Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River … · 2019. 9. 1. · the proposed bridge. Additionally, a two-way bike path and pedestrian path would be developed

Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River Project

Mitigated Negative Declaration

November 2016

Prepared By: ICF

601 W. Fifth Street, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90071

for the

City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering

Environmental Management Group 1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600

Los Angeles, CA 90015

ICF. 2016. Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River Project. Draft. November. (ICF 00006.16.) Los Angeles, CA. Prepared for City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

ROOM 395, CITY HALL LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

(Article I, City CEQA Guidelines) LEAD CITY AGENCY AND ADDRESS: Los Angeles City Engineer Bureau of Engineering, EMG 1149 Broadway, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90015-2213

COUNCIL DISTRICT

1 and 13

PROJECT TITLE: Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River (W.O. E1907487)

T.G.

594-G5, H4, H5 PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed project would be located across the Los Angeles River and in the surrounding area in the Silverlake-Echo Park-Elysian Park Community Plan area in the City of Los Angeles. Specifically, the northern abutment of the proposed bridge would be located adjacent to Kerr Road, and its southern abutment would be located adjacent to the Los Angeles River Greenway Trail (bikeway), approximately between Altman Street and Dorris Place, adjacent to 2331 Dorris Place. Proposed intersection pedestrian striping enhancements at San Fernando Road/Cypress Road would occur north of the proposed bridge. Additionally, a two-way bike path and pedestrian path would be developed on Kerr Road, connecting the proposed bridge to San Fernando Road. DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would include the construction a multi-modal bridge over the Los Angeles River between Elysian Valley on the west and Taylor Yard on the east. The proposed bridge would be designed for bicycle and pedestrian use, and would also support emergency vehicles. On the south, the proposed bridge would connect with the existing bikeway along the river. Two American with Disabilities Act– (ADA-) compliant ramps would also be constructed in this area. On the north, a 275-foot-long bikeway ramp would be constructed. This proposed ramp would lead to a proposed two-way bike path with buffer along Kerr Road that would connect to San Fernando Road. Nine Magnolia trees located along Kerr Road would be removed under the proposed project. Proposed crosswalks would be added at the San Fernando Road/Future Street and Cypress Street/Future Street intersections. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that any impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN CITY AGENCY: FINDING: The City Engineer of the City of Los Angeles has determined the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. See attached Initial Study.

SEE THE ATTACHED PAGES FOR ANY MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED Any written objections received during the public review period are attached, together with the responses of the lead City agency. THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS ATTACHED PERSON PREPARING THIS FORM: Norman Mundy Environmental Supervisor I

ADDRESS: 1149 S. Broadway, Suite 600, MS 939 Los Angeles, CA 90015

TELEPHONE NUMBER: (213) 485-5737

SIGNATURE (Official): Maria Martin, Environmental Affairs Officer Environmental Management Group

DATE:

i November 2016

Contents

List of Tables and Figures ....................................................................................................... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ v

Page

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 A. Purpose of an Initial Study .................................................................................. 1 B. Document Format ............................................................................................... 2 C. CEQA Process .................................................................................................... 2

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 3

A. Location ............................................................................................................... 3 B. Purpose ............................................................................................................... 7 C. Background ......................................................................................................... 7 D. Description .......................................................................................................... 8

III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 19 IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...................................................... 19

A. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 20 B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................. 25 C. Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 25 D. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 34 E. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 65 F. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 68 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................. 72 H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................... 74 I. Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................. 79 J. Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 86 K. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 87 L. Noise ................................................................................................................. 88 M. Population and Housing ................................................................................. 105 N. Public Services ............................................................................................... 105 O. Recreation ...................................................................................................... 107 P. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................... 108 Q. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................... 111 R. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................ 112

ii

November 2016

V. MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................. 114 VI. PREPARATION ......................................................................................................................... 122 VII. DETERMINATION – RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ... 123

A. Summary ......................................................................................................... 123 B. Recommended Environmental Documentation ............................................... 123

VIII. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 124

Technical Reports

A .................................................................................................................... Air Quality Report B ................................................................................................... Biological Resources Report C ....................................................................................................... Jurisdictional Delineation D ................................................................................................................. Historic Resources E ............................................................................. Archaeological/Paleontological Resources F ................................................................................................................... Geology and Soils G ......................................................................................... Hazards and Hazardous Materials H ...................................................................................................... Traffic and Transportation

iii November 2016

Tables and Figures

Table Page

1 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ........................................................................ 26

2 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................................ 28

3 Peak Daily Construction Emissions without Mitigation .................................................... 31

4 Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions Without Mitigation ................................... 32

5 Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types within the Study Area ................................... 37

6 Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types within the Study Area ................ 38

7 Jurisdictional Delineation Summary ................................................................................ 40

8 Impacts on Potential USACE and RWQCB Jurisdiction ................................................. 45

9 Impacts on Potential CDFW Jurisdiction ......................................................................... 45

10 Special-Status Plant and Animal Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity ..................................................................................................................... 47

11 Annual CO2e Emissions without Mitigation .................................................................... 73

12 Overview of Water Quality Impairments in Project Area ................................................. 81

13 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements ............................................................... 89

14 Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurements ............................................................... 89

15 Typical Construction Noise Emission Levels for Project Construction Equipment .......... 93

16 Modeled Construction Noise Levels from Loudest Construction Activities – North Side of Los Angeles River ....................................................................................... 94

17 Modeled Construction Noise Levels from Pipeline Construction Activities – South Side of Los Angeles River ............................................................................. 95

18 Modeled Construction Noise from ADA Ramp Construction – South Side of Los Angeles River .................................................................................................... 96

19 Modeled Construction Noise from Bridge Construction – Both Sides of Los Angeles River .................................................................................................... 97

20 Caltrans Guideline Vibration Damage Criteria .............................................................. 101

21 Caltrans Guideline Vibration Annoyance Criteria .......................................................... 101

22 PPV Vibration Levels for Demolition and Construction Equipment ............................... 102

23 Maximum Construction Trip Generation ....................................................................... 109

iv

November 2016

Figure Page

1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................. 5

2 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 6

3 Bridge Rendering(s) .......................................................................................................... 9

4 Existing and Proposed Site Sections .............................................................................. 10

5 Proposed Waterlines ....................................................................................................... 11

6 Construction Staging Areas and Area of Impact ............................................................. 13

7 Photograph of Proposed Bridge Location, Facing North, from Pedestrian Bike Path ................................................................................................................. 21

8 Photograph of Proposed Bridge Location, Facing Southwest, from East Bank of River Channel ............................................................................................. 21

9 Bridge Rendering ............................................................................................................ 23

10 Vegetation Communities and Project Impacts ................................................................ 35

11 USACE Jurisdictional Waters Impacts ............................................................................ 41

12 CDFW Jurisdictional Waters Impacts .............................................................................. 43

13 Noise Monitoring and Modeled Receiver Locations ........................................................ 90

v

November 2016

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AQMP Air Quality Management Plan bgs below ground surface BMPs best management practices BSA biological study area CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CARB California Air Resources Board CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 methane CHL California Historical Landmarks CIDH cast in drilled hole City City of Los Angeles CLADPW City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS Inventory California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and

Endangered Plants of California CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EDR Environmental Data Resources Inc. EMG Environmental Management Group GCC global climate change GHG greenhouse gas GWP global warming potential HRI Historic Resources Inventory I Interstate LACDPW Los Angeles County Department of Public Works LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LACTC Los Angeles County Transportation Commission LADOT Los Angeles Department of Transportation LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LARRMP Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board LID Low-‐Impact Development LST Localized Significance Threshold MLD Most Likely Descendent

vi

November 2016

MOU Memorandum of Understanding MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System mty metric tons per year NAAQS National Air Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NHMLAC Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O3 ozone PHI Points of Historical Interest PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter ppm parts per million ppv peak particle velocity proposed project Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River Project RCNM Road Construction Noise Model RIO River Improvement Overlay RPR Rare Plant Rank SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority SEA Significant Ecological Area SMP Soil Management Plan SO2 sulfur dioxide SR State Route SRA source receptor area SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VOC volatile organic compound WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meters

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY (Article I - City CEQA Guidelines)

1 November 2016

Council District: 1 and 13 Date: November 2016 Lead City Agency: City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering Project Title: Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River Project I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of an Initial Study

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 for the purpose of providing decision-makers and the public with information regarding environmental effects of proposed projects, identifying means of avoiding environmental damage, and disclosing to the public the reasons behind a project’s approval, even if it leads to environmental damage. The Bureau of Engineering Environmental Management Group (EMG) has determined the proposed project is subject to CEQA, and no exemptions apply. Therefore, the preparation of an initial study is required. An initial study is a preliminary analysis conducted by the lead agency, in consultation with other agencies (responsible or trustee agencies, as applicable), to determine whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the initial study concludes that the project, with mitigation, may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report should be prepared; otherwise, the lead agency may adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. This initial study has been prepared in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.), and the L.A. CEQA Guidelines (1981, amended July 31, 2002).

TAYLOR YARD BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PUBLIC WORKS – BUREAU OF ENGINEERING

2 November 2016

B. Document Format

This initial study is organized into eight sections, as follows: Section I, Introduction: provides an overview of the project and the CEQA environmental documentation process. Section II, Project Description: provides a description of the project location, project background, and project components. Section III, Existing Environment: provides a description of the existing environmental setting, with a focus on features of the environment that could affect the proposed project or be affected by the proposed project. Section IV, Potential Environmental Effects: provides a detailed discussion of the environmental factors that could be affected by this project, as indicated by the screening checklist in Appendix A. Section V, Mitigation Measures: provides the mitigation measures that would be implemented to ensure that potential adverse impacts of the proposed project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Section VI, Preparation: provides a list of key personnel involved in the preparation of this report and key personnel consulted. Section VII, Determination – Recommended Environmental Documentation: provides the recommended environmental documentation for the proposed project. Section VIII, References: provides a list of reference materials used during the preparation of this report.

C. CEQA Process

Once the adoption of a negative declaration (or mitigated negative declaration) has been proposed, a public comment period opens for no less than 20 days, or 30 days if there is state agency involvement. The purpose of this comment period is to provide public agencies and the general public an opportunity to review the initial study and comment on the adequacy of the analysis and the findings of the lead agency regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. If a reviewer believes the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the reviewer should (1) identify the specific effect, (2) explain why it is believed the effect would occur, and (3) explain why it is believed the effect would be significant. Facts or expert opinion supported by facts should be provided as the basis of such comments.


3

November 2016

After the close of the public review period, the Board of Public Works considers the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, and makes a recommendation to the City Council on whether to approve the project. One or more council committees may then review the proposal and documents and make its own recommendation to the full City Council. The City Council is the decision-making body and also considers the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, together with any comments received during the public review process, in the final decision to approve or disapprove the project. During the project approval process, individuals and/or agencies may address either the Board of Public Works or the City Council regarding the project. Public notification of agenda items for the Board of Public Works, council committees, and City Council is posted 72 hours prior to the public meeting. The council agenda can be obtained by visiting the council and Public Services Division of the Office of the City Clerk at City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Suite 395; calling 213/978-1047, 213/978-1048, or TDD/TTY 213/978-1055; or accessing the information online at http://www.lacity.org/CLK/index.htm. If the project is approved, the City of Los Angeles (City) will file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk within five days. The Notice of Determination will be posted by the County Clerk within 24 hours of receipt. This begins a 30-day statute of limitations on legal challenges to the approval under CEQA. The ability to challenge the approval in court may be limited to those persons who objected to the approval of the project, and to issues that were presented to the lead agency by any person, either orally or in writing, during the public comment period. As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City does not discriminate on the basis of disability and, upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services, and activities.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Location

The proposed Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River Project (proposed project) would be located across the Los Angeles River and in the surrounding area in the Silverlake-Echo Park-Elysian Park Community Plan area in the city of Los Angeles. Specifically, the northern abutment of the proposed bridge would be located adjacent to Kerr Road, and its southern abutment would be located adjacent to the Los Angeles River Greenway Trail (bikeway), approximately between Altman Street and Dorris Place, adjacent to 2331 Dorris Place in the city of Los Angeles. Proposed intersection pedestrian striping enhancements at San Fernando Road/Cypress Road would occur north of the proposed bridge.


4

November 2016

Additionally, a two-way bike path and pedestrian path would be developed on Kerr Road, connecting the proposed bridge to San Fernando Road. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional and project locations.

Surrounding Land Uses The proposed crosswalks would be striped in the northern portion of the project area along San Fernando Road and Cypress Avenue. Land uses in this area include residential uses to the east, industrial uses to the south, and the Rio de Los Angeles State Park to the west. The proposed two-way bike path located on Kerr Road is bordered by the Taylor Yard Transit Village to the south, San Fernando Road to the east, the Rio de Los Angeles State Park to the north, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the west. The proposed bridge would cross the Los Angeles River in the southern portion of the project area. The northern abutment lies adjacent to a proposed natural river area commonly known as the G2 property. This property is currently under ownership of the Union Pacific Railroad. Within the G2 parcel lies the southernmost stretch of Kerr Road, which is a private street, owned dually by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and California State Parks, which allows access to the Taylor Yard Commuter Rail Central Maintenance Facility as well as the residential housing developments east of Kerr Road. To the west of Kerr Road is the Rio de Los Angeles State Park.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) operates high-voltage transmission lines along the north bank of the Los Angeles River, which happen to land under LADWP transmission lines. The transmission lines restrict bridge design flexibility because no bridge element may be within 25 feet of the transmission line. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) maintains a maintenance road along the northern bank of the Los Angeles River, which is currently used by LACDPW, LADWP, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and LACMTA. Additionally, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operates both a main line and tail track through the project footprint.

The southern bank of the Los Angeles River is used as a bikeway, which begins at Fletcher Drive to the north and continues to Egret Park at Riverside Drive to the south. Additionally, directly south of the bridge is the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works (CLADPW) Bureau of Sanitation Dorris Place Maintenance Yard.


5

November 2016

_̂

AdamsAdamsSquareSquare

AurantAurant

BoyleBoyleHeightsHeights

CityCityTerraceTerrace

ClementClementJunctionJunction

CommerceCommerce

EagleEagleRockRock

EchoEchoParkPark

El SerenoEl Sereno

GarvanzaGarvanza

HappyHappyValleyValley

HighlandHighlandParkPark

NevinNevin

OlgaOlga

RedondoRedondoJunctionJunction

SouthSouthPasadenaPasadena

VernonVernon

BurbankBurbank

East LosEast LosAngelesAngeles

GlendaleGlendale

HollywoodHollywood

LosLosAngelesAngeles

GriffithPark

BrandPark

La

Riv

er

Ch

an

ne

l

B

urb

ank

Weste

rn

Channel

Arro

yo

Se

co

Wa

sh

A

rroyo

Seco

Channel

VerdugoWash

L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e sC o u n t yC o u n t y

ST110

ST710

ST110

ST2

ST2

ST72

ST60

ST159

ST2

ST134

£¤101

§̈¦210

§̈¦5

§̈¦10 §̈¦710

§̈¦110

§̈¦10

Figure 1Regional Location

Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the LA River Project

±Source: ESRI StreetMap

North America (2010)

0 1 20.5

Miles

San Bernardino

Riverside

San Diego

Orange

Los Angeles

Kern

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

USA

MEXICO

K:\

Pro

jects

_1\L

AB

OE

\00

00

6_1

6_

Ta

ylo

rYa

rd\m

ap

do

c\F

ig0

1_

Re

gio

na

l_Lo

ca

tio

n.m

xd D

ate

: 9

/27

/20

16

2

49

91

Project Site


6

November 2016


7

November 2016

B. Purpose

The proposed project aims to: l Support the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP)

goals of bringing residents back to the Los Angeles River. l Support the City of Los Angeles’ commitment to invest in recycled water

infrastructure. l Construct a pedestrian access system linking the communities of Elysian

Valley and Cypress Park located east and west of Taylor Yard, thereby fulfilling the commitment of the 1992 Taylor Yard Rail Commuter Facility Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC), SCRRA, and the City.

C. Background

In 2007, the City Council (C.F. 07-1342) adopted the long-range LARRMP, which, among its recommendations, includes Recommendation 4.12: “Continue development of non-motorized transportation and recreation elements including bike and pedestrian paths and multiuse trails in the river and tributary rights of way.” (LARRMP 2007) One of the goals of the LARRMP is to enhance the River identity. The LARRMP identifies River bicycle and pedestrian bridges and multi-modal bridges as building blocks that can be used to enhance the River identity. Guidelines include the following:

• Light for safety, and design lighting features to highlight the bridge • Bridges should always safely accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle

traffic • Commission ‘signature’ non-motorized bridges that express a design or

artistic sensibility and become landmarks for the river. (LARRMP, 2007) The LARRMP also includes the Taylor Yard Bridge as its Project No. 171. Additionally, the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Study discusses a need for a bridge over the Los Angeles River at Taylor Yard. In 1992, the LACTC, SCRRA, and the City entered into an agreement regarding the Taylor Yard Rail Commuter Facility. This 1992 MOU included a commitment (Section 3.F.) to build a pedestrian bridge across the Los Angeles River at Taylor Yard. This MOU is considered the genesis of the proposed project, as described above in Section B.


8 November 2016

D. Description

The proposed project would construct a multi-modal bridge over the Los Angeles River between Elysian Valley on the west and Taylor Yard on the east. The proposed bridge would be designed for bicycle and pedestrian use, and would also support emergency vehicles. On the south, the proposed bridge would connect with the existing bikeway along the river. Two American with Disabilities Act– (ADA-) compliant ramps would also be constructed in this area. On the north, a 275-foot-long bikeway ramp would be constructed. This proposed ramp would lead to a proposed two-way bike path with buffer along Kerr Road that would connect to San Fernando Road. Nine Magnolia trees located along Kerr Road would be removed under the proposed project. Proposed crosswalks would be added at the San Fernando Road/Future Street and Cypress Street/Future Street intersections. The proposed steel-framed bridge would be approximately 400 feet long and supported on abutments and a concrete pier in the central portion of the channel. The abutment to the north would be along the Los Angeles River maintenance road; the abutment on the south side would be along the existing bikeway. Both abutments would be adjacent to the top of the channel slopes. The abutment on the north side would include construction of a retaining wall, ranging in height from about 5 to 18 feet. The bridge structure itself would be approximately 30 feet high by 27 feet 4 inches wide. The width of the actual pedestrian and bikeway path would be approximately 18 feet. The pedestrian and bikeway path would descend to the south at an inclination of approximately 3.1 percent. The proposed design would minimize the disruption of the waterway as well as minimize structural supports in the river. The bridge design would include a foundational support pier in the riverbed, which is soft-bottomed in this area. Except for the pier, the bridge would be located above the river’s cross-sectional flow area. There would be an at-grade crossing of an existing railroad on the east side. The proposed project would cross land within the jurisdictions of the City, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and USACE. The proposed bridge would be designed to carry two 16-inch LADWP water lines that would carry reclaimed water, connecting from Elysian Valley to Cypress Park. The scope of LADWP water line installation, for this project, would start five feet south of the masonry wall on the bikeway side, travel underground perpendicular to the bikeway, travel up through the bridge landing, straddle under the bridge deck, travel back underground through the bridge landing, travel through Kerr Road, and connect to an existing water line in San Fernando Road. The recycled water lines would be a visible bridge element, hanging under the bridge deck. These recycled water lines represent the investment in recycled water infrastructure that the City is making. Figure 3 is a visual representation of the proposed project. Figure 4 shows existing and proposed site sections of the proposed project along Kerr Road. Figure 5 shows the location of the proposed water lines.


9

November 2016


10 November 2016

Figure 4Existing and Proposed Site Sections

Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge

K:\

Pro

jects

_1\L

AB

OE

\00

00

6_1

6_

Ta

ylo

rYa

rd\m

ap

do

c\F

ig0

4_

Site

_S

ection

s.m

xd

Da

te:

9/2

7/2

016

2

49

91


11 November 2016


12 November 2016

Materials

l The bridge structure would be composed of the following components: concrete, reinforcing steel, structural steel, structural fasteners, bolts, nuts, washers, stud shear connectors and welded metals.

l Concrete would be used for the cast-in-place deck, bike path ramps, bike path along Kerr Road, ADA compliant ramps, central pier support, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles, and bridge adjacent retaining wall.

l Reinforcing steel would be used to reinforce the pier wall, CIDH piles, bridge deck and ramps.

l Masonry would be used for the retaining wall along Kerr Road l Bridge members would be made from hollow square-section structural

steel. l Structural fasteners, bolts, nuts, washers, stud shear connectors would be

used as connection materials for the structural steel bridge members, and metals would be used for the railing.

Construction The bridge construction would require an orchestrated approach to the sequence of construction. Any work in the Los Angeles River proper would occur during the dry season (April to October) and would require an active approach to avoid adversely affecting the surrounding environment and water quality. During the dry season, a work platform will be created over the Los Angeles River bottom to keep vehicles and workers out of the rocky, muddy or sandy bottom surface. A construction crane would be used to install the structural steel truss segments which compose the bridge. Specifically, the bridge truss sections would be fabricated off-site, and assembled in a staging area adjacent to the north channel slope, and brought down via construction platforms/ramps to the Los Angeles River bottom, where cranes would be stationed and utilized to lift the structural steel sections in the proper place, without disrupting the river habitat, which helps to reduce construction cost and construction time. The staging area would also facilitate the movement of smaller components, equipment, and materials to and from the project site. Figure 6 shows the construction staging areas and area of impact. Construction Schedule Construction is estimated to take approximately 30 to 32 months. This duration accounts for a six-month window, during only one wet season, in which no construction activities can occur in the River. This wet season occurs from October to April in any given year. However, during this particular wet season, to make the best use of time, some construction activities will occur outside the Los Angeles River. Project construction would generally consist of five phases: mobilization, site preparation, site work, steel fabrication, and architectural finishing. Details for each of the five phases are provided below.


13 November 2016

N S

an F

ern

ando R

d

Future

St

Cypre

ss A

ve

Cry

sta

l St

Elm S

t

Glo

ver Pl

Bla

ke A

ve

Altm

an S

t

Cabot St

Frederi

ck St

Birkdale

St

Riv

erd

ale

Ave

Dorr

is P

l

Figure 6

Construction Staging Areas and Area of Impact

Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the LA River Project

±Source: ESRI World Imagery

(2014)

0 100 200

Feet

K:\

Pro

jects

_1

\LA

BO

E\0

000

6_

16

_Ta

ylo

rYa

rd\m

ap

do

c\B

io\F

ig0

6_

LO

D.m

xd

Da

te:

9/2

8/2

01

6 3

79

37

Legend

Limits of Disturbance

Project Elements

ADA Ramp

Bike Path

Bridge

Pier

Proposed Continental Crosswalk

Ramp

Staging Area

Waterline

Project Details


14 November 2016

This page left blank intentionally


15 November 2016

Mobilization Contractor mobilization would occur during an approximately two-week period of time and would involve the set-up of construction trailers, office equipment, utility connections, equipment storage yard, welding housing unit, and protective fencing. During this time, detours would be established and project construction signs would be posted. No actual work would take place in the river itself. Site Preparation Site preparation involves clearance of the site and preparing the project area for construction. Site preparation activities will vary depending on the season which the contractor will work. At the start of the contract, site preparation activities would occur over a period of approximately three weeks which will consist of clearing and grubbing of vegetation, including trees, shrubs, as well as cleaning and preparing of all areas cleaning of surfaces where construction would take place would be started. During the dry season, site preparation activities would occur over a period of one month in the Los Angeles River channel. This would include the installation of construction ramps, which would be used to access the channel, and water diversions to redirect the channel away from work zone. Water quality mitigation and erosion control activities would also occur, as needed. Heavy equipment, including cranes, front-end loaders, boom lifts, forklifts, power tools, heavy-/light-duty trucks, and construction materials, would arrive at the construction site from Kerr Road and be stored in the construction staging area. A selection of these would be utilized during the site preparation phase and throughout the rest of the construction phases.

Site Work The site work phase would consist of installation of foundation, superstructure, bike ramps on both sides (north and south) of the bridge, bike path on Kerr Road, site improvements, and the LADWP water line. Foundation The foundation elements would consist of installation of CIDH piles with pile caps and a center pier, which would entail penetrating the channel liner, shoring, excavating, installing a rebar cage, forming, and pouring piles. This foundation construction is estimated to take approximately six months. Equipment utilized during the foundation construction phase would include drill rigs, cranes, backhoes, flat-bed trucks, demolition equipment, concrete trucks, water trucks, and heavy-/light-duty trucks.


