august 2014 - draft eis/eir: chapter 4 02 land use and...
TRANSCRIPT
4.2-1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
SectionSectionSectionSection 4444.2.2.2.2 Land Use and DevelopmentLand Use and DevelopmentLand Use and DevelopmentLand Use and Development
This section summarizes the existing land uses and
developments in the project area, and the potential
impacts of the proposed alternatives on these
resources. Information in this section is based on,
and updated where appropriate from, the Land Use
and Development Opportunities Technical
Memorandum, which is incorporated into this
Draft EIS/EIR as Appendix N.
4.2.1 Regulatory 4.2.1 Regulatory 4.2.1 Regulatory 4.2.1 Regulatory Framework/MethodologyFramework/MethodologyFramework/MethodologyFramework/Methodology As illustrated in Figure 4.2Figure 4.2Figure 4.2Figure 4.2----1111, the general plans and
zoning ordinances have been reviewed for
following jurisdictions: Los Angeles County and the
cities of Commerce, Los Angeles, Montebello,
Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe
Springs, South El Monte, and Whittier. The
following land use plans have also been reviewed:
East Los Angeles Community Plan, Montebello
Hills Specific Plan, Rancho de Bartolo Specific Plan
Amendment, Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan,
Whittier Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Plan,
and the 2011 Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master
Plan. The Southern California Association of
Governments’ (SCAG) 2012-2035 Regional
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS), which covers a six-county
region including the project area and this plan, has
also been reviewed. Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2----1111 briefly summarizes
relevant land use goals and policies associated with
each plan. More information about these plans is
available in Appendix N, Land Use and
Development Opportunities Technical
Memorandum, of this Draft EIS/EIR.
The Partnership for Sustainable Communities
livability principles were also reviewed. The livability
principles, developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), aim
to help improve access to affordable housing,
create more transportation options, and lower
transportation costs while protecting the
environment in communities nationwide.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provide criteria for evaluating potential
effects on land use and development. These criteria
define an adverse effect/significant impact as one
that would:
� Conflict or be incompatible with adjacent and
surrounding land uses caused by degradation
or disturbances that substantially diminish the
quality of a particular land use; or
� Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
Impact analysis methodology was based on an
inventory of existing land uses adjacent to each
alternative alignment. The catalogue of land uses
relied on general plan land use designations,
zoning ordinance designations, and observations
made during site reconnaissance. Land use maps
included in this section illustrate the land use
designations for parcels adjacent to the alternative
alignments.
The potential for the operation of each alternative
to conflict with existing land uses or any applicable
land use plan, policy, or regulation was evaluated in
Appendix N, Land Use and Development
Opportunities Technical Memorandum, and is
summarized below in Section 4.2.3.
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Source: CDM 2011.
Figure 4.2Figure 4.2Figure 4.2Figure 4.2----1111.... Project Area General Plans and Specific PlanProject Area General Plans and Specific PlanProject Area General Plans and Specific PlanProject Area General Plans and Specific Planssss
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-3
Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2----1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies
Planning Jurisdiction
Adopted Plans Relevant Goals and Policies
SCAG 2012 RTP The policies and goals of the RTP focus on the need to coordinate land use and transportation decisions to manage travel demand. Goals include:
Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness.
Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region.
Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region.
Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system.
Maximize the productivity of our transportation system.
Protect the environment and health of our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking).
Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non-motorized transportation.
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County General Plan
Concentrate high-density housing in and adjacent to centers to provide convenient access to jobs and services without sacrificing livability or environmental quality.
Emphasize channeling new intensive commercial development into multi-purpose centers.
Promote compatible land use arrangements that reduce the reliance on private automobiles in order to minimize related social, economic, and environmental costs.
Achievement of an efficient, well-balanced, integrated, multimodal transportation system that will satisfy short- and long-term travel needs for the movement of people and goods.
East Los Angeles Community Plan
Increase economic growth and job creation with priority to jobs accessible by public transportation.
Provide for new development which is compatible with and complements existing uses.
Commerce Commerce General Plan
Promote the operation and enhancement of regional and inter-city transit systems and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Los Angeles Los Angeles General Plan
Enhance Los Angeles County’s rail system, including extensions and feeder bus service.
Montebello Montebello General Plan
Facilitate traffic movement.
Provide ample commercial facilities to meet the needs of residents.
Provide opportunities for a variety of living needs.
