Ch01 Intro 2011-09-08 yo I/Ch01_C… · City of Los Angeles Draft Environmental Impact Report –...

4

1. Introduction

City of Los Angeles Draft Environmental Impact Report – SCH# 2009031002

Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment PlanChapter 1 Introduction

Page 1-1 Arup North America LtdSeptember 2011

1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction

This document is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that identifies the possible environmental impacts associated with implementing the Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan (Proposed Alternative). This Draft EIR has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of programs and projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on them. CEQA requires preparation of an EIR to inform agencies and the public of significant environmental effects associated with proposed projects, to identify ways to minimize significant effects of the project, and to describe reasonable alternatives to the project that would avoid or reduce the project’s significant effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15121(a)).

The Proposed Alternative will guide the future development of an approximately 660-acre area in the City of Los Angeles, California, as shown on Figure 1-1. This Project Area is located within City Council District One and comprises portions of the Central City North, Northeast, and Silverlake-Echo Park Community Plan areas. The Project Area includes two of the opportunity areas identified in the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan — the Cornfield and Arroyo Seco (City of Los Angeles, 2007b).

The Specific Plan component of the Proposed Alternative has been developed by the City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning (DCP) and includes the following:

Designation of new mixed-use zoning districts and the identification of the types and intensities of uses permitted within these districts, as well as building height, massing, and façade standards

Establishment of permitted floor area ratios (FARs)

Establishment of Bonus and Transfer of Density Programs

Designation of new open spaces and parks, and the establishment of open space requirements for new developments

Establishment of circulation and parking standards

Modification of street standards and street designation changes

Establishment of stormwater standards

Establishment of resource conservation standards

General Plan amendments

Related code amendments necessary to implement the Specific Plan

The Redevelopment Plan component of the Proposed Alternative was prepared by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (CRA/LA) and encompasses an area identical to the Specific Plan as shown on Figure 1-1. Broadly, it was conceived as an implementation tool to advance the goals of the Specific Plan. The goals of the Redevelopment Plan include implementing those of the Specific Plan, expanding the employment base in the Project Area, eliminating conditions of physical and economic blight, providing additional affordable housing, preserving and rehabilitating existing single-family neighborhoods, and advancing sustainable neighborhoods through cleaning up brownfield sites, using green building techniques, and making green infrastructure improvements.

Cornfi eld Arroyo Seco Specifi c Plan and

Redevelopment Plan Draft EIR

Community Redevelopment Agency Los Angeles, 2011.