16 November 2016

Superstructure

The superstructure elements would involve the erection of the steel truss segments and construction of the cast-in-place deck. Five steel truss segments would be erected in sequence. This would consist of self-propelled transporter machines carrying truss segments down the construction ramp from the staging area, which would then be lifted from the transporter by cranes and placed on the south abutment (segment 1) and along a series of temporary supports (segments 2–5), spanning from the south to north abutment. As these steel truss segments are moved, they would be aligned by bolted and welded connections. This erection of the steel truss segments is estimated to take approximately six months. Equipment utilized during the erection of the steel truss segments would include cranes, forklifts, boom lifts, welding tools, power tools, light-/heavy-duty trucks, and a specialized transporter, which would travel up and down the construction ramp. Additionally, another superstructure phase would involve constructing the cast-in-place deck. Equipment utilized during the deck construction would include boom lifts, concrete trucks, heavy-/light-duty trucks, and power tools. Bike Path along Kerr Road and Bike Ramps Construction of the bike path along Kerr Road would require excavating part of the slope adjacent to the state park as well as constructing a retaining wall to support the lateral force of the slope. Bike ramps leading to the bridge from the Los Angeles River Greenway Trail and from the bridge to Kerr Road would also be constructed. Construction associated with the proposed bike path and bike ramps would take five to six months. Equipment used during the bike path and bike construction would include excavators, concrete trucks, front-end loaders, compactors, heavy-/light-duty trucks, mortar application tools, manual stripe painting tools, and power tools. Site Improvements The site improvement elements would include some minor landscaping on either side of the bridge, ADA-compliant ramps off of Dallas Street and Riverdale Avenue, as well as the continental crosswalk striping on the intersection of North San Fernando Road/Future Street and Future Street/Cypress Avenue. Site improvements are estimated to take approximately one to two months. Activities performed during site improvements would include grading, planting, pouring concrete, and painting. Equipment utilized during site improvements would include concrete trucks, front-end loaders, compactors, heavy-/light-duty trucks, manual stripe painting tools, and power tools.


17 November 2016

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Water Line Construction associated with the LADWP recycled water lines (below grade and/or above grade installation) would consist of concrete cutting, excavating, placing segments of water line, welding, slurry and/or dirt backfilling, compacting, and concrete resurfacing. LADWP water line construction is expected to take three to four months. Equipment utilized during the installation of the LADWP water line installation would include cranes, boom lifts, concrete saws, front-end loaders, slurry trucks, concrete trucks, compactors, light-/heavy-duty trucks, welding tools, and power tools. Steel Fabrication Portions of this phase of construction would occur concurrent with the site work phase, including finalization of shop drawings and fabrication of components. The estimated timeframe for steel fabrication is approximately seven to eight months which includes the procurement of steel sections for the bridge and fabrication of the steel sections on the on-site staging area. Typical on-site fabrication activities include welding of vertical and horizontal truss elements to their stubs protruding from the continuous top and bottom chords to form the closed box section for the three-bays-long truss segments, shot blasting the exterior surface of these welded joints, and painting these welded splices before erection.

This work would then be brought to the bridge site in sequence and components stored on-site until erected. See the paragraph on superstructure work above for a detailed narrative on the erection sequence. Delivery of bridge components would occur along Kerr Road, which is adjacent to the staging area. Fabrication of steel will take approximately four to five months and assembly of the steel sections in the staging areas of the steel is estimated to take approximately four months. Equipment utilized during the steel fabrication phase will be cranes, forklifts, light-/heavy-duty trucks, power tools. Architectural Finishing During this phase of construction, the deck finishing, handrails, lighting, and other architectural details would be installed. This work would occur over a period of approximately two to three months and take place outside and above the Los Angeles River channel. Equipment utilized during this phase of construction would include small cranes, boom lifts, light-/heavy-duty trucks, and power tools. Operation and Maintenance Once the project has been completed, operation and maintenance would be the responsibility of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). The primary responsibilities would be the maintenance and upkeep of the bridge for continued use by pedestrians and bicyclists.


18 November 2016

Project Actions and Approvals The proposed project and environmental documentation would require approval by the City Council. Additional anticipated approvals or permits for the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:

l USACE Section 404 Permit l USACE Section 408 Permit l Los Angeles County Flood Control District Permit l California Department of Fish and Game Section 1602 work access permit

to allow work in the Los Angeles River l State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)/Los Angeles Regional

Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), General Construction Permit, and Section 401 Permit

l SCRRA Construction and Maintenance Agreement, which provides rules and regulations for construction work performed in proximity to the tracks

l LADOT Traffic Control Plan Review

The analysis in this document assumes that, unless otherwise stated, the project would be designed, constructed, and operated under all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and formally adopted City standards, including, but not limited to:

l City of Los Angeles Municipal Code l Bureau of Engineering Standard Plans l Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction l Work Area Traffic Control Handbook l Additions and Amendments to Standard Specifications to Public Works

Construction


19 November 2016

III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The proposed project is located approximately five miles north of downtown Los Angeles in the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan area. It lies within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Los Angeles and Hollywood topographic quadrangles and the Los Angeles River watershed. The Los Angeles River has a soft bottom in the project area. Land uses south of the Los Angeles River in this area include residential uses and the Dorris Place Elementary School. The Taylor Yard Commuter Yard Rail Facility and the Los Angeles Greenway Trail are located in the project area. The 110 freeway is located less than two miles to the east, and Interstate (I) 5 is located less than one mile away to the south. San Fernando Road is located immediately north of the project area. The project site is zoned [Q]PF-1XL-RIO for bridge area and M3-1-CDO-RIO for Kerr Road and designated as Open Space in the City’s General Plan (see the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan).

IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The environmental factors checked below could be affected by this project, involving at least one significant impact, as indicated by the checklist in Appendix A. A detailed discussion of these potential environmental effects follows.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance


20 November 2016

A. Aesthetics Scenic Vistas A scenic vista generally provides focal views of objects, settings, or features of visual interest; or panoramic views of large geographic areas of scenic quality, primarily from a given vantage point. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project introduced incompatible visual elements within a field containing a scenic vista or substantially altered a view of a scenic vista. The proposed project would introduce a pedestrian/bikeway bridge in the Los Angeles River watershed. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not block scenic views or areas of scenic quality. The proposed bridge would increase pedestrian and bicycle recreational access to the Los Angeles River. No scenic vistas or corridors have been identified by the City of Los Angeles in the Silverlake-Echo Park-Elysian Park Community Plan area within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Additionally, as shown in Figures 7 and 8, views in the surrounding area are of low to medium quality. At present, the primary visual resource within viewsheds throughout the project area is the Los Angeles River, whose form creates visual continuity and adjacent vegetation provides contrast, color and moderately diverse visual patterns. Depending on the position, relative distance, and angle of the viewer, views can be had of the gently sloping foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. However, since no scenic vistas or corridors have been identified, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and no impacts would occur during construction or operation. Eligible and/or officially designated state and/or county scenic highways in Los Angeles County, as defined by the California Department of Transportation, include portions of Pacific Coast Highway (State Route [SR] 1), SR-2, I-5, SR-27, SR-39, SR-57, US-101, SR-118, SR-126, and I-210 (Caltrans 2011). No eligible and/or officially designated State and/or County Scenic Highways are located in the vicinity of the proposed project. The nearest officially designated scenic highway, a portion of SR-2, is located approximately 10 miles northeast of the proposed site. Scenic Resources

A significant impact may occur where scenic resources within a state scenic highway would be damaged or removed as a result of the proposed project. The project site is not located along or near any designated State Scenic Highway or locally designated scenic highway. As previously stated, the proposed project would enhance access to the Los Angeles River and would not result in the destruction of any existing scenic resources. Therefore, no impact is anticipated to occur under construction and operation of the proposed project.


21 November 2016

Figure 7 – Photograph of Proposed Bridge Location, Facing North, from Pedestrian Bike Path

Source: ICF International, 2016.

Figure 8 – Photograph of Proposed Bridge Location, Facing Southwest, from East Bank of River Channel

Source: ICF International, 2016.


22 November 2016

Visual Character and Quality

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project introduced incompatible visual elements to the project site or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site. As mentioned, the proposed project would be located across the Los Angeles River in the Silverlake-Echo Park-Elysian Park Community Plan area in the city of Los Angeles. The city of Los Angeles lies at the southwestern edge of Los Angeles County, a location with visually prominent hillsides that define the northern edges of the city. The San Gabriel Mountains and their foothills form the backdrop for many views and viewsheds (all of the surface areas visible from an observer’s viewpoint) throughout the community, as shown in Figure 7. During construction, site preparation and grading activities, construction staging, barricade installation, and the placement of minor structures and signage would be required to secure the construction site. Construction activities would also include the installation of temporary structures and staging equipment within the Los Angeles River. Project construction would disturb up to approximately 4.14 acres. Construction activities would temporarily diminish the visual quality or character of the immediate area and partially obstruct views in the immediate project vicinity. Residential viewer groups, who would have the highest sensitivity to the introduction of new, visual elements into the existing setting, are located along North San Fernando Road between approximately Ariva Street and Lossmore Avenue. This viewer group would be more sensitive to this type of temporary visual intrusion than recreationists and regular visitors to the Los Angeles River and surrounding areas. The proposed project would include built elements that have the potential to alter the existing visual character and/or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project proposes to introduce a bridge across the Los Angeles River, with its east abutment located at Kerr Road and its western abutment located between Altman Street and Dorris Place. The bridge deck is planned to be approximately 18 feet in width and the overall width of the bridge would be approximately 24 feet 3 inches to accommodate separation between pedestrians and bicyclists. The height of the bridge would be approximately 30 feet, and would be a steel structure approximately 400 feet in length. The built features, as shown in Figure 9, would not remove or demolish existing features or elements that contribute to the visual character of the project area, primarily the Los Angeles River and foothills of the Transverse Mountain Range. The bridge would, however, have one intermediate support mid-span within the Los Angeles River, which would slightly alter existing features.


23 November 2016

Figure 9 – Bridge Rendering

Source: City of Los Angeles, 2016.

From Key View 1, shown above in Figure 7, the bridge would be a fairly dominant visual element within the existing setting. Views within the immediate project vicinity, at present, range from low quality to medium quality. As a general rule, high-quality views are found to have topographic relief, a variety of vegetation, rich colors, impressive scenery, and unique natural and/or built features. Medium-quality views have interesting but minor landforms, some variety in vegetation and color, and/or moderate scenery. Low-quality views contain uninteresting features, little variety in vegetation and color, uninteresting scenery, and/or common elements. The low- to medium-quality views throughout the immediate project area contain minor landforms, such as Elysian Hills, with some variety in vegetation and color, much of which is provided by riparian habitat supported by the Los Angeles River. Other common elements in the viewsheds near the proposed project site include utility poles, vacant/unpaved lots, residences along North San Fernando Road, Union Pacific tracks and train cars just east of the Los Angeles River that are part of the larger Taylor Yard Commuter Rail Central Maintenance Facility, and other light industrial/commercial facilities on the west side of the river adjacent to the Los Angeles River Greenway Trail.


24 November 2016

As mentioned above, the bridge itself would be the primary built element to be introduced by the proposed project. To the extent practicable, the architectural design and treatment of the bridge would serve to enhance visual quality and contribute to the overall cohesion and continuity of the proposed project with the Los Angeles River. Once built, views throughout the immediate project vicinity would still be of medium quality, maintaining variety with respect to vegetation and color. Similarly, viewsheds throughout the immediate project vicinity would retain their intactness through a combination of well-kept urban features and natural settings. The project area would also retain its vividness because the proposed project’s built elements would create a juxtaposition of water and landscape features with surrounding elements, such as residential buildings, existing tracks, and existing facilities near the Los Angeles River Greenway Trail. Overall, the project area would remain fairly unified, and the proposed project would not substantially compromise the visual coherence, line patterns, or overall scenery. Views would remain low to medium quality. The response from all viewer groups, including residents and recreationists, bicyclists, etc., is expected to be fairly minimal. Though viewer exposure and sensitivity would be higher for more accustomed viewer groups (i.e., residences and frequent visitors), given the nature and quality of existing viewsheds and constrained lines of sight to the proposed site, the proposed project would not substantially diminish or alter the aesthetic value of the project area. Therefore, it would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Additional project elements that would be visible include the ADA ramps associated with the bridge, pedestrian striping enhancements at San Fernando Road/Cypress Road, and a two-way bike path and pedestrian path that is proposed on Kerr Road, connecting the proposed bridge to San Fernando Road. From a visual perspective, these elements are considered to be fairly minor and would not represent substantial visual changes. They would not remove or demolish existing feature that contribute to the visual character of the project area nor would they have the potential to alter the overall existing visual quality and character of the site and its surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Light and Glare A significant impact would occur if the proposed project caused a substantial increase in ambient illumination levels beyond the property line or caused new lighting to spill over onto light-sensitive land uses such as residential, some commercial and institutional uses that require minimum illumination for proper function and natural areas. If nighttime lighting at the construction site is required, lighting would be directed downward, and spill light would be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Therefore, significant changes in ambient illumination levels as a result of project


25 November 2016

construction activities are not expected to occur, and construction lighting would not be a significant nuisance for nearby residents. Any impacts associated with nighttime construction activities, if necessary, would be temporary and minor. Though new lighting is proposed as part of the bikeway/pedestrian bridge, the proposed project would not substantially alter ambient light levels. Several options for lighting are being considered, including a vertical guardrail lighting option and an integrated handrail lighting option. Under both options, lighting would be installed in accordance with Los Angeles Municipal Code requirements. It would be directed downward and on-site towards the bridge deck to provide nighttime illumination for bridge users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Directing lighting downward and on-site would help minimize the potential for spill effects. Lines of sight from nearby residences, the primary sensitive visual receptors, are partially constrained. Residences are located approximately 2,000 feet east of the proposed site at their nearest point and nighttime illumination of the bridge would not be a significant nuisance. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

B. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Initial screening determined that the proposed project would have no impact on agriculture or forestry resources (see Appendix A).

C. Air Quality

Obstruct Implementation of Applicable Air Quality Plan

The project site is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SCAB is composed of Orange County and the urban, non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for setting and enforcing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), and lead under the Clean Air Act. USEPA also establishes emission standards for on-road vehicles and off-road engines. The federal Clean Air Act forms the basis for national pollution control and delegates enforcement of the federal standards to the states. In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the local air agencies have the shared responsibility for enforcing air pollution regulations, with the local agencies having primary responsibility for regulating stationary emission sources. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the local agency responsible for ensuring that federal and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the SCAB.


26 November 2016

Attainment of the NAAQS and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), set by CARB, is characterized via a network of ambient air quality monitoring stations, located in the SCAB. Pollutants monitored include O3, particulate matter, CO, NO2, and SO2. O3 is a unique criteria pollutant because it is not directly emitted from project-related sources. Rather, O3 is a secondary pollutant, formed from precursor pollutants volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). VOCs and NOX react to form O3 in the presence of sunlight through a complex series of photochemical reactions. As a result, unlike inert pollutants, O3 levels usually peak several hours after the precursors are emitted and many miles downwind of the source. Because of the complexity and uncertainty in predicting photochemical pollutant concentrations, O3 impacts are indirectly addressed by comparing project-generated emissions of VOCs and NOX to daily emission thresholds set by SCAQMD. CAAQS have also been established for lead, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles, which are not pollutants of concern for the proposed project because they will not be emitted. Table 1 summarizes the federal and state attainment status of criteria pollutants for the SCAB based on the NAAQS and CAAQS, respectively.

Table 1. South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status

Pollutant

Attainment Status

Federal State

O3 Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment

PM10 Attainment/Maintenance Nonattainment

PM2.5 24 hours Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment

PM2.5 annual Moderate Nonattainment Nonattainment

CO Attainment/Maintenance Attainment

NO2 Attainment/Maintenance Attainment

SO2 Attainment Attainment

Source: (CARB 2015; USEPA 2015)

In areas where the NAAQS are not attained (federal nonattainment areas), the Clean Air Act requires preparation of a State Implementation Plan detailing how the state will attain the NAAQS within mandated timeframes. In response to this requirement, local air quality agencies, such as SCAQMD, in collaboration with other agencies, such as CARB and the Southern California Association of Governments, prepare Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) designed to bring the area into attainment with federal requirements and/or to incorporate the latest technical planning information. The AQMP for each nonattainment area is then incorporated into the State Implementation Plan, which is submitted by CARB to USEPA for approval.


27 November 2016

SCAQMD prepared AQMPs in 1997, 2003, 2007, and most recently in 2012. Each iteration of the AQMP serves as an update to the previous AQMP. The focus of the 2007 AQMP was to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS for PM2.5 and 8-hour O3 and other planning requirements, including compliance with the NAAQS for PM10 (SCAQMD 2007). In December 2012, SCAQMD adopted the 2012 AQMP (SCAQMD 2013). The 2012 AQMP focused on PM2.5 control measures designed to attain the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard and contingency measures in case the targeted attainment date is missed. The 2012 AQMP also contained proposed actions to reduce O3. SCAQMD has initiated development of the 2016 AQMP, which will be a comprehensive and integrated AQMP that focuses primarily on addressing O3 standards, including a full 2023 attainment demonstration of the 8-hour O3 standard. Each AQMP proposes attainment strategies designed to bring the SCAB into attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS. AQMP attainment strategies and control measures include mobile source control measures and clean fuel programs and are enforced at the state and federal levels on engine manufacturers and petroleum refiners and retailers. SCAQMD also adopts AQMP control measures into the SCAQMD rules and regulations, which are then used to regulate sources of air pollution in the SCAB. Construction of the proposed project would adhere to applicable regulations established by the SCAQMD and the City pertaining to fugitive dust control and daily hours of activity. Upon completion, the proposed project would create new recreational open space and promote the expansion of bike and pedestrian modes of transit as an alternative to passenger vehicles, which are elements consistent with emissions management objectives of the AQMP. Because the proposed project would not result in growth or emissions beyond the forecasts incorporated into the AQMP, the proposed project would not obstruct or conflict with its implementation. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation

For purposes of this analysis, CEQA thresholds developed by SCAQMD were used as thresholds of significance to determine if the proposed project would result in impacts on air quality. Table 2 presents the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for potential air quality impacts.


28 November 2016

Table 2. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds1

Daily Emission Thresholds

Air Pollutant Construction Threshold (lb/day) Operation Threshold (lb/day)

NOX 100 55

VOCs 75 55

PM10 150 150

PM2.5 55 55

Sulfur oxides (SOX) 150 150

CO 550 550

Ambient Pollutant Concentration Thresholds

Air Pollutant Ambient Concentration Threshold

NO2 1-hour average 1-hour average Annual average

SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 0.18 parts per million (ppm) (339 micrograms per cubic meters [µg/m3]) (state) 0.100 ppm (188 µg/m3) (federal) 0.03 ppm (57 µg/m3) (state) and 0.0534 ppm (federal)

PM10 24-hour average 24-hour average Annual average

10.4 µg/m3 (construction) 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) 1.0 µg/m3

PM2.5 24-hour average

10.4 µg/m3 (construction) 2.5 µg/m3 (operation)

SO2 1-hour average 24-hour average

0.25 ppm (state) & 0.075 ppm (federal—99th percentile) 0.04 ppm (state)

CO 1-hour average 8-hour average

SCAQMD is in attainment; project is significant if it causes or contributes to an exceedance of the following attainment standards: 20 ppm (23,000 µg/m3) (state) and 35 ppm (federal) 9.0 ppm (10,000 µg/m3) (state/federal)

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) and Odor Thresholds

TACs (including carcinogens and non-carcinogens)

Maximum Incremental Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment) Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million)

Odor Project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402

Source: SCAQMD 2015a 1 SCAQMD also sets thresholds for lead and sulfides. However, because these pollutants would not be emitted during construction or operational activities, they are not pollutants of concern for the proposed project and are not further considered in the analysis.


29 November 2016

Construction Impacts Air quality impacts from proposed construction could occur from (1) combustion emissions from fossil-fueled off-road equipment and on-road vehicles, (2) fugitive dust emissions due to grading of exposed soils, and (3) road dust. Proposed construction is anticipated to last approximately 28 months and is expected to be completed in 2020. Construction of the bridge and ramps would be undertaken during 22 of those 28 months, with a six-month pause during the wet season of when construction in the channel would not be possible. Within this six-month gap, construction of the bike path extension along Kerr Road to San Fernando Road on the eastern bank of the river would be completed. After the wet season, construction activities in the channel bed would resume. Proposed project components would include landside and in-channel improvements, discussed in Section II, Project Description. As noted in that section, construction would generally consist of five phases: mobilization, site preparation, site work, steel fabrication, and architectural finishing. Each construction phase is described in detail Section D, Description. In summary, the mobilization phase would involve the set-up of a construction trailer and the equipment storage yard. During this time, detours would be established and signs would be posted. Construction laydown areas would be located south bank of the Los Angeles River and within the channel itself. Actual work would take place in the Los Angeles River. Site preparation would include clearance of the site and preparation of the project area for construction. This phase would include redirecting the channel away from the work zone, removal or trimming of vegetation, and removal of the slurry surface where abutments would be constructed. Dirt ramps would be installed from the staging areas to the project site and removed once the bridge sections are installed. Site work would involve excavation, forming and placing piers and concrete. The proposed project would include the construction of a concrete pier in the middle of the Los Angeles River and would require CIDH piles embedded in the Los Angeles River bed. Also during this phase, piles would be placed, formed and pile caps would be poured. Forms for abutments and piers would be constructed, and the fabrication and setting of imbed plates and other attachments to the concrete would be completed. Steel bridge components would be fabricated off-site and transported to the site staging areas, where the bridge sections would be assembled. The assembled sections would be installed at the bridge site. Steel members would be painted off-site; only minor touch-up coating of the steel sections would be required on-site. Asphalt and concrete paving of the bridge deck would take place during this phase. Deck material, handrails, finishes, lighting, and other architectural details would also be installed during this phase.


30 November 2016

Typical off-road construction equipment for the activities described above would include, but would not be limited to cranes, forklifts, front end loaders, dump trucks, welders, generators, off-road vehicles, graders, rollers, vibrators, auger drilling machines, dewatering equipment, pumps, air compressors, and boom lifts. Typical on-road vehicles would include, but would not be limited to flat bed and haul trucks, concrete trucks, asphalt trucks. These emission sources would primarily use diesel fuel, resulting in combustion exhaust emissions in the form of VOC, CO, NOX, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5. Earth-disturbance activities, such as excavation/grading and driving over unpaved surfaces, would also generate PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in the form of fugitive dust. Paving and architectural coating activities would generate VOC emissions. Emissions were quantified for both on-site sources (off-road construction equipment) and off-site sources (on-road vehicles) transiting within the SCAB. Reasonable peak day emissions were calculated for individual construction activities, assuming overlap of construction tasks based on the anticipated construction schedule and equipment utilization provided by the City (City of Los Angeles 2016). The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA), California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2013.2.2, was used to quantify emissions from anticipated construction activities (CAPCOA 2013). The CalEEMod model is approved by the SCAQMD and is well suited to this type of project. CalEEMod uses the emission factors for off-road equipment and on-road vehicles using the CARB OFFROAD model and EMFAC2011 model. The CalEEMod output is provided in Attachment B. CalEEMod output emissions were compared to SCAQMD’s regional daily emission thresholds for determination of significance. Emission calculations assume that the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD’s Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2005a), by implementing the rule-stipulated best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions. The following fugitive dust control measures were assumed as part of the proposed project.1

• Watering three times per day would result in a 61 percent reduction of fugitive dust from uncontrolled levels.

Table 3 summarizes construction emissions for a peak construction day, on which the greatest number of construction equipment would be used and a considerable amount of haul trips would take place. The data demonstrate that at no time during construction of the proposed project would maximum daily emissions exceed any applicable SCAQMD thresholds of significance for regional emissions. Therefore, regional air pollutant emissions generated by construction of the proposed project would not have the potential to result in a violation of any air quality standard, or contribute to an existing violation. This would be considered a less-than-significant impact.

1 SCAQMD Rule 403, as applicable for Small Projects (< 50 acres disturbed, < 5,000 yd3 three times per year).


31 November 2016

Table 3. Peak Daily Construction Emissions without Mitigation

Source Category PM10 PM2.5 NOX SOX CO VOC

(lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) Construction 2018 3.3 2.7 48.7 0.1 41 5.9 Significance Threshold 150 55 100 150 550 75 Significant? No No No No No No Construction 2019 3.1 2.5 45.1 0.1 42.5 21.3 Significance Threshold 150 55 100 150 550 75 Significant? No No No No No No Construction 2020 1.1 0.9 15.4 <0.1 18.7 10.1 Significance Threshold 150 55 100 150 550 75 Significant? No No No No No No Note: Emissions modeling files can be found in the air quality technical report.

SCAQMD developed the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology as a screening methodology to assist CEQA lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts from simpler projects (SCAQMD 2008a). The LST methodology allows users to determine, in lieu of conducting a dispersion modeling analysis, if a project would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable ambient air quality standard for each Source Receptor Area (SRA). The LST methodology is based on maximum daily allowable on-site emissions, the total area of the emissions source, the ambient air quality in each SRA in which the emission source is located, and the distance to the nearest exposed individual. The LST is set up as a series of look-up tables for emissions of NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. If proposed project emissions are below the LST look-up table emission levels, then the proposed activity is considered not to violate or substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality standard. SCAQMD’s LST methodology was used in this analysis to evaluate ambient air quality impacts from proposed project construction. Although the proposed project area is approximately four acres, the area assumed for the LST analysis conservatively assumed one acre because emissions spread over a smaller, one-acre area would be more concentrated and would produce more conservative results than emissions spread over a larger area. Distance to the nearest sensitive receptor was conservatively assumed to be 25 meters. Emissions were compared to the project-specific LST values in order to determine significance. Table 4 summarizes construction emissions for a peak construction day prior to mitigation (emissions modeling files scan be found in the air quality technical report). The table shows that emissions from construction of the proposed project would not exceed any applicable localized thresholds, and therefore do not have the potential to result in a violation of an air quality standard.


