Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout84-695 . Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 1 of 354 -ry .y ORDINANCE NO. 84-695 �e AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CARSON ADOPTING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS THE OFFICIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council < ; with respect to Redevelopment Project No. 3 (the "Project Area" ) 3 of the Carson Redevelopment Agency are to eliminate the conditions of blight existing in the Project Area and to prevent their recurrence by undertaking all appropriate redevelopment projects pursuant _ i to the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety "j Code Section 33000, et seq. (the "Law") . Section 2. The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3 (the "Redevelopment Plan") , attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to the staff report, is incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. Based upon the record of the joint public - hearing held on the Redevelopment Plan, the various reports and other information provided to the City Council , the City Council hereby finds and determines that: 'I A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Law, B. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the area in conformity with the Law and in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 1 D. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Carson, E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Carson and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the Law. F. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions `7 have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. G. Although the Carson Redevelopment Agency does not � intend to displace any families or persons from the Project Area, the Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons which may be displaced from the Project Area if the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent EXHIBIT 5 displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project r' � Area j 1 H. Although the Carson Redevelopment Agency does not intend to displace any families or persons from the Project Area, there are or are being provided in the Project Area or in other i areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent; safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families ; R and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. I. The inclusion in the Project Area of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment a of the area of which they are a part; any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its inclusion. J. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Carson Redevelopment Agency. Section 4. Based upon the record of such joint public hearing and the various reports and other information provided to the City Council , although the Agency does not intend to displace any families or persons in the Project Area, the City Council is satisfied permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time occupants of the Project Area may be displaced and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to such occupants who may be displaced adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Section 5. Based upon the record of such joint public f hearing and the various reports and other information provided to the City Council , the City Council is convinced that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a severe financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. Page 2 of 309 Y _ u- �"K Section 6. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby approved and adopted and is hereby designated as. the Official Redevelopment Plan of the Project Area. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 16th day of July , 1984! Mayor Pro tempor ATTEST: City Cl er i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF CARSON ) a I, Helen S. Kawagoe, City Clerk of the City of Carson, California do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing ordinance, being Ordinance No. 84-695 passed first reading on ' July 9, 1984, was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 16th day of July, 1984, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DeWitt, Egan, Mills, and Muise NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Calas City Clerk, City of Carson California E 7 f S 3 { R { $p 5 i Page 3 of 309 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 4 of 354 CITY ---- atr on O� �.ceru r rt-'.+r.n Sf LCIAL UCi S Of TLE UAY F CA -- - -- - rr; JULY 9, 1924 RJOI� 1 REPORT TO REDEVELOKPIENT AGENCY CHAIRPVIAN AND DIRECTORS SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CREATION Of REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 SUBMiTrcD Br...Patri cia Nemeth, AICP APPROVED BY: Community Development Director ExecunveDwecTU.; I. SUMMARY See City Council Agenda. r Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 5 of 354 r i t CITY _ SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AGENDA ITEM NO . ... ... CAR pp OF q� " JULY 9, 1984 I CAR S O i V --- - _ MEETING DATE REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL i SUBJECT JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CREATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 suaMITTEDar Patricia Nemeth, AICP � � APPROVED BY. G . ........... Community Development Director CITY ADMINISTRATOR I. SUMMARY With direction from the City Council and Redevelopment Agency, staff has been working to effect the creation of Redevelopment Project No. 3. In accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law, the holding l of a joint public hearing and the preparation of several reports are re- quired. This agenda package includes an Environmental Impact Report which was pre- pared by The Arroyo Group in accordance with the Redevelopment Law and CEQA (Section of Exhibit 1), This agenda package also includes the report required I by Section 33352 of the Redevelopment Law which includes, among other things, { an assessment of blight, a description of the social , economic, and physical conditions in the area, and a summary of Planning Commission actions, neighbor- hood impacts and financing methods (Exhibit 1). Finally, this agenda package includes the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3 (Exhibit 2). II, RECOMMENDATION 1) That the City Council and Agency review the information contained in the attached E I_R,Report Required by Section 33352 of the Redevelopment Law, and the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3 (Exhibits 1 and 2); 2) that the Agency and City Council gear any Dublic testimony on the EIR and Redevelopment Plananand ttc procedures followed in their preparation, review, and adoption; 3) that the Agency and City Council respond to and consider any objections to the EIR and Redevelopment Plan and the procedures followed in their preparation, review, and adoption; 4) that the Agency adopt Resolution 84-42 (Exhibit 3) making environmental findings, approving the 33352 Report, approving the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3, and recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance establishing the Redevelopment Plan and trans- mitting this resolution to the City Council; 5) that the City Council adopt Resolution 84-119 (Exhibit 4) making environ- mental fin ings, approving the Report Required by Section 33352 of Redevelopment Law, and approving the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3; 6) that the City Council introduce for first reading, Ordinance No. 84-695 (Exhibit TY adopting the Redevelopment Plan (Exhibit 2) as the official Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3; 7) that the City Council direct the City Clerk to notify all appropriate parties of the adoption of Ordinance No. 84-695 (Exhibit 5) and implement all other procedures regarding. the Redevelopment Plan as required by law. III. BACKGROUND � i I With direction from the Agency and City Council , staff has been working to effect the creation of Redevelopment Project No, 3. To this end, staff has Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 6 of 354 +oumsez g REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PAGE, 2 OF 2 AGENDA ITEM NO ..... . ... been preparing all the reports necessary to bring this process to fruition Overall, such reports set forth the goals and objectives of creating Redevelop- ment Project No. 3, assess the potential environmental impacts of the project, and determine that Redevelopment Project No. 3 is a blighted area within the meaning of that term as defined by the California Community Redevelopment Law. Staff has contacted and consulted with all affected taxing agencies and the a Assessor, Auditor-Controller, Tax Collector, and Chief Administrative Officer of Los Angeles County concerning the potential fiscal impact of creating i Redevelopment Project No. 3. Also, the State Board of Equalization was mailed the documents it requires under Redevelopment Law. Staff attended a Fiscal Review Committee meeting at the Hall of Administration on June 12, 1984. Notices of this public hearing have been mailed by certified mail to all property owners within Redevelopment Project No. 3. Quarter page ads have been placed in the Daily Breeze for four consecutive weeks. 3 The documents before the Agency and City Council have been reviewed by staff and the appropriate public bodies. The EiR has been reviewed by the Environ- mental Commission and the Planning Commission. Also, the Planning Commission has certified that the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3 conforms to the General Plan of the City of Carson. Staff and the City ,Attorney will be present to respond to any questions. 3 IV. EXHIBITS a 1. Report Required by Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law. i 3 d y' 2. Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3. fi 3. Agency Resolution No. 84-42, Resolution of the Carson Redevelopment Agency Approving a Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3, 4. City Council Resolution No. 84-119, Resolution of the City Council of The City of Carson Approving a Proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3. 5. Ordinance No. 84-695, An Ordinance of The City of Carson Adopting a Redevelopment Plan as the Official Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3. 3 6, Minutes, Environmental Commission Adjourned Regular Meeting, May 23, 1984. 7. Minutes, Carson Planning Commission Regular Meeting, June 26, 1984. j� }1} i i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 7 of 354, DECLARATION OF PATRICIA NEMETH s� I. Patricia Nemeth, am a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (A.I .C.P. ) . I am employed by the City of Carson as the Director of Community Develop- ment. I have extensive experience in the areas of community development and community redevelopment, and the public and private financing of each. Prior to my employment by the City of Carson, I served as the Director of Planning of the County of Riverside. Among my duties as the Director of Planning was the responsibility of acting as the person in charge of evaluating on behalf of the County of Riverside each of the redevelopment plans submitted to the County by the various redevelopment agencies within the County. I have also served as the Assistant Director of Planning of the County of San Bernardino, and I have served as a Project Architect with both the New York State Urban Development Corporation and the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency of White Plains, New York. I have a Bachelor of Architecture Degree from the University of California at Berkeley and a Master of Planning Degree from the University of Southern California. I have undertaken further post graduate studies in the field of construction management at Columbia University. I have reviewed applicable provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and S-afety Code Sections 33000, et. sea. ) regarding ( i) the characteriza- tions of blight as set forth in Sections 33030, 33031 and i i tee. Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 8 of 354 WLS125-2B 33032, ( ii) the definition of a "project area" as set forth in Section 33320 and ( iii ) the scope of a "project area" as set forth in Section 33321 . I have also reviewed the public purposes set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law, including those set forth in Section 33071. I have also reviewed the policies set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law, including those set forth in Sections 33037, 33050 and 33070. I have also reviewed the contents of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 and the Report to Accompany the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 , Prepared Pursuant to California Health and Safetv Code Section 33352. I have taken extensive tours of Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 and I am familiar with the parcels of property included therein and with the existing land use of those parcels . I am also familiar with the potential development of temporary and permanent replacement housing facilities in the subject Project Area, the City of Carson and the surrounding area. Based upon ( i ) my education; ( ii) my experience and expertise; ( iii ) my review of the above described provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law; ( iv) my extensive tours of the subject Project Area and familiarity with the parcels therein; (v) my review of the aforementioned Redevelopment Plan and Report; and (vi) other information r -2- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 9 of 354 WLS125-3B IRP presented to me, it is my opinion that: 1. The subject Project Area is a "predominately urbanized area" of the City of Carson, within the meaning of "predominately urbanized area" under California Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1 2. The subject Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. 3. The subject Project Area constitutes a physical, social and economic liability requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Carson and of the State of California. 4. The subject Project Area is a blighted area and is characterized by many, if not all, of the conditions set forth in California Health and Safety Code Sections 33031 and 33032, causing a reduction of or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the City of Carson which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. 5. There are buildings and structures which exist in the subject Project Area, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other purposes, or any combination of such uses, which which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, -3- i i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 10 of 354 WLS125-4B transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency, as and crime because of the following factors: a. defective design and character of physical construction; b. faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing; c. high density of population and overcrowding; d. inadequate provision for ventilation, light, sanitation, open spaces, and recreation facilities; and e. age, obsolescence, deterioration, delapidation, mixed character and shifting of uses. 6. The subject territory is characterized by properties which suffer from economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse because of the following factors: a. faulty planning; b. the subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development; C. the laying out of lots in disregard of the contrours and other topography or physical characteristics of the ground and surrounding conditions; d. the existence of inadequate public improve- ments, public facilities, open spaces, and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without. redevelopment; -4 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 11 of 354 WLS125-5B e. a prevalance of depreciated values , impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment; and f. the existance of lots or other areas which are subject to be submerged by water. 7. The buildings, improvements, and lands within the subject Project Area which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. 