Section 4.2 Land 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 Framework/Methodology As illustrated in Figure 4.2-1, 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 4.2-1 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. 4.2-1
Source: CDM 2011. Figure 4.2-1. Project Area General Plans and Specific Plans 4.2-2
Table 4.2-1. 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 Commerce Los Angeles Montebello Los Angeles County General Plan East Los Angeles Community Plan Commerce General Plan Los Angeles General Plan Montebello 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. 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. Promote the operation and enhancement of regional and inter-city transit systems and the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Enhance Los Angeles County s rail system, including extensions and feeder bus service. Facilitate traffic movement. Provide ample commercial facilities to meet the needs of residents. Provide opportunities for a variety of living needs. 4.2-3
Table 4.2-1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies (continued) Planning Jurisdiction Monterey Park Pico Rivera Rosemead Santa Fe Springs Adopted Plans Montebello Hills Specific Plan Monterey Park General Plan Pico Rivera General Plan Rancho de Bartolo Specific Plan Amendment Rosemead General Plan Santa Fe Springs General Plan Relevant Goals and Policies Connect residential areas to existing public transit facilities and existing commercial and business land use areas. 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. 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. Provide new employment opportunities for the city and the region. Promote new development that will benefit the city. 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. 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. 4.2-4
Table 4.2-1. Relevant Land Use Plans and Policies (continued) Planning Jurisdiction South El Monte Whittier Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Adopted Plans South El Monte General Plan Whittier General Plan Whittier Boulevard Specific Plan Whittier Commercial Corridor Redevelopment Plan 2011 Whittier Narrows Dam Basin Master Plan Relevant Goals and Policies Facilitate and encourage the development of local- and regionalserving 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. 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. 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. 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. Station site is designated as Inactive and/or Future Recreation and Easement Lands. Source: CDM 2013. 4.2-5
4.2.2 Affected Environment/Existing Conditions 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 4.2 4.2-2 and are based on data provided by SCAG. The generalized zoning for the project area is illustrated in Figure 4.2-3, 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 4.2-2 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. 4.2-6
Source: Land Use, Los Angeles County [computer file]. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG 2005. Figure 4.2-2. 2. Land Use Designations 4.2-7
Source: California Spatial Information Library 2007; prepared by AECOM, CDM 2010. Figure 4.2-3. Zoning 4.2-8
Table 4.2-2. 2. 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 LRT 1 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. 4.2.3 Environmental Impacts/Environmental Consequences 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 No Build Alternative 4.2.3.1.1 Impact 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 Mitigation Measures Since the No Build Alternative would have no impact on land use, no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.3.1.3 Impacts Remaining After Mitigation NEPA 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 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. 4.2-9
4.2.3.2 TSM Alternative 4.2.3.2.1.3.2.1 Impact Analysis Construction 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 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 Mitigation Measures Since the TSM Alternative would have no impact on land use, no mitigation measures are required. 4.2.3.2.3 Impacts Remaining After Mitigation NEPA 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 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 Alternative 4.2.3..3.3.1.1 Impact Analysis Construction 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. 4.2-10
Operational 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 4.2-11
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. 4.2-12
4.2.3.3.2 Mitigation Measures Construction 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 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.) 4.2.3.3.3.3.3 Impacts Remaining After Mitigation NEPA 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 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. 4.2.3. 2.3.4 Washington Boulevard LRT Alternative 4.2.3..3.4.1.1 Impact Analysis Construction 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, 4.2-13
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 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. 4.2-14
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 Mitigation Measures Construction 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 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 Mitigation NEPA 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 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. 4.2-15
This page intentionally left blank. 4.2-16