32 November 2016

Table 4. Localized Peak Daily Construction Emissions Without Mitigation

Year PM10

(lb/day) PM2.5

(lb/day) NOX

(lb/day) CO

(lb/day) 2018 On-Site Emissions[1] 2.6 2.5 45.7 33.7 LST Threshold[2] 5 3 74 680 Significance Determination No No No No 2019 On-Site Emissions[1] 2.4 2.3 45.3 39.4 LST Threshold[2] 5 3 74 680 Significance Determination No No No No 2020 On-Site Emissions[1] 0.8 0.8 14.5 16.2 LST Threshold[2] 5 3 74 680 Significance Determination No No No No Note: The LST values only apply to emissions from sources on the construction site (SCAQMD 2008a).

Air quality impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Impacts The proposed project would construct a non-traffic pedestrian and bikeway bridge. No sources of emission, excepting routine maintenance, would be associated with the proposed project. Routine maintenance activities would include maintenance painting and occasional asphalt maintenance. These sources of emissions would be minor as presented in the air quality technical report. Operational impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is in Non-attainment under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)

The region of analysis for cumulative effects on air quality is the SCAB, which is currently in nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Therefore, the construction and operational impacts of related projects in areas surrounding the project area would be cumulatively significant, within the SCAB, if their combined construction or operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily emission thresholds.


33 November 2016

Although three large projects in the surrounding area would coincide with the proposed project and, as such, could contribute to cumulative impacts, it is unlikely that the proposed project would have significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts under CEQA. Per SCAQMD guidance (SCAQMD 2003), impacts are considered to be cumulatively considerable if they exceed the project-specific air quality significance thresholds. Construction of the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions and would not exceed localized impacts of criteria pollutants and, therefore, is not considered to be cumulatively considerable. Operational emissions of the proposed project would be minor and therefore, is not considered to be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the proposed project has a relatively short construction schedule of 22 nonconsecutive months; therefore, any construction impacts would be short in duration and unlikely to overlap substantially with other projects in the vicinity. Lastly, the proposed project would be small in scale compared to the other area projects, with very low peak traffic volumes. Consequently, because proposed project construction would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds following mitigation and would have a short construction timeframe, and because proposed project operational emissions would be minor, the impacts are not considered to be significant adverse cumulative air quality impacts under CEQA. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations

This analysis looked at populations particularly vulnerable to the effects of air pollution to assess whether the proposed project would expose these sensitive receptors—residents, children, the elderly, the chronically ill, and other sensitive individuals—to substantial pollutant concentrations. The analysis identified residences, schools, hospitals, convalescent homes, day-care centers, and other locations where these vulnerable residents could be exposed. The nearest such uses to the project site are as follows.

• Residences adjacent to the south of the proposed project site, approximately 25 meters to the south, on Dorris Place.

• St. Anne Church and School, approximately 250 meters to the south. • Dorris Place Elementary School, approximately 290 meters to the southwest. • Gateways Hospital and Mental Clinic, approximately two kilometers to the

southwest. • Garden Crest Convalescent Hospital, approximately 4.6 kilometers to the

southwest. Diesel particulate matter is one of the components of ambient PM10 and is classified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB. PM10 emissions from diesel combustion were used as a surrogate for diesel particulate matter is in this analysis. The nearest


34 November 2016

sensitive receptor would be 25 meters from the project site, and PM10 construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for sensitive receptors, as detailed in Table 3 and Table 4. Operational PM10 emissions are expected to minimal and intermittent (see discussion under threshold III.b). Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People

Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant and lead to considerable distress among the public. This distress may often generate citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. Any project with the potential to frequently expose a substantial number of people to objectionable odors would be deemed as having a significant impact. According to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and manufacturing facilities (CARB 2005). Short-term objectionable odors during construction of the proposed project would be associated with the use of diesel-powered construction equipment and on-road vehicles. During construction activities, odors would mostly occur on-site, would be short-term and transient. Any odors during routine maintenance during project operation would also be minor and transient. In addition, SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1108.1 limit the amount of VOCs in cutback asphalt and emulsified asphalt products sold within the air district, further reducing the potential for odor impacts, during short-term paving activities. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

D. Biological Resources

Riparian Habitat and Natural Communities

The Los Angeles River in the vicinity of the proposed project comprises riparian habitat that is highly affected by non-native plant species. Table 5, below, provides data regarding the vegetation communities, including land use types and acreages for each community mapped within the biological study area (BSA), and Figure 10 depicts these communities within the BSA. Open Water and Black Willow Thickets-Disturbed are the only natural communities present within the BSA. The Black Willow Thickets-Disturbed consists of a few mature black willow trees interspersed with and disturbed by dense stands of non-native and invasive arundo (Arundo donax). This community occurs within the Los Angeles River as small isolated stands or narrow bands that parallel the stream channel.


35 November 2016


36 November 2016


37 November 2016

Table 5. Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types within the Study Area

Vegetation Community/Land Use Acres Developed 61.26 Disturbed/Ruderal 6.19 Open Water (Riverine) 3.59 Black Willow Thickets (Riparian) – Disturbed 7.23 Total 78.27

The remainder of the land cover in the BSA comprises Developed and Disturbed/Ruderal cover types. Developed lands are associated with the residential structures and surface roads within the study area and includes ornamental and landscaped vegetation typically associated with developed areas. Disturbed/Ruderal lands were mapped on the northern edge of the Los Angeles River and are associated with vacant lots surrounded by developed lands and parks to the north, east, and west. These areas are dominated by non-native and native annual and perennial species such as wild oat (Avena fatua), black mustard (Brassica nigra), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandifolia), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). There is a narrow strip along the northern edge of the Los Angeles River within the study area that appears to have possibly been previously planted with native coastal sage scrub plants species. This strip is very narrow and contains a large amount of non-native weeds, giving it no biological function or value as a plant community and is thus included within the Disturbed/Ruderal community habitat type. No California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) sensitive vegetation communities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) mapped critical habitats, or Essential Fish Habitat occurs within the study area (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2016; USFWS 2016a). Black Willow Thickets-Disturbed vegetation within the work zone where bridge installation and pier work will take place would be removed. Therefore, temporary and short-term impacts on riparian habitat would occur from the removal of riparian vegetation within the work zone. In addition, impacts related to the spread of invasive vegetation could occur. The project would result in permanent and temporary impacts on vegetation communities and land use types within the study area through disturbance and/or removal of existing vegetation (Table 6). The project would permanently remove Developed, Disturbed/Ruderal, Open Water, and Disturbed Black Willow Thickets vegetation communities and land use types from the study area. Permanent impacts may include the removal of existing vegetation and encroachment into the vegetation communities that may have permanent effects. Temporary impacts may include incidental disturbances within construction areas, equipment staging, and temporary construction access routes.


38 November 2016

Table 6. Impacts on Vegetation Communities/Land Use Types within the Study Area

Vegetation Community/Land Use Temporary (acres)

Permanent (acres)

Developed 2.00 0.90 Disturbed/Ruderal 1.95 0.12 Open Water 0.33 0.01 Black Willow Thickets - Disturbed 0.88 <0.01 Total 5.16 1.03

None of the vegetation communities that will be affected by the project are listed as CDFW sensitive vegetation communities. Although Black Willow Thickets habitat does occur within the study area, it is disturbed and consists primarily of non-native, invasive species. Implementation of project avoidance and minimization measures will ensure that any project impacts are avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible and that no cumulative impacts would occur as a result of the project. Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measures would be necessary to reduce these impacts to less than significant:

BIO-1: Construction limits will be clearly demarcated using highly visible barriers (such as silt fencing), which will be installed under the supervision of a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Construction personnel will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the project footprint, including designated staging areas, and routes of travel. The construction areas will consist of the minimal area necessary to complete the proposed project. The fencing will remain in place until the completion of all construction activities. BIO-2: A qualified biological monitor will conduct construction monitoring during all vegetation removal, work within the Los Angeles River and ground-disturbing activities, such as staging and grading, for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat outside the project footprint and to survey for sensitive wildlife species. When vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities are not occurring, as-needed monitoring at the project site will occur. Monitoring logs, as appropriate depending on project activities, will be maintained for the duration of the construction activity. BIO-3: All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities will occur in developed or designated non-sensitive upland habitat areas. The designated upland areas will be located to prevent runoff from any spills from entering waters of the U.S.


39 November 2016

BIO-4: A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a soil erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed to minimize erosion and identify specific pollution prevention measures that will eliminate or control potential point and nonpoint pollution sources on-site during and following the project construction phase. The SWPPP will identify specific best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction to causing or contributing to any water quality standard exceedances. In addition, the SWPPP will contain provisions for changes to the plan such as alternative mechanisms, if necessary, during project design and/or construction to achieve the stated goals and performance standards. BIO-5: Trash will be stored in closed containers so that it is not readily accessible to scavengers and will be removed from the construction site on a daily basis. BIO-6: Water quality shall be visually monitored by the biological monitor to ensure that no substantial increases in turbidity occur during construction. BIO-7: All relevant natural resource permits and authorizations will be obtained from appropriate agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, CDFW) prior to the initiation of construction activities. Permit conditions contained within the permits and authorizations will be employed throughout the duration of the project. BIO-8: Hydrologic connectivity will be maintained within drainages during the duration of construction. Brush, debris material, mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities will not be placed within drainages and will not be allowed to enter a flowing stream. BIO-9: Dust control measures will be implemented by the contractor to reduce excessive dust emissions. Dust control measures will be carried out at least two times per day on all construction days, or more during windy or dry periods, and may include wetting work areas, the use of soil binders on dirt roads, and wetting or covering stockpiles. BIO-10: No pets will be allowed in, or adjacent to, the project site. BIO-11: Rodenticides, herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm wildlife or native plants will not be used near or within the Los Angeles River. BIO-12: Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during the course of construction. The cleaning of equipment will occur at least 300 feet from environmentally sensitive area fencing.


40 November 2016

Wetlands

A significant impact may occur if federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, would be modified or removed.

A jurisdictional delineation was prepared for the project and analyzed the federal and state jurisdictional resources present within the jurisdictional study area. The jurisdictional delineation study area is defined as the project footprint plus a 100-foot buffer. Within the study area, one named feature potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW was delineated: the Los Angeles River. Within the study area, the Los Angeles River contains 2.94 acres (1.311 linear feet) of potential non-wetland waters of U.S./waters of state and 1.86 acres (852 linear feet) of wetlands. The Los Angeles River within the study area also contains 1,311 linear feet of unvegetated CDFW streambed and 4.43 acres of CDFW jurisdiction, 1.86 acres (852 linear feet) of which consists of riparian vegetation (Table 7; Figures 11 and 12).

Table 7. Jurisdictional Delineation Summary

Drainage

U.S. and State Nonwetland Waters (acres/linear feet)

U.S. and State Wetland Waters (acres/linear feet)

CDFW Unvegetated Streambed (acres/linear feet)

CDFW Riparian (acres/linear feet)

Los Angeles River

2.94/1,311 1.86/852 4.43/1,311 1.86/852

According to the delineation results, one aquatic feature, the Los Angeles River, is present within the study area and is detailed within the Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge over the Los Angeles River Project Jurisdictional Delineation Report (ICF 2016). The jurisdictional delineation will be submitted to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW to support obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit, Section 401 water quality certification, and Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, respectively which will be required due to impacts on federal and state waters detailed below. Agency coordination would occur during the design and permitting phase. Temporary and permanent impacts on potential USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdictional resources will occur as a part of the project. Project impacts on USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction are provided in Tables 8 and 9.


41 November 2016


42 November 2016


43 November 2016


44 November 2016


45 November 2016

Table 8. Impacts on Potential USACE and RWQCB Jurisdiction

Drainage

U.S. and State Nonwetland Waters (acres/linear

feet)

U.S. and State Wetland Waters

(acres/linear feet) Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Los Angeles River 0.85/488 0.01/13 0.94/468 < 0.01/28

Table 9. Impacts on Potential CDFW Jurisdiction

Drainage CDFW Unvegetated Streambed

(acres/linear feet) CDFW Riparian

(acres/linear feet) Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Los Angeles River 1.28/488 0.01/13 0.94/468 < 0.01/28

Implementation of measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-6 through BIO-12, as well as the mitigation measure below, would be necessary to reduce wetland and waters impacts to less than significant:

BIO-13. All permanent impacts on wetland waters shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio through purchase of off-site mitigation credits through an agency approved mechanism.

Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulation, or by the state or federal regulatory agencies cited. Special-Status Species

A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS Inventory) was conducted to identify special-status plants and animals with the potential to occur in the proposed project area. Table 10 presents special-status wildlife and plant species and ecosystems (plants communities) listed on the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory as having the potential to occur within the USGS Burbank and surrounding 7.5-minute quadrangles in which the proposed project is located. For the purpose of this assessment, “special-status species” are those species that meet one or more of the following criteria:


46 November 2016

• Listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed or candidate for listing, under the federal Endangered Species Act;

• Listed as threatened or endangered, or candidate for listing, under the California Endangered Species Act;

• California species of special concern;

• California fully protected species;

• U.S. Forest Service and/or Bureau of Land Management sensitive species;

• USFWS bird of conservation concern;

• Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act, or ranked as rare, threatened, or endangered in California (California Rare Plant Rank [RPR] of 1A, 1B;

• Taxa that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in Section 15389 of the State CEQA Guidelines;

• Migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Plant Species Forty-two special-status plant species are reported to occur within the USGS Los Angeles 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles, which includes the study area. Ten of these species are listed as federally and/or state threatened and/or endangered: Braunton's milk-vetch (Astragalus brauntonii), California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), coastal dunes milk-vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi), Gambel's water cress (Nasturtium gambelii), marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola), Nevin's barberry (Berberis nevinii), San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), San Fernando Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina), slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), and spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis). Two of the 10 federally and/or state threatened and/or endangered species [marsh sandwort and Gambel's water cress] have a low potential to occur within the Los Angeles River portion of the study area due to marginally suitable habitat. The remaining eight federally and/or state listed species, as well as the remaining thirty special-status plant species, were not observed during field surveys and are considered absent due to lack of required habitat or range constraints. Plant species that were observed within the study area are considered common within the study area vicinity. There is potential for direct impacts such as disturbance of and permanent removal of individual special-status plants which may be present in the project work areas.


47 November 2016

Table 10. Special-‐Status Plant and Animal Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Vicinity

Special-‐Status Plant Species Potential of Occurrence

Scientific Name/ Common Name

Special-Status Designation General Habitat Description Potential/Rationale

Arctostaphylos glandulosa subsp. Gabrielensis

San Gabriel manzanita

Federal: --- State: --- CNPS: 1B.2

Life Form: Perennial evergreen shrub Habitat: Rocky chaparral. Elevation Range: 595–1,500 meters Blooming Period: March

Absent. No habitat for this species within the study area.

Arenaria paludicola Marsh sandwort

Federal: Endangered State: Endangered CNPS: 1B.1

Habitat: Freshwater marshes and swamps. Elevation Range: <170 meters Blooming Period: May–August

Low potential. Very low probability of finding the plant growing within areas of the Los Angeles River.

Astragalus brauntonii

Braunton’s milk-vetch

Federal: Endangered State: --- CNPS: 1B.1

Life Form: Perennial herb Habitat: Recent burns or disturbed areas within chaparral, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland. Usually associated with sandstone substrates with carbonate layers. Elevation Range: 4–640 meters Blooming Period: January–August


Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus Ventura Marsh milk-vetch


Life Form: Perennial herb Habitat: Coastal dunes, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps (edges, coastal salt or brackish). Elevation Range: Below 35 meters. Blooming Period: June–October Other: Rediscovered near Oxnard in 1997; now known from only one natural occurrence composed of 30–50 reproductive plants.



48 November 2016



Astragalus tener var. titi

Coastal dunes milk-vetch


Life Form: Perennial herb. Habitat: Often found in vernally mesic areas within sandy areas within coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes and mesic coastal prairie. Elevation Range: Below 50 meters Blooming Period: Other: Known from fewer than 10 occurrences. Threatened by urbanization, recreational activities, and non-native plants.


Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush


Life Form: Perennial herb Habitat: Alkaline or clay areas within coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation Range: 3–460 meters Blooming Period: March–October


Atriplex parishii Parish’s saltscale


Life Form: Annual herb. Habitat: Alkaline meadows, vernal pools, chenopod scrub and playas. Usually on drying alkaline flats with fine soils. Elevation Range: 25–1,900 meters Blooming Period: June–October.


Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii

Davidson’s saltscale


Life Form: Annual herb. Habitat: Coastal bluff scrub and coastal sage scrub. Associated with alkaline soils. Elevation Range: 10–200 meters Blooming Period: April–October.


Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry


Life Form: Perennial evergreen shrub Habitat: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, and riparian woodlands with sandy/rocky substrates. Elevation Range: 274–825 meters Blooming Period: March–June



49 November 2016



California macrophylla

Round-leaved filaree


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Clay soils within cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation Range: 15–1,200 meters Blooming Period: March–May


Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis Slender Mariposa lily


Life Form: Perennial bulbiferous herb Habitat: Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation Range: 320–1,000 meters Blooming Period: March–June


Calochortus weedii var. intermedius

Intermediate mariposa lily


Life Form: Bulbiferous perennial herb Habitat: Rocky, calcareous soils within chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Elevation Range: 105–855 meters Blooming Period: May–July


Calystegia felix

Lucky morning-glory

Federal: --- State: --- CNPS: 3.1

Life Form: Annual rhizomatous herb Habitat: Meadows and seeps, riparian scrub. Historically associated with wetland and marshy places, but possibly in drier situations as well. Elevation Range: 30–215 meters Blooming Period: March–September


Centromadia parryi ssp. australis

Southern tarplant


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Marshes and swamps, mesic valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools. Elevation Range: below 480 meters Blooming Period: May–November



50 November 2016



Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandina

San Fernando Valley spineflower

Federal: Candidate State: Endangered CNPS: 1B.1

Life Form: Annual herb. Habitat: Open areas within Valley and foothill grasslands and coastal sage scrub. Known extant populations are within Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. This plant is known to compete poorly with non-native grasses. Elevation Range: 150–1,220 meters Blooming Period: April–June.


Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower


Life Form: Annual herb. Habitat: Sandy or rocky openings within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands Elevation Range: 275–1,220 meters Blooming Period: April–June.


Cladium californicum

California saw-grass


Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Alkaline or freshwater marshes, seeps and meadows and swamps. Elevation Range: 60–600 meters Blooming Period: June–September.


Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder


Life Form: Annual vine Habitat: Freshwater marshes and swamps. Elevation Range: Below 15 meters Blooming Period: July–October


Dodecahema leptoceras Slender-horned spineflower


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Gravelly soils (arkose deposits) in openings of chamise chaparral in the Vail Lake area or in sandy soils in openings of alluvial late seral stage scrub on floodplain terraces and benches that receive over-bank deposits every 50 to 100 years. Elevation Range: 200–760 meters Blooming Period: April–June.



51 November 2016



Dudleya multicaulis Many-stemmed dudleya


Life Form: Perennial herb Habitat: Chaparral and coastal sage scrub, often on clay soils. Elevation Range: 15–790 meters Blooming Period: May–July


Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii

San Diego button-celery


Life Form: Annual / perennial herb Habitat: Mesic, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Elevation Range: 20–620 meters Blooming Period: April–June.


Galium grande San Gabriel bedstraw


Life Form: Perennial deciduous shrub Habitat: Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation Range: 425–1,520 meters Blooming Period: January–July.


Helianthus nuttallii ssp. parishii Los Angeles sunflower

Federal: --- State: --- CNPS: 1A

Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Saltwater and freshwater marshes and swamps. Elevation Range: 10–1,675 meters Blooming Period: August–October.


Horkelia cuneata ssp. puberula Mesa horkelia


Life Form: Perennial shrub Habitat: Sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral or rarely in cismontane woodlands or coastal scrub. Elevation Range: 70–810 meters elevation. Identifiable Blooming Period: February–September.


Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Marshes, playas, vernal pools and grasslands usually associated with alkaline soils. Elevation Range: Below 1,220 meters Blooming Period: March–June.



52 November 2016



Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii

Robinson’s pepper-grass


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Dry soils in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Elevation Range: Below 855 meters Blooming Period: January–July.


Linanthus concinnus San Gabriel linanthus


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Rocky openings within chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, upper montane coniferous forest. Elevation Range: 1,520–2,800 meters Blooming Period: April–July.


Linanthus orcuttii

Orcutt’s linanthus


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Openings within chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest and pinyon and juniper woodland. Elevation Range: 915–2,145 meters Blooming Period: May–June


Malacothamnus davidsonii

Davidson’s bush mallow


Life Form: Perennial deciduous shrub Habitat: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub and riparian woodland. Elevation Range: 185–855 meters Blooming Period: June–January


Muhlenbergia californica California muhly

Federal: --- State: --- CNPS: 4.3

Life Form: Perennial herb Habitat: Mesic seeps and streambanks within chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest and meadows. Elevation Range: 100–2,000 meters Blooming Period: June–September.


Nasturtium gambelii Gambel’s water cress

Federal: Endangered State: Threatened CNPS: 1B.1

Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Freshwater and brackish marshes and swamps. Elevation Range: < 330 meters Blooming Period: April–October

Low Potential. Low potential for the species to grow within the Los Angeles River.


53 November 2016



Navarretia fossalis Spreading navarretia

Federal: Threatened State: --- CNPS: 1B.1

Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Vernal pools, chenopod scrub, marshes, swamps and playas. Elevation Range: 30–655 meters Blooming Period: April–June


Navarretia prostrata Prostrate vernal pool navarretia


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Vernal pools, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps and alkaline valley and foothill grassland. Elevation Range: 15–121 meters Blooming Period: April–July


Orcuttia californica Orcutt’s grass


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Vernal pools that stay ponded for longer than three weeks. Elevation Range: 15–660 meters Blooming Period: April–August


Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia

Federal: Candidate State: --- CNPS: 1B.1

Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Coastal scrub and coastal dunes below. Elevation Range: < 400 meters Blooming Period: March–June.


Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum White-rabbit tobacco


Life Form: Perennial herb Habitat: Sandy areas within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland. Elevation Range: < 2,100 meters Blooming Period: July–December


Ribes divaricatum var. parishii Parish’s gooseberry

Federal: --- State: --- CNPS: 1A

Life Form: Perennial deciduous shrub Habitat: Riparian woodlands. Elevation Range: 65–300 meters Blooming Period: February–April Other: Known from 5 historical occurrences. Last seen in 1980 in Whittier Narrows, LA County.



54 November 2016



Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana Southern mountains skullcap


Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation Range: 425–2,000 meters Blooming Period: June–August.


Spermolepis lateriflora Western bristly scaleseed


Life Form: Annual herb Habitat: Rocky or sandy soils in Sonoran desert scrub. Elevation Range: 365–670 meters Blooming Period: March–April.


Symphyotrichum defoliatum

San Bernardino aster


Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Cismontane woodland, sage scrub, coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, and mesic grassland near water. Elevation Range: < 2,240 meters Blooming Period: July–November


Symphyotrichum greatae Greata’s aster


Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower cismontane coniferous forest and riparian woodland. Elevation Range: 300–2,010 meters Blooming Period: June–October.


Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis Sonoran maiden fern


Life Form: Perennial rhizomatous herb Habitat: Meadows with streams, seeps Elevation Range: 50–610 meters Blooming Period: January–September


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE – Federal Endangered FT – Federal Threatened PE – Proposed for Listing

California Department of Fish and Wildlife SE – State Endangered ST – State Threatened SR – State Rare


55 November 2016

Sensitive Vegetation Communities

Vegetation Community Presence on Project Site California Walnut Woodland Not Present Open Engelmann Oak Woodland Not Present Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Not Present Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland Not Present Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Not Present Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Not Present

Special-Status Wildlife Species Potential of Occurrence



Anniella pulchra pulchra Silvery legless lizard

Federal: --- State: CSC

Occurs in moist warm loose soil with plant cover; sparsely vegetated areas of beach dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine and mock heather often indicate suitable habitat. Found under surface objects such as rocks, boards, driftwood, and logs. Sometimes found in suburban gardens in Southern California. Soil characteristics, as well as requirements for soil moisture and relatively cool microclimates (about 93° f. maximum) limit distribution.

Absent. No suitable habitat present within the study area.

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat


This bat species is widely distributed in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. They are locally common across most of California except in the far northwest and in higher portions of the Sierra Nevada. Habitats utilized include a wide variety of grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests, including mixed conifer forest. They appear to be most common in open, dry, rocky lowlands. Roosts are in caves, mines, as well as crevices in rocks, buildings and trees. This is a colonial species that forages low over open ground, often picking up beetles and other species of prey off the ground.

Low Potential. This species has a low potential to occur within the study area.


56 November 2016



Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri Coastal whiptail


Habitats include disturbed coastal sage scrub-chaparral mix and cleared areas of chaparral with a sandy/rocky substrate.


Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl


Level, open, dry, heavily grazed or low grassland or desert vegetation with available burrows. In coastal Southern California, a substantial fraction of Burrowing Owls are found in microhabitats highly altered by humans, including flood control and irrigation basins, dikes, banks, abandoned fields surrounded by agriculture, and road cuts and margins. Several factors in combination probably explain the species’ distribution on local scales: vegetation density, availability of suitable prey, availability of burrows or suitable soil, and disturbance.


Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk

Federal: --- State: ST

This slim relative of the common red-tailed hawk nests primarily in low-intensity agricultural areas of the western United States, migrating through Central America to Argentina and Brazil each fall and spring.


Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Federal: FT State: SE

Inhabitant of extensive, mature, riparian forests; it has declined from a fairly common, local breeder in much of California sixty years ago, to virtual extirpation, with only a handful of tiny populations remaining in all of California today. Losses are tied to obvious loss of nearly all suitable habitat, but other factors may also be involved. Relatively broad, well-shaded riparian forests are utilized, although it tolerates some disturbance. A specialist to some degree on tent caterpillars, with a remarkably fast development of young covering only 18–21 days from incubation to fledging.


Cypseloides niger Black swift (nesting)


Breeding distribution is very patchy, from southern Alaska southward through Costa Rica and Caribbean islands. Winter distribution is unknown, but presumed to be South America. In southern California the species is a rare breeder and migrant (May to early June; late Aug. through September). It breeds at mountain waterfalls in steep canyons at elevations from 1,800 to 6,400 feet (550 to 1950 m), with six known sites in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains.

Absent. No habitat present within the study area.


57 November 2016



Empidonax traillii extimus

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Federal: FE State: SE

Occurs in riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or other wetlands, where dense growths of willows (Salix spp.), Baccharis spp., arrowweed (Pluchea spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus spp.), tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) Russian olive (Eleagnus spp.) or other plants are present, often with a scattered overstory of cottonwood (Populus spp.).


Emys marmorata Western pond turtle


Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation, and either rocky or muddy bottoms, in woodland, forest, and grassland. In streams, prefers pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are required for basking. May enter brackish water and even seawater.

Absent. No habitat present within the study area. The section of the Los Angeles River within the study area is not appropriate habitat for the species.

Eumops perotis californicus Western mastiff bat


Primarily a cliff dwelling species, where maternity colonies of 30 to several hundred (typically fewer than 100) roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs (e.g., granite, sandstone or columnar basalt). It has also been found in similarly crevices in large boulders and buildings. Roosts are generally high above the ground, usually allowing a clear vertical drop of at least 9.8 feet below the entrance for flight. Forages in broad open areas.


Falco peregrinus

Peregrine falcon (nesting)

Federal: --- State: CFP

This species catch medium-sized birds in the air with swift, spectacular dives, called stoops. In cities they are masterful at catching pigeons. Elsewhere they feed especially on shorebirds and ducks. Often perching or nesting on skyscrapers, water towers, cliffs, power pylons, and other tall structures. Peregrines can be seen all over North America, but they are more common along coasts.


Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat


Associated with dry, thorny vegetation on the Mexican Plateau, and in desert regions of the southwestern U.S. Roosts exclusively in the skirts of palm trees; limited in distribution by availability of palm habitat (including ornamental palms). Forages over water and among trees.



58 November 2016



Microtus californicus stephensi

South coast marsh vole


Occurs in coastal marshes in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties. Based on other studies of shrews, may require dense ground cover, nesting sites above mean high tide and free from inundation.


Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat


Occurs in two disjunct areas in California. It is found in northeastern California from eastern Modoc County to southeastern Lassen County and inhabits most of southern California from Mono County south through the Mojave desert and from northern Tulare County south to the San Bernardino Mountains. Occurs in a variety of shrub and desert habitats, typically with rock outcrops, boulders, cacti and/or areas of dense undergrowth.


Nyctinomops femorosaccus

Pocketed free-tailed bat


Rocky areas with high cliffs in a variety of arid areas including pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm oasis, desert wash, desert riparian.


Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat


Occurs in low-lying arid areas in Southern California. Need high cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds principally on large moths.


Onychomys torridus ramona

Southern grasshopper mouse


Inhabits arid areas, especially scrub habitat (i.e., coastal scrub and mixed chaparral, with friable soils).


Phrynosoma blainvillii Coast horned lizard


Found in a wide variety of vegetation communities, from grasslands and shrublands to woodlands, including coniferous forests. Critical factors are the presence of loose soils with a high sand fraction; an abundance of native ants or other insects, especially harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.); and the availability of both sunny basking spots and dense cover for refuge.



59 November 2016



Polioptila californica californica California gnatcatcher

Federal: FT State: CSC

Generally prefers open sage scrub with California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) as a dominant or co-dominant species. Nest placement typically in areas with less than 40 percent slope gradient. Monogamous pairs tend to stay in the same locale. Both parents build nest, incubate, and care for young.


Rana mucosa Southern mountain yellow-legged frog


Streams and small pools within ponderosa-pine, montane hardwood-conifer and montane riparian habitat types.


Riparia riparia Bank swallow (nesting)

Federal: --- State: ST

This species historically bred interruptedly along the entire coast of California, as well as in the Central Valley and Great Basin portions of the state. Currently the species breeds only in northern California, primarily in the Sacramento Valley and far northeastern portions of the state, with a few colonies in coastal counties from Monterey through Del Norte County. This species is uncommon to fairly common migrants in spring and fall at the Salton Sea in Riverside and Imperial counties and at other large lakes and wetlands in desert regions. They are rare migrants elsewhere in California.


Spea hammondii Western spadefoot


Open habitats including low grasslands, open chaparral, and pine-oak woodlands, where soils are sandy or gravelly. Requires temporary rain pools that last at least three weeks. Pools must lack predators of eggs and tadpoles.

Absent. Habitat within study area is too degraded for the species to be present.

Taricha torosa Coast range newt


Breeds in ponds, reservoirs and slow moving streams. Uses nearby upland areas including grasslands, chaparral and woodlands.


Taxidea taxus American badger


Commonly found in treeless areas including tallgrass and shortgrass prairies, grass-dominated meadows and fields within forested habitats, and shrub-steppe communities.


Thamnophis hammondi Two-striped garter snake


Endemic to coastal southern California from the Santa Clara River valley south to northern San Diego County. Maximum known elevation is about 2,270 feet. Restricted to marsh and upland habitats near permanent water with good strips of riparian vegetation where adequate prey and refuge can be found.



60 November 2016



Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's vireo


Nesting elevation ranges from below sea level to at least 4,100 feet. The subspecies winters in southern Baja California. Least Bell’s vireos select dense vegetation low in riparian zones for nesting.

Absent. Species not observed during protocol surveys in 2016.

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat

Federal: --- State: ---

Found in Broadleaved upland forest, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, North coast coniferous forest. Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths. Requires water.


Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat

Federal: --- State: ---

Found in lower montane coniferous, old-growth, riparian forest. Primarily a coastal and montane forest dweller feeding over streams, ponds and open brushy areas. Roosts in hollow trees, beneath exfoliating bark, abandoned woodpecker holes and rarely under rocks. Needs drinking water.

Low Potential. This species has a low potential to occur within the Los Angeles River.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FE – Federal Endangered FT – Federal Threatened CSC- California Species of Special Concern


61 November 2016

Impacts on sensitive plant species will be avoided or minimized with the implementation of measures BIO-1 through BIO-12 and the measures listed below:

BIO-14 : A qualified biologist will conduct a focused plant survey for sensitive plant species with a potential to occur within the Proposed Project footprint. BIO-15: If sensitive plant species are observed within the Proposed Project footprint during the surveys, plants will be flagged and avoided to the greatest extent possible. BIO-16: If sensitive plant species are observed within the Proposed Project footprint and impacts cannot be avoided, one of the following measures will be implemented at the discretion of the biologist:

• Healthy sensitive plant species suited for salvage and transplanting and young perennial woody shrubs will be salvaged and transplanted into suitable habitat outside the Proposed Project footprint.

• Seeds from sensitive annual plant species or other individuals that cannot be salvaged will be collected and dispersed into the Proposed Project footprint after construction and when no further ground disturbance is expected.

• If transplanting and seed collection are not possible, the contractor will salvage the top 4 inches of soil (topsoil), from vegetated areas within the disturbance area. The topsoil will be replaced or spread within adjacent habitat once construction is complete in that area.

Wildlife Twenty-eight special-status wildlife species are reported to occur within the USGS Los Angeles 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles, which includes the study area. Seven species are listed as federally and/or state threatened and/or endangered: least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), and southern mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). All 28 special-status species were determined to have an “absent” potential for occurrence within the study area, with the exception of bat and riparian bird species, which are discussed in the subsections below. The study area does not contain suitable habitat to support the remainder of these species and none were observed during the site assessment; therefore, no impacts on these species are expected. Wildlife species that were observed within the study area during field surveys are considered common to the general project vicinity.


62 November 2016

Bats Seven species of bats are reported to occur within the USGS Los Angeles 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles, which includes the study area: big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosacca), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus). Marginally suitable roosting habitat for hoary bat, silver-haired bat, and western yellow bat occurs within the mature trees located on-site. This habitat is fragmented and the trees are isolated; consequently, if the site was used for bat roosting it would likely only be for night roosts and not day roosts. Potential roosting habitat for pallid bat and other non-listed bat species occurs within the abandoned buildings and overpasses within the study area. No roosting habitat occurs for big free-tailed bat, pocketed free-tailed bat, or western mastiff bat, as high cliff faces, rock outcrops, and rugged arid landscapes are absent from the study area. Low quality foraging habitat for bats is present along the Los Angeles River, although lighting and noise disturbance from the surrounding developed areas would likely deter bats from the area. No direct observation of bats or their sign were observed within the study area; however, because bat sign can be short lived and easily missed this does not confirm that bats are absent from the study area. Four special-status bat species, hoary bat, silver-haired bat, western yellow bat, and pallid bat, have a low potential to occur within the study area. Although no bat sign was observed at the time of field surveys, bat roosts can change locations seasonally and there is a potential for bat species to roost in the undercrossings and large trees located within the study area. Daytime construction of the project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly impact bat species, as roosting habitat within the study area is low quality and would likely only be used as night roosts. Nonetheless, structures and trees that are potentially suitable for bat use should be reexamined prior to the start of project construction to ensure that no roosting bats are present. Because there is potential roosting habitat for bats within the direct impact area (trees) there is potential for direct impacts on bats through direct vegetation removal which can cause direct harm or mortality to individuals and construction disturbance such as noise which can cause habitat avoidance and behavior modification resulting in negative impacts on the species. Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measure would be necessary to reduce these impacts to less than significant:


63 November 2016

BIO-17: Tree removal may cause direct injury or mortality to roosting bats. Many trees provide roosting habitat for foliage dwelling bat species or contain cavities, crevices, snags, and exfoliating bark which provide roosting for crevice dwelling species. As such, the following measures shall be implemented to avoid significant impacts on bat species:

1) A pre-construction survey for potential bat habitat shall be conducted prior to

spring and before construction. Trees containing suitable bat habitat, as determined by a qualified bat expert, shall not be removed during the maternity season (April 15–August 31). Instead trees should be removed between September 1 and April 14 during times when evening/nighttime and daytime temperatures are above 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

2) If tree removal does occur, tree removal shall be conducted in a two-step

process conducted over consecutive days and under the complete supervision and direction of a qualified bat biologist. In this two-step method, on Day 1, small branches and small limbs of the trees are removed which do not contain any potential bat habitat features such as cavities, snags, exfoliating bark. On the following day, Day 2, the remainder of the tree is removed. The disturbance caused on Day 1 and the alteration of the tree is assumed to cause enough disturbance to cause any bats roosting in the tree to abandon their roost on Night 1 so that removing the tree on Day 2 does not harm any bats.

Riparian Birds Three riparian bird species are reported to occur within the USGS Los Angeles 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and surrounding eight quadrangles, which includes the study area: least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. The habitat assessment for these species was conducted on April 13, 2016, and concluded that marginally suitable habitat only exists for least Bell’s vireo. Suitable habitat occurs within the Black Willow Thickets vegetation community located within the Los Angeles River channel. As such, protocol least Bell’s vireo surveys were completed in spring of 2016. Southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo were determined to have an “absent” potential for occurrence within the survey area due to a lack of suitable habitat and no further surveys are necessary to determine presence or absence of these species. Southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo are considered to be absent in the study area due to lack of suitable habitat; no further surveys for these species are necessary. The habitat assessment concluded that marginally suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo was present within the study area. Spring 2016 protocol least Bell’s vireo surveys were negative for the species within the study area (see the biological resources technical report for habitat assessment and survey details).


64 November 2016

No impacts on riparian birds are anticipated therefore no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are proposed. Nesting Birds All developed and undeveloped portions of the study area contain suitable nesting habitat for a variety of avian species which are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Nesting bird surveys should be conducted prior to the start of any project construction during the nesting bird season (February 1–September 1).

Implementation of the following avoidance and minimization measure would be necessary to reduce this impact to less than significant:

BIO-18: If construction commences during the bird breeding season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall occur within three days prior to construction activities by an experienced avian biologist. The survey will occur within all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area and a 500-foot buffer. If nesting birds are found, an avoidance area will be established in consultation with the resource agencies as appropriate by a qualified biologist around the nest until a qualified avian biologist has determined that young have fledged or nesting activities have ceased. The project site will be re-surveyed if there is a lapse in construction activities for more than seven days during the bird breeding season.

Interference with Movement and/or Migration

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project interfered or removed access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Riverbeds and their riparian habitat provide important movement and connectivity function to a variety of species including terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. Riverine habitats not only provide movement corridors but also provide valuable cover and shelter, food and water resources, and live-in habitat to many species preventing habitat and species population fragmentation which promotes habitat and species conservation. This project is not expected to cause any permanent obstructions to movement within the Los Angeles River but may cause some temporary effects to wildlife movement and connectivity during construction due to vegetation clearing (loss of cover/shelter may inhibit some wildlife forma passing through the construction site), equipment being in the river bed potentially obstructing movement, and disturbance in the riverbed potentially causing habitat avoidance. These effects are anticipated to be temporary and are not anticipated to be significant with implementation of the following measure:


65 November 2016

BIO-19: No equipment or construction operations shall be stored in a manner which obstructs wildlife movement through the riverine habitat during non-operational construction hours. No equipment or machinery will be stored in the riverine habitat when not in use.

Consistency with Applicable Plans

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would cause an impact that was inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources.

The proposed project is consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and ordinances and will not have significant impacts on biological resources and natural communities through the implementation of all aforementioned avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures.

E. Cultural Resources

Historic Resources

A significant impact may result if the proposed project caused a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource.

Study Area

A study area map of the proposed project was created to encompass the limits of disturbance, project limits, staging areas, temporary impact areas, and temporary and permanent easements. The southern portion of the study area includes a property at 2433 Birkdale Street that would have temporary and permanent easements including construction of bikeway ramps, landscaping and the portion of a LADWP water line. The property at 2331–2335 North Dorris Place was also included at the southern end of the project area because approximately three feet of proposed LADWP water line would extend onto the property below ground. The Study Area Map’s boundary does not encompass intersection restriping work being done at San Fernando Road and Cypress Avenue and also does not encompass the addition of ADA ramps at existing bike path access points on Dallas Avenue and Riverdale Avenue. This work was not included because it is considered extremely minor and limited to existing right-of-way.

A cultural resources records search was conducted on February 16, 2016, at the South Central Coastal Information Center, located at the University of California Fullerton. It included a review of all available cultural resources surveys and site records within a 0.5-mile radius of the project footprint. The results of the literature and records search indicate that 11 cultural resources, all represented by historic architectural features, exist in the 0.5-mile study area buffer.


66 November 2016

In addition to the records search, the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register, the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), and the City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monuments (LAHCM) databases were reviewed. No additional resources were identified in these inventories.

Field Survey

On May 4, 2016, Andrew Bursan conducted a field survey of the architectural resources in the study area. Mr. Bursan is a historian at ICF International who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. Mr. Bursan photographed and documented properties within the study area and took notes on the integrity and the current condition of the buildings.

Conclusion

No historical resources were identified in the study area. Because no historical resources were identified, mitigation measures are not applicable.

Archaeological Resources

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, which falls under the State CEQA Guidelines section cited above.

A pedestrian field survey of the project area was conducted by ICF archaeologist Stephen Bryne on January 21 and February 3, 2016. The survey was conducted along transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart. No archaeological resources were identified during the field survey. As a result, there is a low likelihood of encountering archaeological resources during construction activities. Ground-disturbing activities would occur during construction, but implementation of mitigation measure ARCH-1, below, would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

ARCH-1: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area should be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. If changes are made to the proposed project, additional survey would be required if the proposed changes include areas not previously surveyed.

Paleontological Resources

A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features.


67 November 2016

A fossil localities search was requested from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLAC), for the project area. NHMLAC responded on March 14, 2016, saying that it had no recorded fossil localities in the project footprint or the surrounding area. Based on this locality records search, no paleontological resources are known to be present in the project footprint.

Sediments underlying the proposed project area near the ground surface are Holocene age floodplain deposit consisting of silt, sand, and gravel, and alluvial channel deposits made up of sand and clay. These sediments are less than 10,000 years in age (Dibblee 1989), and were deposited by the Los Angeles River as it passes through the narrows. Both of these sediments are too young to contain fossil resources. These sediments are underlain at varying depths by older Quaternary alluvium, which does have the potential to encompass significant fossil resources. The project area is within the flood plain of the Los Angeles River, and recent, Holocene age deposits are likely to be substantial in this river channel environment.

Sediments similar to those in the project area have yielded fossils in locations two to three miles to the south. In the first of these localities, LACM 1023, fossil specimens of turkey, sabre-toothed cat, horse and deer were found. At LACM 2032, fossils of sloth, mastodon, mammoth, horse, camel and pond turtle were found at 20-35 feet depth, in older Quaternary alluvium. This older alluvium was capped by younger deposits.

No paleontological resources have been recorded in the project area. Ground disturbances associated with the project will primarily be shallow in nature, and are unlikely to encounter paleontological resources. Excavation for the piles and the center pier however, could encounter fossil resources at depths greater than five to 10 feet. However, given the depths of deposits in the river channel, and the small foot print of these excavations, there is a low likelihood of encountering paleontological resources during construction activities.

Ground-disturbing activities would occur during construction, but implementation of mitigation measure PALEO-1, below, would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

PALEO-1: If fossil materials are discovered during construction, all earthmoving activity within and around the immediate discovery area should be diverted until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations, possibly including fossil recovery, identification, preparation, and curation, and reporting, may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. Construction shall not resume until the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented or the materials are determined to not require further investigation.


68 November 2016

Human Remains

A significant impact may occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed project would disturb interred human remains.

No human remains are known to exist in the project area, and the location does not encompass any formal cemeteries. Because the project site is situated on river deposits within the main river channel, there is a low potential for prehistoric human remains to be present. Although the uncovering of human remains is not anticipated, if they are discovered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that further disturbances and activities shall cease in any area or nearby area suspected to overlie remains, and the county coroner contacted. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if the remains are thought to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who shall then notify the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Further provisions of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 are to be followed as applicable. Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations, construction of the proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

F. Geology and Soils

Environmental Setting

The geology and soils information contained herein is based on the Geotechnical Engineering Report, Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River, Adjacent to 2331 Dorris Place, Los Angeles, California (June 2015), prepared by the Geotechnical Engineering Group of the CLADPW Bureau of Engineering and the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge (May 2016) prepared by Ninyo & Moore.

Fault Rupture

No active faults intersect the project site, and thus fault rupture is unlikely to occur during project implementation. Additionally, the project area is not located within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone or within a City of Los Angeles Fault Rupture Study Zone. The nearest active faults are the Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust Fault and the Hollywood Fault, which are located approximately 1.4 miles southwest and 1.7 miles northwest of the site, respectively. As such, the proposed project would not be exposed to substantial adverse effects from a rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur.


69 November 2016

Seismic Ground Shaking

The nearest active faults to the proposed project are the Upper Elysian Park Blind Thrust Fault and the Hollywood Fault located approximately 1.4 miles and 1.7 miles of the site. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles is located in Seismic Zone 4, which is a designation previously used in the Uniform Building Code to denote the areas of the highest risk to earthquake ground motion (California Seismic Safety Commission 2005). Furthermore, ground shaking potential was analyzed in the preliminary evaluation and was determined to have high impact potential on the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project could be subject to future seismic shaking and strong ground motion resulting from seismic activity, and damage could occur. However, the proposed project is not designed for human occupancy on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, pedestrians and cyclists would use the bridge as an access system between Elysian Valley on the west and Taylor Yard on the east only on a temporary basis, thus potential risk to users would be limited. Also, the small number of personnel required for bridge maintenance would be on-site temporarily. Finally, construction of the proposed project would be subject to applicable ordinances of the 2013 California Building Code (CCR Title 24) and recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report, which would reduce anticipated impacts by requiring the project to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. As a result, impacts would be less than significant.

Seismically Related Ground Failure

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when saturated, low-density, loose materials (e.g., sand or silty sand) are weakened and transformed from a solid to a near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. The increase in pressure is caused by strong ground motion from an earthquake. Liquefaction more often occurs in areas underlain by silts and fine sands and where shallow groundwater exists.

Geologic mapping indicates that the bridge abutments are underlain by Holocene-age alluvium and the bridge bent is underlain by Holocene-age stream channel deposits associated with deposition of sediments from the Los Angeles River. The alluvium is described as consisting of unconsolidated floodplain deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. The stream channel deposits are described as consisting of gravel, sand, and silt.

The site is within an area that is classified as potentially liquefiable, and findings in the geotechnical engineering report indicate there is the potential for liquefaction to occur at the south abutment. According to the Ninyo and Moore preliminary evaluation, the proposed project site is potentially liquefiable due to the shallow groundwater conditions in loose, younger alluvial sediments. A post-liquefaction settlement of approximately 1.25 inches was estimated for the project area.


70 November 2016

As discussed, the proposed project is not designed for human occupancy on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, pedestrians and cyclists would use the bridge only on a temporary basis. The small number of personnel required for bridge maintenance would be on-site as required and only on a temporary basis as well. Finally, construction of the proposed project would be subject to applicable ordinances of the 2013 California Building Code (CCR Title 24) and recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report (such as the recommendation for design and construction of deep foundations), which would reduce potential liquefaction impacts on people or the bridge’s structure. Impacts would be less than significant.

Landslides

According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map found in the geotechnical engineering report, areas susceptible to landslides are located west of the project, beyond I-5 (approximately 0.28 mile away from the project area). However, the proposed project site footprint is comprised of a relatively flat river channel bottom and flat river banks separated by a moderately inclined, concrete-lined channel embankment approximately 20 feet high, making slope instability and landslide potential within the project area negligible. No impact would occur.

Erosion

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Erosion is a condition that could adversely affect development on any site. Construction activities could exacerbate erosion conditions by exposing soils and adding water to the soil from irrigation and runoff from new impervious surfaces.

The proposed project would comply with the Statewide Construction General Permit that requires implementation of a SWPPP to address erosion and sedimentation at the project site during construction activities. Temporary BMPs, such as silt fences, straw waddles, sediment traps, gravel sandbag barriers or other effective BMPs would be implemented to control runoff and erosion during construction activities. Implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs would prevent substantial soil erosion and sedimentation from exposed soils. In addition, post-construction measures, such as surface drainage design provisions (including two feet of gravel adjacent to the bike path to capture and filter runoff prior to discharge to the drainage system) and site maintenance practices would reduce potential soil erosion during operations of the proposed project. Therefore, potential impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.


71 November 2016

Unstable Soils

The proposed project site footprint is flat with minimal relief, making slope instability and landslide potential within the project area negligible. The site is located within an area that is classified as potentially liquefiable and there is the potential for liquefaction. However, values of potential horizontal displacement associated with lateral spread obtained during the geotechnical study (from potentially liquefiable layers) indicate that the potential for lateral spread is low.

Ground shaking during an earthquake could lead to densification of dry loose (unsaturated) sandy soils known as dry sand settlement or seismic compression. Seismically induced settlement was estimated during the geotechnical study at both abutment locations. Seismically induced dry settlement at the south abutment is expected to be less than 0.25 inch, while the estimated seismically induced dry settlement at the north abutment is expected to be approximately 0.5 foot, this primarily due to the loose and "dry" sandy fill in the upper 12.5 feet. Recommendations have been made in geotechnical study to minimize potential impacts associated with seismic compression (which include the design and construction of deep bridge foundations).

According to the preliminary evaluation, historic subsidence is not known to have occurred or been reported in the site region. Also, subsurface extraction activities within the city of Los Angeles are regulated by the oil drilling district procedures, which contain provisions for monitoring and imposing measures to preclude subsidence related to oil and gas extraction, as such, impacts related to subsidence in the project area are not expected.

Furthermore, the proposed project is not designed for human occupancy on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, pedestrians and cyclists would use the bridge only on a temporary basis. The small number of personnel required for bridge maintenance would be on-site as required and only on a temporary basis as well. Construction of the proposed project would be subject to applicable ordinances of the 2013 California Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24) and recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report, which would further reduce the potential for impacts related to unstable soils. Impacts would be less than significant.

Expansive Soil

Implementation of the proposed project would not be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high-plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content as well as a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of highly expansive soils can result in severe distress for structures constructed on or against the soils.