8. Any buildings , improvements or lands in the subject Project Area which are not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare are included in the subject Project Area because they are found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part . and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for inclusion. 9. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelop- ment Project Area No. 3 would redevelop the area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 10. The adoption and carrying out of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. -5- I i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 12 of 354 WLS125-6B 11. The carrying out of the proposed Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Carson and would effecuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. 12. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and adequate provision has been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. 13. Although the Carson Redevelopment Agency does not intend to displace families or person from the subject Project Area, the Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons displaced from the subject Project Area, if any, if the proposed Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the subject Project Area. 14. Although the Agency does not intend to displace families and persons from the subject Project Area, there are or are being provided in the subject Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilites and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the subject Project Area, if any, decent safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. _6_ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 13 of 354 WLS125-7B 15. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the subject Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. 16 . Although the Agency does not intend to displace any occupants of the subject Project Area, permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time occupants of the subject Project Area are displaced and pending the development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City of Carson at the time of their displacement. 17. The effect of tax increment financing will not cause a severe financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the subject Project Area. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 9, 1984. P tri is Nemeth -7- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 14 of 354 EXHIBIT 1 REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 3, PREPARED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33352 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 15 of 354 A. THE REASONS FOR SELECTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO . 3 Redevelopment Project Area No . 3 is a predominately urbanized blighted area, requiring redeveloment in the interest of the health , safety and welfare of the people of the City of Carson and the State of California. Such project area is characterized by certain conditions which cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical , social and economic burden on the City which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone . Some examples of those conditions are set forth in the attached survey of the project area and are described more fully below. Such conditions may be briefly described as follows : 1 . The existence of buildings and structures in the project area, used or intended to be used for living , commercial , industrial or other purposes , which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes and are conducive to ill health, transmission of disease , juvenile delinquency and crime . Such buildings and structures are characterized by defective design and character or physical construction and faulty interior arrangement and faulty exterior spacing. Such buildings and structures are further characterized by inadequate provision for ventilation , light , sanitation , open spaces , and by age , obsolescence , deterioration , dilapidation , mixed character and shifting of uses . 2 . The existence of properties in the project area which suffer from economic dislocation , deterioration or disuse because of the following factors : Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 16 of 354 a) Faulty planning; b) the subdivision and sale of lots of irregular form and inadequate size for proper use and development ; c) the laying out of lots in the project area in disregard of the contours and other topographic or physical characteristics of the ground surrounding conditions . d) The existence of inadequate public improvements , public facilites , open spaces , and utilities in the project area which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment ; e) a prevalence of depreciated values , impaired investments and social and economic maladjustment ; f) the existence of lots or other areas in such territory which are subject to being submerged by water. Again , reference is made to the attached survey and the discussion below for specific examples of the above conditions . While the project area may not be restricted to buildings , improvements and lands which are inimical to the public health, safety and welfare , the conditions of blight in the area predominate and injuriously affect the entire project area . B . A DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL , SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS EXISTING IN THE PROJECT AREA 1 . Physical Conditions a ) Land Uses Redevelopment Project No . 3 is generally bounded on the north by Carson Street, except for a strip of -2- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 17 of 354 land that runs north of Carson Street to Dominguez Street along the east side of Alameda Street , and _ ► the eastern boundary of the City, except for a strip of land that runs east of Alameda Street to Santa Fe Avenue along the south side of Carson Street , on the south by Sepulveda Boulevard , and on the west by the Dominguez Channel and Wilmington Avenue . The area is zoned primarily for Heavy Manufacturing (MH) and is thoroughly industrialized with activities ranging from chemical processing to petroleum refining and transporting. The narrow extension on the east side of Alameda Street between Carson and Dominguez Streets is zoned for light manufacturing (ML-D) and the narrow extension on the north side of Carson Street between Alameda Street and Santa Fe Avenue is zoned for general commercial uses (CG-D) . The uses along each extension , as well as the entire area encompassed by Redevelopment Project No . 3 coincide with their respective zoning classifications . Approximately 100 acres are zoned for organic landfill (MH-ORL) , a zoning designation which requires the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit . The landfills have all been closed . This area also includes sites which are either abandoned or have a history of hazardous materials , or both; for example : The Johns Manville Site and the Stauffer Chemical Plant as shown in the attached survey. 2 . Building Conditions The territory within Redevelopment Project No. 3 is either developed for urban uses or an integral part of an �� -3- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 18 of 354 area developed for urban uses , containing a variety of structures serving the area ' s sundry industrial and commercial uses . The condition of these structures is analyzed below according to type of use . a ) Commercial Redevelopment Project No . 3 contains a variety of commercial structures primarily along Alameda Street and Carson Street , as can be seen on the attached survey. Most of the structures along Alameda Street have experienced dilapidation , which is most noticibly manifested in the form of facade deterioration . Examples are described in detail in the following block analysis . Also , many structures here have been subjected to forced entry and vandalism which manifest themselves in the forms of broken windows and doors and barred openings . Many of the structures are covered with graffiti ; particularly the rear of the buildings that run along the alley east of Alameda Street . Also , some of the commercial and industrial operations conducted on the various lots contain the storage of barrels , scrap metals , and damaged autos in very small spaces . This condition has resulted in the perpetuating of adverse impacts on adjoining properties and the residential area to the east of the project area. Many of the structures along Carson Street , such as the commercial and residential structures between Alameda Street and Harbor View Avenue , also suffer from facade deterioration , vandalism, decaying structures , and i -4- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 19 of 354 graffiti. In addition to these , the commercial uses along Carson Street also suffer from a shifting of uses . Examples are the residential structures just west of Harbor View Avenue as shown on the attached survey. b) Industrial As noted above , much of Redevelopment Project No . 3_ is devoted to industrial uses . More than one hundred acres contain abandoned industrial facilities--the Johns-Manville site and the Stauffer Chemical site . The Johns-Manville site contains abandoned structures which are composed of hazardous and toxic materials and chemicals . Stauffer Chemical , while in operation , produced a number of chemicals , including some toxic substances . This site not only contains all of the facilities used for such production processes , but also is contaminated with toxic substances that were produced at the site . The abandoned Johns-Manville site and the Stauffer Chemical site are unfit and unsafe to occupy for any purpose and present a serious health and safety hazard , and physical , social and economic liability to the entire project area . c) Residential Redevelopment Project No . 3 does not contain any residential uses . On the Alameda Street extension between Carson Street and Dominguez -5 Ordinance No 84-695/Page 20 of 354 Street is a residential motel which has individuals and families spending moderately short periods of time . d) Structural Conditions The following is a block by block analysis of the structural conditions in the project area: Alameda Street BLOCK 1 (Carson Street Extension ) As can be seen on the attached survey , there are mixed and shifting uses . This block , zoned for general commercial uses , contains two industrial buildings separated by a church . Additionally , the block suffers from problems relative to exterior storing which is evidenced by the utilization of the corner lot on the block for the stockpiling of sundry products . This block is not zoned for this type of industrial processing and the utilization of a lot for outdoor storage of a large amount of metal scrap and other metal products has a negative impact on the quality of development of this area . With the exception of the corner building , the structures on this block are in need of both facade and structural rehabilitation . This block also contains two structures which suffer from overall deterioration . There is a critical lack of sufficient parking to serve the area . BLOCK 2 (Between Adams and Washington Streets) This block also exhibits mixed and shifting uses . Two structures are devoted to general commercial activities and a -6- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 21 of 354 third structure is a medical office providing a service activity . The two commercial buildings are showing signs of structural deterioration and are in need of facade rehabilitation . This block , unlike Block 1 , does provide for minimal parking , but it is still inadequate to serve the existing activities sufficiently . BLOCK 3 (South of Jefferson Street) The structures on this block are badly deteriorated . Two are abandoned , and one is characterized by structural dilapidation to the extent that it appears to be beyond repair. The two corners of this block are devoted to the same deleterious tarage uses that exist on Block 1 --stored inoperable autos and other stockpiles of metals . Also , there is a mixing of uses in that , aside from the storage yards , the only other active use is a local cocktail bar that is in need of structural rehabilitation . The remainder of the block is either devoted to storage uses or contains structures that are abandoned . Reference is made to the attached survey for visual examples of the above . BLOCK b (South of Madison Street) This block is also characterized by mixed and shifting uses . Three of the structures house functioning operations . Two structures are devoted to industrial uses , and the other is devoted to a commercial use . Two of the structures on this block are abandoned . One lot is devoted to storage which exhibits faulty interior arrangement and faulty exterior spacing . More than half of the structures on this block are old and obsolescent and in need of facade and general structural rehabilitation . Reference again is made to the attached survey . -7- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 22' of 354 BLOCK 5 (South of Monroe Street) - This block , like the others, is characterized by mixed and shifting uses . In addition to containing lots that are devoted to both industrial and commercial uses; this block also contains a structure not intended for , but in use as a dwelling . The commercial uses include saloon-type establishments which are in need of facade and overall structural rehabilitation . The structure used as a dwelling is dilapidated , and the property on which it sits is characterized by complete inattention and is in a state of disrepair . This block also contains an abandoned , deteriorated industrial building that is dilapidated to the extent that it is unable to ,upport any activity . Reference again is made to the attached survey . BLOCK 6 (South of Jackson Street) The same type of mixed and shifting uses exists on this block which, contains commercial uses (a motel , and a small restaurant) and structures not intended for , but used as dwellings . The dwelling units , in need of rehabilitation , separate the restaurant from the motel . With the exception of the motel and restaurant , which show signs of efforts to maintain structural quality, the remainder of the block is in need of rehabilitation . Reference again is made to the attached survey . BLOCK 7 (South of Van Buren) The major problems associated with this block relate to mixed uses and faulty interior arrangement and faulty exterior -8- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 23 of 354 spacing . Relative to the former , the site contains a commercial and "residential" use . The problems associated with the latter are characteristic of both the commercial and "residential" properties . The residential structure lies across the back of those lots leaving the front portions vacant . This is not only a problem of faulty exterior spacing , but also an inadequacy associated with faulty planning and the irregular drawing of lot lines . The commercial use is a service station that spreads across the remainder of the block . The station suffers from the need for rehabilitation and is characterized by the utilization of various portions of the property for the haphazard storage of autos and trucks . BLOCK 8 (South of Harrison Street) The lots on this block are devoted to both industrial and commercial uses . One of the uses is designed to provide services to mobilehome owners . This operation includes several lots that are devoted to storage type uses . Also , the structure housing the main office is in need of rehabilitation . BLOCK 9 (South of Tyler Street) This ',block is characteried by mixed and shifting uses . It contains commercial and industrial uses which range from a facility devoted to the repair of large trucks to a structure involved in the production , distribution , and storage of chemicals . The latter is of particular concern because of the proximity of a large residential neighborhood and the lack of adegyate buffering . This block also contains problems associated with faulty exterior spacing as is evidenced by the existence of storage spaces that surround the chemical -9- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 24 of 354 facility . The storage of barrels of unidentified chemicals that are piled on top of one another and other types of support equipment , all of which present a potentially harmful condition to residents of the adjoining residential area . Reference again is made to the attached survey . BLOCK 10 (South of Dominguez Street) This block contains the same mixed and shifting use problems that characterize the other blocks . This block contains a large industrial facility and an American Legion Lodge . This block also contains a sizable vacant parcel and a corner lot devoted to the same types of deleterious storage use as other blocks in the area. Carson Street The strip along Carson Street refers to a narrow tract of land running east-west along Carson Street from Alameda Street to Santa Fe Avenue . The land within this narrow strip is zoned for general commercial uses (CG-D) which are devoted to a broad mix of industrial , commercial , and unintended residential uses . BLOCK 1 (Between Prospect Street and Santa Fe Avenue) This block exhibits both mixed and shifting uses and deteriorated structures . The problems associated with land uses on the block manifest themselves in two general ways . First , the block contains a marginal quasi -commercial use which is an indicator of economic dislocation . Also , one lot on the block contains the shell of an abandoned restaurant . Of the structures on the block , all but one--a newer fast food -10- Ordinance No. 84-354/Page 25 of 354 facility--are in need of facade and overall structural rehabilitation . BLOCK 2 (Between Harbor View Avenue and Pros ect Street) Block 2 is lengthy and exhibits properties that are the consequence of problems associated with old , deteriorating structures , mixed and shifting uses , and faulty interior arrangement and faulty exterior spacing . One of the most prevalent problems concerns the lack of adequate public parking facilities . The majority of the structures need rehabilitation and while many activities are only marginally operable , some of the properties lack adequate parking facilities , forcing patrons to park on streets in the adjoining neighborhoods . The problems associated with mixed and shifting uses on this block are prevalent . Separating a beer bar and a line of marginal , deteriorated structures is a combination church and school . This particular facility is wholly inappropriate for this area and , additionally, is significantly below building code standards . This block also contains some. abandoned buildings . The overwhelming majority of structures housing the sundry operations on this block suffer from problems associated with age , obsolescence, deterioration , and dilapidation . It is manifest that such structural problems pervade the entire block. Because of the marginal nature of most of the commercial uses on this block , there is little hope for any significant structural rehabilitation program to occur without Ar -11 _ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 26 of 854 Public intervention . The various structures are all of different sizes , shapes , and ages , and all have unique structural anomalies . A major funding effort is needed to provide capital for facade rehabilitation and the clearing of a few structures that are virtually irreparable . This effort would serve not only to assemble land for higher quality commercial development but also provide some measure of alleviation for the parking problems that exist along Carson Street . Reference is again made to the attached survey. BLOCK 3 (Between Harbor View Avenue and the Alley East of Alameda Street) This ', block contains even more serious problems associated with mixed and shifting uses . This is because , like some blocks alon� Alameda Street , this block contains industrial , commercial , and unintended residential uses . Interspersed among a variety of commercial industrial structures are six structures unintended for , but used as dwelling structures . This ', block also evidences problems associated with faulty inter4 or arrangement and faulty exterior spacing . This generally occurs for two reasons . First , this block contains several facilities dedicated to the service and repair of auto , trucks , and diesel engines . The existence of such facilities has necessitated the utilization of inadequate adjoining spaces for storage of scrap metal , auto parts , autos , trucks , and appurtenant uses . Second , this block also contains someIther unutilized space on the eastern corner. ALso , the locatllion of some of the residential structures on the lots is such that there are several portions of space underutilized . I I I -12- i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 27 of 354 Much of this unused space is overgrown with brush , weeds , and other overgrown vegetation , detracting from the value and appearance of the block . This '' block is characterized by a prevalence of old , obsolescent , deteriorating, and dilapidated buildings . The sheer variety of uses on this block necessarily contributes to the tremendous diversity of structures in terms of size , shape , age , Iand composition , and the overwhelming majority of those structures devoted to commercial and industrial uses are in need ',of both facade and overal structural rehabilitation . Reference is made to the attached survey . Wilmington Avenue (Carson Street to 223rd Street) Thislarea includes a very large tract of land in the shape of a parallelogram bounded on the west by Wilmington Avenue , on the north by Carson Street, on the east by Alameda Street , and on the south by 223rd Street . i This area is dedicated primarily to industrial uses occupying large parcels . Many of the uses in this area are those that concern the storage and recycling of scrap metal . This cause's the operations of such facilities to extend operations onto 'adjoining parcels , particularly , the storage and stockpiling of scrap and other refuse materials . Because the lots !'in this section are large , virtually no attention has been devoted to assuring that this area develops in accordance with its highest and best use . This is manifested in alpost the complete lack of buffering structure and the absen',ce of landscape improvements evidenced in other industrial areas in the City . The mixed and shifting uses in a -13- Ordinance No. 695/Page 28 of .354 this area is evidenced by the existence of an office building development adjacent to a metal recycling facility . si 223rd Street (From Wilmington Avenue to Alameda Street) This ',area includes several groups of lots of irregular size and shape . It includes those properties fronting 223rd Street on the north side , south of the San Diego Freeway . It also includes those properties fronting 223rd Street on the south side and those interior properties south of 223rd Street , west of Alameda Street and east and north of the Dominguez Channel . While the 223rd Street area contains problems associated with faulty interior arrangement and faulty exterior spacing , old and deteriorating buildings, and mixecjll! and shifting uses , it contains other specific problems that constitute a serious health hazard to this area and its environs . Firstl, fronting 223rd. Street on the south is the vacated s Stauffer Chemical Plant . This serves as a prime example of economic dislocation and disuse and impaired investments inasmuch as the plant and all the equipment of this large defunct facility is inactive and abandoned . This large site is no� only inactive , constituting a severe economic drain on the area , but is also a severe health hazard in that it is conta inated with highly toxic chemicals . No development can occur on this site unless the contamination is removed. Because of the exorbitant cost to private enterprise acting alone associated with such a cleanup , such a cleanup will not occurlwithout public aid and assistance . The other unique problem associated with this area relates to another abandoned industrial facility, the Johns-Manville -14- i i i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 29 of 354 site . This site is contaminated with asbestos and constitutes a serious health and safety hazard . Alameda Street (South of 223rd Street between the Channel and City Boundary) The property within this area includes all the land bounded on the south by Sepulveda Boulevard , on the west by the Dominguez Channel and Alameda Street , on the north by the intersection of Alameda Street , 223rd Street and the eastern boundary of the City of Carson , and on the east by the eastern boundary of the City of Carson . This area is characterized by mixed and shifting uses and the deterioration and general substandard nature of structures on the various parcels . Just north of the intersection of Alameda Street and the Dominguez Channel is an abandoned restaurant/dinner facility . This is the only use on this part of Alameda Street that is devoted to that type of use . The other uses on this block are industrial . Large lots are devoted to storage type ype uses . This strip also contains two auto dismantling yards and a metal recycling facility . All of the supporting structures for these operations are badly deteriorated . The truck , auto dismantling and metal recycling facilities have neither buffering structures nor landscaping . All operations are being conducted on relatively open ground with no physical controls . This larea also contains two former landfills which renders the land virtually uneconomic for the purpose of development and constitutes a serious health and safety hazard . Further , this condition will not be corrected by private enterprise acting alone and will require public aid and assistance . IL -15- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 30 of 354 e) Public Improvements The principal streets within Redevelopment Project No. 3 are Alameda Street from the Dominguez Channel to Dominguez Street , Arnold Center Road from 220th Street to Carson Street , Carson Street from Wilmington Avenue to Santa Fe Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard from the Dominguez Channel to the eastern city limits , Westward Avenue south of 220th Street from Wilmington Avenue to Arnold Center Drive and 223rd Street from Wilmington Avenue to Alameda Street . A street , utility and other improvements analysis of public improvements and public facilities deficiencies follows : ALAMEDA STREET Alameda Street is bounded on the west by the Southern Pacific Railway right-of-way . There are no sidewalks along the western parkway, and the area behind the concrete curb and gutter is generally occupied by screening shrubs . The pavement width, parkway improvement conditions , and eastern right-of-way on Alameda Street, south of Carson Street , generally varies for almost its entire length in the Project Area . The overall right-of-way width varies from 50 feet to 95 feet and is 100 feet wide only in the vicinity of the San Diego Freeway . Alameda Street is the principal access route to the Long Beach Harbor and is heavily traveled with large trucks and trailers . Traffic circulation on Alameda Street requires a width of not less than 100 ft . with raised medians , curb , gutter, sidewalks and street lights for its entire length in proposed Project No. 3. -16- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 31 of 354 The western and central paved portions of Alameda Street are concrete . These lanes show cracks and patches where they have not been paved over with asphalt and are generally in a state of disrepair . Correction of deficiencies of Alameda Street include the necessity to straighten the eastern right-of-way boundary line and widen the right-of-way overall to 100 feet by , the addition of new right-of-way on the west . Uniform improvements are needed in the west parkway to include curb and gutter, concrete paved sidewalks and parkway with covered tree well , trees , and street lights . CARSON STREET As can be seen on the attached survey, parkway improvements along the north side of Carson Street are generally in a state of disrepair , with several several sections of broken sidewalk and curb and gutter. Carson Street lacks adequate street lighting between Harbor View Avenue and Alameda Street . The intersection of Carson Street at Santa Fe Avenue is characterized by extremely poor grades and is generaly in a state of disrepair. As shown on the attached survey, there is inadequate off street parking along the north side of Carson Street to serve the commercial uses . Portions of Carson Street lack curb and gutter and sidewalk improvements , as well as street lighting, concrete parkway -17- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 32 of 354 paving and trees in covered tree wells between Wilmington Avenue and Arnold Center Road and on the north side between Alameda Street and Arnold Center Road . Again reference is made to the attached survey. SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD Sepulveda Boulevard is generally in a state of disrepair and requires additional right-of-way on both sides , raised and landscaped median , curb and gutter along both sides and street lighting . In addition , the asphalt paving requires total removal and replacement . These deficiencies are shown on the attached survey. WILMINGTON AVENUE Both the asphalt and concrete road surfacing along Wilmington Avenue is in a state of disrepair. The pavement in the intersection at the San Diego Freeway on-ramp is rolled up and must be replaced by a concrete intersection . The paving between 223rd Street and 220th Street and the paving on the west side between 220th Street and Carson Street is in a state of disrepair . The east side of this portion of Wilmington Avenue should be capped . Missing sections of concrete paved parkway and curb and gutter are needed , as well as trees and covers for the existing tree wells . Raised medians are also needed for proper traffic circulation from 220th Street to 298th Street . 220TH STREET The paving in the area immediately east of the intersection at Wilmington Avenue is in a state of disrepair. ;g -98_ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 33 of 354 WATER The development of land , south of 223rd Street and both east and west of Alameda Street , into industrial uses necessitates the extension of a 12 inch water main in Alameda Street north from the end of an existing main line about 300 feet north of the Dominguez Channel or south from a proposed new east-west water from south of 223rd Street as the current water service facilities are inadequate to service such development . SEWER The area which is bounded by Wilmington Avenue on the west and Alameda Street on the east , and bounded by Carson Street on the north and Dominguez Channel on the south has limited or no sewer system. When this area is developed , it will be served by the Rocha Street Trunk Sewer located in Sepulveda Boulevard , west of Alameda Street . At that time , a relief sewer will be required in Sepulveda Boulevard and between Wilmington Avenue and Alameda Street , and a new sewer will be needed extending east to and north into new development . FLOOD CONTROL There are flood control deficiencies south of 223rd Street halfway between Dominguez Channel and Alameda Street , exemplified by the lack of adequate drainage facilities such as catch basins . 3 . Social Conditions The territory within Redevelopment Project No . 3 is part of three Census Tracts : 5433 :03 , 5439 .01 , and 5440 . -19- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 34 of 354 The following is an analysis of social conditions in the above Census Tracts . Tract No . 5433 .03 contains a population of 6 , 578 . The average value of the residential housing in this areas is above the city average which is $81 , 800 ; however , none of the residential units lies within the boundaries of the project area . The median income for this Census Tract is below the city average , which is $23 , 797 . Tract No . 5439 .01 contains a population of 3 , 732 . The average value of residential housing in this tract is $63, 000 and is the lowest in the city . Also , the median income of this area is $19 , 109 and is the lowest in the city , and this tract contains the highest percentate of households that are below the poverty level--12 . 