Source

William Mead Homes

DWPLA River

Site

Los AngelesCounty Jail

Twin TowersCentral Jail

CaliforniaEndowment

HQ

RiverStreetLofts

UnitedParcelService

The BreweryArt Colony

San AntonioWinery

GoodwillWorkforce

CenterLincolnHeights

Jail

Los AngelesRiver Center

Kipp LAPrep College

Our Lady of HelpChristian Elementary

School

Amcal FloresValle Apartments

LA Boysand Girls

Club

ConfluencePark

Elysian Park

HomeboyIndustries

Alta Lofts

AlbionDairyPark

CommunityCenter

Farmlab

Los Angeles R

iver

Arroyo

Seco

GR

IFFIN

AV

E

SIC

HEL S

T

DA

LY

ST

NORTH BROADWAY

PA

SA

DEN

A A

VE

WO

RK

MA

N S

T

JOH

NST

ON

ST

AVENUE 26

FIGUEROA ST

BAXTER ST

RIV

ER

SID

E D

R

AV

ENU

E 19

HIL

L ST

MIS

SION R

OAD

BLAKE AVE

AV

ENU

E 20

NORTH MAIN

ST

COLLEGE ST

AV

ENU

E 18

NORTH SPRIN

G ST

MANITOU AVE

ISABEL ST

IDEL

L ST

ALHAMBRA AVE

ALPINE ST

ORD ST

HURON S

T

AV

EN

UE 2

8

ALBION ST

VIGNES ST

CYPRESS AVE

ALA

MED

A S

T

MARENGO ST

STADIU

M W

AY

AN

N ST

AM

AD

OR ST

BAKER ST

JEFF

RIES

AVE

AV

ENU

E 23

NEW

HIG

H S

T

BALDWIN ST

ARROYO SECO AVE

AVENUE 33

AV

ENU

E 21

SAN

FERN

AN

DO

RO

AD

NO

RT

HEA

ST R

OA

DW

AY

LA

MA

R S

T

LACY S

T

MOZART ST

MARMION W

AY

ALTURA ST

LERO

Y ST

FEN

N S

T

ELMYRA ST

BLOO

M ST

GIB

BO

NS S

T

CESAR E CHAVEZ AVE

AV

EN

UE 2

4

BOY

LST

ON

ST

CRYSTAL ST

HARW

OOD S

T

HU

MB

OLD

T S

T

SO

LA

NO

AV

E

FERNLE

AF ST

ARTESIA

N ST

GATEW

OOD S

T

CARLOTA B

LVD

AVEN

UE 25

DARWIN AVE

AV

EN

UE 2

7

RO

ND

OU

T S

T

PARK R

OW

PHOENIX ST

CA

SA

NO

VA

ST

AV

ENU

E 22

BAUCHET ST

Z

PEPPER AVE

AV

ENU

E 17

SPRUCE ST

DUVALL

ST

ELM

GRO

VE ST

LOCUST ST

BR

OO

KS A

VE

VALLEJO ST

SHORED

ALE

AVE

NAUD ST

ACADEMY ROAD

ORO

S ST

GLEN

ALBY

N D

R

RO

MU

LO ST

MO

ULT

ON

AV

E

SOTELLO

ST

AVENUE 34 U

LYSSES ST

AVENU

GAY ST

CO

TTA

GE H

OM

E ST

JET

TY

ST

AV

ILA

ST

AVENUE 38

MERCED ST

LOR

D S

T

WILH

ARD

T ST

MEA

DOW

VALE

AVE

MA

RK

ST

LOOKOUT DR

CA

RR

LA

NE

MAGDALENA ST

BOUETT ST

AVENUE 29

CLO

VER

ST

BISHO

PS RO

AD

LLEWELLY

N ST

AVENUE 30

LORET

O ST

RIVER

DALE

AVE

AM

ABEL ST

AVENUE 31

AR

TESIA

N P

L

AVENUE 32

BRUNO ST

JARVIS

ST

GLOVER

PL

SAVOY S

T

AVENUE 37

MINN

MID

LAN

D S

T

NG S

T

RICHM

OND

ST

AVENUE 35

FR

EN

CH

AV

E

SEYMOUR ST

RIVER ST

POMEROY AVE

AVENUE 36

T

AV

ENU

E 16

BEECH

ST

WEYSE ST

MESN

AG

ER ST

CLE

MEN

T S

T

LY

ON

ST

DOYLE PL

LEI MIN WAY

JAM

ES ST

BARCLA

Y ST

STA

TE

ST

POPLAR ST

BAMBOO LANE

BARRANCA ST

HENRY

SHURTLEFF CT

CH

UN

G K

ING

RO

AD

CARDINAL ST

TH

ERESA

ST

NO

RT

H P

L

AURO

RA ST

DORRIS

PL

MCCLURE ST

FONDA W

AY

NARVA ST

LUISA ST

AMADOR P

L

PLAZA SAN ANTONIO

AQUA PURA DR

ARNOLD

ST

LIVIN

GSTONE

AVE

CURTIS ST

RIVER ST

AV

EN

UE 1

9

BA

RR

AN

CA

ST

ALHAMBRA AVE

AV

EN

UE 2

1

AVENUE 33

LACY ST

AR

TESIA

N S

T

AV

EN

UE 2

1

CARDINAL ST

AVENUE 22

AVEN

UE 37

HURON S

T

ACAD

EMY R

OAD

NAUD ST

JAR

VIS

ST

JARVIS

ST

BERNARD ST

AVENUE 31

AV

ENU

E 21

BARRANCA ST

NEW

HIG

H S

T

HUMBOLDT S

T

DARWIN AVE

BERNARD ST

MOZART ST

AVENUE 32

SOLA

NO

AVE

AVENUE 27

AV

ENU

E 23

BARRANCA ST

5

110

110

5

CHINATOWN

HERITAGE SQUARE

LINCOLN / CYPRESS

Elysian Park

Mt. Olympus Park

Downey Pool

L.A. YouthAthletic Club

ArroyoSecoPark

CypressRecreation

Center

DowneyRecreation

Center

Lincoln HeightsRecreation Center

Greayer's Oak Park

L.A. Plaza Park

Lincoln HeightsYouth Center

Lacy StreetNeighborhood Park

Los AngelesHistoric State Park

Nightingale Middle

Loreto St Elementary

Dorris Pl Elementary

Albion St Elementary

Griffin Ave Elementary

Hillside Elementary

Castelar Elementary

Ann St Elementary

Solano Ave Elementary

Ade lante Easts ideAdelante Easts ide

ChinatownChinatown

PREPARED BY CRA GIS TEAMKim Pfoser, Principal Planner

Tom Weisenberger, GIS AnalystRon Wagner, GIS Analyst (D&W Consulting)