72 November 2016

Near-surface soils in the project site are predominantly comprised of sandy, coarse-grained materials. These soils typically have a low expansion potential. As described in the preliminary evaluation, clayey soils may be present in other areas of the project site. However, due to the deep foundation bridge design expected, expansive soils would not have a significant impact on the project. Furthermore, the proposed project is not designed for human occupancy on a permanent or semi-permanent basis, pedestrians and cyclists and the small number of personnel required for bridge maintenance would be on-site on a temporary basis only. Finally, construction of the proposed project would be subject to applicable ordinances of the 2013 California Building Code (CCR Title 24) and recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report, including the aforementioned deep foundation bridge design. Impacts would be less than significant.

Septic Systems

No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project; therefore, no impact would occur.

G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Emissions Generation

Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs); their accumulation in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature (AEP 2007). Human activities involving combustion of fossil fuels have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere to above natural levels. Scientific evidence indicates a correlation between increasing global temperatures/global climate change (GCC) over the past century and human-induced levels of GHGs. GHGs have varying amounts of global warming potential (GWP), which is the ability of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere. By convention, carbon dioxide (CO2) is assigned a GWP of one. In comparison, methane (CH4) has a GWP of 25 (meaning that CH4 has a global warming effect 25 times greater than CO2 on an equal-mass basis) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007).2 To account for their GWP, GHG emissions are often reported as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). CO2e is calculated by multiplying each GHG emission by its GWP and adding the results together to produce a single, combined emission rate representing all GHGs. GCC is expressed as changes in the average weather of the earth, as measured by change in wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. California’s Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, identifies GCC as a “serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the

2 Global warming potential reported in the 4th IPCC Assessment Report were used in this analysis.


73 November 2016

environment of California.” Because increases in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have been linked to GCC, California has taken action to reduce GHG emissions in an effort to minimize further climate changes. The State CEQA Guidelines set forth considerations for assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment. The guidelines do not specify significance thresholds and allow the lead agencies discretion in how to address and evaluate significance. To provide guidance to local lead agencies, SCAQMD proposed a threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year (mty) of CO2e for commercial facilities (SCAQMD 2008b).3 GHG impacts from proposed project construction would primarily result from the combustion of fossil-fueled off-road equipment and on-road vehicles. CalEEMod was used to quantify CO2e emissions from anticipated construction and operational activities, discussed in threshold III.b. Per SCAQMD guidance, construction emissions were amortized over 30 years. The CalEEMod output is provided in Attachment B. CalEEMod output CO2e emissions were compared to SCAQMD’s proposed GHG threshold for determination of significance. As discussed in threshold III.b, under air quality operational impacts, no sources of direct emission, excepting routine maintenance, would be associated with the proposed project. Bridge lighting, provided by LED lights, would contribute to a small, indirect source of CO2e emissions. Table 11 summarizes annual CO2e emissions and shows that emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD proposed threshold. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Table 11. Annual CO2e Emissions without Mitigation

Source Category CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

(mty) (mty) (mty) (mty) Construction

2018 439 0 0 441 2019 323 0 0 324 2020 85 0 0 86 Amortized Annual Construction 28 0 0 28 Annual Operation 21 0 0 21 Total Annual GHG Emissions 49 0 0 49 Significance Threshold

3,000

Significant?

No Notes: Construction emissions were amortized over 30 years. Total annual CO2e emissions are the sum of amortized construction and annual operational emissions.

3 SCAQMD’s threshold for commercial facilities was proposed in 2008 but not yet adopted.


74 November 2016

Consistency with Adopted Plans

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG.

The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations to reduce the emissions of GHG. The proposed project is not expected to exceed SCAQMD’s threshold for GHG and, as such, would not have a significant impact on GHG emissions. Additionally, the proposed project would enhance recreational open space within the city of Los Angeles and promote alternative modes of transit within the community. The lighting on the bridge would be provided by LED lights. These elements of the proposed project are consistent with objectives of the City of Los Angeles GreenLA Climate Action Plan to reduce the city’s contribution to climate change (City of Los Angeles 2009). Consequently, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including Assembly Bill 32 and the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (CARB 2014).

Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The hazardous materials information presented in this section is based on the Phase I Limited Hazardous Material Assessment Taylor Yard Bikeway and Pedestrian Bridge prepared by Ninyo & Moore on May 26, 2016, and the EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck (Inquiry 4530648.2s) prepared by Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) on February 4, 2016. Additionally, supplemental research was conducted on SWRCB’s GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor websites. The supplemental research was performed to evaluate potential impacts on the proposed continental crosswalk area

Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials

Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project is expected to last 30–32 months, during which time routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would occur. Such transport, use, and disposal must be compliant with applicable regulations such as the RCRA, Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, and the local CUPA regulations. Although solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would be transported, used, and disposed of during the construction phase, these materials are typically used in construction projects and would not represent the transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials.


75 November 2016

The proposed project involves construction of a bridge, bicycle/pedestrian path and access ramps, along with crosswalk improvements. As such, no hazardous materials would be used or stored on-site during normal project operations. Impacts would be less than significant.

Upset and Accident Conditions Involving the Release of Hazardous Materials

Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As mentioned under threshold 1, construction-related hazardous materials would be used during construction of the proposed project, including fuel, solvents, paints, oils, grease, etc. It is possible that any of these substances could be released during construction activities. However, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, in combination with temporary construction BMPs (as part of the Construction General Permit requirements) would ensure that all hazardous materials are used, stored, and disposed properly, which would minimize potential impacts related to a hazardous materials release during the construction phase of the project. Also, no hazardous materials are expected to be used or stored during normal operations of the proposed bridge. Any hazardous material required for maintenance of the bridge is expected to be brought to the project area by maintenance personnel, used in small amounts, and any release would be localized and cleaned up as it occurs. Therefore, operational impacts associated with the handling and storage of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Information obtained via the Phase I limited hazardous materials assessment along with research conducted via EDR and GeoTracker identified the presence of several hazardous materials sites within a 0.25-mile radius of the proposed project area. Four of those sites remain open and under regulatory agency oversight and, as a result, have the potential to affect the proposed project. They are the San Fernando Valley Area 4 – Pollock Well Field site, the Taylor Yard Parcel C and Parcel G2 sites, and the Bombardier Trans at Metrolink/Southern California Regional Rail site (also part of the Taylor Yard site).

The San Fernando Valley Area 4 – Pollock Well Field is a National Priorities List site that is part of a larger regional groundwater contaminant plume. As seen in the February 2016 EDR report (Overview and Detail Maps), the proposed project is located within the southern end of the San Fernando Valley Area 4 plume. VOCs have been identified in groundwater beneath the G2 Parcel and the source has been attributed in part to the affected groundwater originating from the Pollock Well Field. Thus, it is possible that bikeway and pedestrian bridge supports would be constructed into potentially contaminated groundwater, exposing construction personnel to affected groundwater during dewatering activities.

The Bombardier Trans at Metrolink/Southern California Regional Rail is located 0.13 mile to the northeast and listed as having a history of releases to soil. Records reviewed also indicate the presence of a waste oil storage tank adjacent to the


76 November 2016

proposed project footprint. The Taylor Yard Parcel C site is located approximately 0.2 mile to the east of the proposed project and listed as certified under the Voluntary Clean-Up program. Historic maintenance activities associated with the Taylor Yard led to affected soil. However, distance and the affected media (soil only) make potential impacts on the proposed project area from Parcel C unlikely. Finally, the proposed project area appears to overlap with the eastern most portion of the Taylor Yard Parcel G2 site, and as such, it is possible that earthmoving activities occurring in that area could result in exposure to contaminated soil.

Based on the information presented above, it is possible that construction activities associated with the implementation of the proposed project could expose construction personnel or the surrounding environment to contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Implementation of the following mitigation measure, HAZ-1, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Portions of mitigation measure HAZ-1 were based on the recommendations found in the Phase I limited hazardous materials assessment.

HAZ-1: Additional soil and groundwater monitoring and analysis.

A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and approval. The SMP shall be implemented during excavation and grading activities in areas of potential soil contamination to ensure contaminated soil encountered is properly identified, removed, and disposed of off-site. The SMP shall include the following provisions:

• A qualified environmental consultant shall be present during grading and excavation activities to monitor compliance with the SMP and to actively monitor the soil and excavations for evidence of contamination.

• Soil encountered during excavation or grading activities that appears to have been affected by hydrocarbons or other contamination shall be tested for potential contaminants and evaluated by a qualified environmental consultant prior to off-site disposal at a licensed facility.

• Soil determined to be contaminated shall be properly removed, handled, and transported to an appropriately licensed disposal facility, in accordance with the SMP.

In the event that groundwater is encountered during construction activities;

• The contractor shall seek the professional recommendation of a qualified environmental consultant specializing in the identification and handling of hazardous materials.

• Groundwater encountered during construction activities shall be tested for potential contaminants and evaluated by the environmental consultant prior to removal or discharge. Under the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit; groundwater obtained during dewatering activities requires that it be sampled if it is to be discharged via surface waters.


77 November 2016

• Groundwater determined to be contaminated shall be properly handled and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility per the consultant’s recommendations.

Hazardous Emissions Near Schools

Routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would occur during construction of the proposed project. Such transport, use, and disposal would be compliant with applicable regulations, such as RCRA, Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials, and local CUPA regulations. Although small amounts of hazardous materials would be transported, used, and disposed during construction, these materials are typically used in construction projects and would not represent the transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Furthermore, no hazardous materials would be used or stored on-site during normal project operations.

As discussed under threshold 2, earthmoving activities associated with the proposed project (on the north side of the bridge) could expose contaminated soil originating from historic activities at the Taylor Yard site. However, the nearest school on the northern side of the Los Angeles River is Glassell Park Elementary located approximately 0.55 mile to the northwest. The nearest school on the southern end of the project area; Dorris Place Elementary School, is located approximately 0.17 mile to the southwest. Construction activities encountering groundwater could expose the surrounding environment to VOC-affected groundwater from the San Fernando Valley Area 4 – Pollock Well Field plume, including the southern end of the proposed project nearest to Dorris Place Elementary. However, implementation of construction BMPs along with mitigation measure HAZ-1, described above, would reduce potential impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater on nearby schools to less than significant.

Government Listed Sites

As mentioned, the proposed project is in the southern end of the San Fernando Valley Area 4 plume and appears to overlap the eastern most portion of the Taylor Yard Parcel G2 site. As such, it is possible that earthmoving activities occurring in those areas could result in exposure to contaminated soil and/or groundwater. However, implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, described above, would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Aircraft Hazards

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because the proposed project area is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport (Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission 2009). The


78 November 2016

closest airport is Bob Hope Airport, approximately 10 miles to the northwest. El Monte Airport is located approximately 11.5 miles to the east, and Los Angeles International Airport is approximately 13 miles to the southwest. No impact would occur.

Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area because the project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur.

Emergency Access

Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would not allow any construction vehicles or equipment to park or remain stationary for extensive periods of time within any of the main roadways (North San Fernando Road to the north and Dorris Place to the south) leading into the project site. All large construction vehicles entering and exiting the site would be guided by the use of personnel using signs and flags to direct traffic. Moreover, the project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures, long-term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity, on the contrary, the proposed bridge would be designed to also support emergency vehicles and would create a new access route between Elysian Valley and the Taylor Yard area.

During construction activities, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable requirements set forth by the OAERP, LACFD, and the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department. County emergency management is provided by the OAERP and is facilitated by the responding agencies such as the LACFD and the Los Angeles County Sherriff’s Department.

Project features such as not allowing construction vehicles and equipment to park or stop for extended amounts of time along main arterial roadways, the use of flag personnel to ensure the continued flow of traffic, and compliance with the aforementioned programs, rules, and regulations for emergency response would reduce the potential impact on emergency response to less than significant.

Wildland Fires

Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. According to information obtained from CAL FIRE, the proposed project site does not exist within a CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CAL FIRE 2011) and the proposed project’s abutments are located in developed (south) and semi-developed (north) areas without dense vegetation. The central portion of the bridge would extend above the Los Angeles River. No impact would occur.


79 November 2016

I. Hydrology and Water Quality

Violate Water Quality Standards

A significant impact may occur if the proposed discharged water which did not meet the quality standards of the LARWQCB Basin Plan which regulates surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems.

Construction – Water and Land

During the actual construction process, storm water discharges can negatively affect the chemical, biological, and physical properties of downstream receiving waters. Due to the disturbance of the landscape, the most likely pollutant is sediment, however pH and other non-visible pollutants are also of concern. Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from the land surface by wind, water or gravity. The rate of erosion increases when land is cleared or altered and left unprotected. Construction sites, if unprotected, can erode at rates in excess of one hundred times the natural background rate of erosion. Sediment resulting from excessive erosion is a pollutant. Sedimentation is settling out of particles transported by water. The impacts from erosion and sedimentation affects water quality through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported downstream, which could contribute to degradation of water quality. Effective sediment control begins with proper erosion control, which minimizes the availability of particles from settling downstream. Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with temporary construction activities within and adjacent to the Los Angeles River. The proposed project would disturb approximately 4.5 acres of land during construction activities, approximately 2 acres in the riverbed and 2.5 acres for the bike path and construction staging area adjacent to the proposed bridge. The majority of earth-disturbing activities would occur within the Los Angeles River and directly adjacent to the river on the east bank where the proposed bike path would be implemented. Construction of the proposed project would include concrete removal, vegetation removal, and soil excavation followed by bridge and bike path construction. However, construction activities within the Los Angeles River, including clearing of the river bed, construction of temporary ramps and/or supports within the channel would be limited to an annual seven-month dry season beginning in April. In addition, the work area would be isolated from any surface flows through the use of dewatering structures. When the project site is excavated or otherwise disturbed by construction activities, the potential for erosion and sediment transport from the project site and laydown areas could increase during heavy rain or wind conditions. Stormwater runoff (or wind) could carry the exposed or eroded sediments downstream.


80 November 2016

The proposed project would comply with the Statewide Construction General Permit that requires implementation of a SWPPP to address erosion and sedimentation at the project site during construction activities. Temporary BMPs, such as silt fences, straw waddles, sediment traps, gravel sandbag barriers or other effective sediment and erosion control BMPs would be implemented to control runoff and erosion during construction activities. Implementation of erosion and sediment control BMPs would prevent substantial soil erosion and sedimentation from exposed soils, thereby protecting water quality. The Statewide Construction General Permit additionally requires final stabilization of the project site following completion of construction activities to ensure that the post-construction conditions, or operation conditions, at the project site do not cause or contribute to direct or indirect water quality impacts (i.e., pollution and/or hydromodification) upstream and downstream (SWRCB 2012). Final stabilization is defined by the Statewide Construction General Permit as the project site will not pose any additional sediment discharge risk than it did prior to the commencement of construction activity (SWRCB 2012) (see measures HAZ-1 (Soil and Groundwater Monitoring and Analysis) and BIO-4 (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan). The proposed project would be required to obtain a Section 404 permit from the USACE for the discharge of dredged materials in the Los Angeles River. In addition, the proposed project would be required to obtain a water quality certification for the federal permits from the USACE. The water quality certification would specify methods for ensuring the protection of water quality during construction activities in Los Angeles River, including water quality monitoring requirements. In addition, specific conditions would include the use of BMPs to minimize the discharge of construction materials from construction activities, control of floating debris, discharge of displaced water produced during construction to minimize discharge of pollutants to the Los Angeles River, and provision of spill containment and cleanup equipment to control potential accidental spills. Although temporary water quality impacts related to suspended solids in the water column may be expected, impacts related to resuspension of sediments would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the appropriate regulatory permits, including the Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Construction of the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation – Water

The project site is located over and within Los Angeles River Reach 3. Los Angeles River Reach 3 is included on the 303(d) list for the impairments shown below in Table 12. Multiple TMDLs are in effect for the Los Angeles River.


81 November 2016

Table 12. Overview of Water Quality Impairments in Project Area

Water Body Listed Impairments Potential Sources USEPA TMDL Approval Date

Los Angeles River Reach 3 Ammonia Point and nonpoint March 18, 2004 Copper Unknown December 22, 2005 Lead Unknown December 22, 2005 Nutrients (Algae) Point and nonpoint March 18, 2004 Trash Nonpoint, surface

runoff, urban runoff July 24, 2008

Source: SWRCB, 2011.

During operation of the proposed project, water quality impacts would be from the pedestrian and bicycle users of the bridge and bike path. Pedestrian and bicyclists may generate and dispose of trash over the bridge, which would contribute to an existing 303d water quality impairment within Reach 3 of the Los Angeles River. Trash discarded on land frequently makes its way into streams, creeks, rivers, and eventually the ocean, as rain storms wash it into gutters and storm drains (SWRCB 2016). Types of trash generated by human activity that frequently pollute waterways include cigarette butts, paper, fast food containers, plastic grocery bags, cans and bottles, used diapers, and more (SWRCB 2016). According to California’s 2008-2010 Integrated Report, there are 73 water bodies listed as having impaired water quality due to the presence of large amounts of trash, including the project’s site reach. On April 7, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the “Trash Amendments” to address all water bodies in the state currently listed as “impaired” due to the presence of trash (SWRCB 2015).

In order to address the potential disposal of trash over the bridge by pedestrians and bicyclists, Mitigation Measure WQ-1 is included to provide a BMP maintenance plan for operation of a covered trash receptacle that is emptied daily and inclusion of “no dumping” stencils/tiles and signs would further promote the use of trash receptacles. With implementation of trash receptacles at either end of the bridge, trash would be collected in the covered bins rather than potentially disposed of over the bridge into the Los Angeles River. With implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-1, the proposed project would not cause a violation of state water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and impacts would be less than significant during operation.

WQ-1: The city shall implement permanent best management practices for trash control, such as proper containment and disposal bins (secured and covered) for daily trash collection and removal. Other permanent BMPs may also include physical facilities such as “no dumping” stencils/tiles and signs, control features for trash. Best management practices shall be maintained for the duration of the project and maintenance efforts (including funding) shall be the responsibility of


82 November 2016

the applicant. A BMP maintenance plan shall be prepared by the applicant. Specifically, this BMP maintenance plan shall: (1) identify responsible parties for BMP funding and monitoring/maintenance efforts; and (2) describe all associated maintenance duties and frequencies and other pertinent information.

Operation – Land The proposed project would include a two-way concrete bike path on Kerr Road, connecting the proposed bridge to San Fernando Road. Once the proposed bike path is constructed, the project site located adjacent to the Los Angeles River would be covered with up to 12,500 square feet of new impervious cover, for a total of 73 percent impervious surface. These new impervious surfaces can effectively carry pollutants to the storm drain system during rain events. However, the bike path would not be a significant source of pollutants. Bicycles generally would not contribute major sources of pollutants, such as oil and grease and metals, to the new impervious surfaces. As such, the proposed bike path is not considered a significant generator of pollutants. In addition, the proposed project includes 2 feet of gravel, which would capture and filter runoff from the bike path prior to discharge to the drainage system. As a result of compliance with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit and LID ordinance, the proposed project would not cause a violation of state water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrade water quality, and impacts would be less than significant during operation.

Groundwater Supplies

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project results in substantial depletion of groundwater supplies during construction or operation of the project. The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project identified the shallowest reported historic groundwater depth at the project site is on the order of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) (City of Los Angeles 2015). Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal rainfalls, dry weather (i.e., drought conditions), and pumping activities in the vicinity of the project site (City of Los Angeles 2015). The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project (June 9, 2015) revealed the depth to groundwater at the time of drilling was approximately 18 feet below ground surface (bgs) in Boring B-1 and 16.5 feet in Boring B-2. Groundwater was encountered at the ground surface in Boring B-3 (City of Los Angeles 2015). The proposed bridge abutments would be supported on a single bent pier in the central portion of the Los Angeles River. Although this portion of the Los Angeles River contributes to some recharge of the groundwater basin due to its natural soft bottom, the majority of basin recharge occurs in spreading grounds west of the downtown area. As a result, the installation of a single pier in this reach of the Los Angeles River would not disrupt ground water percolation or infiltration. Therefore,


83 November 2016

the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts would be less than significant. Once the proposed project is constructed, the project site would be covered with up to 73 percent impervious cover. With more impervious surfaces, the project site’s potential to infiltrate surface water is diminished. However, the proposed project would include the use of Low-Impact Development (LID) features, such as the proposed two feet of gravel and the existing two feet of gravel, which would allow some water to continue to infiltrate. In addition, no portions of the project site above the riverbed serve as recharge areas.

Erosion or Siltation

The proposed project would have one pier along the centerline of the channel. The addition of the pier along the centerline of the channel would most likely cause scour to the channel invert around the pier. Water normally flows faster around piers and abutments, making them susceptible to local scour. Bridge scour is the removal of sediment such as sand and rocks from around bridge abutments or piers. Scour, caused by swiftly moving water, can scoop out scour holes, compromising the integrity of a structure. A hydraulics memorandum was prepared by Tetra Tech for the proposed project to evaluate the potential scour associated with the proposed project. The conclusions are included within the hydraulics memorandum. The hydraulics memorandum determined the pier and contraction scour is anticipated to form a scour hole with a total depth of 13.9 feet below the channel invert. Inclusion of scour countermeasures during project design for piers and abutments would reduce scour impacts to less-than-significant levels. The hydraulics memorandum determined the top of the pile cap should be placed a minimum of 13.9 feet below the channel invert at the proposed location of the bridge pier to reduce scour. As such, the proposed project would not result in substantial local scour. Operation of the proposed project would not r result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant.

Flooding

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. Construction On-site surface flows from the project site and laydown areas would be required to implement standard BMPs to ensure that surface runoff rates and amounts would not result in flooding to either on or off-site areas. Construction activities within the Los Angeles River, including clearing of the river bed, construction of temporary ramps and/or supports within the channel would be limited to an annual seven-month dry season beginning in April. Water flowing in the Los Angeles River would


84 November 2016

be diverted around the work areas. As a result, the flow is anticipated to be contained within the levees. Construction of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns or hydrology of the Los Angeles River, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-site or off-site and therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Operation – Water The project site is located over and within Los Angeles River Reach 3. Along this reach of the Los Angeles River, the channel has a trapezoidal cross-sectional geometry with a base width of 220 feet, a height of 23 feet, and a side slope of 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V). The side slopes of the channel are lined with concrete, and the invert is lined with a 2.5-feet thick layer of cobble (Tetra Tech 2015). Los Angeles River Reach 3 within the project area is located within Flood Zone A; Flood Zone A areas are subject to inundation by the one-percent-annual-chance flood event. Areas immediately outside of the Los Angeles River flood control channel are considered protected by the levees and are within Flood Zone X (unshaded); Flood Zone X (unshaded) are areas of minimal flood hazard. A hydraulics memorandum was prepared by Tetra Tech for the proposed project. The analysis that follows is based upon the results and conclusions included within the hydraulics memorandum. Construction of the proposed project would introduce one concrete pier into the Los Angeles River. The proposed bridge abutments would be supported on a single bent pier in the central portion of the Los Angeles River. Each abutment would be located adjacent to the top of the channel slopes. The abutment on the north side would include the construction of a retaining wall that would range in height from approximately five to 15 feet. In order to evaluate potential impacts on the surface flow, including impacts as a result of siltation, a hydraulic analysis was prepared to compare the changes to the channel’s hydraulic performance based on the proposed bridge project. Based upon the results from the hydraulic assessment conducted for the proposed project, the proposed project has the potential to cause a 0.08-foot increase to the channel’s design water surface elevation based upon the project’s proposed bridge pier locations and configurations. The maximum increase in the water-surface elevation would occur immediately upstream of the proposed bridge location. The increase in water-surface elevation would reduce the top-of-bank freeboard from 4.99 feet to 4.91 feet. At the upstream bridge, the bridge opening freeboard (i.e., from the water-surface elevation to the low chord of the bridge deck) is 5.42 feet and 4.14 feet for the design and 100-year discharges, respectively, which is still above the USACE and Caltrans freeboard requirements. Current USACE design criteria recommends a minimum of 2.5 feet of freeboard above the design discharge for trapezoidal sections of entrenched concrete-lined channels, three feet for levees, and extra consideration in local regions where water-surface elevations are difficult to


85 November 2016

determine like at bridge piers. Caltrans requires approximately two feet of freeboard between the bridge soffit and the 50-year water surface and be able to convey a 100-year flood without freeboard. Because the proposed project would not diminish the freeboard to less than required levels, the proposed project’s impacts are considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required. Operation – Land The proposed project would include a two-way concrete bike path on Kerr Road, connecting the proposed bridge to San Fernando Road. The proposed bike path would be approximately 10 feet wide, with a two feet wide gravel area for approximately 1,250 feet and adjacent to the existing pedestrian path (five feet wide with a two feet wide gravel area for 1,250 feet). Once the proposed bike path is constructed, the project site located adjacent to the Los Angeles River would be covered with up to 12,500 square feet of new impervious cover, for a total impervious surface of 18,750 square feet, with 5,000 square feet of pervious surface (73 percent impervious cover). As a result, the proposed project would replace approximately 12,500 square feet acre of pervious surface with impervious surface. Implementation of the project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site and increase peak flows and runoff volumes, resulting in increased flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, impacts are considered potentially significant. The proposed project is subject to the current MS4 permit for Los Angeles County (Order No. R4-2012-0175) and the City’s LID ordinance. LID comprises a set of site design approaches and BMPs that are designed to address runoff and pollution at the source. These LID practices can effectively remove nutrients, bacteria, and metals while reducing the volume and intensity of stormwater flows. The permit requires the design and implementation of specific post-construction controls to mitigate stormwater pollution and runoff, prior to project completion, for all “new development” and “redevelopment” projects that meet certain criteria as specified in the permit. The proposed project is considered a redevelopment project because it would result in land-disturbing activity that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area. The increases in peak flows for the two-year, 10-year, and 100-year storm events would be managed through the use of LID features, such as the proposed two feet of gravel. With compliance with the MS4 permit and LID ordinance, the proposed project would not result in flooding on or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant during operation.

Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would cause or accelerate geologic hazards, which would result in substantial damage to structures or infrastructure, or expose people to substantial risk of injury.


86 November 2016

The proposed project would not be located in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The project area is not subject to inundation by tsunami as it is located over 15 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Seiches occur in semi- or fully enclosed bodies of water when strong winds and/or rapid changes in atmospheric pressure push water from one end of the body of water to the other, resulting in an oscillation back and forth of waves (NOAA 2016). The project area is located approximately 1.5 mile southeast of the Silver Lake Reservoir; however, the dry, Mediterranean climate in the project area is not prevalent to dramatic changes in pressure or strong winds such that a seiche would occur. Mudflows are flowing masses of fine grained earth material with a high degree of fluidity, and happen on slopes. The areas immediately adjacent to the project area are developed, relatively flat and do not have enough exposed soils or topography to be a risk of mudflow. Therefore, no impacts related to the proposed project contributing to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would occur and no mitigation is required.

J. Land Use and Planning

Physical Division

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project was to result in the physical division of a community. The proposed project aims to connect the communities located east and west of Taylor Yard. Specifically, implementation of the proposed project would provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages for the surrounding community. No residential uses would be removed or divided under the proposed project. No impact would occur.

Consistency with Adopted Plans

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project was inconsistent with the general plan, or other applicable plan, or with the site’s zoning if designated to avoid or mitigate a significant environmental impact. The northern abutment of the project site is zoned PF-1XL-CDO-RIO and designated as Public Facilities/Heavy Manufacturing in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. The southern abutment of the proposed project is zoned as PF-1XL-CDO-RIO and is designated as Public Facilities by the City’s General Plan. The Los Angeles riverbed is zoned as Open Space. The project site is located within the River Improvement Overlay (RIO) District, as designated by City Ordinance Nos. 183144 and 183145. Any grading, demolition, pool, solar, interior, and sign permits for a project located with the RIO District are exempt.

The LARRMP includes revitalization measures for the 32 miles of the Los Angeles River in the City of Los Angeles. The project site is located in the Plan area and the proposed project is included in the LARRMP’s priority list as Project No. 171 (the Taylor Yard Non-Motorized Bridge). Therefore, construction and operation of the


87 November 2016

proposed project would be consistent with the LARRMP. Therefore, no land use inconsistency is expected from the construction and operation of the proposed project and the impact would be less than significant.

Habitat Conservation Plans

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were located within an area governed by a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would conflict with such plan. While the project is not located with a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as defined by the City of Los Angeles General Plan, the Los Angeles River itself can be considered a wildlife corridor. Aquatic and riparian species can along the soft bottom areas, while migratory birds utilize the riparian vegetation for nesting during the breeding season and for dispersal during migration. The project site is located within an urban area surrounded by developed properties. The conditions of the Los Angeles River would not change with construction or operation of the proposed project, as the bridge would maintain a clear span above the riverbed and place a minimal footprint within the Los Angeles River. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project would not be located with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. Construction or operation of the proposed project would result in removal of vegetation, however no protected trees are proposed to be removed. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

K. Mineral Resources

Loss of Availability of Mineral Resource

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource. According to the Conservation Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, the primary mineral resources located within the City are rock, gravel, and sand deposits. A majority of the available deposits within the City are in the Tujunga alluvial fan (City of Los Angeles 2014). The project site is located in an area designated a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ-2) by the Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning (Los Angeles County General Plan), which indicates areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. However, the existence of any potentially present mineral resources cannot be determined due to limited data. The project site is not used for mineral extraction. No mineral extraction activities would be disrupted or removed under the proposed project. The proposed project would include the development of a bikeway/pedestrian bridge over the Los Angeles


88 November 2016

River and a bike and pedestrian path along Kerr Road. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the loss of the availability of a mineral resource or the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. Impacts would be considered less than significant.

L. Noise

This section describes the methodology, evaluation, and impacts for noise and vibration. It is intended to assist in the evaluation and conclusions of the impact analysis provided below and in the formation of required mitigation measures.

Existing Noise Environment

The primary existing noise sources in the project area are traffic on local streets (including North San Fernando Road, located northeast of the project site), occasional aircraft overflights, trains operating on the active railroad track located on the north side of the Los Angeles River, and general neighborhood activities such as landscaping. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are residences (multi- and single-family residences). The southern portion of the project site (south of the Los Angeles River) is surrounded by both light industrial land uses and single-family residences. The northern portion of the project site (i.e., the construction areas located north of the Los Angeles River), is located close to multi-family residential land uses. Figure 2 shows the project site and surrounding area.

Noise Monitoring

In order to document the existing noise environment, short-term noise measurements (of approximately 10 to 20 minutes in duration) were obtained at five locations in the vicinity of the project site; long-term measurements were obtained at three additional locations in order to characterize the 24-hour noise environment.4 Short-term measurements were gathered on Tuesday, February 16, 2016, and August 16, 2016, and long-term measurements were gathered between August 16 and 18, 2016. The measurement locations are identified in Figure 13; additional details and a summary of the measurement results are provided in Tables 13 and 14. Because construction activity is only permitted between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., the 12-hour average noise level, Leq(12), between these hours is also noted where available from the long-term noise monitoring.

4 Long-‐term measurement LT-‐2 was cut short due to a power failure and only gathered five hours of data.


89 November 2016

Table 13. Summary of Short-‐Term Noise Measurements

Location #, Description (Date, Time) Measured Noise Levels, dBA

Date, Time Leq Lmin Lmax ST-1, north of project site, in Rio De Los Angeles State Park (1900 San Fernando Road).

2/16/2016 10:59 a.m. – 11:23 a.m.

45.7

42.8 50.2

ST-2, east of project site, near the intersection of Chaucer Street and River Edge Road.

2/16/2016 12:07 p.m. – 12:18 p.m. 2:18 p.m. – 2:38 p.m. Average

62.6 54.1 60.2

53.9 51.4

75.4 58.9

ST-3, south of project site, in front of 2356 Dorris Place.

2/16/2016 1:02 p.m. – 1:27 p.m.

47.1

44.8 54.2

ST-4, south of project site, in front of 2421 Altman Street.

2/16/2016 1:41 p.m. – 2:01 p.m.

49.4

47.7 53.1

ST-5, north of the project site, in front of 2801 Future Street.

8/16/2016 2:58 p.m. – 3:16 p.m.

68.2

51.2 77.6

Notes: Two measurements were taken at ST-2. The first measurement included high levels of activity on the railroad, so a second measurement was conducted to capture a quieter period of the day. These two samples were then combined to produce a more representative average noise level.

Table 14. Summary of Long-‐Term Noise Measurements

Long-Term Measurement Number and Location Description

Measured Noise Levels, dBA

Date CNEL

12-hour Leq, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Lmin Lmax

LT-1,1 adjacent to Kerr Road, south of San Fernando Road, across from multi-family residential complex at 1555 North San Fernando Road.

8/17/2016 74.3 70.6 49.8 99.0

LT-2,2 south of project site, in front of 2356 Dorris Place.

8/16/2016 - 56.6 45.5 78.0

LT-3,1,3 south of project site, near 2436 Riverdale Avenue and south of the easternmost proposed project ADA ramp.

8/17/2016 63.9 54.8 43.6 91.6

Notes: 1 Measurements are for August 17, which is the only day with a complete 24-hour data set. 2 Leq is the average for the four daytime hours (3 p.m. to 7 p.m.) before equipment power failure. 3 Noise levels between 12 noon and 2 p.m. have been excluded from the calculations because they appear to be contaminated with extraneous noise that generated untypically high noise level.


90 November 2016


91 November 2016

Regulatory Setting

Federal Regulations No federal regulations are applicable to the CEQA analysis for the proposed project. State Regulations California requires each local government entity to perform noise studies and implement a noise element as part of its general plan. The purpose of the noise element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels; the noise element must be used to guide decisions concerning land use. The state provides guidelines for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure. Local Regulations City of Los Angeles CEQA Thresholds Guide The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (City of Los Angeles 2006) defines noise-sensitive land uses as residences, transient lodgings, schools, day-care facilities, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters, playgrounds, and parks. The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (City of Los Angeles 2006) also cites thresholds for construction and operational noise for projects located in the city.

Exceedance of Noise Standards

Construction

According to the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), a project would normally have a significant construction noise impact if:

• Construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use;

• Construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a three-month period would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise-sensitive use; or,

• Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at a noise sensitive use between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or at anytime on Sunday.


92 November 2016

Project construction is estimated to take approximately 30 to 32 months, and construction hours would generally be Monday through Saturday, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The project components consist of the installation of the bridge foundation, superstructure, bike ramps on both sides (north and south) of the bridge, bike path on Kerr Road, other site improvements, the LADWP water line, and new crosswalk striping at San Fernando Road and Cypress Avenue. Construction noise levels would fluctuate, depending on the construction phase, equipment type, duration of use, distance between noise source and listener, and the presence or absence of barriers or intervening structures.

Noise sensitive land uses are located in the project vicinity on both the north and south sides of the Los Angeles River. As such, the construction analysis analyzes the potential noise effects from construction activities on the south side of the river (such as the pipeline installation and ADA ramp construction) to receptors south of the river, from construction activities on the north side of the river (such as the pipeline installation and construction of the bike path) to receptors north of the river, and from bridge construction activities over the river to receptors both to the north and the south of the river. The source-to-receptor distances used in the analyses were the acoustical average distances between the relevant construction area and each receptor. The acoustical average distance is used to represent noise sources that are mobile or distributed over an area; it is calculated by multiplying the shortest distance between the receiver and the noise source area by the farthest distance and then taking the square root of the product.

Based on construction schedule information provided by the City, it is anticipated that construction of the project would require the equipment shown in Table 15. For each equipment type in Table 15, the corresponding Lmax values at a distance of 50 feet from the source are shown, based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Road Construction Noise Model (RCNM) User’s Guide.

Construction North of the River

Although a variety of construction activities would occur for project construction, the loudest construction activity proposed for the portion of the project site north of the river would be the installation of the LADWP water pipeline. This activity is anticipated to require the use of multiple large trucks (including concrete slurry trucks, trucks for dirt, mixer trucks, etc.), two concrete saws, a vacuum truck, three front-end loaders, and a vibrator.

This construction activity would occur along the entire proposed pipeline alignment on the north side of the river, as shown in Figure 2. As such, this construction would occur as close as approximately 50 feet from and as far as approximately 1,160 feet from the nearest residence (R1). Based on these distances, the average noise level from this worst-case loudest construction activity along the north side of the river was modeled to be approximately 76 dBA Leq at R1, the nearest noise sensitive receptor (refer to Figure 13). At R2 and R3, average noise levels from this construction activity were modeled to be approximately 67 dBA Leq and 65 dBA Leq, respectively.


93 November 2016

Table 15. Typical Construction Noise Emission Levels for Project Construction Equipment

Equipment Lmax at 50 feet (dBA)a Backhoe 78 Concrete Mixer Truck 79 Concrete Pump Truck 81 Concrete Saw 90 Concrete Vibratory Mixer 80 Crane 81 Drill1 84 Dump Truck 76 Electric Power Tools2 85 Excavator 81 Forklift3 84 Front-end Loader 79 Generator 81 Jackhammer 89 Roller 80 Paver 77 Pickup Truck 75 Pile Driver (Impact) 101 Pile Driver (Vibratory) 101 Scraper 84 Slurry Truck4 76 Vacuum Truck5 85 Water Truck6 76 Welder 74 Source: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/ rcnm/rcnm.pdf>. January. Washington, DC. Notes: a. These values represent the loudest noise levels generated by each equipment type at a distance of 50 feet. b. These values were calculated by subtracting 6 dBA from each Lmax value at 50 feet, based on geometric attenuation for a point source. 1. Represented by Auger Drill Rig from RCNM User’s Guide 2. Represented by Pneumatic Tools from RCNM User’s Guide. 3. Represented by Tractor from RCNM User’s Guide. 4. Represented by Concrete Mixer Truck from RCNM User’s Guide. 5. Represented by Excavator, Vacuum (Vac-truck) from RCNM User’s Guide. 6. Represented by Dump Truck from RCNM User’s Guide.


94 November 2016

Existing ambient noise levels near receptors in this area are shown in Tables 13 and 14, above. In order to assess the noise increases due to construction activity, the existing ambient noise levels at each receptor were estimated based on these measured levels. Where available, Leq(12) daytime noise levels were used in order to represent the average ambient conditions throughout the potential work day. Where a representative Leq(12) was not available, short-term data was used. Refer to Table 16 for the modeled construction noise levels and potential impacts from project construction north of the river.

As shown in Table 16, construction on the north side of the river is expected to result in noise levels that exceed existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by 5 to 7 dB. As such, impacts related to project construction noise on the north side of the river would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required.

An element of project construction that would occur elsewhere on the north side of the river is the new crosswalk striping at San Fernando Road and Cypress Avenue. This activity is expected to be relatively brief and is not anticipated to use heavy construction equipment. As a result, this activity is not expected to generate excessive noise levels and the impact would be less than significant.

Construction South of the River

The two construction activities proposed for the portion of the project site south of the Los Angeles River with the greatest potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses include the undergrounding of the LADWP pipeline along the river pathway, and the construction of ADA ramps near Dallas Street and Riverdale Avenue. The pipeline work has the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses largely due to the high noise levels associated with the equipment required for this type of work. The construction of the two ADA ramps has the potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses due to the proximity of residences to the work areas for these improvements.

Table 16. Modeled Construction Noise Levels from Loudest Construction Activities – North Side of Los Angeles River.

Receptor

Distance from Construction Activity (feet)1

Modeled Construction Noise Level (dBA)

Estimated Existing Ambient Leq (dBA)

Net Increase (dB)

Allowable Increase (dB)

Potentially Significant Increase in Noise?

R1 240 76 712 5 < 5 Yes R2 635 67 603 7 < 5 Yes R3 855 65 603 5 < 5 Yes Notes: 1 Acoustical average distance used for modeling to present average construction noise levels at receptors for construction activity occurring throughout the entire portion of the project site on the north side of the river. 2 Based on the measured Leq(12) at LT-1. 3 Based on the average short-term Leq measured at ST-2.


95 November 2016

Pipeline construction is anticipated to require the use of two large trucks for dirt, a generator, a concrete cutting saw, a roller, an excavator, one front-end loader, and a concrete dispenser. The pipeline construction work on the south side of the river would occur south of the bridge along the entire proposed pipeline alignment in this vicinity, which is shown in Figure 2. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are residences are R4 and R5 (refer to Figure 13). Construction would occur as close as approximately 235 feet and as far as approximately 455 feet from R4, and as close as approximately 205 feet from and as far as approximately 555 feet from R5, resulting in acoustical average distances of 335 feet and 325 feet, respectively. The average noise levels from this loudest construction activity along the south side of the river was modeled to be approximately 65 dBA Leq (including a 5 dB reduction for shielding from intervening buildings) at R5, and approximately 66 dBA Leq (including a 5 dB reduction for shielding from intervening buildings) at R4.

Existing ambient noise levels near receptors in this area are shown in Tables 13 and 14, above. In order to assess the noise increases due to construction activity, the existing ambient noise levels at each receptor were estimated based on these measured levels. Where available, Leq(12) daytime noise levels were used in order to represent the average ambient conditions throughout the potential work day. Where a representative Leq(12) was not available, short-term data was used. Refer to Table 17 for the modeled construction noise levels and potential impacts from project construction south of the river.

Table 17. Modeled Construction Noise Levels from Pipeline Construction Activities – South Side of Los Angeles River

Receptor


Modeled Construction Noise Level (dBA)2


Net Increase (dB)



R4 325 66 573 9 < 5 Yes R53 335 65 573 8 < 5 Yes Notes: 1 Acoustical average distance used for modeling to present average construction noise levels at receptors for construction activity occurring throughout the entire portion of the project site on the south side of the river. 2 Modeled construction noise values presented in this table include a 5 dB reduction for shielding from intervening buildings, where applicable. 3 Based on the average daytime Leq measured at LT-2.

As shown in Table 17, pipeline construction on the south side of the river (the loudest activity on the south side) is expected to result in noise levels that exceed the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by 9 to 10 dB. As such, impacts related to project construction noise on the south side of the river would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required.


96 November 2016

Proposed ADA ramp construction near Dallas Street would occur approximately 150 feet from the closest residence (R6, 2415 Dallas Street), and ADA ramp construction near Riverdale Avenue would occur approximately 55 feet from the closest residence (R7, 2447 Riverdale Avenue). Due to the relatively small footprint of the ramps, it is anticipated that the construction of these ADA ramps would not require much equipment; it is likely that only a single piece of heavy equipment would be operating at a given time. Noise levels from ADA ramp construction (based on the assumption that a single backhoe would be operating at either ADA ramp site at a given time) were modeled to be approximately 64 dBA Leq at R6 and 73 dBA Leq at R7.

Existing ambient noise levels near receptors in this area are shown in Tables 13 and 14, above. In order to assess the noise increases due to construction activity, the existing ambient noise levels at each receptor were estimated based on these measured levels. Where available, Leq(12) daytime noise levels were used in order to represent the average ambient conditions throughout the potential work day. Where a representative Leq(12) was not available, short-term data was used. Refer to Table 18 for the modeled construction noise levels and potential impacts from ADA ramp construction south of the river.

Table 18. Modeled Construction Noise from ADA Ramp Construction – South Side of Los Angeles River

Receptor




Net Increase (dB)



R6 150 64 552 9 < 5 Yes R7 55 73 552 18 < 5 Yes Notes: 1 Distance reported in this table is the closest distance between proposed construction of the ADA ramps and the nearest residential (noise-sensitive) land use along the south side of the Los Angeles River. 2 Based on the measured Leq(12) at LT-3.

As shown in Table 18, construction noise levels from ADA ramp construction are expected to result in noise levels that exceed the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by 10 to 18 dB. As such, impacts related to project ADA ramp construction noise on the south side of the river would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required.

Bridge Construction

The construction activity proposed for the bridge portion of the project with the greatest potential to affect noise-sensitive land uses is the construction phase involving the mobilization of equipment, installation of the center pier (which includes the installation of the base platform, demo of the channel liner, and the concrete pile


97 November 2016

pour). This construction work has the potential to affect noise-sensitive land on both sides of the river due to the high noise levels associated with the equipment required for this type of work.

Bridge construction is anticipated to require the use of a concrete truck, a vibrator, a small crane, a roller, dewatering equipment, a small piece of demolition equipment, an auger drilling machine, and a generator. The bridge construction work would along the entire span of the bridge, which is shown in Figure 2. As such, this construction would could occur closer to receptors south of the bridge than north of the bridge, but may be audible at noise-sensitive land uses on both sides of the river. The closest residential receptors on either side of the bridge are R1 through R5 (refer to Figure 13). Refer to Table 19 for the modeled construction noise levels and potential impacts from bridge construction at receptors R1 through R5.

Table 19. Modeled Construction Noise from Bridge Construction – Both Sides of Los Angeles River

Receptor




Net Increase (dB)



R1 1,205 59 712 0 < 5 No R2 840 62 603 2 < 5 No R3 895 62 603 2 < 5 No R4 470 624 575 5 5 Yes R5 435 634 575 6 5 Yes Notes: 1 Acoustical Average distance used for modeling to present average construction noise levels at receptors for construction activity occurring throughout the entire portion of the project site on the northern side of the river. 2 Based on the measured Leq(12) at LT-1. 3 Based on the average short-term ambient noise level at ST-2. 4 Modeled construction noise values presented in this table include a 5 dB reduction for shielding from intervening buildings, where applicable. 5 Based on the measured Leq at LT-2.

As shown in Table 19, bridge construction is expected to result in noise levels that exceed the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by 0 to 6 dB, with noise increases of 5 dB or more at receivers R4 and R5 (both of these receivers are south of the Los Angeles River). As such, impacts related to bridge construction noise would be potentially significant, and mitigation would be required.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure, NOI-1, would reduce potential impacts related to construction noise to less-than-significant levels.


98 November 2016

NOI-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Noise-Sensitive Land Uses.

The project sponsor shall develop a noise control plan to reduce construction noise levels such that the ambient noise level is not exceeded by 5 dBA, as determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. The plan shall require:

• Construction contractors shall specify noise-reducing construction practices that will be employed to reduce noise from construction activities. The measures specified by the project sponsor shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Measures that can be used to limit noise include, but are not limited to, those listed below. o Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-

sensitive uses. o Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or

diesel engines have sound control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.

o Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than two minutes).

o Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.

o Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment that has the potential to disturb nearby off-site land uses or where otherwise necessary to comply with City Code noise limits for receiving zones.

o Ensuring that equipment and trucks used for project construction utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.

o Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

• Construction activities shall be prohibited outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and national holidays. No construction activity shall occur at any time on Sundays. Construction personnel shall not be permitted on the project site (including laydown and storage areas), and material or equipment deliveries and collections shall not be permitted during the prohibited hours.


99 November 2016

• All construction equipment used on the proposed project that is regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity and use on-site.

• All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. (Poor maintenance of equipment may cause excessive noise levels.)

• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.

• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered (where feasible) to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, where feasible.

• Construction contractors shall be required to use “quiet” gasoline-powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered forklifts for small lifting, where feasible.

• Stationary noise sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from nearby receptors as possible; they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary enclosures and shielded by barriers, to the extent feasible.

• Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of the equipment. (Careless or improper operation or inappropriate use of equipment can increase noise levels. Poor loading, unloading, excavation, and hauling techniques are examples of how a lack of adequate guidance and training may lead to increased noise levels.)

• Construction equipment shall be stored on the project site or designated laydown areas while in use, to the extent feasible. This will eliminate noise associated with repeated transportation of the equipment to and from the site.

• Prior to the issuance of the building permit, along with the submission of construction documents, the project sponsor shall submit to the Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection a list of measures for controlling noise and responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction noise. These measures shall include: o Identification of measures that will be implemented to control

construction noise. o Identification of locations where it is infeasible to limit noise to be in

compliance with applicable City standards.


100 November 2016

o A procedure and phone numbers for notifying the Department of Building Inspection, the Department of Public Health, or the Police Department of complaints (during regular construction hours and off hours).

o A sign posted on-site describing noise complaint procedures and a complaint hotline number that shall be answered at all times during construction.

o Designation of an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project.

o A plan for notification of neighboring residents and non-residential building managers within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of extreme noise-generating activities (defined as activities that generate noise levels of 90 dBA or greater) about the estimated duration of the activity and the associated control measures that will be implemented to reduce noise levels.

Operation

According to the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006), a project would normally have a significant operational noise impact if the project causes:

• The ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA in CNEL to or within the "normally unacceptable" or "clearly unacceptable" category (as defined in the Thresholds Guide), or any 5 dBA or greater noise increase.

For residences this means a significant impact would occur if the project caused the ambient noise level to increase by 3 dB or more to 70 dB CNEL or greater, or to increase by 5 dB or more to less than 70 dB CNEL.

Noise from operational activities associated with the project would be negligible, as proposed uses associated with the project (individuals walking or riding bikes) are not considered to be noise-producing. As such, the proposed project would not result in noise levels in excess of thresholds in the project area. This impact would be less than significant.

Ground-borne Noise and Vibration

Construction

The L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) does not include thresholds for vibration impacts. Since project construction would generate ground-borne vibration, the City will use guidance from Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (Caltrans 2013b) to determine the threshold of impact for vibration. Guidelines are provided for two types of potential impact: (1) damage to structures, and (2) annoyance of people. Guideline criteria for each are provided in Tables 20 and 21.


101 November 2016

Table 20. Caltrans Guideline Vibration Damage Criteria

Structure and Condition

Maximum PPV (in/s)

Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources

Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments

0.12 0.08

Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans, 2013b.

Table 21. Caltrans Guideline Vibration Annoyance Criteria

Human Response

Maximum PPV (in/s)

Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources

Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans, 2013b.

Based on these guidelines, a project would have a significant vibration impact, relative to potential building damage, if:

• PPV vibration levels from construction equipment are 0.3 inch per second (in/s) or greater at any existing single-family residential structure, or 0.5 in/s or greater at any new residential structure (i.e., the new multifamily residential buildings southeast of Kerr Road) or commercial/industrial structure.

A project would have a significant vibration impact, relative to potential annoyance, if:

• PPV vibration levels from construction equipment are 0.04 in/s or greater at any existing residence.


