The city makes it hard to access the DEIR pdfs, so they've been compiled here to make it easier to save &/or view them. Right-click (ctrl-click on mac) any link and save the file to your computer—especially for large files it is easier to view them this way than over the web (which is likely to be sluggish).
DEIR Abode at Glassell Park Compiled Sections (373 pages) - 94.5MB
This is the text of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
Below are the appendices related to the DEIR:
Appendix Cover Vol I (project description)
Appendix Cover Vol II (this page, other than the title, is identical to the page above ... error?)
Appendix A-1 - Initial Study (53 pages)
Among other things, this report mentions a total export haul of 13,251 cubic yards (soil, plant matter, other materials to be removed from the site). All of this will have to be removed down just a few narrow connecting streets. It also indicates that the determination was made by the lead agency upon completion of initial evaluation that "the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required". This is different than what the developers said (that it was voluntary) at the 1/28/17 community meeting.
Appendix A-2 - Notice of Preparation (6 pages)
Appendix A-3 - Comments Received in Response to the Notice of Preparation (763 pages)
This document contains all the feedback from community members and advocacy organizations that the city has received about the Abode Project. It is not well-organized and while it is composed primarily of letters from the community, it contains within it, at seemingly random places, letters from NPOs and Gov't Agencies, so here's a partial index:
(1) Letters requesting a full EIR that many of us sent are reproduced here, which were sent to Ms. Diana Kitching, Planning Associate / Major Projects & Environmental Analysis Section / City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning.
(2) Starting on page 5, a letter from the State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish & Wildlife, wherein it recommends leaving the Walnut Woodland intact, says that short of that, at least leave several acres undisturbed, and short of that, mitigation must include replacement at a 15:1 ratio because of the delicate nature of Walnuts! This is different than what the developer said at their meeting (1/28/17). The letter contains feedback on other aspects of the development that are relevant to mitigation concerns. It is followed by more letters from the community.
(3) Starting on page 308 is a spreadsheet which lists (some of?) the community members (yes, and their contact info) who sent letters. It cannot possibly be everyone, or this document would not be 763 pages long! This is followed by more letters from the community.
(4) Starting on page 598 is the "Ecological Assessment of Open Space Remnants in Northeastern Los Angeles", prepared by Daniel S. Cooper (Cooper Ecological Monitoring, Inc) for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority which details the unique biodiversity of this area and NELA's vital role as a link in the watershed between the San Gabriel Mountains and the LA River.
(5) Starting on page 649 are some photos where some trees have been illegally cut down (no document to explain them is adjacent to the photos) and is followed by more letters from the community.
(6) Starting on page 681 is a letter sent from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (which mentions their requirements for mitigation measures related to air quality disturbances which may be caused during construction). This is followed by more letters from the community.
(7) On page 717 is an adorable photo of a momma coyote with her little babies (presumably sent in by someone who saw this in their backyard). Followed by more letters from the community.
Appendix B - AQ (Air Quality) and GHG Modeling (59 pages)
Appendix C-1 - Biological Resources Report (27 pages)
On page 13 of the pdf (listed as page 12/19 on the page itself), this report mentions the existence of other sycamore riparian woodland within a 5-mile radius (which, b/c of the lack of drought tolerance of sycamore is likely to be indicative of existence of other natural springs in the area).
Appendix C-2 - Nesting Bird Survey (5 pages)
Appendix C-3 - Rare Plant Survey (6 pages)
Appendix C-4 - Tree Report (133 pages)
From the executive summary: "Of the 218 trees inventoried for this report, we found 168 ‘protected’ trees (160 Southern California black walnuts; 7 coast live oaks; 1 western sycamore) and 50 ‘significant’ trees (various species). Implementation of the project would result in the removal of 129 ‘protected’ trees and 39 ‘significant’ trees". It includes a copy of the city's protected trees ordinance, which includes (pages 128-129) the following language: SEC. 46.06. WITHHOLDING OR REVOCATION OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR ILLEGAL REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF PROTECTED TREES. (a) The Bureau of Street Services, after notice and hearing pursuant to Subsections (b) and (c) of this section, shall have the authority to request the Superintendent of Building to withhold issuance of building permits, except for permits that are necessary to comply with a Department of Building and Safety order, for a period of time up to a maximum of ten years as requested by the Bureau and to revoke any building permit issued for which construction has not commenced with respect to any property on which any protected tree has been removed or relocated in violation of Section 46.00 of this Code.
Appendix C-5 - Habitat Quality Analysis (6 pages)
This report contains the following language "The site is over two miles from the nearest sensitive ecological area. Due to the site’s isolation, it does not serve as a wildlife connectivity feature to adjacent wildlands. This reduces the site’s value to wildlife species" — does this seem like an accurate statement? How does this compare to the information received from the agencies who sent letters to the city (Department of Fish & Wildlife, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority)?
Appendix C-6 - Fuel Modification Memo (4 pages)
Appendix D-1 - Archaeological Survey (54 pages)
This report mentions that "exposed bedrock of the Monterey Formation at or near the surface indicates that archaeological sensitivity is low in the Project area"; however, community members have recounted experiences of finding arrowheads and other artifacts
Appendix D-2 - Paleontological Resources Letter Report (4 pages)
Appendix D-3 - Request for Historical & Archaeological Information (4 pages)
Appendix D-4 - Letter reflecting lack of records at Natural History Museum related to Walnut Canyon (3 pages)
Appendix E - Geotechnical Report (287 pages)
From the summary: "The review of the preliminary architectural plans indicates that implementation of the proposed improvements will require grading of the existing unpaved streets, as well as the subject properties. In addition, the development of the lots will require construction of retaining walls up to approximately twenty-three (23) feet in height. A plot plan indicating the locations of the existing and proposed improvements is presented on Figure A-2 in Appendix A [page 34 of pdf] of this report."
Appendix F - Hydrology Study (119 pages)
This study indicates that the storm runoff created by all the new paving & impermeable surfaces will have to connect to old, small, existing storm drains that serve houses on the Eastern side of Division St (downhill from Walnut Canyon). Specifically (as seen starting on page 116), it will either utilize (or will they need to improve?) storm drains at the following addresses: 3877 Division St, 3863 Division St, 3819 Division St, and 3815 Division St.
Appendix G - Noise Modeling (32 pages)
This report seems to focus (only?) on the 4 houses in extreme proximity to the proposed Abode development, and those are the houses at the following addresses: 3957 Brilliant Dr, 3829 Division St, 2421 Sundown Dr, and 2438 Haverhill Dr, and includes not only mention of noise, but also dust settling in/on these houses and the potential for mudslides into these homes after the uphill areas are de-vegetated. It only briefly mentions "motorized landscaping tool noise funneling through the local valleys".