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2----1. Relevant Land Use1. Relevant Land Use1. Relevant Land Use1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies Plans and Policies Plans and Policies Plans and Policies (continued)(continued)(continued)(continued)
Planning Jurisdiction
Adopted Plans Relevant Goals and Policies
Montebello Hills Specific Plan
Connect residential areas to existing public transit facilities and existing commercial and business land use areas.
Monterey Park Monterey Park General Plan
Make public transportation convenient, safe, and responsive to changing transit demands.
Create opportunities for new commercial business growth in areas of the city well-served by the circulation network.
Operating Industries, Inc. (OII)/Edison Focus Area:
Encourage development and reuse within the focus area; and
Coordinate with Caltrans to enhance the appearance of the SR 60 Freeway frontage bordering the focus area.
Pico Rivera
Pico Rivera General Plan
Encourage and support accessible, safe, and efficient public transit opportunities as a viable alternative to automobiles.
Support the use of alternative transportation through the development of facilities which support and accommodate these services.
Integrate alternative transportation into new developments to reduce the need for parking.
Rancho de Bartolo Specific Plan Amendment
Provide new employment opportunities for the city and the region.
Promote new development that will benefit the city.
Rosemead Rosemead General Plan
Promote the linking of local public transit routes with that of adjacent jurisdictions and other transit agencies.
Expand opportunities for concentrated commercial and industrial uses that contribute jobs and tax revenues to the community.
Encourage mixed-use development as a means of upgrading established uses and developing vacant parcels along arterials and providing new commercial, residential, and employment opportunities.
Encourage pedestrian-friendly commercial and residential planned developments wherever possible.
Santa Fe Springs
Santa Fe Springs General Plan
Provide an environment to stimulate local employment, community spirit, property values, community stability, tax base, and the viability of local business.
Support the development of regional facilities which ensure the safe and efficient movement of people and goods from within the city to areas outside its boundaries, and which accommodate regional travel demands of adjacent areas outside the city.
Encourage major new development that is designed in a manner which facilitates provision or expansion of transit service.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-5
Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2----1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies 1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies 1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies 1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies (continued)(continued)(continued)(continued)
Planning Jurisdiction
Adopted Plans Relevant Goals and Policies
South El Monte South El Monte General Plan
Facilitate and encourage the development of local- and regional-serving commercial uses, specifically north and south of SR 60 along Santa Anita Avenue.
Encourage the development of regional-serving commercial uses south of the SR 60 Freeway at Santa Anita Avenue.
Facilitate the development of freeway-oriented commercial uses on commercial properties along Santa Anita Avenue between the SR 60 Freeway and Central Avenue.
Create opportunities for multi-family housing development.
Whittier
Whittier General Plan
Encourage the development of mixed-use districts.
Provide a comprehensive public transportation system and alternative modes of transit.
Reduce emissions associated with VMT through encouragement of mixed-use developments and residential growth in and around commercial activity centers and transportation node corridors.
Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan
Attract new types of office land uses.
Establish the area as an appealing location for workplace uses.
Encourage the development of housing within and adjacent to the district.
Promote connections to the district from within the city and throughout the county by increasing transit service.
Whittier Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Plan
Develop properties that are underutilized.
Enhance commercial opportunities in the project area.
Strengthen the economic and employment base.
Improve public facilities.
Increase the housing supply.
Achieve an economically viable reuse coupled with appropriate means of historic preservation for the Fred C. Nelles California Youth Authority site.
Whittier Narrows Dam Basin
2011 Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan
Station site is designated as Inactive and/or Future Recreation and Easement Lands.
Source: CDM 2013.
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
4.2.4.2.4.2.4.2.2 2 2 2 Affected Affected Affected Affected EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironment/Existing /Existing /Existing /Existing ConditionsConditionsConditionsConditions The project area consists of portions of nine
jurisdictions, including the cities of Commerce,
Los Angeles, Montebello, Monterey Park,
Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South
El Monte, and Whittier, and portions of
unincorporated Los Angeles County which include
East Los Angeles and west Whittier-Los Nietos.
Generalized land use designations for the project
area are illustrated in Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4Figure 4.2.2.2.2----2222 and are based
on data provided by SCAG. The generalized zoning
for the project area is illustrated in FigurFigurFigurFigureeee 4.4.4.4.2222----3333,
which is based on data provided by the California
Spatial Information Library. Generalized land use
designations and zoning were used so that land
use would be presented consistently among
jurisdictions to the extent possible. (Refer to
Appendix N, Land Use and Development
Opportunities Technical Memorandum, of this
Draft EIS/EIR for specific land use and zoning
maps associated with each jurisdiction in the
project area.)