8%. Tract No. 5440 contains a population of 6 , 035 . The average value of residential housing in this tract is among the lowest in the city . The median income for the tract is also well below the city average . Again , none of the residential units lies within the proposed project area boundaries . The general ethnic makeup in the area of the project area is approximately 32% White , 20% Black , 27% Hispanic , and 20% Asian/Pacific Islander . 4 . Economic Conditions As mentioned previously, the territory within Redevelopment Project No. 3 is primarily devoted to -20- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 35 of 354 industrial and commercial uses . The majority of such uses are characterized by overall economic dislocation , deterioration and disuse because of several intrinsic development impediments that exist in the area . These impediments are as follows : a) The existence of impaired investments and economic dislocation characterized by a shifting of uses from high to marginal commercial uses . Examples are a church and/or school in a commercial plaza , and numerous facilities that are abandoned . b) The lack of public improvements and facilities needed to serve the area adequately , as noted above , including streets , curbs and gutters , street lights , sewer, and water facilities . C) The existence of large abandoned industrial sites . d) The existence of former landfill sites which constitute a serious health and safety hazard to the entire area. e) The existence of abandoned industrial sites which are contaminated with hazardous materials , constituting a serious health and safety hazard to the entire areas . C. THE PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance the redevelopment of the project area by the issuance -21 - Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 36 of 354 of tax allocation bonds or by any other means provided by law. The Agency may also accept financial assistance from any public or private source to finance its redevelopment activities . Under the proposed Redevelopment Plan , no indebtedness payable from taxes allocated to the Agency may be established or incurred beyond forty years after the proposed Redevelopment Plan has been adopted . Repayment of any such indebtedness , however , may extend beyond forty years . The proposed Redevelopment Plan limits the amount of taxes which may be allocated to and received by the Agency from the project area to a cumulative total of $250 , 000 , 000 . The nroposed Redevelopment Plan limits the amount of Agency bonded indebtedness which is to be repaid in whole or in part from tax increment funds from the project area to a total of $80 , 000 , 000 which can be outstanding at any one time . Both of these limitations are expressed in the Redevelopment Plan in terms of 1984 dollars with provision for adjustment annually in accordance with changes in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area Consumer Price Index . The Agency anticipates that the principal source of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area will be the issuance of tax allocation bonds . Such bonds will be issued in appropriate principal amounts only if and when taxes allocated to the Agency are sufficient to pay debt service on the bonds . As the Agency will phase its redevelopment projects and activities in accordance with the availability of tax increment revenues to secure and pay the tax allocation bends or other financing , the redevelopment of the Project Area will be economically feasible . Reference is made to the Final Environment Impact Report in Part I of this Report which sets forth projected taxes which may be -22- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 37: of 854 allocated to the Agency based upon various assumptions . D . PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION . 1 . No Agency Displacement Anticipated It is anticipated that minimal , if any , displacement of persons and businessess will occur as a direct result of redevelopment activities of the Agency within the Project Area. The principal redevelopment activities to be pursued by the Agency after adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will be ( i ) the provision of new and the replacement of existing inadequate public improvements and facilities , ( ii ) the study and redevelopment of landfill and waste disposal sites and ( iii ) improving and increasing the City ' s supply of low and moderate income housing . There may be some land acquisition by the Agency in the Project Area for those purposes . The Redevelopment Plan also provides authority to the Agency to acquire and assemble land for development if necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan . To the extent that the Agency acquires occupied property for public improvement or other purposes , or enters into agreements with developers or others pursuant to which occupants will be required to move , the Agency may cause or may be responsible for causing displacement of occupants . The Agency does not intend to displace low and moderate income families . The Agency is not responsible for any displacement which may occur as a result of private development activities not directly assisted by the Agency under a disposition and development , owner participation or other similar agreement . Agency redevelopment activities involving displacement , if any , -23- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 38 of 354 will be phased in a manner to reduce potential problems arising from a number of persons or businesses being required to move at generally the same time . 2 . Relocation in the Event of Agency Displacement As noted above , minimal displacement , if any, of persons , families , businesses or tenants is anticipated. In the event displacement occurs , however , the Agency will provide persons , families , business owners and tenants displaced by Agency redevelopment activities with monetary and advisory relocation assistance consistent with the Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 , et sec . ) , The Relocation Assistance Act (California GOvernment Code Sections 7260 , et sea . ) the State Guidelines adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto , Relocation Rules and Regulations adopted by the Agency , and the provisions of the proposed Redevelopment Plan . The Agency will pay all relocation payments required by applicable laws , rules and regulations . 3 . Rules and Regulations Before undertaking or participating in a redevelopment activity which will result in displacement , the Agency shall adopt rules and regulations that : ( i ) implement the requirements of the Relocation Assistance Act ; ( ii ) are in accordance with the State Guidelines ; ( iii ) meet the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and the provisions of the proposed Redevelopment Plan ; and ( iv) are appropriate to the particular redevelopment activities of the Agency and not inconsistent with the -24- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 39 of 354 applicable laws , rules and regulations . The rules or regulations adopted by the Agency shall be promptly revised as necessary, to conform to applicable amendments to the Act , the State Guidelines or the Community Redevelopment Law. 4 . Agency Determinations and Assurances a . The agency may not proceed with any redevelopment activity which will result in the displacement of any person or business until it makes the following determinations : ( 1 ) Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be provided to eligible persons as required by applicable law, rules and regulations . (2) A relocation assistance advisory program will be established offering the services described in the applicable laws , rules and regulations . ( 3) Eligible persons will be adequately informed of the assistance , benefits , policies , practices and procedures , including grievance procedures , provided for by applicable laws , rules and regulations . ( 4) Based upon recent survey and analysis of both the housing needs of persons who may be displaced and available replacement housing and considering competing demands for that housing, comparable replacement dwelling will be available , or provided , if necessary, -25- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 40 of 354 within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement sufficient in number , size and cost for the eligible persons who require such housing . (5) Adequate provisions will have been made to provide orderly , timely and efficient relocation of eligible persons to comparable replacement housing available without regard to race , color, religion , sex , marital status , national orgin or age with minimun hardship to those affected . ( 6) A relocation plan meeting the requirements of applicable laws , rules and regulations will have been prepared . b . No person shall be displaced until the Agency has A41 fulfilled the obligations imposed by applicable laws , rules and regulations . C . No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement . Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent , safe , sanitary and an otherwise standard dwelling . The Agency will not displace such persons or families until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy. -26- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 41' of 354 d . Whenever all or any portion of the Project Area is developed with low or moderate income housing units the Agency shall require by contract or other appropriate means that such housing be made available for rent or purchase to the persons and families of low or moderate income displaced by Agency redevelopment activities . Such persons and families shall be given priority in renting or buying such housing . e . If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the City for low and moderate income persons and families to be displaced from the Project Area , the Agency shall assure that sufficient land is made available for suitable housing for rental or purchase by low and moderate income persons and families . If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the City for use by such persons and families of low and moderate income displaced by Agency redevelopment activities , the Agency may , to the extent of that deficiency, direct or cause the development , rehabilitation or construction of housing units within the City, both inside and outside of the Project Area . f . Permanent housing facilities ahall be made available within three years from the time persons or families are displaced , and .pending the development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced persons and families adequate temoprary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement . fr 3 -27- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 42 of 354 g . Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as part of Agency redevelopment activities , the Agency shall , within four years of such destruction or removal , rehabilitate , develop or construct , or cause to be rehabilitated , developed or constructed , for rental or sale to persons and families of low or moderate income an equal number of replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the Project Area or within the City . 5 . Replacement Housing Plan The Agency does not intend to displace any low and moderate income families . However , not less than thirty days prior to the execution of an agreement for acquisition of real property , or the execution of an 3 agreement regarding the disposition and development of property , or the execution of an owner participation agreement , which agreement would lead to the destruction or removal of a dwelling unit from the low and moderate income housing market , the Agency shall adopt by Resolution a replacement housing plan . The Agency shall make available a draft of the proposed replacement housing plan for review and comment by the other public agencies and the general public within a reasonable time prior to adopting such replacement housing plan . The replacement housing plan shall include those elements required by applicable laws , rules and regulations . A dwelling unit housing persons of low or -28- Ordinance No. 84=695/Page 43 of 354 moderate income whose replacement is required by the Agency, but for which no replacement housing plan has _ been prepared , shall not be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market until the Agency has by Resolution adopted a replacement housing plan . Nothing, however , shall prevent the Agency from destroying or removing from the low and moderate income housing market a dwelling unit which the Agency owns and which is an immediate danger to health and safety . The Agency shall , as soon as practicable , adopt by Resolution a replacement housing plan with respect to such dwelling unit . 6 . Relocation Assistance Advisory Program The Agency shall develop and implement a relocation assistance advisory program which satisfies the requirements of applicable laws , rules and regulations . Such programs shall be administered so as to provide advisory services which offer maximum assistance to minimize the hardship of displacement and to ensure that ( i ) all persons and families displaced from their dwelling unit are relocated into housing meeting all criteria for comparable replacement housing contained in applicable laws , rules and regulations , and ( ii ) all persons displaced from their places of business are assisted in reestablishing such business with a minimum of delay and loss of earnings . No eligible person shall be required to move from a dwelling unit unless within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement comparable replacement dwellings or , in the case of 7 -29- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 44 of 354 temporary move , adequate replacement dwellings are available to such person . T In the event of displacement , the functions of the Agency in providing relocation assistance advisory services will generally be as follows : A. Administrative Organization The Agency will be responsible for providing relocation payments and assistance to occupants displaced by the Agency from the Project Area , and the Agency will meet its relocation responsibilities through the use of its staff and consultants , supplemented by assistance from local realtors and civic organizations . The Agency ' s staff of consultants will perform the following functions : ( 1 ) Prepare a Relocation Plan as soon as practicable following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property by the Agency and prior to proceeding with any phase of redevelopment activities that will result in any displacement other than an insignificant amount of non-residential displacement . Such Relocation Plan shall conform to applicable laws , rules and regulations . The Agency shall interview all eligible persons to obtain information upon which to plan for housing and other accommodations , as well as to provide counseling and assistance needs . ( 2) Provide measures , facilities or services as needed in order to : -30- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 45 of 354 (a) Fully inform persons eligible for relocation payments and assistance within fifteen days following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property as to the availability for relocation benefits and assistance and the eligibilty requirements therfore , as well as the procedures for obtaining such benefits and assistance , in accordance with the requirements of applicable laws, rules and regulations . ( b) Determine the extent of the need of each such eligible person for relocation assistance in accordance with the requirements of applicable laws , rules and regulations . ( c) Assure eligible persons that within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement there will be available comparable replacement housing , meeting the criteria described in applicable laws , rules and regulations , sufficient in number and kind for and available to such eligible persons . (d) Provide current and continuing information on the availability , prices and rentals of comparable sales and rental housing , and of comparable commercial properties and locations , and as to security deposits , closing costs , typical down payments , interest rates , and terms for residential property in the area . (e) Assist each eligible person to complete applications for payments and benefits . -31 - Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 46 of 354 ( f) Assist each eligible person to obtain and move to a comparable replacement dwelling. ( g) Assist each eligible person in obtaining and becoming established in a suitable replacement location . (h) Provide any services required to ensure that such relocation does not result in different or separate treatment on account of race , color, religion , national origin , sex , marital status , age or other arbitrary circumstance . ( i) Supply to eligible persons information concerning federal and state housing programs , disaster loan and other programs administered by the Small Business Administration , and other federal or state programs offering assistance to displaced persons . - ( j) Provide other advisory assistance to eligible persons in order to minimize their hardships . As needed , such assistance may include counseling and referrals with regard to housing , financing , employment , training , health and welfare , as well as other assistance . ( k) Inform all persons who may be displaced regarding the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out Agency redevelopment activities , which policies shall be in accordance with the provisions of applicable laws , rules and regulations . ( 1) Notify in writing each person to be displaced prior to requiring a person to move from a dwelling or to -32- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 47 of 354 move a business in accordance with notice provisions of applicable laws , rules and regulations . Relocation Office Although the Agency does not intend to displace residents , if, more than a minimal number of persons will be displaced and the office providing relocation advisory assistance is not easily accessible to those persons , the Agency will estabiis;, at least one appropriately equipped office near the site tr.e acquisition which, is accessible to all the area resider,± ; who may be displaced and which is staffed with trained or experienced personnel . Office hours would be scheduled accommodate persons unable to visit the office during normal ^iis-Hess hours . information Program The Agency shall establish and maintain an information program that provides for the following ; within fifteen days following the he initiation of negotiations and not less than ninety days in advance ,,r displacement , except as otherwise provided for by applicable lava , rule or regulations , the Agency srl:, lj prepare and distribute informational materials to persons eligible for Agency relocation benefits and assistance . Personal interviews and personal contacts with occcupants of the property to the maximum extent practicable . -33- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 48 of 354 ( 3) Meetings , newsletters and other mechanisms for keeping occupants of the property informed on a continuing basis . ( 4) Written notification to each person as soon as eligibility status has been determined . ( 5) Explanation to persons interviewed of the purpose of the relocation needs survey , the nature of relocation payments and assistance to be made available , and encouragement to visit the relocation office for information and assistance . D . Relocation Record The Agency shall prepare and maintain an accurate relocation record for each person to be displaced as required by applicable laws , rules and regulations . E Relocation Resources Surve The Agency shall conduct a survey of available relocation resources in accordance with applicable laws , rules and regulations . "• Relocation Pa meats The Agency shall make relocation payments to or on behalf of eligible persons in accordance with and to the full extent required by applicable laws , rules and regulations . s . Temporary Moves -34- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 49 of 354 Temporary moves would be required only if adequate resources for permanent relocation sites are not available . The Agency Will make every effort to assist the site occupant in obtaining permanent relocation resources prior to initiation of a temporary move , and then only after it is determined that Agency activities will be seriously impeded if such move is not performed . H. Last Resort Housin The Agency shall comply with applicable laws , rules and regulations for assuring that if Agency redevelopment activities result , or will result in displacement , and comparable replacement housing will not be available as needed , the Agency will use its funds to provide such housing . I . Grievance Procedures IL The Agency will adopt p grievance procedures to implement the provisions of applicable laws , rules and regulations . The purpose of the grievance procedures will be to accommodate those aggrieved by improper application of the relocation process . Potential displacees will be informed by the Agency of their right to appeal regarding relocation payment claims or other decisions made affecting their relocation . -35- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 50 of 354 E . Analysis of Preliminar Plan tr The Preliminary Plan for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 describes the boundaries of the proposed Project Area, and contains general statements of land uses , layout of principal streets building intensities and building standards ulprop on densities ,osed basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area . The as the Preliminary Plan also shows how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the redevelopment Of the area and states that the proposed redevelopment will conform to the General Plan of the City . The Preliminary Plan also describes generally the impact of the proposed redevelopment upon residents of the Project Area and upon the surrounding neighborhood . The proposed Redevelopment Plan conforms with the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan . The boundaries of the Project Area remain the same . The Redevelopment Plan gy proposes the same 1 =i and uses and provides for the principal streets indicated in the Preliminary Plan . Building intensities are in compliance with those set forth in the Preliminary Plan . Proposed building standards also remain the same . As provided in the Preliminary Plan , the proposed Redevelopment Plan will attain the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law by the elimination of the conditions of blight in the Project Area and the prevention of their recurrence by undertaking all appropriate projects pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law. -36- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 51 of 354 F. Report and Recommendations of Planning Commission The report and recommendations of the Planning Commission , which will be provided by Resolution of the Planning Commission , will be added to this Report upon adoption of such Resolution . [RESOLUTION 84-776 ATTACHED] -37- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 52 of 354 RESOLUTION NO . 84-776 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON REPORTING REGARDING THE CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO . 3 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON HEREBY FINDS , DETERMINES , RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The Carson Redevelopment Agency has :submitted a proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No . 3, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, to the Planning Commission for its report regarding the conformity of such proposed Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan of the City of Carson and its recommendations regarding such proposed Redevelopment . Section 2 . The location purpose and extent of ( i ) real property to be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street , square , park or other public purposes , ( ii ) real property o be disposed of , ( iii ) streets to be vacated or abandoned , ( iv) public buildings or structures to be constructed or authorized , all pursuant to or in furtherance of such proposed Redevelopment Flan , are in conformance with the General Plan . Section 3 . Such proposed Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the General Plan . Section 4 . The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Agency and City Council certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report regarding such Redevelopment -1 - Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 53 of 354 Plan , attached hereto as Exhibit 3 ( the "Final EIR1° ) is applicable in all respects to such proposed Redevelopment Plan and was completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and Agency guidelines with respect thereto and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to deciding whether to approve such proposed Redevelopment Plan . With respect to the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR , the Planning Commission finds as follows : Earth Potentially significant effect : The project area contains former landfill sites which may contain potentially hazardous materials . Findings : Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR . Discussion : Construction on former landfills may require excavation and removal of potentially hazardous material . Prior to development of former landfill sites , detailed analysis of the specific potential hazard posed by each site will be conducted , and mitigation measures incorporated into specific project designs to deal with potential environmental effects . 2 . Air Potentially significant effect : The project is located in a region in which air pollutant concentrations exceed the -2- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 54 of 354 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and are expected to r continue to exceed these standards for the foreseeable future . With respect to this significant effect , the following finding is made : Finding: Changes or alterations which could avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect identified are within the responsibility of another public agency , and not the City of Carson o-r the Carson Redevelopment Agency . Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency . Discussion : An Air Quality Management Plan has been prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District which sets forth a program for improvement of air quality , but does not demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards . The proposed project wil have a very small but contributory effect , together with other projects in the region , tending to reduce air quality and extend the date by which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards will be attained . The Air Quality Management Plan calls for actions by all public agencies in the region , and cannot be implemented by the City of Carson alone . The City of Carson will enact those mitigation measures required by it as part of the Air Quality Management Plan . 3 . Water No potentially significant effects identified . 4 . Plant Life r -3- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 55 of 354 No potentially significant effects identified . Animal Life No potentially significant effects identified . 5 . Noise Potentially significant effect : The project will incrementally increase noise levels in residential areas surrounding the project area as a result of traffic impacts . In some cases this increase occurs in an area where noise levels from arterial streets now exceed California standards for new construction without sound insulation . Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Reduction of noise levels within existing residential structures through sound insultation is very expensive , involving a minimum of 10% of the value of the unit for significant noise reduction . This expense is considered infeasible considering the small noise increase involved in the proposed project . Reduction of noise by reduction of traffic requires reducing traffic by an infeasible amount ( by 50% or more for significant reduction) . ° . Light and Glare No potentially significant effects identified . 5 . Land Use -4- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 56 of 354 Potentially significant -effect : The proposed project may result in changes in mixed land uses on various sites in the project area . With regard to this significant effect , the following finding is made : Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : The intent of the proposed project is to eliminate blight and increase the productivity of the project area through changes in mixed land uses in the project area . The social and economic objectives of the project cannot be met without these changes in mixed land uses . 9 . Natural Resources No potentially significant effects identified . ? G . Risk of Upset Potentially significant effect : The project area contains former landfill sites which may contain potentially hazardous materials . Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Construction on former landfills may require excavation and removal of potentially hazardous material . -5- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 57 of 354 Prior to development of former landfill sites , detailed analysis of the specific potential hazard posed by each site R will be conducted , and mitigation measures incorporated into specific project designs to deal with potential environmental effects . Population Potentially significant effect : The project will result in significant increases in employment in the project area , which have secondary effects on housing demand in the region . These increases are consistent with regional projections and plans . Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . Discussion, : The intent of the proposed project is to eliminate blight and increase the productivity of the project area through changes in mixed land uses in the project area . The social and economic objectives of the project cannot be net without these changes in mixed land uses . 12 . Housing Potentially significant effect : The project will result in significant increases in employment in the project area , which have secondary effects on housing demand in the region . These increases are consistent with regional projections and Plans . Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . —6— Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 58 of 354 Discussion : The intent of the proposed project is to eliminate blight and increase the productivity of the project area through changes in mixed land uses in the project area . The social and economic objectives of the project cannot be met without these changes in mixed land uses . 13 . Transporatation/Circulation Potentially significant effect : The project has the potential to result in significant traffic generation in the project area reducing the level of service on 'Local arterials near the project area . Together with other projects in the vicinity , this potential reduction in service is significant unless improvements in traffic capacity are made . Finding: Changes or alternations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : For areas within the City of Carson , mitigation measures are included in the proposed project which will maintain the level of service on major arterials affected by the proposed project . Mitigation measures have beeen identified to provide the Level of Service D or better , at all arterial intersections significantly affected by the project . For areas outside the City of Carson , the following finding is made : Finding : Changes or alterations which could avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect identified are within the responsibilty of another public agency , and not the City of Carson or the Carson Redevelopment Agency . Such -7- Ordinance No. 84-695/page 59 of 354 changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such agency . Discussion : With regard to circulation effects outside the City of Carson , mitigation measures are under the jurisdiction of other agencies . The City is cooperating with efforts to deal with circulation problems in the Los Angeles County/Orange County transportation corridor . 