1:3600

1 inch = 300 Feet

0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet

11/8/2010

July 29, 2011

Figure 1-1

Cornfi eld Arroyo Seco Specifi c Plan and

Redevelopment Plan Area Context Map

Redevelopment Project Area

Redevelopment Project Area




This Draft EIR is a program-level document that meets the requirements of CEQA. The environmental analysis has been undertaken from a broad-based perspective, which is appropriate for approving the Specific Plan and subsequent Community and General Plan amendments, as well as the Redevelopment Plan.

It is intended that future projects in the Project Area that are envisioned by the Proposed Alternative meet the requirements of the City’s Administrative Clearance procedure and are consistent with all requirements of the Specific Plan will not require additional environmental review. The following types of projects may qualify for Administrative Clearance.

1. Demolition of an existing building or structure not identified as a historic resource or potential historic resource.

2. Exterior remodeling that does not result in an increase in floor area beyond the Base FAR described in Table 1-1.

3. Change of use

4. Signs

5. Projects with less than 50 dwelling units or guest rooms, or combination thereof, that conform to the provisions contained in Sections 2-10 of this Specific Plan and that do not require an Allocation of Floor Area Rights and are not located on a block identified in Map that requires the introduction of a public paseo.

6. Projects with less than 50,000 gross square feet of nonresidential floor area, that conform to the provisions contained in Sections 2-10 of the Specific Plan, that do not require an Allocation of Floor Area Rights, and are not located on a block identified that requires the introduction of a public paseo.

Table 1-1: Project Area Floor Area Ratio Thresholds

Density Greenway Urban Village Urban Innovation Urban Center

Base FAR 1.5 3 3 3

Base FAR within River Buffer Areas

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Max FAR 1.5 5 4 6

Max FAR within River Buffer Areas

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Future undertakings in the Project Area that require a Project Permit Compliance and that adhere to the standards of the Plan will be able to use this programmatic EIR as their project level environmental review. Projects that require a Project Permit Compliance, or Administrative Clearance that are not consistent with the Proposed Alternative, will require additional environmental review. These future project-level environmental reviews will be able, as appropriate, to tier off this EIR in accordance with the rules governing program-level EIRs and tiering (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21068.5, 21093, and 21094).




1.2 Project Context and Background

The following section provides an overview of conditions in the Project Area with respect to geography and infrastructure, demographics, land use, and community and public facilities.

1.2.1 Geography and Infrastructure

The Project Area is located within the original flood plains of the Los Angeles River and Arroyo Seco water bodies — which are located within the lower Los Angeles River Watershed. As a result, the Project Area is predominantly flat with a slight grade that gently slopes to the banks of the Los Angeles River and the Arroyo Seco before dropping sharply down their channelized walls. The single exception is the steep slope that defines the northwestern boundary of the Project Area between North Broadway and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Gold Line light rail tracks, where the grade shifts upward dramatically to define the edges of the Solano Canyon neighborhood and Elysian Park.

Freeways and rail infrastructure predominate much of the area. The Metro Gold Line, opened in 2002, cuts across the northern portion of the Project Area and provides frequent access to downtown Los Angeles, the many communities located in the northeastern sections of Los Angeles, and the cities of South Pasadena and Pasadena. The railroad tracks serving Metro’s Metrolink regional passenger rail service and freight service parallel the western and eastern banks of the Los Angeles River, which are adjacent to a series of electrical transmission lines. The railroads and electrical transmission lines, while both historically and currently economically significant to the City of Los Angeles and the region, are visual and physical obstacles to the future revitalization of the Los Angeles River.

The Pasadena Freeway/State Route 110 (SR 110), the oldest freeway in the United States and a National Scenic Parkway, parallels the path of the Arroyo Seco adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the Project Area. Entrances and exits to and from SR 110 are located on the northern perimeter of the Plan Area. The Golden State Freeway/Interstate Highway 5 (I-5), which runs the entire length of California and extends north to Washington State and south to Mexico, cuts north-south through the eastern portion of the Project Area. I-5 runs in a trench from Mozart Street to Lacy Street and is above grade both at the southern and northern portions of the Project Area.