The project area includes a variety of land uses. The
majority of multi-family residential land uses in the
project area are generally located in the west.
Single-family residential land uses are generally
located in the northern and southeast portions of
the project area. Industrial uses are generally
located in the southern portion of the project area.
Whittier Narrows, which is located in the northeast
portion of the project area, is the largest area of
parkland and open space in the project area.
Commercial uses tend to be concentrated along
major roadway and freeway corridors in the project
area.
Several activity centers with high traffic volumes
and large population and commercial densities are
located within the project area, including the
Historic Whittier Boulevard Shopping District, the
Shops at Montebello, and Pico Rivera Towne
Center. These are shown in Figure 1-1, Major
Activity Centers in the Project Study Area, in
Chapter 1, Purpose and Need.
A number of institutions exist within or adjacent to
the project area, including East Los Angeles
College, Rio Hondo Community College, and
Whittier College.
State recreation centers and local sports and
activity centers are also located within the project
area. The most notable are the Whittier Narrows
Recreation Area and the Montebello Golf Course.
Several facilities provide health and medical
services to project area residents and throughout
the region, including Beverly Hospital, Presbyterian
Intercommunity Hospital, and Greater El Monte
Community Hospital. (See Section 4.15, Parklands
and Other Community Facilities, for additional
information about educational and medical
institutions and recreation facilities.)
Business and industrial parks are concentrated in
the cities of Commerce, South El Monte, and
Industry. These areas provide a range of
employment opportunities including industrial,
major retail, and office. Several commercial centers
also exist within and adjacent to the project area,
ranging from neighborhood and main street retail
to large regional malls and shopping centers.
Main street retail districts, such as
Whittier Boulevard and Uptown Whittier, have a
high volume of pedestrian activity. The cities of
Commerce, Montebello, and Pico Rivera each have
large regional centers, such as the Pico Rivera
Towne Center, which attract residents from within
and outside of the project area.
Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2----2222 summarizes the results of the analysis.
The areas of potential impact that were used in
determining land use benefits associated with each
alternative, which are summarized in Sections
4.2.3.3.1 and 4.2.3.4.1, included parcels within a
one-half-mile radius of station locations.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-7
Source: Land Use, Los Angeles County [computer file]. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG 2005.
Figure 4.2Figure 4.2Figure 4.2Figure 4.2----2. Land Use Designations2. Land Use Designations2. Land Use Designations2. Land Use Designations
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Source: California Spatial Information Library 2007; prepared by AECOM, CDM 2010.
FFFFigure 4.2igure 4.2igure 4.2igure 4.2----3. Zoning3. Zoning3. Zoning3. Zoning
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-9
4.2.3 Environmental 4.2.3 Environmental 4.2.3 Environmental 4.2.3 Environmental Impacts/Environmental Impacts/Environmental Impacts/Environmental Impacts/Environmental ConsequencesConsequencesConsequencesConsequences The following sections summarize the potential land
use impacts and land use benefits associated with
each alternative. The area of potential impact (API)
that was used to determine potential land use
conflicts and policy consistency for this project
includes current land use and zoning designations
for parcels directly adjacent to the proposed
alignments, stations, maintenance yards, and park
and ride areas for each alternative.
4.2.3.1 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.1 No Build AlternativeNo Build AlternativeNo Build AlternativeNo Build Alternative 4.2.3.1.1 4.2.3.1.1 4.2.3.1.1 4.2.3.1.1 Impact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact Analysis The No Build Alternative does not include any major
service improvements or new transportation
infrastructure beyond what is identified in the 2009
Metro Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP).
Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not result
in significant land use impacts. However, this
alternative would not provide new opportunities for
land use connections, higher-density development
patterns, and compliance with federal guidance for
transportation investments that have important
economic development, environmental, and social
benefits. The applicable Partnership for Sustainable
Communities livability principles that would not be
met under this alternative include providing more
transportation choices, enhancing economic
competitiveness, and supporting existing
communities. Therefore, the No Build Alternative
would have no adverse effect under NEPA and
would have a less than significant impact under
CEQA with regard to existing land use.
(Refer to Appendix N, Land Use and Development
Opportunities Technical Memorandum, of this
Draft EIS/EIR for more information.)
