before the City of Los Angeles grants planning approval for any commercial land use on parcels of land adjacent to North Broadway and Main Street, the City of Los Angeles shall require developers to conduct an acoustical analysis and submit it to the Department of City Planning or other appropriate department in the City of Los Angeles. Construction of buildings for commercial use on land that is exposed to noise levels above the City of Los Angeles noise standard shall only be undertaken after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Mitigation Measure Noise and Vibration 1c: Before the City of Los Angeles grants planning approval for any public parks land use on parcels within the Project Area, the City of Los Angeles shall require developers to conduct an acoustical analysis and submit it to the Department of City Planning or other appropriate department in the City of Los Angeles. Public parks shall use grading, barrier walls, or setback distance to mitigate traffic noise from adjacent roads. Mitigation Measure Noise and Vibration 1d: Before the City of Los Angeles grants planning approval for any school, library, or church land use on parcels of land within the Project Area, the City of Los Angeles shall require developers to conduct an acoustical analysis and submit it to the Department of City Planning or other appropriate department in the City of Los Angeles. Schools shall use grading, barrier walls, or setback distance to mitigate traffic noise from adjacent roads. In addition to these mitigation measures, Standard Mitigation Measure XII-60 Increased Noise Levels (Mixed-Use Development) from the City of Los Angeles Standard Mitigations List should be considered where applicable, it states the following: Environmental impacts to proposed onsite residential uses from noises generated by proposed onsite commercial uses may result from project implementation. However, the potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measure: Wall and floor-ceiling assemblies separating commercial tenant spaces, residential units, and public places, shall have an STC value of at least 50, as determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTM E413. Even with the implementation of these mitigation measures, this potential impact may remain significant and unavoidable in some cases. Page Septermber 2011

16 17.5 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects Section (c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Section (c) states: "Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified." Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if: The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy). Long-term development associated with the Proposed Alternative would result in conversion of an existing underutilized urban and industrial area to mixed-use urban development. The Proposed Alternative is consistent with planned regional and local growth and has been developed based on the concept of sustainability, as demonstrated by: A comprehensive public outreach program, which has informed the planning process and allowed the views of the community in terms of jobs and services, as well as open space, to be considered within the design process. Consideration of ways in which to avoid or minimize environmental impacts for a wide range of environmental impacts, including climate change, as demonstrated by compliance with the Los Angeles Climate Action Plan. Consistency of all alternatives with SCAG s growth strategy for the Los Angeles area; creating neighborhoods that provide both housing and jobs in close proximity, providing additional parks and open space, and redeveloping decaying industrial sites. Therefore the Proposed Alternative would not result in significant, irreversible environmental effects that have not been previously considered in the development of regional and City of Los Angeles Plans. Page 17-14

17 17.6 Alternatives CEQA requires a discussion of alternatives. As presented in Chapters 3 through 16, the Proposed Alternative has been compared to what would happen in the Project Area with the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would result in maintaining existing General Plan requirements and applicable zoning for future development in the Project Area and the potential environmental impacts associated with that condition have previously been disclosed. Following is a discussion of other alternatives to the Proposed Alternative and an identification of their potential environmental impacts. First, the alternatives considered but rejected from further consideration are discussed followed by a description of three alternatives that were considered further. The potential environmental consequences of implementing any of these three alternatives as compared with the consequences of implementing the Proposed Alternative are then presented Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration During the extensive community planning process that resulted in the Proposed Alternative, other alternatives were considered, but rejected from further consideration because they were determined to not meet the purpose and needs for future actions in the Project Area that are identified in Chapter 1: Introduction. The alternatives that were rejected from further consideration include the following: An alternative with a different boundary footprint than the Proposed Alternative was considered. For example, during the early community planning process the inclusion of an area to the south of the Los Angeles River and east of Main Street was discussed. This area ultimately was not included in the Project Area because it was determined by the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (DCP) to not be facing the same need for an updated planning and land use regulatory context based on sustainability principles as set forth for as the Project Area. An alternative with a smaller boundary footprint than the Proposed Alternative. For example, during the early community planning process the Project Area was smaller than currently defined and did not include the area north of the Arroyo Seco and adjacent to North Figueroa Street. This area was ultimately included in the Project Area because it was determined by the DCP to be in need of an updated planning and land use regulatory context based on sustainability principles. An alternative with higher allowed development as compared with the Proposed Alternative was also considered. For example, during the community planning process suggestions to allow higher floor area ratios (FAR) were proposed. Similarly, greater building height and bulk was also suggested in certain locations. This option was ultimately rejected because it was determined by the DCP that it would have resulted in development that would not be internally compatible with the land use program that would result from the implementation of the Proposed Alternative in the other portions of the Project Area Other Alternatives Considered Three other alternatives were considered and evaluated during the development of the Proposed Alternative: the Modified Project Alternative, the Reduced Project Standards Alternative, and the No Redevelopment Plan Alternative. Page 17-15