Entrances and exits to I-5 are located at North Broadway/Pasadena Avenue and at Avenue 26 across from Lacy Street. I-5 and SR 110 provide excellent regional access for the Project Area; however, their physical structures greatly contribute to visual blight and create obstacles to pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel.




1.2.2 Demographics

The Project Area falls within four Census tracts: 1853.20, 1990, 1997, and 2060.1. The total number of households within these four tracts was 4,358 (or 13,235 persons) in 2007. The majority of this population resides in those portions of the Census districts outside of the Project Area boundaries. As of 2007, there were an estimated 1,814 housing units within the Project Area (City of Los Angeles, 2008a).

The area is home to a diverse population: 43 percent of the population is native born, another 23 percent is foreign born but naturalized citizens, and 34 percent is foreign born and not yet citizens. The 2000 Census found that multiple languages are spoken throughout the area: 60 percent of the population speaks Spanish in the home, 30 percent speaks an Asian language at home, and another 10 percent speaks only English at home (ibid.).

The average household income, $35,678, is significantly lower than the citywide average, $58,724, based upon 2000 dollars. Thirty-six percent of the population lives in poverty, including 48 percent of children less than 12 years of age and another 48 percent of youth between the ages of 12 and 17 (ibid.).

As of the 2000 Census, 50 percent of the population had received less than a high school education, 25 percent had a high school education but did not receive a diploma, and another 16 percent graduated from high school. In addition, 2 percent had received an associate’s degree, 5 percent had received a bachelor’s degree, and 2 percent had received a postgraduate degree, professional degree, or certification (ibid.).

In the 2000 Census, renters accounted for 82.5 percent of the population. Less than half of the households (35 percent) have no related children under 18. Married couples with related children under 18 represent 41 percent of the population. Nineteen percent of the households with children are headed by single mothers, and another 5 percent are headed by single fathers. On average, there are 4.03 persons per family and 3.6 persons per household (ibid.).

In 2000, residents of the Project Area reported traveling to work by a variety of means. While 42 percent of residents drove alone to reach work, 15 percent traveled by vanpool/carpool, 15 percent took public transit, 25 percent took other means, and another 3 percent worked at home (ibid.).

1.2.3 Land Use

The majority of land in the Project Area is currently occupied by industrial and commercial uses. Industrial uses comprise 58 percent of land within the Project Area, while commercial uses comprise 13 percent, residences comprise 27 percent, and other uses comprise the remaining area. As of 2007 it was estimated that there were 1,814 housing units and 8,636 jobs within the project area. The area is largely characterized by low-density industrial buildings and publicly owned maintenance, utility, and railway yards. A large portion of the properties are obsolete or underutilized and give the area an auto-centric character.

The opening of the light rail Gold Line in 2004, the creation of new mixed-use projects, and the promise of a new Los Angeles State Historic park initiated a process of transformation and created the need for a framework to manage this change. The area’s proximity to downtown, educational institutions and transportation infrastructure makes it well suited to attract and retain some industrial uses. At the same time, there is interest in the community for balancing those uses with the need for housing in proximity to jobs and transit infrastructure.




1.2.4 Community and Public Facilities

The Project Area is currently home to two public elementary schools — the Ann Street and Albion Elementary Schools. There are three existing parks within the Project Area — Downey Recreation Area located between North Spring and Albion Streets, the Los Angeles State Historic Park (State Historic Park), and Confluence Park near the convergence of the Los Angeles River and the Arroyo Seco. The State Historic Park is located in the northeast corner of the Project Area between North Broadway and North Spring Street. In addition, a community center is located in the former Lincoln Heights Jail on North Avenue 19. A significant portion of the Project Area is occupied, owned, or leased by public agencies, including the Los Angeles Departments of General Services, Public Works and Transportation, Water and Power, and Fire; the Los Angeles Housing Authority; Metro; and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In addition, a number of community and religious organizations have a strong presence within the Project Area. The Bilingual Arts Foundation provides access to community theater and education, and the Young Nak Church in particular has a large presence in the area. Several highly regarded youth training and educational services exist within and immediately adjacent to the area. These include the Homeboy Industries and Home Girls Café, Goodwill Job Center, and the Los Angeles Conservation Corps (Conservation Corps).