4.2.3.1.2 4.2.3.1.2 4.2.3.1.2 4.2.3.1.2 Mitigation MeasuresMitigation MeasuresMitigation MeasuresMitigation Measures Since the No Build Alternative would have no impact
on land use, no mitigation measures are required.
4.2.3.1.3 4.2.3.1.3 4.2.3.1.3 4.2.3.1.3 Impacts Remaining After Impacts Remaining After Impacts Remaining After Impacts Remaining After MitigationMitigationMitigationMitigation
NEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA Finding
There would be no adverse land use effects from the
No Build Alternative. However, this alternative
would not provide land use benefits such as new
opportunities for land use connections and
higher-density development patterns.
CEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA Determination
The No Build Alternative would result in less than
significant impacts related to land use. However,
this alternative would not provide land use benefits,
such as new opportunities for land use connections
and higher-density development patterns.
Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2Table 4.2----2. Summary of Potential Impacts to Land Use and Development2. Summary of Potential Impacts to Land Use and Development2. Summary of Potential Impacts to Land Use and Development2. Summary of Potential Impacts to Land Use and Development
Alternative Incompatibility with Surrounding or Adjacent Land Uses (CEQA/NEPA)
Conflict with Applicable Land Use Plans (CEQA/NEPA)
No Build None None
TSM None None
SR 60 LRT1 Not adverse/Less than significant
Not adverse after mitigation/Less than significant after mitigation
Washington Boulevard LRT
Not adverse/Less than significant Not adverse/Less than significant
Notes: 1 Results are for the SR 60 LRT Alternative as well as the SR 60 LRT North Side Design Variation.
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
4.4.4.4.2.3.2 2.3.2 2.3.2 2.3.2 TSM AlternativeTSM AlternativeTSM AlternativeTSM Alternative 4.4.4.4.2222.3.2.1.3.2.1.3.2.1.3.2.1 Impact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact Analysis
Construction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction Impacts
Construction of enhanced bus stops on sidewalks
adjacent to the bus lanes associated with the TSM
Alternative would not conflict with existing land uses
or land use plans. As a result, construction impacts
associated with the TSM Alternative would not
result in an adverse effect under NEPA or a
significant impact under CEQA with regard to
existing land uses. (Refer to Appendix N, Land Use
and Development Opportunities Technical
Memorandum, of this Draft EIS/EIR for more
information.)
Operational ImpactsOperational ImpactsOperational ImpactsOperational Impacts
The new bus lines created under the TSM
Alternative would operate within the existing
roadway right-of-way (ROW) and would not affect
existing land uses or conflict with applicable land
use plans or policies. Therefore, the TSM Alternative
would not result in adverse effects under NEPA or
significant impacts under CEQA with regard to
existing land uses. However, this alternative would
not provide new opportunities for land use
connections, higher-density development patterns,
and compliance with federal guidance for
transportation investments to the same extent as
the light rail transit (LRT) alternatives. (Refer to
Appendix N, Land Use and Development
Opportunities Technical Memorandum, of this Draft
EIS/EIR for more information.)
4.2.3.2.2 4.2.3.2.2 4.2.3.2.2 4.2.3.2.2 Mitigation MeasuresMitigation MeasuresMitigation MeasuresMitigation Measures Since the TSM Alternative would have no impact on
land use, no mitigation measures are required.
4.2.3.2.3 4.2.3.2.3 4.2.3.2.3 4.2.3.2.3 ImpImpImpImpacts Remaining After acts Remaining After acts Remaining After acts Remaining After MitigationMitigationMitigationMitigation
NEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA Finding
The TSM Alternative would only involve minor
construction. Therefore, no adverse land use effects
from construction are anticipated. The TSM
Alternative would also not result in adverse effects
during operations with respect to existing land uses
or land use plans. This alternative may provide new
opportunities for land use connections or
higher-density development patterns, but not to the
same extent as the LRT alternatives.
CEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA Determination
The TSM Alternative would only involve minor
construction. Therefore, no significant land use
impacts of construction are anticipated. The TSM
Alternative would also not result in significant
impacts during operations with respect to existing
land uses or land use plans. This alternative may
provide new opportunities for land use connections
or higher-density development patterns, but not to
the same extent as the LRT alternatives.
