August 2014 - Draft EIS/EIR: Chapter 4 02 Land Use and...

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


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


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.



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)



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.



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)



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.



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


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.



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



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



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


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.



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


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


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.


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.



4.2-11


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



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.



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


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


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.


Construction impacts associated with the SR 60 LRT


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,



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.


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.



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



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


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.


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.



This page intentionally left blank.

Date post:	28-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

August 2014 - Draft EIS/EIR: Chapter 4 02 Land Use and...

Documents