102 November 2016

Operation of heavy construction equipment creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth. These surface waves can be felt as ground-borne vibration. Vibration from operation of this equipment can result in effects ranging from annoyance of people to damage of structures. Varying geology and distance between the source of vibration and a given receptor will affect both the frequency content of the vibration, as well as the overall vibration level. In all cases, vibration amplitudes will decrease with increasing distance.

Perceptible ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at which these particles move is a commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration amplitude. The specific metric used in the following analysis is the peak particle velocity (PPV). (This metric is used by several federal and state agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans.)

Vibration amplitude attenuates over distance and is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground and the soil conditions through which the vibration is traveling. The following equation can be used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions. PPVref is the reference PPV from Table 21.

PPV = PPVref x (25/Distance)1.1

Tables 20 and 21, above, summarize guidelines developed by Caltrans for damage and annoyance potential from transient and continuous vibration that is usually associated with construction activity. Table 22, below, summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment at various distances.

Table 22. PPV Vibration Levels for Demolition and Construction Equipment

Equipment

PPV at 25 Feet (in/s)5

PPV at 55 Feet (in/s)

PPV at 75 Feet (in/s)

PPV at 100 Feet

(in/s)

PPV at 210 Feet

(in/s)

PPV at 300 Feet

(in/s) Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0374 0.0266 0.0194 0.0086 0.0058 Caisson drilling 0.089 0.0374 0.0266 0.0194 0.0086 0.0058 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0319 0.0227 0.0165 0.0073 0.0049 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0147 0.0105 0.0076 0.0034 0.0023 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0013 0.0009 0.0007 0.0003 0.0002

5 Caltrans. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tcvgm_sep13_verb.pdf. Accessed: September 6, 2016.


103 November 2016

Vibration Effects – Annoyance

During project construction, various pieces of heavy equipment would be used at the project site. Large earthmoving equipment may be used for some parts of project construction, such as the proposed pipeline work; as shown in Table 22, this type of equipment has the potential to generate PPV vibration levels of up to 0.089 in/s at a distance of 25 feet (refer to “large bulldozer” in Table 22). Large earthmoving equipment may be operating as close as 55 feet away from sensitive receptors on the north side of the bridge. At a distance of 55 feet, the PPV from large earthmoving equipment would be reduced to 0.037 in/s (as shown in Table 22). This vibration level is below the distinctly perceptible level of 0.04 in/s shown in Table 21.

For the construction of the actual bridge, the proposed drilling activities would have the potential to generate the greatest vibration levels. The closest residence to the river where drilling for piles may occur (2437 Altman Street) is located over 300 feet away. At this distance, caisson drilling equipment would result in PPV vibration levels of approximately 0.006 in/s, which is below the annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/s (refer to Table 21, above).

Vibration-generating construction activities on the south side of the bridge would occur even farther from nearby residents. The nearest residence to the construction activities proposed for the south side of the bridge (2437 Altman Street) is located approximately 210 feet away. At this distance, the PPV vibration level from earthmoving equipment would be reduced to approximately 0.008 in/s, which is also below the annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/s.

Construction of the ADA ramps could involve the use of jackhammers or small earthmoving equipment such as a small-sized bulldozer. ADA ramp construction may occur as close as 55 feet from nearby residences (the closest being 2447 Riverdale Avenue). As shown in Table 22, above, at a distance of 55 feet, the PPV generated by a jackhammer would be approximately 0.15 in/s and the PPV generated by a small bulldozer would be approximately 0.0013 in/s; these vibration levels are also below the annoyance threshold of 0.04 in/s.

As none of the proposed construction activities associated with the project would result in vibration levels in excess of the 0.04 in/s annoyance threshold described previously, vibration impacts related to annoyance would be less than significant.

Vibration Effects – Building Damage

As described above, the closest residential structure is located 55 feet from the proposed vibration-generating construction activities, and at a distance of 55 feet, PPV vibration levels from large earthmoving equipment would be approximately 0.037 in/s (Table 22). As the multi-family residences located near the pipeline construction on the north side of the river were constructed very recently, the


104 November 2016

applicable damage threshold to assess potential vibration impacts is 0.5 in/s. PPV vibration levels would be below this threshold at the nearest residence on the north side of the river.

Industrial structures along the south side of the bridge are closer than the nearest residential structures; the nearest building is 40 feet from construction areas. At a distance of 40 feet, PPV vibration levels from large earthmoving equipment would be approximately 0.05 in/s. As this building is a modern industrial or commercial building, the applicable threshold to assess potential damage is 0.5 in/s. Vibration generated by construction activity would be below this threshold for the building.

As vibration-generating construction activities would not result in vibration levels greater than the applicable damage thresholds defined in Table 20, above, vibration impacts related to damage would be less than significant.

Operation

Operational activities associated with the project are not considered to be vibration-producing. As such, the proposed project would not result in perceptible vibration levels, or vibration levels in excess of thresholds. Operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Permanent Increase in Noise Levels

Temporary construction activities that would be conducted as part of project implementation would result in short-term increases in noise levels in the project area, as described above under checklist item a. However, these activities would be temporary and would not result in any permanent increase in ambient noise levels.

Project operational activities for the project would be negligible, as proposed uses associated with the project (individuals walking or riding bikes) are not considered to be noise or vibration producing. As such, the proposed project would not result in a permanent increase in noise in the project area. There would be no impact.

Temporary or Periodic Increase in Noise Levels

As discussed above for checklist item a, construction activities have the potential to result in noise levels that exceed ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise sensitive use. This would be considered a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, and this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure NOI-1, described previously, would reduce this impact to less-than-significant levels

Aircraft Noise

The nearest public airport to the project area is Burbank Bob Hope Airport, which is located 9.7 miles northwest of the project site. Other airports are located even farther away, such as El Monte Airport (approximately 11.5 miles to the east), the Compton/Woodley Airport (approximately 14 miles to the south) Hawthorne


105 November 2016

Municipal Airport (approximately 12.8 miles to the southwest), Los Angeles International Airport (approximately 13.4 miles to the southwest) and Van Nuys Airport (approximately 16 miles to the northwest). At these distances, there would be no noise effects experienced in the project area from this airport. As the project is located farther than two miles from an airport and as the project area is not included in an airport land use plan, there would be no impact related to noise from public use airports.

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private air strip. Therefore, there would be no impact related to private airstrips.

M. Population and Housing

Initial screening determined that the proposed project would cause no impact (see Appendix A).

N. Public Services

Fire Protection

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in an increase in demand for police services that would exceed the capacity of the police department responsible for serving the site.

The Los Angeles Fire Department’s Central Bureau provides fire services to the project site and surrounding area. The Central Bureau is responsible for 23 fire stations and 2,100 fire personnel (Los Angeles Fire Department 2016). The nearest fire station, Station 44 (1410 Cypress Avenue), is approximately 1400 feet northeast of the proposed bridge location’s northern landing. The need for new or physically altered governmental facilities generally occurs in cases where a project would result in population growth and public services are needed to serve that additional population. The proposed project would not include housing and, as a result, there would be no direct increase in population resulting from construction or operation of the proposed project. With respect to the potential for indirect population growth as a result of project implementation, it is reasonable to assume that most construction workers would not relocate their households to work on the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project would not create any need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to fire protection, and impacts would be less than significant.

Police Protection

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to result in an increase in demand for police services that would exceed the capacity of the police department responsible for serving the site.


106 November 2016

Police services to the project site and surrounding area are provided by the Northeast section of the Los Angeles Police Department. The Northeast Community Police Station serves the communities of Atwater, Cypress Park, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, Echo Park, Elysian Park, Elysian Valley, Glassell Park, Griffith Park, Highland Park, Los Feliz, Mt. Washington, and Silverlake Northeast Area is roughly 29 square miles and has a population of about 250,000 people and is under the jurisdiction of Central Bureau (Los Angeles Police Department 2016). The nearest police station serving the northeast community is located at 3353 San Fernando Road, and is approximately two miles north of the proposed bridge location. As described above, there would be no direct increase in population resulting from construction or operation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not affect the service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection. The proposed project would not create any need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to police protection, and impacts would be less than significant.

Schools

A significant impact may occur if the project would generate growth such that schools would be affected. Several schools are found within the surrounding area of the project site, including Dorris Place Elementary, Glassell Park Elementary, Nightingale Middle School, Aragon Avenue Elementary, Mount Washington Elementary and the Los Angeles Unified School District’s School of History and Dramatic Arts. Of these, Dorris Place Elementary School (2225 Dorris Place) is located nearest the proposed project, approximately 700 feet southwest of the bridge’s western landing. Again, as described above, there would be no direct increase in population resulting from construction or operation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not create any need for new school facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Parks

A significant impact may occur if the recreation and park services available could not accommodate the population increase resulting from the implementation of the proposed project and new or physically altered facilities were needed. Several parks are found within the surrounding area of the proposed project site, including the G2 Parcel Park/Wetland, Rio de Los Angeles State Park, and Elysian Park, in addition to other small nearby parks. Again, as described above, there would be no direct increase in population resulting from construction or operation of the proposed project. The proposed project would not create any need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to park facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Potential impacts on parks are discussed in greater detail in the Recreation section.


107 November 2016

Other Public Facilities

A significant impact may occur if the project would generate growth such that public facilities would be affected. The proposed project would not create any need for new or physically altered governmental facilities related to other public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

O. Recreation

A significant impact may occur if the project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur.

Increase Use of Existing Parks

The MOU signed in 1992 by LACTC, SCRRA, and the City, Part F, Pedestrian Access, indicates that LACTC “will design, finance, and construct a pedestrian access system linking the communities to the east and west of Taylor Yard and providing access to rail services, including a pedestrian bridge across the Los Angeles River.” As such, the proposed project would provide a public recreation benefit, linking recreationists on the east and west sides of the Los Angeles River to provide for increased interconnectivity and access to nearby parks and recreational facilities. There are several parks and recreational facilities within the project area, including the G2 Parcel Park/Wetland (adjacent), Rio de Los Angeles State Park (adjacent), Elysian Park (approximately 1,200 feet southwest of the project site), Walnut Hill at Elysian Park (approximately 0.8 mile northwest of the project site), Jardin del Rio Community Garden (approximately 1000 feet southeast of the project site), and several other smaller community parks and minor facilities just north of the intersection of the I-110 and I-5, including Cypress Park Recreation Center, Steelhead Park, Oso Park, Egret Park, Confluence Park, River Garden Park, and the Los Angeles River Center and Gardens (approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the proposed project at its nearest point). Though the proposed project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks through the area, the introduction of the bridge and a bike and pedestrian path along Kerr Road would primarily alter pedestrian/recreationist traffic patterns, allowing new and different users to access the aforementioned parks. Therefore, due to the relative size and number of the parks and recreational facilities in the immediate project vicinity, introduction of the proposed project would not increase use such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. As mentioned, in linking recreationists to the east and west sides of the Los Angeles River to provide for increased interconnectivity to nearby parks,


108 November 2016

facilities, and river-adjacent bike paths, the proposed project would provide a public recreation benefit. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

Require Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities

The proposed project would provide a pedestrian access system to link the communities east and west of Taylor Yard and, therefore, is considered a recreational facility. As discussed above, the introduction of the bridge and a bike and pedestrian path along Kerr Road would alter primarily pedestrian/recreationist traffic patterns, allowing new and different users access to nearby parks and recreational facilities. Similarly, due to the relative size and number of the parks and recreational facilities in the immediate project vicinity, introduction of the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.

P. Transportation/Traffic

Circulation System Capacity

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. During the construction period, the number of workers traveling to and from the project site would vary, with up to 19 workers on a peak day. However, on average, 4 to 5 construction workers would be at the site on a daily basis. In addition to construction worker commute trips, vehicle trips would be required for materials delivery and off-haul. Table 23 shows the daily and peak-hour trips that would be generated during the most active portion of the construction period. According to LADOT’s traffic impact analysis guidelines, the threshold for conducting a traffic study or memorandum is 25 trips in either peak hour. Because project construction is anticipated to generate fewer than 25 peak-hour trips during the most active stages, further quantitative analysis is not required. Because the project would not result in construction-period trip generation in excess of standards that would require a traffic study, impacts related to circulation system capacity during the construction period would be less than significant. Although not required to mitigate impacts, a Construction Traffic Management Plan and Construction Worker Parking Plan would be implemented.


109 November 2016

Table 23. Maximum Construction Trip Generation

Trip Type

Daily

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total

Worker Trips 38 8 0 8 0 8 8 Equipment/Delivery Trips 57 8 8 16 8 8 16 Total 95 16 8 24 8 16 24

The proposed project would involve the operation of a segment of a bike and pedestrian path and a bridge connecting to an existing bike path. The proposed project could generate trips from people driving to the site to access the pedestrian and bike path, but any increases would not be in quantities that would have a significant impact on circulation system capacity.

Congestion Management Program

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level-of-service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. LACMTA is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of major roadways in Los Angeles County through the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which comprises approximately 500 miles of freeways, 400 miles of state-maintained arterials, and 100 miles of locally maintained arterials. None of the roadways or intersections in the project vicinity are part of the CMP transportation network. Based on CMP guidelines, which specify that a traffic impact analysis is required when a project adds 50 or more trips to a CMP arterial or 150 or more trips to a freeway mainline during a weekday AM or PM peak hour, the project does not require a focused analysis and no CMP analysis was undertaken. Because construction and operation would be responsible for a low number of trips on CMP arterials or freeways, impacts would be less than significant.

Consistency with Alternative Transportation Plans

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project were to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. There are no bus stops located along Kerr Road; therefore, project construction would not require relocation of bus stops and there would be no impact on transit operations. Project construction would involve the temporary closure of the sidewalk on the north side of Kerr Road, but the sidewalk on the south side of Kerr Road would not be affected by construction activities, providing pedestrians with an alternative route. Impacts associated with the temporary sidewalk closure would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Operation of the


110 November 2016

proposed project would enhance alternative transportation facilities within the project area, and would be consistent with Mobility Plan 2035 and other general plan policies aimed at increasing use of non-motorized forms of transportation. No impact related to conflicts with alternative transportation plans would occur.

Air Traffic Patterns

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The proposed project would involve the implementation of a segment of a bike and pedestrian path and a bridge connecting to an existing bike path. Because the project site is not in proximity to any airport or helicopter landing pad and no project elements, or equipment needed to construct the project, are of a height capable of affecting air traffic patterns, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would alter air traffic patterns. No impact would occur.

Hazards Due to Design Features

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). All construction would occur at off-street locations, but may require the temporary use of Kerr Road to construct the bike path. Any use of the roadway by construction crews and equipment would be clearly demarcated to prevent hazards resulting from proximity to traffic. Equipment would be stored in the staging area such that no hazards to roadway users would be introduced. No impact would occur during the construction period. Project operation would allow for off-street bicycle and pedestrian travel parallel to Kerr Road and across the Los Angeles River. The project design would have zones for pedestrians and bike travel in each direction to reduce the risks of collisions. The proposed bikeway would cross the Metrolink run-through tracks that run parallel to the Los Angeles River. Metrolink uses the run-through tracks with low frequency and when the tracks are in use, Metrolink has indicated to the Bureau of Engineering their intent and ability to station a flag person at the crossing to ensure safe operation of the trains with the proposed bikeway. Additionally, signage making cyclists aware of the presence of the tracks will be included as a component of the project to prevent potential safety issues associated with bikes crossing train tracks. No substantial increase in hazards due to design features would occur as a result of project operation, and impacts would be less than significant.


111 November 2016

Emergency Access

A significant impact may occur if the proposed project would result in inadequate emergency access. The project site would remain accessible to emergency service providers via Kerr Road during the entirety of the construction period. The proposed bridge would be designed for bicycle and pedestrian use, but could also be used by emergency service vehicles in the event of an emergency. No impact related to emergency access would occur as a result of project implementation.

Q. Utilities and Service Systems

Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements

Construction activities and construction workers would not generate wastewater. Once operational, the proposed project would not generate any wastewater. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate wastewater that would exceed the LARWQCB’s wastewater treatment requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.

Require Construction of New Water or Wastewater Facilities

There would be no need to construct new water or wastewater treatment facilities to treat the proposed project. No impact would occur. Though no new water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required, the site work phase of construction would require the relocation of a LADWP water line. As discussed in the Project Description, the LADWP recycled water lines construction activities will consist of concrete cutting, excavating, placing segments of 16-inch water line, welding, slurry and/or dirt backfilling, compacting, and concrete resurfacing. Equipment utilized during the installation of the LADWP water lines will include concrete saws, front end loaders, slurry trucks, concrete trucks, compactors, loading trucks, and heavy duty trucks, welding tools, power tools. This phase of the work is expected to take three to four months. Impacts would still be less than significant as a result of the relocation.

Landfill Capacity

Construction of the proposed project would generate minor amounts of solid waste. Major landfills are defined as those facilities that receive more than 250,000 tons of solid waste per year. Given debris and solid waste generated by construction activities would be finite and limited to the construction periods, existing landfills have sufficient long-term permitted capacity to accommodate construction generated solid waste. Operation of the proposed project would also generate minor


112 November 2016

amounts of solid waste as a pedestrian-friendly thoroughfare. Of the Class III solid waste disposal facilities in Los Angeles County, Sunshine Canyon has the largest remaining capacity at 74.37 millions of tons (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 2012). Its estimated remaining life is 20 years. Adequate landfill capacity exists to accommodate project-generated waste. If disposal would occur at an off-site location, it would be disposed of in accordance with City of Los Angeles regulations. Therefore, through compliance with the applicable regulations, impacts on solid waste disposal needs would be less than significant.

R. Mandatory Findings of Significance Based on the foregoing, it has been determined that:

• Plant species that were observed within the study area are considered common within the study area vicinity. Wildlife species that were observed within the study area during field surveys are considered common to the general project vicinity. No known rare or endangered plants, animals, or habitats would be affected by the proposed project. Mitigation measures for biological resources would ensure that the project would comply with Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements for migratory birds and ensure safe removal and replanting of any trees or other possible habitats for native wildlife. The proposed project would have no adverse effect on historical resources. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the biological environment or affect cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

• The proposed project could have cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of probable future projects. It is assumed, however, that the proposed project and other related projects would implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air, hazardous materials, and noise impacts as well as impacts on biological resources and hydrology and water quality. As such, the proposed project would have less-than-significant cumulatively considerable impacts.


113 November 2016

• Because the proposed project would have less-than-significant cumulatively considerable impacts and would provide a public recreation benefit, it would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals

• The proposed project could result in temporary noise, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality impacts during construction that could adversely affect persons in the vicinity of construction sites or truck haul routes. Noise would be generated by construction equipment during the construction period. Construction activities would also generate air pollutants, though their levels would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Project construction could also disrupt biological habitat, affect hydrology and water quality, or release hazardous materials, particularly asbestos- and lead-containing materials. However, given that construction and grading activities would be temporary, and mitigation measures listed below in Section V would be implemented, these potential impacts would likely be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, the proposed project would provide a public recreation benefit by increasing interconnectivity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.


114 November 2016

V. MITIGATION MEASURES

The following summarizes the mitigation measures that, if incorporated into the proposed project, would reduce an effect to less than significant and briefly explains how each mitigation measure would reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.

Biological Resources

BIO-1: Construction limits will be clearly demarcated using highly visible barriers (such as silt fencing), which will be installed under the supervision of a qualified biologist prior to the commencement of work. Construction personnel will strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the project footprint, including designated staging areas, and routes of travel. The construction areas will consist of the minimal area necessary to complete the proposed project. The fencing will remain in place until the completion of all construction activities.

BIO-2: A qualified biological monitor will conduct construction monitoring during all vegetation removal, work within the Los Angeles River and ground-disturbing activities, such as staging and grading, for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat outside the project footprint and to survey for sensitive wildlife species. When vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities are not occurring, as-needed monitoring at the project site will occur. Monitoring logs, as appropriate depending on project activities, will be maintained for the duration of the construction activity.

BIO-3: All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, or any other such activities will occur in developed or designated non-sensitive upland habitat areas. The designated upland areas will be located to prevent runoff from any spills from entering waters of the U.S.

BIO-4: A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a soil erosion and sedimentation plan will be developed to minimize erosion and identify specific pollution prevention measures that will eliminate or control potential point and nonpoint pollution sources on-site during and following the project construction phase. The SWPPP will identify specific best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction to causing or contributing to any water quality standard exceedances. In addition, the SWPPP will contain provisions for changes to the plan such as alternative mechanisms, if necessary, during project design and/or construction to achieve the stated goals and performance standards.


115 November 2016

BIO-5: Trash will be stored in closed containers so that it is not readily accessible to scavengers and will be removed from the construction site on a daily basis.

BIO-6: Water quality shall be visually monitored by the biological monitor to ensure that no substantial increases in turbidity occur during construction.

BIO-7: All relevant natural resource permits and authorizations will be obtained from appropriate agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, CDFW) prior to the initiation of construction activities. Permit conditions contained within the permits and authorizations will be employed throughout the duration of the project.

BIO-8: Hydrologic connectivity will be maintained within drainages during the duration of construction. Brush, debris material, mud, silt, or other pollutants from construction activities will not be placed within drainages and will not be allowed to enter a flowing stream.

BIO-9: Dust control measures will be implemented by the contractor to reduce excessive dust emissions. Dust control measures will be carried out at least two times per day on all construction days, or more during windy or dry periods, and may include wetting work areas, the use of soil binders on dirt roads, and wetting or covering stockpiles.

BIO-10: No pets will be allowed in, or adjacent to, the project site.

BIO-11: Rodenticides, herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals that could potentially harm wildlife or native plants will not be used near or within the Los Angeles River.

BIO-12: Construction equipment will be cleaned of mud or other debris that may contain invasive plants and/or seeds and inspected to reduce the potential of spreading noxious weeds before mobilizing to the site and before leaving the site during the course of construction. The cleaning of equipment will occur at least 300 feet from environmentally sensitive area fencing.

BIO-13. All permanent impacts on wetland waters shall be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio through purchase of off-site mitigation credits through an agency approved mechanism.

BIO-14: A qualified biologist will conduct a focused plant survey for sensitive plant species with a potential to occur within the Proposed Project footprint.


116 November 2016

BIO-15: If sensitive plant species are observed within the Proposed Project footprint during the surveys, plants will be flagged and avoided to the greatest extent possible.

BIO-16: If sensitive plant species are observed within the Proposed Project footprint and impacts cannot be avoided, one of the following measures will be implemented at the discretion of the biologist:

• Healthy sensitive plant species suited for salvage and transplanting and young perennial woody shrubs will be salvaged and transplanted into suitable habitat outside the Proposed Project footprint.

• Seeds from sensitive annual plant species or other individuals that cannot be salvaged will be collected and dispersed into the Proposed Project footprint after construction and when no further ground disturbance is expected.

• If transplanting and seed collection are not possible, the contractor will salvage the top 4 inches of soil (topsoil), from vegetated areas within the disturbance area. The topsoil will be replaced or spread within adjacent habitat once construction is complete in that area.

BIO-17: Tree removal may cause direct injury or mortality to roosting bat. Many trees provide roosting habitat for foliage dwelling bat species or contain cavities, crevices, snags, and exfoliating bark which provide roosting for crevice dwelling species. As such, the following measures shall be implemented to avoid significant impacts on bat species:

1) A pre-construction survey for potential bat habitat shall be conducted prior to spring and before construction. Trees containing suitable bat habitat, as determined by a qualified bat expert, shall not be removed during the maternity season (April 15–August 31). Instead trees should be removed between September 1 and April 14 during times when evening/nighttime and daytime temperatures are above 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

2) If tree removal does occur, tree removal shall be conducted in a two-step process conducted over consecutive days and under the complete supervision and direction of a qualified bat biologist. In this two-step method, on Day 1, small branches and small limbs of the trees are removed which do not contain any potential bat habitat features such as cavities, snags, exfoliating bark. On the following day, Day 2, the remainder of the tree is removed. The disturbance caused on Day 1 and the alteration of the tree is assumed to cause enough disturbance to cause any bats roosting in the tree to abandon their roost on Night 1 so that removing the tree on Day 2 does not harm any bats.


117 November 2016

BIO-18: If construction commences during the bird breeding season, a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall occur within three days prior to construction activities by an experienced avian biologist. The survey will occur within all suitable nesting habitat within the project impact area and a 500-foot buffer. If nesting birds are found, an avoidance area will be established in consultation with the resource agencies as appropriate by a qualified biologist around the nest until a qualified avian biologist has determined that young have fledged or nesting activities have ceased. The project site will be re-surveyed if there is a lapse in construction activities for more than seven days during the bird breeding season.

BIO-19: No equipment or construction operations shall be stored in a manner which obstructs wildlife movement through the riverine habitat during non-operational construction hours. No equipment or machinery will be stored in the riverine habitat when not in use.

Archaeological Resources

ARCH-1: If cultural materials are discovered during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area should be diverted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the nature and significance of the find. If changes are made to the proposed project, additional survey would be required if the proposed changes include areas not previously surveyed.

Paleontological Resources

PALEO-1: If fossil materials are discovered during construction, all earth-moving activity within and around the immediate discovery area should be diverted until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If the qualified paleontologist determines that the discovery represents a potentially significant paleontological resource, additional investigations, possibly including fossil recovery, identification, preparation, and curation, and reporting, may be required to mitigate adverse impacts from project implementation. Construction shall not resume until the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented or the materials are determined to not require further investigation

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZ-1: Additional soil and groundwater monitoring and analysis.