14 . Public Services . No potentially significant effects identified . 15 . Energy Potentially significant effect : The project will result in an increase in regional energy consumption . Finding : Changes or alternations have been required in , or ir incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : All construction will be required to comply with California standards for energy conservation in new construction . Measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled are included in circulation mitigation measures . These measures include encouragement of high-occupancy vehicles and provision for pedestrian and bicycle circulation . 16 . Utilities No potentially significant effects identified . -8- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 60 of 354 17 . Human Health No potentially significant effects identified . 18. Aesthetics Potentially significant effect : The project will result in a significant change in the appearance of many parcels in the project areas as a result of new construction on vacant or underutilized sites . These effects may be considered adverse by some individuals . Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Mitigation measures for site development include review of development plans under the City 's development standards , and specific height and setback restrictions in the City 's Zoning Ordinance . 19 . Recreation No potentially significant effects identified . 20 . Archaeological/Historical Potentially significant effects : Although potential for finding significant archaeological/historical sites in the project area is small ; if such sites are found , they are likely to be destroyed by construction if no mitigation measures are included in project design . Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 61 of 354 Finding : Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Specific mitigation measures are included in the proposed project and will be incorporated in disposition and development agreements for project sites . These measures include surveys of project sites , notification of appropriate agencies , and the provisions for excavation or preservation . Section 5 . The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of such proposed Redevelopment Plan by the Agency and by the City Council of the City of Carson . Section 6 . The planning Commission hereby further recommends that page 5 of the proposed Redevelopment Plan be amended to read as follows : "The Agency may install or construct , or cause to be installed or constructed , any and all publicly i owned improvements which may be necessary or desirable to make former landfills or wast disposal sites available for proper use or development , or to abate any hazard created thereby. Such improvements may include , without limitation , methane gas collection systems . ,, Section 7 . Such proposed Redevelopment Plan , with the change described in Section 6 , above , is in conformance with the General Plan . Such change does not affect the General Plana The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan with such change included in the Redevelopment Plan . -10- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 62 of 354 PASSED , APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of June 1984 / Chairman ATTEST : 3 fae V✓�.. Secretary U Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 63 of 354 G . Summary of Meetings and Consultations with Project Area Residents and Community Organizations As discussed above , proposed Agency activities are anti.cir<.ted to cause minimal , if any, displacement of low and moderate income persons or families . Therefore , a Project Area Committee was not formed . Nonetheless , the Agency consulted with and obtained the advice of residents and community organizations regarding matters dealing with residential facilities and replacement housing . The Agency held a "scoping session" on March 17 , 1984 . A summary of the matters discussed at the scoping session and other consultations follows : The Agency shall continue to consult with and obtain advice of residents and community organizations . Scoping Session March 17 , 198 + 9 :00 a .m. - 12 :00 noon Carnegie Junior High Staff mailed , by certified mail , notice of the above scoping session to all property owners within the boundaries of proposed Redevelopment Project No. 3 and all property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of Redelopment Project No . 3 . Members of staff in attendance were Community Development Director , Patricia Nemeth; Redevelopment Project Manager , Adolfo Reyes ; Project Manager for Redevelopment Project No . 3, Louis Lusero; and Project Manager for the amendment to Redevelopment Project No . 1 , Dennis Patterson . -38- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 64 of 354 The session was opened by Patricia Nemeth , who summarized the purposes of proposing the new project area . As questions were asked , they were answered . As part of the information session , Mr. Reyes explained the redevelopment process in general and Mr. Lusero discussed specific characteristics of the proposed Redevelopment Project No. 3. This part of the scoping session also included a slide presentation and a photo display . Approximately 100 residents and property owners attended the session . Each attendee was given the opportunity to complete a survey form which provided for a prioritizing of issues and potential projects. In terms of priorities , those in attendance listed police/fire services , air quality , transportation impacts, and the removal of auto dismantling facilities as the most crucial areas of concern . Responses to questions on the questionnaires were tabulated and the results were placed on a master sheet . Community Organizations Throughout the process of creating Redevelopment Project No . 3 , the public and community organizations were apprised of germane activities . This involved not only the holding of the scoping session , but also the contacting of organizations including the Carson Chamber of Commerce and the Carson-Dominguez Industrial Council , and meeting with concerned parties or individuals as they requested , including Watson Industrial Properties and various realtors . In addition , staff responded to all telephone requests for information . -39- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 65 of 354 f The Report Required by California Government Code Section 65402 The report required by California Government Code Section 65402 , which will be provided by Resolution of the Planning Commission , will be added to this Report upon adoption of such Resolution . [RESOLUTION 84-776 ATTACHED] -40- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 66 of 354 RESOLUTION NO . 84-776 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON REPORTING REGARDING THE CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO . 3 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 . The Carson Redevelopment Agency has submitted a proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No . 39 attached hereto as Exhibit 2, to the Planning Commission for its report regarding the conformity of such proposed Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan of the City of Carson and its recommendations regarding such proposed Redevelopment . Section 2. The location , purpose and extent of ( i ) real property to be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street , square , park or other public purposes , ( ii ) real property to be disposed of, ( iii ) streets to be vacated or abandoned , ( iv) public buildings or structures to be constructed or authorized , all pursuant to or in furtherance of such proposed Redevelopment Plan , are in conformance with the General Plan . Section 3 . Such proposed Redevelopment Plan is in conformance with the General Plan . Section 4 . The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Agency and City Council certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report regarding such Redevelopment i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 67 of 354 Plan , attached hereto as Exhibit 3 ( the "Final EIR") is applicable in all respects to such proposed Redevelopment Plan and was completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and Agency guidelines with respect thereto and that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the contents of the Final EIR prior to deciding whether to approve such proposed Redevelopment Plan . With respect to the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR , the Planning Commission finds as follows : 1 . Earth Potentially significant effect : The project area contains former landfill sites which may contain potentially hazardous materials . Findings : Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR . Discussion : Construction on former landfills may require excavation and removal of potentially hazardous material . Prior to development of former landfill sites , detailed analysis of the specific potential hazard posed by each site will be conducted , and mitigation measures incorporated into specific project designs to deal with potential environmental effects . 2 . Air Potentially significant effect : The project is located in a region in which air pollutant concentrations exceed the z -2- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 68 of 354 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and are expected to continue to exceed these standards for the foreseeable future . With respect to this significant effect , the following finding is made : Finding: Changes or alterations which could avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect identified are within the responsibility of another public agency, and not the City of Carson or the Carson Redevelopment Agency . Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency . Discussion : An Air Quality Management Plan has been prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District which sets forth a program for improvement of air quality , but does not demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards . The proposed project wil have a very small but contributory effect , together with other projects in the region , tending to reduce air quality and extend the date by which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards will be attained . The Air Quality Management Plan calls for actions by all public agencies in the region , and cannot be implemented by the City of Carson alone . The City of Carson will enact those mitigation measures required by it as part of the Air Quality Management Plan . 3 . Water No potentially significant effects identified . 4 . Plant Life -3- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 69 of 354 No potentially significant effects identified . 5 . Animal Life No potentially significant effects identified . 6 . Noise Potentially significant effect : The project will incrementally increase noise levels in residential areas surrounding the project area as a result of traffic impacts . In some cases this increase occurs in an area where noise levels from arterial streets now exceed California standards for new construction without sound insulation . Finding: Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . Iff Discussion : Reduction of noise levels within existing residential structures through sound insultation is very expensive , involving a minimum of 10% of the value of the unit for significant noise reduction . This expense is considered infeasible considering the small noise increase involved in the proposed project . Reduction of noise by reduction of traffic requires reducing traffic by an infeasible amount ( by 50% or more for significant reduction) . 7 . Light and Glare No potentially significant effects identified . 8 . Land Use -4- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 70 of 354 Potentially significant effect : The proposed project may result in changes in mixed land uses on various sites in the project area . With regard to this significant effect , the following finding is made : Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : The intent of the proposed project is to eliminate blight and increase the productivity of the project area through changes in mixed land uses in the project area The social and economic objectives of the project cannot be met without these changes in mixed land uses . 9 . Natural Resources No potentially significant effects identified . s. 10 . Risk of Upset Potentially significant effect : The project area contains former landfill sites which may contain potentially hazardous materials . Finding : Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Construction on former landfills may require excavation and removal of potentially hazardous material , -5- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 71 of 354 Prior to development of former landfill sites , detailed analysis of the specific potential hazard posed by each :, ii.e will be conducted , and mitigation measures incorporated into specific project designs to deal with potential environmental effects . vi Population Potentially significant effect : The project will result in significant increases in employment in the project area , which have secondary effects on housing demand in the region . These increases are consistent with regional projections and plans . Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : The intent of the proposed project is to eliminate blight and increase the productivity of the project area through changes in mixed land uses in the project area . The social and economic objectives of the project cannot be mer without these changes in mixed land uses . 2 . Housing Potentially significant effect : The project will result in significant increases in employment in the project area , which have secondary effects on housing demand in the ~eg on . These increases are consistent with regional projections and plans . Finding : Specific economic , social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR . -6- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 72 of 354 Discussion : The intent of the proposed project is to eliminate blight and increase the productivity of the project area through changes in mixed land uses in the project area . The social and economic objectives of the project cannot be met without these changes in mixed land uses . 13 . Transporatation/Circulation Potentially significant effect : The project has the potential to result in significant traffic generation in the project area reducing the level of service on local arterials near the project area . Together with other projects in the vicinity , this potential reduction in service is significant unless improvements in traffic capacity are made . Finding : Changes or alternations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : For areas within the City of Carson , mitigation measures are included in the proposed project which will maintain the level of service on major arterials affected by the proposed project . Mitigation measures have beeen identified to provide the Level of Service D or better , at all arterial intersections significantly affected by the project . For areas outside the City of Carson , the following finding is made : Finding: Changes or alterations which could avoid or substantially lessen the environmental effect identified are within the responsibilty of another public agency , and not the City of Carson or the Carson Redevelopment Agency . Such -7- Ordinance 84-695/Page 73 of 354 changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and J, should be adopted by such agency . Discussion : With regard to circulation effects outside the City of Carson , mitigation measures are under the jurisdiction of other agencies . The City is cooperating with efforts to deal with circulation problems in the Los Angeles County/Orange County transportation corridor . 14 . Public Services . No potentially significant effects identified . 