4.2.3.3 SR 60 LRT Alternative4.2.3.3 SR 60 LRT Alternative4.2.3.3 SR 60 LRT Alternative4.2.3.3 SR 60 LRT Alternative 4.4.4.4.2222.3..3..3..3.3333.1.1.1.1 Impact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact Analysis
Construction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction Impacts
Surrounding land uses would be disrupted while
construction activities are performed. Most of the
construction would occur within the SR 60 ROW and
would not conflict with the transportation land use.
Intermittent roadway, sidewalk, and intersection
closures would be needed along Pomona Boulevard
and along streets where the new LRT aerial structure
would pass overhead.
Construction staging areas for the SR 60 LRT
Alternative would all be adjacent to the SR 60
Freeway. Construction of the SR 60 LRT Alternative
would generate temporary pedestrian and vehicle
detours that would inhibit, but not prevent, access
to existing land uses along the alignment. The SR 60
North Side Design Variation would require freeway
closures to construct the bridge over the freeway,
which would conflict with freeway operations. These
impacts would be temporary and would be
addressed through mitigation measures.
With implementation of the mitigation measures
identified below and summarized in Table ES-2,
construction activities associated with the SR 60 LRT
Alternative, including the SR 60 North Side Design
Variation, would not result in an adverse effect
under NEPA or a significant impact under CEQA
with regard to existing land uses.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-11
Operational ImpactsOperational ImpactsOperational ImpactsOperational Impacts
Potential Land Use Conflicts
The alignment would travel primarily within the
southern SR 60 Freeway ROW and would be
consistent with the transportation land use. Land
uses along the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment
include a mix of commercial, industrial, residential,
medical, and open space. Property that would be
acquired for the alignment, stations, maintenance
yards, and park and ride areas includes commercial
businesses, hillside areas associated with residential
properties, commercial parking, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) flowage easement property, and
industrial uses.
The development of the Mission Junction
Maintenance Yard Option would result in the
removal of industrial and commercial uses. The
maintenance yard would be compatible with the
surrounding industrial, rail and truck loading, and
transportation land uses.
As part of the SR 60 North Side Design Variation,
partial acquisition of one parcel on the northern
property of the OII Superfund site would be required
for a portion of the LRT alignment and a traction
power substation (TPSS) facility. The acquisitions
needed for this alternative are discussed in detail in
Section 4.3, Displacement and Relocation.
The residential properties and associated hillside
areas described above are zoned and designated
residential. Specifically, partial acquisitions of eight
residential properties would be required for the
alignment as it travels within the SR 60 ROW, just
east of Vail Avenue. The rear of these properties
(the hillside area) is adjacent to the SR 60 Freeway,
an existing transportation use. Only the hillside
areas of these residential properties would be
acquired as part of the SR 60 LRT Alternative. The
residential properties would remain in place,
maintaining their land use designations. In
accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance
and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, the
affected land owners would be fairly compensated.
The conversion of the hillside areas to LRT use
would not conflict with adjacent land uses, given
that the existing SR 60 Freeway is located adjacent
to these properties to the north.
In accordance with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act, all affected land and business owners would be
fairly compensated and would be offered relocation
assistance. The conversion of these land uses to
LRT facilities would not conflict with adjacent land
uses given the urbanized nature of the area.
Therefore, potential land use conflicts associated
with operation of the SR 60 LRT Alternative would be
less than significant.
Policy Consistency
The SR 60 LRT Alternative would travel through
portions of unincorporated Los Angeles County,
Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, and
South El Monte. Therefore, consistency was
evaluated only for the land use plans, community
plans, and redevelopment plans associated with
these cities. Relevant land use goals and policies for
these jurisdictions are summarized in Table 4.2-1,
above.
Benefits of the SR 60 LRT Alternative related to
applicable land use plans goals and policies include
improved transit connectivity, which would provide
an alternative to automobile travel, and increase
access to major employment centers, activity
centers, and destinations within the project area and
the region. Improved accessibility and mobility
associated with the alternative would also lead to an
increase in employment opportunities for the
regional population.
Given the above, this alternative would be
consistent with the applicable land use plans, except
for the Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan.
A portion of the SR 60 LRT Alternative alignment,
including the proposed Santa Anita Avenue station,
would occur within the Whittier Narrows Dam Basin
Master Plan’s designated Inactive and/or Future
Recreation and Easement Lands areas. Inactive
and/or Future Recreation areas are recreation areas
planned for the future or those that have been
temporarily closed. Easement Lands are lands for
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
which the USACE hold an easement interest, but not
fee title.