1.3 Project Need

The Project Area is currently in a transitional state. The 2004 opening of the Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park Metro Gold Line station in the Project Area and the Chinatown and Heritage Square Stations immediately adjacent to the Project Area, the adoption of the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan, the initial development of the State Historic Park, and real estate market trends have combined in recent years to accelerate interest in redeveloping large parts of the Project Area. As noted above, the Project Area is already well-served by regional roadways and local streets such as North Broadway, Figueroa Street, Spring Street, and Main Street. Within the past five years, 11 acres of previously industrial land in the Project Area were rezoned to accommodate residential uses.

The Project Area’s location and amenities make it a natural location for housing and a mix of other uses; however, uncoordinated redevelopment may provide limited environmental and social benefit while resulting in the loss of valuable industrial land. Therefore, the development of the Proposed Alternative was undertaken to provide a framework for creating an environmentally sustainable, inclusive, and economically viable area. Policies included in the Proposed Alternative are intended to accommodate a range of housing options, new public spaces, opportunities for walking and bicycling, and clusters of development for both existing industrial businesses and the new technology businesses of the future. The Redevelopment Plan is intended as a mechanism for helping to achieve the goals of the Specific Plan.




1.4 Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan Planning Process

A community-based planning process has been a critical component in creating the Specific Plan and Redevelopment Plan and initiating this environmental analysis. More than five workshops have been conducted during the development of the Specific Plan in order to ensure maximum input from a wide range of stakeholders. The following timeline outlines this process.

1.4.1 Public Workshops

Project Area residents, property and business owners, environmental interests, landscape architects, and urban designers participated in a series of public workshops to aid in plan development. Many of these workshops were facilitated by the Western Justice Center, which provided volunteer facilitators to guide and record any break-out groups at the workshops.

Workshop One was held in September 2007 at the Goodwill Job Center at 342 North San Fernando Road. Over 100 community members participated in this workshop, which focused on creating a broad vision for the Specific Plan. The community was invited to share its ideas about the strengths and weaknesses of the area. The community articulated a desire to preserve jobs, provide affordable housing and community services, improve the river, and ensure a safe and accessible environment.

Workshop Two was held in December 2007 at the Conservation Corps building at 1400 North Spring Street across from the State Historic Park. This workshop, again attended by approximately 100 community members, focused on the Specific Plan’s goals and the Project Area’s future land uses. Participants were asked to reassemble the current land uses and to add new uses in accordance with the vision they had articulated in the first workshop. The community expressed a keen interest in encouraging an increased mix of uses, especially near the Metro Gold Line stations and the State Historic Park, while also seeking to protect the industrial areas along Main Street in the southeast quadrant of the Project Area and in the northeast quadrant of the Project Area bounded by Avenue 26, Pasadena Avenue, and the Arroyo Seco.

Workshop Three was held on February 2008 — again at the Conservation Corps building. During the breakout sessions, the community was asked to provide feedback on the proposed concepts in the Specific Plan for the new districts, streets, and open space areas. Several area nonprofit organizations and developers displayed their proposed street, park, and development projects so that the community could also provide feedback to them.

Workshop Four consisted of two events held in November 2008 — the first at the Ann Street Elementary School at 126 Bloom Street in the William Mead Homes and the second at the Goodwill Job Center. The meetings followed an identical format, which included a 45-minute presentation on the preliminary draft of the Specific Plan and a question-and-answer period. Following this was a 45-minute period during which community members and the City of Los Angeles’ planners mingled to discuss participants’ reactions and shared additional interests or concerns. A physical model of the Project Area and a variety of posters that illustrated the proposed land use districts, open space, street typologies, and transit enhancements were also on display. Participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire that encouraged feedback for such topics as the land use districts, open space, street sections, and transit networks. Approximately a dozen questionnaires were completed at the workshops and several workshop participants subsequently sent emails to the DCP Project Manager




highlighting their interests or concerns. The majority of questionnaire respondents supported the new concepts, but some were interested in seeing that the Urban Center mixed-use zoning district introduced in the planning process would accommodate a higher percentage of residential development. During informal conversations, several participants expressed an interest in seeing a greater amount of open space, especially within the corridors bounding the Los Angeles River and the Arroyo Seco.