18 Modified Project Alternative As set forth in Chapter 2: Project Description, changes to the land use program that would result from implementation of the Proposed Alternative have been identified for Block 52 where the Lincoln Heights Jail is located. This is because the building is currently vacant with the exception of the ground floor that is leased to the Bilingual Foundation for the Arts. The building was recently cited for mechanical problems relating to the inoperable elevator that required the closure of the upper floors of the building and the loss of use and revenues generated from that space. The proposed Greenway District designation in the Proposed Alternative for Block 52 may prove to be too limiting to attract future tenant that could generate sufficient revenues to renovate the building. Therefore, this alternative would result in changing the Greenway District designation to an Urban Innovation designation for the block as shown on Figure The impact of changing the potential land uses in this block to the uses allowed by the Urban Innovation District would have minor environmental impacts to all the resources examined in this Draft EIR except for earth resources and hazardous materials. However, the Modified Project Alternative could provide the economic stimulus to use Block 52 in a way that would improve the community Reduced Project Standards Alternative The Reduced Project Standards Alternative would lower the standards proposed for the Project Area in the Proposed Alternative. This alternative assumes that the land use designations identified in Chapter 2: Project Description would remain the same but the intensities of potential development could be reduced. For example the standards with respect to density, height and bulk of buildings, FAR, and the minimum requirements for open space could be reduced. While the Reduced Project Standards Alternative would result in potentially the same land use pattern as the Proposed Alternative, it is possible that the visual resources, utilities, and energy and GHGs, and other impacts would be reduced when compared to the Proposed Alternative No Redevelopment Plan Alternative The No Redevelopment Plan Alternative means that the redevelopment component of the Proposed Alternative would be eliminated. This would only happen in the event that redevelopment agencies are eliminated, as currently being considered by the State Legislature. If the Redevelopment Plan component of the Proposed Alternative were to be eliminated, the land use, transportation, and other changes that would result from the implementation of the Specific Plan component of the Proposed Alterative would remain the same as the potentially significant environmental impacts identified in Chapters 3 through 16. Therefore, removing the Redevelopment Plan component of the Proposed Alternative, while it would eliminate a potentially important way to help implement the Proposed Alternative, would have the same environmental consequences in the Project Area as the Proposed Alternative because the Specific Plan component of the Proposed Alternative could still be implemented. Page 17-16

19 B 60C Zoning Districts Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco (open space)a A Urban Center Urban Innovation Urban Village Greenway RD2-1 (no change) 21C Los Angeles River B RD1.5-1 (no change) Public Facilities Metro Gold Line & Station San Fernando Rd N Broadway 33 19B 21B B 30C 19A N Spring St A 29A 29B 29C N Main St feet Source City of Los Angeles, Prepared by City of Los Angeles Planning Dept. Figure 17-1 Modified Alternative Proposed Zoning Districts Cornfi eld Arroyo Seco Specifi c Plan and Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR September 6, 2011

20 Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts of the Other Alternatives Considered Table 17-3 provides a summary of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the other alternatives considered. The table is based on a qualitative comparison of the potential impacts of the three other alternatives in relation to the potentially significant environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Alternative. Table 17-3: Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts of the Other Alternatives Considered as Compared with the Proposed Alternative Impact Category Modified Project Alternative Reduced Project Standards Alternative No Redevelopment Plan Alternative Land Use Potentially the same depending on the level of development Transportation Potentially reduced Visual Resources Potentially reduced Earth Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially reduced Biological Resources Cultural Resources Hazardous Materials Air Quality Potentially reduced Noise and Vibration Potentially the same depending on the level of development Population, Housing, and Employment Potentially reduced Public Services and Recreation Facilities Potentially reduced Utilities Potentially reduced Energy and Greenhouse Gases Potentially reduced Source:., 2011 Page 17-18

21 17.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative This section discusses and identifies the environmentally superior alternative as required by section (e) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines. This determination recognizes that a comprehensive planning process, as described in section 1.3 of this document, was completed to develop the Proposed Alternative. The planning process involved consideration of a wide range of alternative land uses in the Project Area in the future. It also involved consideration of different development standards that would be applied to those alternative land uses. The Proposed Alternative was the combination of land uses and development standards that best met the planning objectives set forth in section of this document. Because of the comprehensive planning process the Proposed Alternative has been developed to incorporated many measures to avoid or minimize any potentially significant environmental impacts. In comparison to the existing conditions in the Project Area, the Proposed Alternative would create the three significant impacts identified in Table 17-2 that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. In addition, it would result in 24 potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. As shown in Table 17-3 implementation of the Modified Project Alternative, when compared with the Proposed Alternative, would result in a minor increase in impacts to all the environmental resources analyzed in this document except for earth resources and hazardous materials where the impacts would be the same. The Reduced Project Standards Alternative would result in a mix of potential impacts that would be the same as the Proposed Alternative or potentially reduced, while the No Redevelopment Plan Alternative would result in the same impacts as the Proposed Alternative. Therefore, the real tradeoff in making the determination as to which alternative is the environmentally superior one involves a comparison between the No Project Alternative, the Proposed Alternative, and Reduced Project Standards Alternative. The No Project Alternative would not meet the planning objectives identified in section that were established during the community planning process. It would leave the Project Area largely in the state that it is currently in and there would be no opportunity for the environmental improvements, such as the potential to develop more parks and recreation facilities, enhanced stormwater management, and the incorporation of sustainability concepts that would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed Alternative or the Reduced Project Standards Alternative. The Reduced Project Standards Alternative could possibly reduce the potentially significant and unavoidable transportation and air quality impacts of the Proposed Alternative. However, it is unknown what the reduced standards would be specifically, since the community planning process resulted in all of the standards incorporated into the Proposed Alternative. Therefore it would not fully meet the planning objectives identified in section Because the Proposed Alternative was developed to meet the community planning objectives, it would provide many community enhancements. It would result in significant impacts to only transportation, air quality, and noise that cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. However, it would also result in all of the potential community enhancements, such as the sustainability components that have been integrated into the Specific Plan component of the Proposed Alternative. Therefore, the Proposed Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Page 17-19