As indicated in the 2011 Whittier Narrows Dam
Basin Master Plan, before approving any new
development on Inactive and/or Future Recreation
designated areas, the suitability of such
development on these lands must be carefully
analyzed and weighed against alternative uses of the
land. Based on the analysis included in Attachments
1 and 2 to Appendix W of this Draft EIR, there is no
practicable alternative to locating the
Santa Anita Avenue station within the designated
Inactive and/or Future Recreation area. In addition
to the benefits provided by enhanced transit
connectivity to nearby communities and activity
centers, various environmental and constructability
elements constrain the station location, including
the proximity to sensitive parcels (schools and
residences) that would require acquisition and
displacement if the proposed station were relocated.
The Master Plan indicates there are no resource
objectives or recommendations for Easement Land
designation. However, development of the SR 60
LRT Alternative would result in the loss of 83 cubic
yards of flood storage capacity within the flood
control basin, including the designated flowage
easement area, which would conflict with the
Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan and result
in a significant land use impact. (Refer to Section
4.12, Water Resources for more information
regarding the loss of flood storage capacity.)
The SR 60 North Side Design Variation would occur
entirely within the SR 60 ROW except for a portion
of the LRT alignment and a TPSS facility, which may
be located at the eastern boundary of the OII/Edison
Focus Area. The focus area is the site of the
Monterey Park Market Place commercial project.
The area needed for the North Side Design Variation
would be nominal and would not prevent or inhibit
future development within the focus area. Therefore,
the SR 60 LRT Alternative, including the North Side
Design Variation, would not conflict with land use
policies encouraging development and reuse within
the focus area. The SR 60 North Side Design
Variation would be built at-grade and on a
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall, which
would include aesthetic treatments such as
landscaping or concrete designs along the eastern
boundary of the focus area.
Therefore, the North Side Design Variation would
not conflict with the focus area policy to improve the
appearance of the SR 60 Freeway frontage bordering
the focus area.
Land Use Benefits
Parcels within a one-half-mile radius of station
locations were evaluated to determine if
opportunities exist for future development. As it
relates to relevant land use goals and policies
identified in Table 4.2-1, opportunities for future
development on underutilized parcels, vacant sites,
and surface parking lots are present in the vicinity of
station locations along the SR 60 LRT Alternative
alignment. The sites, as identified in Appendix N,
Land Use and Development Opportunities Technical
Memorandum, of this Draft EIS/EIR only indicate
where the opportunity for future development would
occur; any possible redevelopment project would be
a separate, future project which would undergo
independent environmental review.
The SR 60 LRT Alternative would implement the
following HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for
Sustainable Communities livability principles:
� Provide more transportation choices
� Enhance economic competitiveness
� Support existing communities
Given the above, operational impacts associated
with the SR 60 LRT Alternative, including the SR 60
North Side Design Variation, would not result in an
adverse effect under NEPA or a significant impact
under CEQA with regard to existing land uses, with
the exception of the Whittier Narrows Dam Master
Plan area. The SR 60 LRT Alternative and the
proposed station would conflict with the 2011
Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan and would
result in an adverse effect under NEPA and a
significant impact under CEQA with regards to land
use.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-13
4.2.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures4.2.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures4.2.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures4.2.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
Construction Mitigation MeasuresConstruction Mitigation MeasuresConstruction Mitigation MeasuresConstruction Mitigation Measures
In addition to the mitigation measure identified
below, the following mitigation measures from
Chapter 3, Transportation Impacts, Section 4.7, Air
Quality, and Section 4.9, Noise and Vibration would
be implemented: 3.0-ii, 3.0-iv through 3.0-vi, 3.0-viii,
3.0-x, 3.0-xi, 4.7-i, and 4.9-i through 4.9-vii.
(Refer to the specific section for the detailed
mitigation measure.)
4.2-i Intersections: The design variation would
cross a gated, private segment of
Greenwood Avenue that is used to access
the OII landfill site at-grade; intermittent
closure of the roadway would be needed
temporarily for construction. As a result,
some landfill maintenance vehicles would
need to be re-routed in order to access the
area, but alternative routes are available.
Metro would coordinate with New Cure Inc.
prior to and during intermittent closures of
Greenwood Avenue.
Operational Mitigation MeasuresOperational Mitigation MeasuresOperational Mitigation MeasuresOperational Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from Section
4.12, Water Resources would be implemented:
4.12-iand 4.12-ii. (Refer to the specific section for
the detailed mitigation measure.)