Workshop Five consisted of a public meeting held in October 2010 at the Conservation Corps building. Approximately 60 people attended the meeting. This meeting was intended to introduce the concept of the Redevelopment Plan and to update progress on the Specific Plan. The meeting began with an introduction and question-and-answer period from District 1 councilmember Ed Reyes. Next, representatives of the DCP and the CRA/LA gave a presentation on the Specific Plan progress and information about the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The attendees then broke up into groups to talk about assets and challenges in the Project Area and to provide input on projects they would like to see the Redevelopment Plan address. Comments included a desire for new parks, particularly along the Los Angeles River and the Arroyo Seco, new residential development, new bike lanes, improvements to the State Historic Park, new educational and cultural facilities, pedestrian connections to Broadway and Elysian Park, better transit connections, and buffering from the freeways and railroad lines.

1.4.2 Public Scoping Meetings

On March 6, 2009, and November 16, 2010, public scoping meetings to address the preparation of this Draft EIR were held at the Goodwill Job Center. The meetings took place on both occasions from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. and from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. The meetings were open to the general public and publicized in advance, and letters were sent to stakeholders in the area and regulatory agencies.

The first set of meetings, in 2009, started with a presentation by the Project Manager for the DCP, who explained the purpose of the Specific Plan and its various elements. This was followed by a presentation by a representative from Arup — the prime consultant for the development of the EIR — who identified the issues that were proposed to be addressed in the development of this document. At the second set of meetings, in 2010, a representative from the CRA/LA followed the initial presentation on the Specific Plan with a presentation on the Redevelopment Plan. A comment session followed the presentations, during which community members voiced their views regarding the proposed plan(s) and scope of the EIR. Before and after the meeting, the public had the opportunity to view a set of graphics detailing specific aspects of the plan(s). The meeting also included a resource table with printed copies of the Draft Specific Plan to be reviewed in the room and copies of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist prepared for the EIR process for attendees to review and take home. A picture of the displays used at the meetings and a copy of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist discussed at the March 2009 and the November 2010 scoping meetings are included in this Draft EIR as Appendix 1A, 1B, and 1C, respectively, and at the Project’s website: http://cornfieldsla.googlepages.com/index.

The March 6, 2009, scoping meeting was attended by 25 members of the public at the 3:00 p.m. session and 13 at the 6:00 p.m. session. The November 16, 2010, scoping meeting was attended by 37 members of the public at the 3:00 p.m. session and 15 at the 6:00 p.m. session. The comments received at the four scoping meetings and submitted during the public review period for the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist were reviewed and used to aid in the development of this document.




1.5 Organization of This Draft EIR

Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR presents the description of the Proposed Alternative. Chapters 3 through 16 focus on the potential impacts of the Proposed Alternative. These chapters are all organized in the same way to provide information about the environmental consequences of implementing the Proposed Alternative.

Section 1 of each of these chapters describes the Existing Conditions with respect to the specific topic. This description is based on a review of existing published material, field reconnaissance, discussions with individuals with specific knowledge about the topic, and other appropriate sources.

Section 2 of these chapters identifies the Standards of Significance that were applied to the environmental analysis. Some of the Standards of Significance are taken from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, while others reflect either local or State requirements.

Section 3 of these chapters presents the Potential Impacts. The section begins, as appropriate, with a description of the assumptions that have been incorporated in the analysis or information about the methodology that was used to complete the analysis. Then information about the impacts that are predicted as a result of implementing the Proposed Alternative is presented. The potential impacts that are considered to be significant are presented first, accompanied by an explanation of why the application of a standard resulted in the determination that the impact would be significant. When a potentially significant impact is set forth, mitigation measures to address that potential impact are also presented, along with a determination of whether the impact will continue to be significant after the implementation of the mitigation measure. Following the presentation of the significant impacts, impacts that are less than significant are identified. After the disclosure of the potential impacts that would result from implementation of the Proposed Alternative, a description of the potential impacts of the No Project Alternative is presented. This is intended to provide a comparison if no changes occur in the Project Area from conditions that would prevail with the existing City of Los Angeles General Plan.

Chapter 17 of this Draft EIR addresses other CEQA considerations, including an analysis of other alternatives to the Proposed Alternative. Chapter 18 identifies the individuals involved in preparing this document. The appendices contain additional data and information cited in the preceding chapters.

10 Arup North America LtdSeptember 2011

Ch01 Intro 2011-09-08 yo I/Ch01_C… · City of Los Angeles Draft Environmental Impact Report –...

Documents

Transcript of Ch01 Intro 2011-09-08 yo I/Ch01_C… · City of Los Angeles Draft Environmental Impact Report –...