Council approves revised Cornfield/Chinatown Yards site plan after heated public debate; opponents press for full EIR

The Los Angeles City Council voted to approve a site plan for the Cornfield/Chinatown Yards project after adopting amendments intended to tighten construction schedules, mitigation measures and protections for cultural resources. The decision followed a lengthy public hearing in which neighborhood groups, environmental and civil-rights advocates, and park-rights supporters urged the council to require a full environmental impact report (EIR) and to consider park or mixed-use alternatives.

After procedural motions, a substitute motion by Councilmember Wax to require broader changes failed (2 ayes, 9 noes). Councilmember Hernandez's amending motion, which added conditions including more stringent mitigation, reporting, and cultural-resource protections, was approved (amendment 11 ayes), and Hernandez's primary motion as amended passed 9 ayes, 2 noes.

Speakers opposing the project urged an EIR and raised air-quality, traffic, school-safety and environmental-justice concerns. Nancy Smith of the Committee for Safe Children said traffic and air-quality mitigation were inadequate and highlighted a study mislocating Ann Street Elementary, asserting the project would route truck traffic adjacent to the school: "How can we trust the rest of this?" she asked. Todd Campbell of the Coalition for Clean Air and attorneys representing a Chinatown coalition said diesel-truck emissions required full CEQA review; Campbell noted past cases where diesel impacts extended for miles and exceeded thresholds.

Supporters, including Majestic Realty representatives and some Chinatown and business leaders, said the project had been reviewed by planning staff and the Central Area Planning Commission and argued the mitigated negative declaration (MND) and roughly 100 mitigation measures were adequate. Majestic spokesman William Delvack said the project had archaeological mitigation worked out with the state office of historic preservation and argued the impacts were addressed in the MND.

Councilmembers were divided on broader planning strategy. Councilmember Watts moved to deny the project and require a full EIR; that motion did not secure enough votes. Councilmember Ridley Thomas and others emphasized that Hernandez had negotiated significant conditions and that the site is zoned for industrial use; supporters of the amended approval said the action aimed to balance job creation in an empowerment zone with neighborhood protections. Several council members noted a desire for more parkland in the region but said the current parcel has industrial zoning and that the site plan review process was the procedural vehicle before the council.

After the vote, Majestic's vice president, John Simkin, told the council the company would "voluntarily accept the mitigations that Councilmember Hernandez has put forth," a point staff and some council members noted in closing.

The council also debated procedural questions tied to the new charter rules for when the council sits in place of the area planning commission; staff and the city attorney were asked to clarify procedural vote thresholds. The meeting later lost a quorum before the city attorney's final procedural memorandum could be read into the record.

The vote record: substitute to require EIR (Wax) failed 2-9; amendment to Hernandez motion passed 11-0 (recorded as 11 ayes); Hernandez motion as amended passed 9-2.

Opponents said they will continue to press for an EIR and to use administrative and legal avenues to seek further review; proponents said the amended conditions and ongoing review would reduce impacts while preserving job opportunities in the empowerment zone.