4.2.4.2.4.2.4.2.3333.3.3 .3.3 .3.3 .3.3 Impacts Remaining After Impacts Remaining After Impacts Remaining After Impacts Remaining After MitigationMitigationMitigationMitigation
NEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA Finding
Construction impacts associated with the SR 60 LRT
Alternative, including the North Side Design
Variation, would be temporary (limited to the
duration of construction) and would not result in
adverse land use effects after mitigation.
As discussed above, operation of the SR 60 LRT
Alternative, including the North Side Design
Variation, would not conflict with surrounding land
uses and effects would not be adverse. Development
of the SR 60 LRT Alternative has the potential to
reduce flood storage space within the flowage
easement at the proposed Santa Anita Avenue
station site. This would conflict with the 2011
Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan and would
result in an adverse land use effect. However, with
implementation of mitigation this land use effect
associated with the SR 60 LRT Alternative would not
be adverse. The alternative would be consistent with
all other applicable land use plans and policies.
CEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA Determination
Construction impacts associated with the SR 60 LRT
Alternative, including the North Side Design
Variation, would be temporary (limited to the
duration of construction) and would not result in
significant land use impacts after mitigation.
Operation of the SR 60 LRT Alternative, including
the North Side Design Variation, would not conflict
with surrounding land uses and impacts would be
less than significant. Development of the SR 60 LRT
Alternative would conflict with the 2011 Whittier
Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan and would result
in a significant land use impact. With
implementation of mitigation, however, this land
use impact associated with the SR 60 LRT
Alternative would be reduced to less than
significant. The alternative would be consistent with
all other applicable land use plans and policies.
4.4.4.4.2.3.2.3.2.3.2.3.4444 Washington Boulevard Washington Boulevard Washington Boulevard Washington Boulevard LRTLRTLRTLRT AlternativeAlternativeAlternativeAlternative 4.4.4.4.2222.3..3..3..3.4444.1.1.1.1 Impact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact AnalysisImpact Analysis
ConstructiConstructiConstructiConstruction Impactson Impactson Impactson Impacts
Community disruption would occur while
construction activities are performed. Most of the
construction would occur in the ROW of
Pomona Boulevard, SR 60, Garfield Avenue, and
Washington Boulevard and within areas identified as
station sites. Intermittent roadway, sidewalk, and
intersection closures would be needed along these
routes. Construction staging areas would be located
adjacent to these roadways. Given that SR 60,
Garfield Avenue, and Washington Boulevard are all
designated as major truck routes, construction
activity would not differ greatly from the industrial
traffic that occurs along these routes on a daily
basis. Construction of the Washington Boulevard
LRT Alternative would generate temporary
pedestrian and vehicle detours that would inhibit,
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
but not prevent, access to existing land uses along
the alignment. The Transportation Impacts
Technical Memorandum, which is incorporated into
this Draft EIS/EIR as Appendix M, analyzes the
potential effect on circulation and pedestrian access
in the project area and concludes that it would be a
less than significant impact on land use.
Nonetheless, construction activities associated with
the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative could
impact existing land uses during construction.
These impacts would be temporary and would be
addressed through mitigation measures identified
below and summarized in Table ES-2.
With implementation of the mitigation measures
identified below and summarized in Table ES-2,
construction activities associated with the
Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would not
result in an adverse effect under NEPA or a
significant impact under CEQA with regard to
existing land uses.
Operational ImpactsOperational ImpactsOperational ImpactsOperational Impacts
Potential Land Use Conflicts
The alignment would travel primarily along
Garfield Avenue and Washington Boulevard. Land
uses along the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative alignment include a mix of commercial,
industrial, residential, and medical uses along with
some open space. Property that would be acquired
for the alignment, stations, and park and ride areas
includes commercial and restaurant businesses,
residential, office, and industrial uses, commercial
parking, and Los Angeles County Flood Control
District property.
The Mission Junction Maintenance Yard Option
would be located adjacent to the Los Angeles River
channel, I-10 Freeway, and an existing rail and truck
loading facility. This site would be compatible with
the surrounding industrial, rail, and freeway
land uses.
The Commerce Maintenance Yard Option would
require partial acquisition of Union Pacific Railroad
(UPRR)-owned properties. Industrial uses are
located to the south, east, and west. There are no
businesses or residences located in the
UPRR-owned parcels that would be acquired. Use of
this site for the maintenance yard would be
compatible with the surrounding industrial and rail
land uses.