A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared and submitted to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and approval. The SMP shall be implemented during excavation and grading activities in areas of potential soil contamination to ensure contaminated soil encountered is properly identified, removed, and disposed of off-site. The SMP shall include the following provisions:


118 November 2016

• A qualified environmental consultant shall be present during grading and excavation activities to monitor compliance with the SMP and to actively monitor the soil and excavations for evidence of contamination.

• Soil encountered during excavation or grading activities that appears to have been affected by hydrocarbons or other contamination shall be tested for potential contaminants and evaluated by a qualified environmental consultant prior to off-site disposal at a licensed facility.

• Soil determined to be contaminated shall be properly removed, handled, and transported to an appropriately licensed disposal facility, in accordance with the SMP.

In the event that groundwater is encountered during construction activities;

• The contractor shall seek the professional recommendation of a qualified environmental consultant specializing in the identification and handling of hazardous materials.

• Groundwater encountered during construction activities shall be tested for potential contaminants and evaluated by the environmental consultant prior to removal or discharge. Under the SWRCB’s NPDES General Permit; groundwater obtained during dewatering activities requires that it be sampled if it is to be discharged via surface waters.

• Groundwater determined to be contaminated shall be properly handled and disposed of at a licensed disposal facility per the consultant’s recommendations.

Hydrology and Water Quality

WQ-1: The city shall implement permanent best management practices for trash control, such as proper containment and disposal bins (secured and covered) for daily trash collection and removal. Other permanent BMPs may also include physical facilities such as “no dumping” stencils/tiles and signs, control features for trash. Best management practices shall be maintained for the duration of the project and maintenance efforts (including funding) shall be the responsibility of the applicant. A BMP maintenance plan shall be prepared by the applicant. Specifically, this BMP maintenance plan shall: (1) identify responsible parties for BMP funding and monitoring/maintenance efforts; and (2) describe all associated maintenance duties and frequencies and other pertinent information.

Noise

NOI-1: Prepare and Implement a Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise at Noise-Sensitive Land Uses.


119 November 2016

The project sponsor shall develop a noise control plan to reduce construction noise levels such that the ambient noise level is not exceeded by 5 dBA, as determined by a qualified acoustical consultant. The plan shall require the following:

• Construction contractors shall specify noise-reducing construction practices that will be employed to reduce noise from construction activities. The measures specified by the project sponsor shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Measures that can be used to limit noise include, but are not limited to, those listed below.

o Locating construction equipment as far as feasible from noise-sensitive uses.

o Requiring that all construction equipment powered by gasoline or diesel engines have sound control devices that are at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer and that all equipment be operated and maintained to minimize noise generation.

o Not idling inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods (i.e., more than two minutes).

o Prohibiting gasoline or diesel engines from having unmuffled exhaust systems.

o Using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment that has the potential to disturb nearby off-site land uses or where otherwise necessary to comply with City Code noise limits for receiving zones.

o Ensuring that equipment and trucks used for project construction utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible.

o Monitoring the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

• Construction activities shall be prohibited outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and national holidays. No construction activity shall occur at any time on Sundays. Construction personnel shall not be permitted on the project site (including laydown and storage areas), and material or equipment deliveries and collections shall not be permitted during the prohibited hours.

• All construction equipment used on the proposed project that is regulated for noise output by a local, state, or federal agency shall comply with such regulation while in the course of project activity and use on-site.

• All construction equipment shall be properly maintained. (Poor maintenance of equipment may cause excessive noise levels.)


120 November 2016

• The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety warning purposes only.

• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered (where feasible) to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, where feasible.

• Construction contractors shall be required to use “quiet” gasoline-powered compressors or electrically powered compressors and electric rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered forklifts for small lifting, where feasible.

• Stationary noise sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from nearby receptors as possible; they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary enclosures and shielded by barriers, to the extent feasible.

• Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of the equipment. (Careless or improper operation or inappropriate use of equipment can increase noise levels. Poor loading, unloading, excavation, and hauling techniques are examples of how a lack of adequate guidance and training may lead to increased noise levels.)

• Construction equipment shall be stored on the project site or designated laydown areas while in use, to the extent feasible. This will eliminate noise associated with repeated transportation of the equipment to and from the site.

• Prior to the issuance of the building permit, along with the submission of construction documents, the project sponsor shall submit to the Planning Department and Department of Building Inspection a list of measures for controlling noise and responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction noise. These measures shall include:

o Identification of measures that will be implemented to control construction noise.

o Identification of locations where it is infeasible to limit noise to be in compliance with applicable City standards.

o A procedure and phone numbers for notifying the Department of Building Inspection, the Department of Public Health, or the Police Department of complaints (during regular construction hours and off hours).


121 November 2016

o A sign posted on-site describing noise complaint procedures and a complaint hotline number that shall be answered at all times during construction.

o Designation of an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project.

o A plan for notification of neighboring residents and non-residential building managers within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of extreme noise-generating activities (defined as activities that generate noise levels of 90 dBA or greater) about the estimated duration of the activity and the associated control measures that will be implemented to reduce noise levels.


122 November 2016

VI. PREPARATION

ICF International

Chad Beckstrom, Project Manager Tamseel Mir, Deputy Project Manager Andrew Johnson, Planner Brittany Hoedemaker, Planner Rusty Whisman, Planner Shannon Crossen, Biologist Dennis Miller, Biologist Greg Hoisington, Biologist Stephen Bryne, Archaeologist Andrew Bursan, Architectural Historian Mario Barrera, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Specialist Laura Rocha, CPSWQ, QSD/QSP – Hydrology and Water Quality Specialist Jonathan Higginson, Noise Specialist Eric Moskus, Noise Specialist Elizabeth Scott, Noise Specialist Mark Robinson, Cultural Resources Specialist (Paleontology John Mathias, Editor

Fehr & Peers Netai Basu, Transportation and Traffic Amanda Heinke, Transportation and Traffic

iLanco Environmental LLC Lora Granovsky, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Ninyo & Moore Michael Rogers, Geology and Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Terry A Hayes Associates

Kevin Ferrier, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions


123 November 2016

VII. DETERMINATION - RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

A. Summary

The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project will support the Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP) goal of bringing residents back to the Los Angeles River. It also will support the City of Los Angeles’ commitment to invest in recycled water infrastructure. The proposed project will facilitate safe Los Angeles River crossings by pedestrians and cyclists. The project’s implementation will address community needs by constructing a pedestrian access system linking the communities of Elysian Valley and Cypress Park located east and west of Taylor Yard, thereby fulfilling the commitment of the 1992 Taylor Yard Rail Commuter Facility MOU between the LACTC, SCRRA, and the City. With implementation of mitigation measures, all impacts would be less than significant.

B. Recommended Environmental Documentation

On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Prepared By: ____________________

Chad Beckstrom ICF International Approved By: ____________________ name title By: ____________________ name title


124 November 2016

VIII. REFERENCES

The following sources were used in the preparation of this document.

Project Description

1. Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. http://boe.lacity.org/lariverrmp/CommunityOutreach/pdf/LARRMP_Final_05_03_07.pdf Accessed October 14, 2016

Paleontology 1. City of Los Angeles, 2015. Geotechnical Engineering Report Taylor Yard

Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River, June 9, 2015.

2. McLeod, Samuel 2016. Letter report: Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Taylor Yard Pedestrian Bridge Project, in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County project area. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section. Prepared for ICF, 14 March 2016.

Archaeology 1. Bean, L. J., and C. R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In Handbook of North

American Indians, Vol. 8, California, R. F. Heizer (ed.), pp. 538–549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

2. Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215–227. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

3. City of Los Angeles. 2015. Geotechnical Engineering Report Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge over the Los Angeles River. City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering Group.

4. Dibblee, Thomas W. Jr. 1989. Geologic Map of the Los Angeles Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, #DF-22.

5. Dillon, B. D. 1994. Alameda District Plan, Los Angeles, California: Prehistoric and Early Historic Archaeological Research. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University–Fullerton.

6. Erlandson, J. M., and R. H. Colten. 1991. An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies on the California Coast. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 1–10. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California–Los Angeles.


125 November 2016

7. Fagan, B. M. 2003. Before California. Altamira Press, New York.

8. Gumbrecht, Blake. 2001. The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death and Possible Rebirth. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

9. Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbooks of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley, California.

10. McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press, Banning, California and Ballena Press, Novato, California.

11. Miller, Bruce W. 1991. The Gabrielino. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California.

12. Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

13. Morrison, Pat, and Mark Lamonica. 2001. Rio LA. Angel City Press, Santa Monica, California.

14. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2016. Rio de Los Angeles State Park State Recreation Area. Available: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=22277. Accessed: August 2016.

15. The River Project. 2016. Taylor Yard Rio de Los Angeles State Park. Available: http://www.theriverproject.org/projects/taylor-yard-rio-de-los-angeles-state-park. Accessed: August 2016.

16. Wallace, W. J. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W. C. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Geology and Soils 1. The California Seismic Safety Commission. 2005. Homeowner’s Guide to

Earthquake Safety. Available:<http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf>. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. San Fernando Valley

(area 4 Pollock). Available:<https://yosemite.epa.gov/r9/sfund/r9sfdocw.nsf/vwsoalphabetic/San+Fernando+Valley+(Area+4+Pollock)?OpenDocument>. Accessed: September 19, 2016.


126 November 2016

2. County of Los Angeles. 1998. Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan. Available:<http://lacoa.org/PDF/ OA%20ERP.pdf>. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

3. CAL FIRE. 2011. Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones in LRA – Los Angeles County. Available:<http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/ maps/los_angeles/LosAngelesCounty.pdf >. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

4. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2009. Airports – Los Angeles County. Available:<http://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc/airports#anc-apm >. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

5. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2013. General NPDES Permit No. CAG994004 Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Available:<http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb4/board_decisions/tentative_orders/general/npdes/cag994004a/Dewatering%20Permit%20Tentative.pdf>. Accessed: September 20, 2016.

Hydrology and Water Quality 1. City of Los Angeles, 1996. Safety Element of the Los Angeles City General

Plan, November 26, 1996.

2. City of Los Angeles, 2015. Geotechnical Engineering Report Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River, June 9, 2015.

3. Department of Water Resources, 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, San Fernando Groundwater Valley Groundwater Basin, February 27, 2004. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/4-12.pdf; accessed February 25, 2016.

4. Department of Water Resources, 2013. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, Map of Alluvial Groundwater Basins and Subbasins within the South Coast Hydrologic Region, 2013. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/ maps/SC.pdf; accessed February 25, 2016.

5. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Maps 06037C1626F and 06037C1628F, https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=elysian%20reservoir#searchresultsanchor; accessed February 25, 2016.

6. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2007. Los Angeles River Watershed Area Map, August 22, 2007. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/ watershed/la/docs/lariver_wtrshed.pdf; accessed February 25, 2016.


127 November 2016

7. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, 2016. Los Angeles River Watershed Webpage, February 25, 2016. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/watershed/la/; accessed February 25, 2016.

8. Los Angeles County Enterprise GIS, Flood Zones and Storm Drains, http://egisgcx.isd.lacounty.gov/slv/?Viewer=GISViewer; accessed February 25, 2016.

9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 2016. “What is a seiche?” Revised July 25, 2014. Accessed at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seiche.html on March 1, 2016.

10. SWRCB, 2011. 2010 Integrated Report, Impaired Water Bodies Map website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml; accessed February 25, 2016.

11. SWRCB, 2012. Construction General Permit 2012-0006-DWQ http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/constpermits/wqo_2009_0009_complete.pdf; accessed February 26, 2016.

12. SWRCB, 2015. Fact Sheet Control of Trash Entering Waterways in California, April 8, 2015. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/publications_forms/publications/factsheets/docs/trash_fs.pdf; accessed February 29, 2016.

13. SWRCB, 2016. Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Trash Website. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/; accessed February 29, 2016.

14. Tetra Tech, 2015. Proposed Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Hydraulic Memorandum, September 15, 2015.

Transportation/Traffic 1. Fehr & Peers. 2016. Memorandum: Construction Traffic Impact Analysis for

the Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge. September 15.

2. City of Los Angeles. 2016. Mobility Plan 2035. Available: <http://planning.lacity.org/documents/policy/mobilityplnmemo.PDF>. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

3. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 2010. 2010 Congestion Management Program. Available: <http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/cmp/images/CMP_Final_2010.pdf>. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

CEQA Initial Study A-‐1 November 2016

APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING CHECKLIST

Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

1. AESTHETICS – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Comment: See the discussion in Section A.1 of the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND).

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section A.1 and A.2; City of Los Angeles Silverlake-Echo Park-Elysian Park Community Plan

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

Comment: See the discussion in Section A.1 of the IS/MND.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section A.1 and A.2 California Department of Transportation. 2011. Scenic Highway Routes, Los Angeles County. Available: <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm>. Accessed: April 2016.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?


Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section A.1 and A.2

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?


Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section A.4

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Comment: The project site is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as designated on the maps prepared for the California State Department Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Reference: Reference: California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx); City of Los Angeles General Plan Conservation Element; Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS).

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Comment: No land on or near the project site is zoned for or contains agricultural uses. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles does not participate in the Williamson Act.

TAYLOR YARD BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT PUBLIC WORKS – BUREAU OF ENGINEERING APPENDIX A


Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Reference: California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

website (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx); City of Los Angeles General Plan Conservation Element, Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS).

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

Comment: The project site is zoned Public Facilities in the River Improvement Overlay (RIO) District. No forest land or timberland exists within or surrounding the project area.

Reference: City of Los Angeles Zone Information Map Access System (ZIMAS) (http://zimas.lacity.org/documents/zoneinfo/ZI2358.pdf)

d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non-forest use?

Comment: No forest land exists at the project site or the surrounding area.

Reference: City of Los Angeles General Plan.

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Comment: No farmland exists at the project site, and thus no conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use will occur under the project.

Reference: California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

website (http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/Pages/Index.aspx); City of Los Angeles General

Plan Conservation Element; Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS).

3. AIR QUALITY – Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Comment: See discussion in Section C.1 of the IS/MND.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Sections B.1, B.2, B.3)

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?



c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?


Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Sections B.1 and B.2)



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?



e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?


Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section B.2)

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Comment: See the discussion in Section D1 through D3 in the IS/MND.

Reference: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rare Find Database, California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered plants), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation tool, City of Los Angeles General Plan, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section C).

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Comment: See the discussion in Section D1 and D2 in the IS/MND.

Reference: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rare Find Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation tool, City of Los Angeles General Plan, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section C).

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Comment: See the discussion in Section D1 and D2 in the IS/MND.

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section C).

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Comment: See the discussion in Section D4 in the IS/MND.

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section C).



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Comment: See the discussion in Section D5 in the IS/MND.

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section C), City of Los Angeles Tree Protection Ordinance, Los Angeles County Native Tree Protection Ordinance.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Comment: See the discussion in Section D in the IS/MND.

Reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation tool, City of Los Angeles General Plan, L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section C).

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5?

Comment: See the discussion in Section E1 in the IS/MND.

Reference:

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5?

Comment: No archaeological resources were identified in the project footprint. See the discussion in Section E2 in the IS/MND.

Reference: Archaeological Survey and Paleontological Assessment Report Taylor Yard Bikeway and Pedestrian Bridge, Los Angeles County, California (ICF 2016)

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?



d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?





Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

Comment: The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Zone.

Reference: Geotechnical Engineering Report, Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River, Adjacent to 2331 Dorris Place, Los Angeles California (June 2015) prepared by the Geotechnical Engineering Group of the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Bureau of Engineering and the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge (May 2016) prepared by Ninyo & Moore.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Comment: See the discussion in Section F1b in the IS/MND.

Reference: The California Seismic Safety Commission. 2005. Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety. Available:< http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf>. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Comment: See the discussion in Section F1c in the IS/MND.


iv) Landslides? Comment: The project is not located in an area susceptible to landslides.


b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Comment: See the discussion in Section F2 in the IS/MND.

Reference: State Water Resources Control Board Construction Storm Water Program – Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Comment: See the discussion in Section F3 in the IS/MND.


d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Comment: See the discussion in Section F4in the IS/MND.

Reference:

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Comment: No septic tanks are proposed as part of the project.

Reference: None applicable.

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Comment: See the discussion in Section G1 in the IS/MND.

Reference: SCAQMD Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources (2008b).

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Comment: See the discussion in Section G2 in the IS/MND.

Reference: CARB First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan (2014).

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the

routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Comment: See the discussion in Section H1 in the IS/MND

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?


Reference: Phase I Limited Hazardous Material Assessment Taylor Yard Bikeway and Pedestrian Bridge, Ninyo & Moore, May 26, 2016 and the EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck (Inquiry 4530648.2s), Environmental Data Resources Inc., February 4, 2016. State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor websites.



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?



d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?



e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Comment: The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Reference: Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2009. Airports – Los Angeles County. Available:<http://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc/airports#anc-apm >. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

Comment: The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip

Reference: Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission. 2009. Airports – Los Angeles County. Available:<http://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc/airports#anc-apm >. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?


Reference: Los Angeles County Operational Area Emergency Response Plan, County of Los Angeles 1998.

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Comment: The proposed project is not located within an area susceptible to wildland fires.



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Reference: CAL FIRE. 2011. Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones in LRA – Los Angeles County. Available:<http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/los_angeles/LosAngelesCounty.pdf >. Accessed: September 19, 2016.

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Comment: See the discussion in Section I.1 of the IS/MND.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section G.2)

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Comment: See the discussion in Section I.2 of the IS/MND.


c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?


Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section G.1 and G.2)

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?



e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?



f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Comment: See the discussion in Section I.1 of the IS/MND.


g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Comment: The proposed project does not include the construction of housing and therefore, no impact would occur and no mitigation is required.

Reference:

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?


Reference:

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?


Reference:

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Comment: See the discussion in Section I.5 of the IS/MND.

Reference:

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?

Comment: The project would not divide an established community. Rather, the project aims to connect the communities located east and west of Taylor Yard.

Reference: City of Los Angeles General Plan; Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan; LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section H.2).

b) 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?

Comment: The proposed project would not conflict with the City of Los Angeles General Plan, the Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan, or the Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan, nor would it conflict with any zoning ordinance. See discussion in Section J1 of the IS/MND.

Reference: City of Los Angeles General Plan, Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan, Zone Information & Map Access System (ZIMAS), Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan. LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section H.1 and H.2).

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Comment: The proposed project would not be located with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. See discussion in Section J2 of the IS/MND.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (Section H.1 and H.2).



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

11. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

Comment: See the discussion in Section K1.

Reference: City of Los Angeles General Plan; County of Los Angeles General Plan (http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_2035_2014-FIG_9-6_mineral_resources.pdf). http://planning.lacity.org/cwd/gnlpln/ConsvElt.pdf

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Comment: See the discussion in Section K1.

Reference: Silver Lake-Echo Park-Elysian Valley Community Plan (http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/pdf/SlkCPTXT.pdf)

12. NOISE – Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Comment: Refer to the Analysis in Section L.4.a

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, City of Los Angeles, 2006.

Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf>. January. Washington, DC

Google Earth Pro, Accessed September 2016

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

Comment: Refer to the Analysis in Section L.4.b

Reference:


Caltrans. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tcvgm_sep13_verb.pdf. Accessed: September 6, 2016.

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

Comment: Refer to the Analysis in Section L.4.c



d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Comment: Refer to the Analysis in Section L.4.d


Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Available: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf>. January. Washington, DC


e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Comment: Refer to the Analysis in Section L.4.e



f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Comment: Refer to the Analysis in Section L.4.f

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide


13. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Comment: The proposed project would include the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the Los Angeles River and a bike and pedestrian path along Kerr Road. Although the proposed project would introduce new infrastructure, it is not expected to result in population growth. No homes or businesses would be constructed under the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly increase the project area’s population.

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide J. 1

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Comment: As described above in Item 13 (a), no housing is located on the project site. No housing would be displaced by project implementation.

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide J.1 and J.2

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Comment: The proposed project would not displace any persons or create a need for housing elsewhere as no people or housing are located on the project site.



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Reference: L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide J.1 and J.2

14. PUBLIC SERVICES –

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

i) Fire protection? Comment: See the discussion in Section N1 in the IS/MND.

Reference: Los Angeles Fire Department. 2016. Central Bureau. Available: <http://www.lafd.org/about/central-bureau>. Accessed: April 2016. LA CEQA Thresholds Guide (SectionK.2)

ii) Police protection? Comment: See the discussion in Section N1 in the IS/MND.

Reference: Los Angeles Police Department. 2016. About Northeast. Available: <http://www.lapdonline.org/northeast_community_police_station/content_basic_view/1694>. Accessed: April 2106.

iii) Schools? Comment: See the discussion in Section N2 in the IS/MND.

Reference: N/A

iv) Parks? Comment: See the discussion for Section N3 in the IS/MND.

Reference: N/A

v) Other public facilities? Comment: See the discussion for Section N4 in the IS/MND.

Reference: N/A

15. RECREATION –

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Comment: See the discussion in Section O1.

Reference: Google Earth Pro, 2016.



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Comment: See the discussion in Section O1.

Reference: N/A

16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC – Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersection, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Comment: See the discussion in Section P1 and P3.

Reference: Fehr & Peers, 2016

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Comment: See the discussion in Sections P1 and P2.

Reference: LACMTA, 2010; City of Los Angeles, 2016.

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?

Comment: See the discussion in Section P4.

Reference:

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?


Reference:

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Comment: See the discussion in Section P6.

Reference:

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?


Reference: City of Los Angeles, 2016.



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Comment: See the discussion in Section Q1 in this IS/MND.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section M.2, LA City Sanitation. 2016. Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant. Available: <https://www.lacitysan.org/san/faces/home/portal/s-lsh-wwd/s-lsh-wwd-cw/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p/s-lsh-wwd-cw-p-hwrp?_adf.ctrl-state=n1u9m5sw_197&_afrLoop=23094320667043708#!>. Accessed: April 2016.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Comment: Comment: See the discussion in Section Q2 in this IS/MND.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section M.1 and M.2

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Comment: The proposed project would not dramatically increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the project area. Though impervious surfaces would be added by the bridge deck and minor amounts of runoff would be discharged into the Los Angeles River channel, the project would not require new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities. A less-than-significant impact would occur.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section M.2

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Comment: Existing water entitlements for the project site remain in effect. Construction activities and construction workers would require water, however, this would be relatively small. As such, existing water entitlements that serve the site and surrounding area would be adequate to serve the project’s construction water needs. Proposed water needs during operation would be negligible. A less-than-significant impact would occur.


e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Comment: As described above for items (a) and (b), the HTP has adequate capacity to treat the minor wastewater flows from the project site. A less-than-significant impact would occur.


f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Comment: See the discussion in Q3 in this IS/MND.



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Reference: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 2012. 2012 Annual Report: Los Angeles Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Available: <https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/reports/previews/Report%2039.pdf>. Accessed: April 2016. LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section M.3

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Comment: The project would be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, ordinances, and formally adopted standards. Disposal of all solid waste generated by the proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as the City of Los Angeles Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Ordinance, Industrial Waste Control Ordinance of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, and the City of Los Angeles Sewer Allocation, amongst others. Impacts would be less than significant.

Reference: LA CEQA Thresholds Guide Section L

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE --

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Comment: Plant species that were observed within the study area are considered common within the study area vicinity. Wildlife species that were observed within the study area during field surveys are considered common to the general project vicinity. No known rare or endangered plants, animals, or habitats would be affected by the proposed project. Mitigation measures for biological resources would ensure that the project would comply with Migratory Bird Treaty Act requirements for migratory birds and ensure safe removal and replanting of any trees or other possible habitats for native wildlife. The proposed project would have no adverse effect on historical resources. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the biological environment or affect cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Reference: Preceding analysis.

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?



Issues

Pot

entia

lly

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

ct

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t W

ith

Miti

gatio

n

Less

than

S

igni

fican

t

No

Impa

ct

Comment: The proposed project could have cumulatively considerable impacts related to noise, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of probable future projects. It is assumed, however, that the proposed project and other related projects would implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction-related air, hazardous materials, and noise impacts as well as impacts on biological resources and hydrology and water quality. As such, the proposed project would have less-than-significant cumulatively considerable impacts. Reference: Preceding analysis.

c) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

Comment: Because the proposed project would have less-than-significant cumulatively considerable impacts and would provide a public recreation benefit, it would not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals.

Reference: Preceding analysis.

d) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Comment: The proposed project could result in temporary noise, air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality impacts during construction that could adversely affect persons in the vicinity of construction sites or truck haul routes. Noise would be generated by construction equipment during the construction period. Construction activities would also generate air pollutants, though their levels would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Project construction could also disrupt biological habitat, affect hydrology and water quality, or release hazardous materials, particularly asbestos- and lead-containing materials. However, given that construction and grading activities would be temporary, and mitigation measures listed below in Section V would be implemented, these potential impacts would likely be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, the proposed project would provide a public recreation benefit by increasing interconnectivity. Therefore, the proposed project would not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Reference: Preceding analysis.

Documents

Taylor Yard Bikeway/Pedestrian Bridge Over the Los Angeles River … · 2019. 9. 1. · the proposed bridge. Additionally, a two-way bike path and pedestrian path would be developed