3.0 Responses to Comments
Plan area today are, in fact, either utilized for public housing or rental units restricted to low and very-low income families and seniors for 55 years. 27-35 The comment expresses concern about the Plan’s impact on overcrowding yet the comment provides no facts to back up its assertion that overcrowding is already a problem. The Plan, by facilitating and encouraging the development of additional housing within the Plan area, would increase the supply of housing, and therefore reduce the potential for overcrowded conditions. 27-36 The comment states that the Original DEIR fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the Proposed Alternative on the Project Area’s jobs-housing balance but provides no facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of its position. 27-37 The comment disputes the conclusion that the Proposed Alternative will accommodate the creation of local jobs appropriate to its growing population. In particular, it claims that the Proposed Alternative “does not specify whether... jobs will be manufacturing, commercial, retail, or some kind of secondary or tertiary category of jobs, or if they will be temporary construction jobs.” However, the Original DEIR explicitly states, “Retail and commercial businesses, along with custom manufacturing and light industrial uses, are accommodated in the Proposed Alternative” (p. 13-20). The comment also notes the lack of discussion concerning green jobs. The character and suitability of anticipated employment growth are not environmental impacts that require analysis in an EIR under CEQA. Nevertheless, the commenters’ concerns are noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration in taking action on the Proposed Alternative. 27-38 The comment expresses the concern that new residents of the Project Area may work jobs others than those created by the Proposed Alternative, leading to increased vehicle travel and attendant environmental impacts. The Proposed Alternative encourages the development of mixed uses and a diverse employment base. It is anticipated that many new residents of the Project Area could take advantage of proximity to workplaces in the Specific Plan area, while others could work in jobs rich centers such as Downtown Los Angeles, Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center, or other adjacent jobs centers that lack sufficient housing to accommodate anticipated future demand. As noted in Table 2-2 on page 2-13 of the Original DEIR, the current number of jobs in the Project Area is 6,791, and the current number of dwelling units is 1,266, a ratio of 5.36 jobs per dwelling unit, representing a significant existing jobs/housing imbalance. The Proposed Alternative is anticipated to have 10,546 jobs, and 8,776 dwelling units, a ratio of 1.20 jobs per dwelling unit, bringing the jobs/housing ratio into a closer balance. The comment incorrectly states that the Project would lead to a “housing-jobs imbalance.” The Project will address a significant existing jobs/housing imbalance: therefore, the impacts detailed in the comment (traffic, air quality, etc.) would not be 3-40
Cornfield Arroyo Seco Specific Plan FEIR