The Santa Fe Springs Maintenance Yard Option is
bounded by Washington Boulevard on the north,
Allport Avenue on the west, and industrial uses to
the south and east. Use of this site for the
maintenance yard would be compatible with the
surrounding industrial land uses.
In accordance with the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act, affected land and business owners would be
fairly compensated and would be offered relocation
assistance. This alternative would be considered a
change in land use type, but would not conflict with
adjacent land uses given the urbanized nature of the
area. Therefore, potential land use conflicts
associated with operation of the Washington
Boulevard LRT Alternative would be less
than significant.
Policy Consistency
The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would
travel through portions of unincorporated
Los Angeles County, Montebello, Commerce,
Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier.
Therefore, only the land use plans, community
plans, and redevelopment plans associated with
these areas were evaluated for consistency. Relevant
land use goals and policies for these jurisdictions
are summarized in Table 4.2-1, above.
Benefits of the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative related to applicable land use plans,
goals, and policies include improved transit
connectivity, which would provide an alternative to
automobile travel and increase access to major
employment centers, activity centers, and
destinations within the project area and the region.
Improved accessibility and mobility associated with
the alternative would also lead to an increase in
employment opportunities for the regional
population.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-15
Given the above, this alternative would be
consistent with the applicable land use plans and
policies, and no significant impact would occur.
Land Use Benefits
Parcels within a one-half-mile radius of station
locations were evaluated to determine if
opportunities exist for future development. As with
the SR 60 LRT Alternative, opportunities for future
development of underutilized parcels, vacant sites,
and surface parking lots are present in the vicinity of
station locations along the Washington Boulevard
LRT Alternative alignment. The sites, as identified in
Appendix N, Land Use and Development
Opportunities Technical Memorandum, of this
Draft EIS/EIR, only indicate where the opportunity
for future development would occur as it relates to
relevant land use goals and policies identified in
Table 4.2-1; any possible redevelopment project
would be a separate, future project which would
undergo independent environmental review.
The Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would
implement the following HUD-DOT-EPA
Partnership for Sustainable Communities livability
principles:
� Provide more transportation choices
� Enhance economic competitiveness
� Support existing communities
Given the above, operational impacts associated
with the Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative
would not result in an adverse effect under NEPA or
a significant impact under CEQA with regard to
existing land uses.
4.2.3.4.2 4.2.3.4.2 4.2.3.4.2 4.2.3.4.2 Mitigation MeasuresMitigation MeasuresMitigation MeasuresMitigation Measures
Construction Mitigation MeasuresConstruction Mitigation MeasuresConstruction Mitigation MeasuresConstruction Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures from Chapter 3,
Transportation Impacts, Section 4.7, Air Quality,
and Section 4.9, Noise and Vibration would be
implemented: 3.0-ii, 3.0-iv through 3.0-vi, 3.0-viii,
3.0-x, 3.0-xi, 3.0-xvii, 4.7-i, and 4.9-i through 4.9-vii.
(Refer to the specific section for the detailed
mitigation measure.)
Operational Mitigation MeasuresOperational Mitigation MeasuresOperational Mitigation MeasuresOperational Mitigation Measures
No significant land use impacts would occur during
operation of the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative. Therefore, no mitigation measures are
required.
4.2.3.4.3 Impacts Remaining After 4.2.3.4.3 Impacts Remaining After 4.2.3.4.3 Impacts Remaining After 4.2.3.4.3 Impacts Remaining After
MitigationMitigationMitigationMitigation
NEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA FindingNEPA Finding
Construction impacts associated with the
Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would be
temporary (limited to the duration of construction)
and would not result in adverse land use effects
after mitigation.
Operation of the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative would not conflict with surrounding land
uses and effects would not be adverse. This
alternative would not introduce new land uses that
are inconsistent with existing land uses.
Development of the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative would be consistent with all applicable
land use plans and policies, and no adverse effect
would occur.
CEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA DeterminationCEQA Determination
Construction impacts associated with the
Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative would be
temporary (limited to the duration of construction)
and would not result in significant land use impacts
after mitigation.
Operation of the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative would not conflict with surrounding land
uses and impacts would be less than significant.
This alternative would not introduce new land uses
that are inconsistent with existing land uses.
Development of the Washington Boulevard LRT
Alternative would be consistent with all applicable
land use plans and policies, and no impact would
occur.
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
4.2-16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.