15 . Energy Potentially significant effect : The project will result in an increase in regional energy consumption . Finding: Changes or alternations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the 4 significant environmental effect as identified in the Final E1R . Discussion : All construction will be required to comply with California standards for energy conservation in new construction . Measures• to reduce vehicle miles traveled are included in circulation mitigation measures . These measures include encouragement of high-occupancy vehicles and provision for pedestrian and bicycle circulation . 16 . Utilities No potentially significant effects identified . -8- Ordinance $4-695/Page 74 of 354 17 . Human Health No potentially significant effects identified . 18 . Aesthetics Potentially significant effect : The project will result in a significant change in the appearance of many parcels in the project areas as a result of new construction on vacant or underutilized sites . These effects may be considered adverse by some individuals . Finding : Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Mitigation measures for site development include review of development plans under the City 's development standards , and specific height and setback restrictions in the City 's Zoning :Ordinance . 19 . Recreation No potentially significant effects identified . 20 . Archaeological/Historical Potentially significant effects : Although potential for finding significant archaeological/historical sites in the Project area is small ; if such sites are found , they are likely to be destroyed by construction if no mitigation measures are included in project design . -9- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 75 Of 354 Finding : Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into , the project which avoid or lessen the _ip- significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR . Discussion : Specific mitigation measures are included in 'the proposed project and will be incorporated in disposition and development agreements for project sites . These measures include surveys of project sites , notification of appropriate agencies , and the provisions for excavation or preservation . Section 5 . The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of such proposed Redevelopment Plan by the Agency and by the City Council of the City of Carson . Section 6 . The planning Commission hereby further recommends that page 5 of the proposed Redevelopment Plan be amended to read as follows : "The Agency may install or construct. , or cause to be installed or constructed , any and all publicly owned improvements which may be necessary or desirable to make former landfills or wast disposal sites available for proper use or development , or to abate any hazard created thereby . Such improvements may include , without limitation , methane gas collection systems . " Section 7 . Such proposed Redevelopment Plan , with the change described in Section 6 , above , is in conformance with the General Plan . Such change does not affect the General Plan . The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan with such change included in the Redevelopment Plan . -10- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 76 of 354 PASSED , APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day A of June 19811 � Chairman ATTEST : Secretary Ab- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 77 of 354 I . Report Required By Section 21151 of Public Resources Code ( final Environmental Impact Report) [FINAL EIR ATTACHED] —41 — Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 78 of 354 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 3 CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA July 9, 1984 CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 84032102 Consultants to the Redevelopment Agency: THE ARROYO GROUP Planners, Architects and Associated Disciplines 40 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91105 with PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Transportation Planners and Traffic Engineers Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 79 of 354 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 3 CITY OF CARSOI, CALIFORNIA July 9, 1984 Carson Redevelopment Agency 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 State Clearinghouse Number: SCH 040321U2 Consultants to the Redevelopment Agency: The Arroyo Group Planners , Architects and Associated Disciplines 40 East Colorado Boulevard Pasadena, CA 91105 with Parsons Brinckerhoff Transportation Planners and Traffic Engineers Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 80 of 354 CONTENTS ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , v Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR . . . . . . . . . . . vi 1. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3. Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.1. Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2U 3.2. Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.3. !Dater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3.4. Plant Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3.5. Animal Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 38 3.6. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.7. Light and Glare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 45 3.8. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.9. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . , 53 3.10. Risk of Upset . , . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3.11. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S5 3.12. Housing . . . . . . . 59 3.13. Transportation/Circulation . . . . , . . . . . 60 3,14. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3.15. Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3.16. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 97 3.17. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 3.18. Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .108 3.19. Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109 3.20. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110 3.21. Archaeological /Historical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,112 4. Unavoidable Adverse Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115 5. Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 6. Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119 7. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 8. Short Term vs. Long Term Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 9. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes . . . . . . . . .127 10. Growth-inducing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128 11. Persons and Organizations Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129 12. Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR 31 s Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 81 of 354 FIGURES 1. Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 t 2. Project Location and Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3. Proposed Plan for Alternatives 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4. Aerial Photo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5. Landfill and Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 o'. Seismic Special Study Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 7. Traffic Noise as a Function of Traffic Volume and Distance . . . . 41 8. Project Traffic Eloise Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 9. Existing Land Use in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 10. Existing Zoning in the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 11. Existing General Plan for the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 12. Photos of Project Area Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 13. Regional Statistical Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 14. Existing Average Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 15. Committed Traffic Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 16. Existing plus Committed Traffic Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 17. Traffic Increase for Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 18. Traffic Increase for Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 19. Existing plus Committed Traffic for alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . 72 20. Existing plus Committed Traffic for Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . 73 21. Transit Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 22. Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 23. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 24. Storm Drain Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103 i" ii Ordinance 84-695/Page 80 of 354 TABLES I. Proposed Land Uses for Project Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Environmental Impact Summary . . . . . . . . 18 . 3. Sanitary Landfills in the Carson Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4. Days Federal Air Quality Standards Exceeded . . . . . • 25 5. Days Ozone Episode Criteria Reached . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6. Days State Air Quality Standards Exceeded . . 26 7. Motor Vehicle Emission Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 30 8. Air Pollution Emission Factors . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Air Pollutant Emissions . . . . . 31 10. Relation of Project Emissions toSource/Receptor•Area 32 I1. Air Pollution Concentrations from Project Traffic . . . 33 12. Interpretation of Community Noise Levels . . . . . . . 40 13. Population, Housing and Employment Projections . . . . . 57 14. Arterial Capacity Values . . . . . . . 61 15. Level of Service Descriptions . . . . . . . . . 63 16. Trip Generation . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 64 17. Assumed Directional Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . 65 18. Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . 74 19. Fiscal Impacts on Carson Redevelopment Agency . . . . . . 90 20. Fiscal Impacts on City of Carson . . . . . . . . . , 92 21. Fiscal Impacts on Taxing Agencies . . . . . . . . 94 22. Project Water Consumption . . . . . . . . 99 23. Sewer Average Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 24. Sewer Peak Flow . 101 25. Electric Power Cons umption 105 26. Natural Gas Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . .105 27. Solid Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 28. Park and Recreation Facilities . . . .111 39. Project Alternatives and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124 111 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 83 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 EXECUTIVE SUMARY This report summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts which may result from the implementation of Redevelopment Project Area Plumber 3 in the City of Carson, California. The project is being proposed by the Carson Redevelopment Agency (CRA). The project evaluated includes the development of an esti - mated 6.4 million square feet of industrial and commercial uses in areas that are now vacant or developed in low intensity land uses in a project area encompassing approxi - mately 700 acres. In addition to this private development, the Redevelopment Agency and other City agencies may install public improvements including upgraded streets, sidewalks, street lighting, water lines, sewer lines, storm drains and other public improvements. Potential impacts of the project result from dislocation of some existing businesses in the project area, and from the increase in intensity of development. This increase in intensity will result in increases in traffic volume on arterials serving the project area. This increase in traffic volume will result in increases in air pollution and noise relative to the case in which no such development were to take place. Significant open space areas which are now undeveloped will be used for development of structures for business. Mitigation measures included in the project to reduce impacts include methods for reducing traffic impacts by increasing the capacity of the circulation system and improving its performance, development of public infra- structure improvements to meet increased infrastructure demands, requirements for sound insulation in ne,w resi - dential development in adjoining areas, and relocation assistance for all residents and businesses relocated through public acquisition. iv Ordinance No 84-695/Page '84 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 INTRODOCTIO+1 Legal This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared in Requirements accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) published by the Resources Agency of the State of California (California Administrative Code sections 15000 et.seq.), the Environmental Impact Report guidelines of the Carson Rede- velopment Agency and the Environmental Impact Report Guide- lines of the Citv of Carson. This report was prepared by professional planning consul - tants under contract to the Carson Redevelopment Agency which is the lead agency for this project, and following its hearing and adoption will represent the findings and conclusions of the Carson Redevelopment Agency. Background In order to define the scope of investigation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the Carson Redevelop- ment Agency notified, with a Notice of Preparation, all City agencies, other public agencies and many interested private organizations and individuals to identify City and public concerns regarding potential impacts of development. On Saturday, March 17, 1984 at 21826 Bonita Street, Carson, California, a scoping session was held to obtain the views of interested agencies and members of the public regarding the content of the DEIR. Availability The Environmental Impact Report is available for public of Reports inspection and copying at the City of Carson, 701 East Carson Street, Carson, California. Copies are available to the public on payment of a reasonable charge for reproduc- tion. Circulating copies are available at the Carson Public Library at 151 E. Carson Street. EIR an This Environmental impact Report is intended to provide Information information to public agencies and the general public Document regarding file environmental impact from potential develop- ment on those sites discussed in the EIR, together with the public improvements which may be constructed. Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, "The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the envi - ronment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." Thus, the EIR is an information document for use by decisionmakers, public agencies and the general public. It is not a policy document which sets forth City or Agency policy about the desirability of any of the potential developments discussed. v Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 85 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Additions/Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report C The following additions and corrections were made to the Draft Environmental Impact Report in response to comments received following circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and additional information. page 34 paragraph 1, line 1. change "Table 12" to "Table 11" page 39 insert new paragraph 2 as follows: "Noise from industrial processes taking place in newly developed industrial areas near residential areas is not expected to result in significant noise problems. The City's noise ordinance and zoning ordinance prohibit excessively loud operation of machinery or other noises near residential areas." page 39 add at end of 6th paragraph, following "1970) . " "Although sound insulation from urban traffic may involve less expenditure because the sound is directional , significant sound insulation in existing residences is difficult and expensive. Some sound insulation, which may compensate for the 1- to 2-dB increase in sound level resulting from the proposed project, may result from weather sealing around windows and doors, and installation of storm windows or double glazing at relatively low cost. Ho.iever, because of the minor effect and difficult administration of such a program for the small number of units affected, such a program is not recommended. " page 51 paragraph 4, line 4. change "20 years if the redevelopment project is not adopted," to "20 years," paragraph 6, line 5. change "he level of maintenance" to "The level of maintenance" page 88 paragraph 2. Delete last sentence which reads "The proportion of tax increment revenue that is allocated to the Agency is determined by negotiation with the County of Los Angeles and other agencies through fiscal review procedures established by state lard." page 89 paragraph 7 (last paragraph). Delete second sentence which reads "The Agency's share of total tax increment revenue from the project area is set through negotiations with other taxing agencies ." page 89 paragraph 7. Add a new last sentence: "Of the tax increment revenue received by the Agency, 20% is required to be spent to benefit low- and moderate-income housing." page 90 Replace with revised Table 19, changing new construction values. page 91 Replace with revised Table 19, changing new construction values . vi Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 86 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 page 92 Change total one-time revenue from "$2,331,000" to "$1,969,140" page 93 paragraph 2. Change "$4.0 million" to "$3.6 million" and "$32.4 million" to "$28.6 million" corresponding to changes in Table 19. page 99 Change table title from "PROJECT WATER USE" to "PROJECT HATER CONSUMPTION" 3 vii Ordinance No 84-695/Page 87 of 354 t1R, Redevelopment Project Area 3 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Background Redevelopment Project Number 3 is proposed by the Carson Redevelopment Agency to aid in improving the use of the project area through elimination of blighting influences currently preventing the full and effective use of land. Elimination of blight includes providing upgraded public facilities and services, revitalization of commercial and industrial properties, development of proper parcelization for new development, and encouragement of private development of new industrial facilities. Project Figure 1 on the following page shows the location of Location Redevelopment Project Area Number 3 in the Los Angeles/Orange County urbanized region. The project is located along Alameda Street between Carson Street and Sepulveda Boulevard in the City of Carson. Figure 2 on page 3 shows the project boundaries on a street map of the City of Carson. The precise boundaries of the proposed project may be obtained in a map and/or legal description available from the Carson Redevelopment Agency. 01 1 Ordinance No 84-695/Page 88 of 354 - ,. .: `-• �;-. �f•_-,.�.AI. 1 ro \ ' r - � TADN , _ Ist?`u.� F-. .7 D41 i , 'L .�ourroo LENOALE u-W Yl—re�_t .l l �PASAO NA' E1110 - h, ` n vc.n r ru° S .. .� f•� � .,'� - rs...• :: YlA�NO• - t: A7(1 C. VIM, RMPIE A N 5 `° HOLLYWOOD.�6� -� '°°"' ruADEN/ H GABRE —cm A_ .. rut L ,4 _ t m a ,+ - i �• - �.•ALHAMBRA mstvLA � •' IEtErt NiILS� � ti>` , t•J• �:n...A.. r -var{eo.� a t l ! ...... t ... ..• 11: rumm�; 3~ M$NTE wiNl. ....� l r nt.' 00 ` [rn 8f a _ wl• t ^ 's a +YARI Ib.. j USI LOS ANUILI -fir "A MONICA'' . .. _ ANGEL ESE„ Kr 1tK[\ - " `-'• tr •It t 1 _1 xu C ON PAR[ y, > /Cll D 1 m ..•... - .... - •tEll it CAADENS '�'� .,•. >. r.r.0 n� -►lJTCN Tr[t /~1• -1HGLEWOOD I F y _ /, •' . 7 '.b+•-u.n .. 'Q� Hill - C1T_I 3 ry r -•• `..,. .. X11 It IS r , , ` � � r . � , DOWHEY Y El stcuNDD �7: LYHWDOD y NAM TNO NEC I + LOx1A00A UWWDAEE I @ CO},IPT t- rI ivou.t R NORWALK 3J CAR Imi ■eri. - 2. ... 7i mamas& VLUX .. �. «.w .» � t ° 'AMC i ' 1AKE14000 � r. 1 YORRANCE !I ! w. �_ , . : .. REDOHDO BEACH' a rj L � � J.. - � r... •h �•.-r n / aw•.w zY , LO R .•..w C .a i v v+::T•C t ... r}Ili taon MA _ ..•• '^, : L s&"via( A r•. v 1...•-v..w a lWALS �s .:. RILYUICI ,r•..., K1,r011 v ` ,,Z,w..' .��.. :qb• _ _ "rus++r:wc .� •LONG ._-. ...wa. •"«, _ BEACH �•••.- ua SIX RALN Hav n.p r .,•-.r.v`� t. . HUKnNG r / / r r EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PRO.IECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON , CA �-' Figure 1. 2 REGIONAL AREA Ordinance No 84-695/Page 89 of 354 y 4 n I / I 3C'i� y sq Iy 1l I 4 4ry ,t` C W d 4. i i. S ,1 i e�ea a � i } / LL f i4C .\ e / ~jl I it 0 -^.1t r°OJE-C AREA. NUMBER 3, CARSON. CA FEZ ` Figure 2 3 PROJECT LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 9Q of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Proposed Figure 3 illustrates proposed land uses for Alternatives Land Uses 3 and 4. This land use is consistent with the existing General Plan for the area. Table 1 on the following page summarizes proposed land uses for the project area for each of the four principal alternatives included in the EIR. Other alternatives are considered in Section 7, Alternatives. Alternative 1, the "no development" alternative, summarizes existing uses in the project area and considers what would happen if no changes in land use and no public improvements were to take place in the project area. The area now contains substantial parcels of vacant land or land used for low-intensity land uses. Alternative 2, the "no project" alternative, summarizes projected incremental development in the project area based on past trends without redevelopment and upgrading of public improvements and infrastructure in the project area. This alternative assumes continued private development under current zoning and development standards, but without adoption of the Redevelopment Project to permit Redevelopment Agency assistance. Alternative 3 assumes a full buildout of the project area land use plan under current development standards at maxi- mum intensity, ignoring present infrastructure and trans- / portation system constraints. Under this alternative, an estimated 6.4 million square feet of commercial and indus- trial development is anticipated. Significant public investments in infrastructure would be required to support the private development anticipated under this alternative. Alternative 4 assumes a reduced intensity of deve- lopment in the project area relative to Alternative 3 under a similar land use plan. This alternative puts less pres- sure on the local and regional transportation system, but still assumes significant public improvements to streets and utilities to support development. A total of 4.2 million square feet of industrial development is antici- pated under this alternative. All of these alternatives assume development under current land use regulations which may be supplemented by design standards adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in develop- ment agreements with developers. l 4 Ordinance No. 84-695/page 91 of 354 P - n U ti a t G� t c' Tr HI ` n m � —3 _ u! 0 V 1 / LDR-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ! � ©i HOR-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL gi ' I GC-GENERAL COMMERCIAL RC-REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LI-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HI- HEAVY INDUSTRIAL P-PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES E 'R FOR F. r/JE.V E LOPVIENT PROJECT -SR EA NUMBER 3, CARSON , Cr?. "s7 Figure 3 PROPOSED LAND USES FOR 5 ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4 i Ordinance No. 84=695/Page 92 of 354 FIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE I LAND USES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED PROJECTS AMENDMENT TO PROJECT AREA 1 Units/ per --------Existing Use-------- --------Alternative 2-------- LAND USE acre unit ac Units Total ac Units Total ------------------------------------ ---------------------------- ----------------------------- Resid-Single (2-6/ac) 4,0 2,5 2 8 du 20 people 1 4 du 10 people Resid-Medium (6-15/ac) 10,0 1,7 12 120 du 204 people 14 140 du 238 people Resid-High (15-35/ac) 20,0 1,4 8 160 du 224 people 8 160 du 224 people ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 22 288 du 448 people 23 304 du 472 people Shopping Center 7 2,0 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi Retail/Service 7 2,0 22 144 ksf 287 empt 52 340 ksf 680 empi Hotel/Motel 17 1,0 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi Office Park 17 4,0 10 174 kst 697 empi 10 174 ksf 697 empi Business Park 13 3.0 157 2052 ksf 6155 empi 219 2862 ksf 8586 empi Heavy industry 17 2,0 232 4042 ksf 8085 empi 330 5750 ksf 11500 empi Storage/Low Intens Coml 1 5,0 171 171 ac 855 empi 65 65 ac 325 empt Petroleum Proc/Storage 1 5,0 44 44 ac 220 empi 63 63 ac 315 empi Local Park 1 0,2 5 5 ksf 1 empl 5 5 ksf I empi School/Public 7 3,0 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi Transport/Flood Control 1 0,0 109 109 ac 0 empi 109 109 ac 0 empi Open Space/Golf Course 1 0,1 51 51 ac 5 empi 51 51 ac 5 empt Vacant 1 0,0 164 164 ac 0 empi 60 60 ac 0 empl ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 965 6412 ksf 16305 empl 964 9126 ksf 22108 empi PROJECT AREA 3 ----------------------------------- ---------------------------- Shopping Center 7 2,0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empi Retail/Service 7 2,0 10 65 ksf 131 empi 10 65 ksf 131 empt Hotel/Motel 17 1,0 0 ksf 0 empt 0 ksf 0 empt Office Park 17 4,0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empi Business Park 13 3.0 30 392 ksf 1176 empi 90 1176 ksf 3528 empi Heavy Industry 17 2,0 111 1934 ksf 3868 empi 205 3572 ksf 7144 empi Storage/Low Intens Coml 1 5,0 61 61 ac 305 empi 30 30 ac 150 empi Petroleum Proc/Storage 1 5,0 51 51 ac 255 empi 60 60 ac 300 empi Local Park r 1 0,2 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empi School/PubIIC 7 3,0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empt Transport/Flood Control 1 0,0 94 94 ac 0 empi 94 94 ac 0 empt Open Space/Golf Course 1 0,1 22 22 ac 2 empi 22 22 ac 2 empi Vacant 1 0,0 312 312 ac 0 empt 180 180 ac 0 empi ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------------------ TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 691 2391 ksf 5737 empt 691 4813 ksf 11255 empi EXISTING PROJECT AREA 1 ----------------------------------- -------------------- -------- ----------------------------- Resid-Single (2-6/ac) 4,0 2,5 7 28 du 70 people 18 72 du 180 people Resid-Medium (6-15/ac) 10,0 1,7 38 380 du 646 people 20 200 du 340 people Resid-High (15-35/ac) 20,0 1,4 0 du 0 people 23 460 du 644 people ------ ----------------------------- TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 45 408 du 716 people 61 732 du 1164 people Shopping Center 7 2.0 176 1150 kst 2300 empi 287 1875 ksf 3751 empt Retail/Service 7 2,0 0 ksf 0 empi 3 20 ksf 39 empi Hotel/Motel 17 1,0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empl Office Park 17 4,0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empi Business Park 13 3,0 127 1660 ksf 4979 empt 265 3463 ksf 10389 empi Heavy Industry 17 2,0 0 ksf 0 empl 16 279 ksf 558 empi Storage/Low Intens Coml 1 5,0 55 55 ac 275 empi 0 ac 0 empl Petroleum Proc/Storage 1 5,0 0 ac 0 emp! 0 ac 0 empt Local Park 1 0,2 0 kst 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empi School/Public 7 3,0 14 91 ksf 274 empi 0 ksf 0 empi Transport/Flood Control 1 0,0 71 71 ac 0 empi 76 76 ac 0 empi Open Space/Golf Course 1 0,1 10 10 ac I empl 38 38 ac 4 empi Vacant 1 0,0 248 248 ac 0 empi 0 ac 0 empi TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 701 2901 ksf 7829 empl 685 5637 ksf 14740 empt Abbreviations du: dwelling units; ksf: thousand square feet; empl - employees; ac: acres \- 6 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 93 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 1 LAND USES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED PROJECFS (CONTINUED) -----------Change---------- -------Hlternative 3-------- -----------Change------------ ac Units Total ac Units Total ac Units Total ------°---------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -1 -4 du -10 people 0 0 du 0 people -2 -8 du -20 people 2 20 du 34 people 0 0 du 0 people -12 -120 du -204 people 0 0 du 0 people 6 120 du 168 people -2 -40 du -56 people ----------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------------- 1 16 du 24 people - 6 120 du 168 people -16 -168 du -280 people 0 0 ksf 0 empi 20 131 ksf 261 empi 20 131 ksf 261 empl 30 196 ksf 392 empl 52 340 ksf 680 empl 30 196 ksf 392 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empl 14 244 ksf 244 empl 14 244 ksf 244 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi 60 1045 ksf 4182 empi 50 871 ksf 3485 empl 62 810 ksf 2431 empi 283 3698 ksf 11095 empi 126 1647 kst 4940 empi 98 1708 ksf 3415 empl 423 7370 ksf 14741 empi 191 3328 ksf 6656 empi -106 -106 ac -530 empi 0 0 ac 0 empi -171 -171 ac -855 empi 19 19 ac 95 empl 0 0 ac 0 empi -44 -44 ac -220 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empl -5 -5 ksf -t empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ac 0 empl 109 109 ac 0 empi 0 0 ac 0 empl 0 0 ac 0 emp! 20 20 ac 2 empi -31 -31 ac -3 empi -104 -104 ac 0 empl 0 0 ac 0 empi -164 -164 ac 0 empi ----------------------------- -1 2714 ksf 5803 emp! 981 12828 ksf 31204 empl 16 6416 ksf 14899 emn! ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ---------------------------- 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf 0 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi 20 131 ksf 261 emp! 10 65 ksf 131 empi 0 0 ksf 0 emp! 0 ksf 0 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empl 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 enpl 60 784 ksf 2352 empi 122 1594 ksf 4783 empi 92 1202 ksf 3607 emp! 94 1638 ksf 3276 empi 404 7039 ksf 14079 empi 293 5105 ksf 10210 empi -31 -31 ac -155 empi 0 ac 0 empl -61 -61 ac -305 empl 9 9 ac 45 empi 51 51 ac 255 em.ol 0 J ac 0 emp! 0 0 ksf 0 emp! 0 ksf 0 empl 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empl 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ac 0 emp! 94 94 ac 0 empi 0 0 ac 0 empi 0 0 ac 0 empi 0 ac 0 empl -22 -22 ac -2 empi -132 -132 ac 0 empi 0 ac 0 empl -312 -312 ac 0 empi ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- 0 2422 ksf 5518 emp! 691 8764 ksf 19378 empi 0 6373 ksf 13641 empl -------.--------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ 1! 44 du 110 people 18 72 du 180 people 11 44 du 110 people -18 -180 du -306 people 20 200 du 340 people -18 -180 du -306 people 23 460 du 644 people 23 460 du 644 people 23 460 du 644 people ----------------------------- ----------------°------------- 16 324 du 448 people 61 732 du 1164 people 16 324 du 448 people 111 725 ksf 1451 empl 287 1875 ksf 3751 empi 111 725 ksf 1451 empi 3 20 ksf 39 empl 3 20 ksf 39 empl 3 20 ksf 39 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empl 0 ksf 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 emp! 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 ksf - 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi 138 1803 ksf 5410 empi 265 3463 ksf 10389 empl 138 1803 ksf 5410 empi 16 279 ksf 558 empl 16 279 ksf 558 empi 16 279 ksf 558 empi -55 -55 ac -275 empl 0 ac 0 empi -55 -55 ac -275 empi 0 0 ac 0 empi 0 ac 0 empi 0 0 ac 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 empi 0 kst 0 empi 0 0 ksf 0 emp? -14 -91 ksf -274 empi 0 ksf 0 empi -14 -9! ksf -274 empi 5 5 ac 0 empi 76 76 ac 0 empl 5 5 ac 0 empi 28 28 ac 3 empi 38 38 ac 4 empi 28 28 ac 3 emp! -248 -248 ac 0 emp! 0 ac 0 empi -248 -248 ac 0 empi ----------------------------- --------------- ------------ ----------------------------- -16 2736 ksf 6911 emp! 685 5637 ksf 14740 emp! -16 2736 ksf 6911 em 7 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 9.4 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Project The project is intended to meet the following objectives: Objectives o Convert underutilized sites to more productive industrial and commercial land uses. o Generate new employment opportunities by p•ronoting private investment and revitalization in the project area. o Provide improvements to urban infrastructure required to reach the above objectives. o Provide or replace public streets, alleys, sidewalks, sewers, stoma drains, traffic signals, lighting systems, underground utilities and other public improvements as necessary. Project Changes in land use in the project area will be brought Actions about through a combination of public action and private action. Redevelopment Agency Actions. Direct Redevelopment Agency _ action including property acquisition, relocation of existing businesses, site preparation, and resale for private development, may be used ;r`: ere necessary to convert existing blighted areas to higher and better use. Problems such as improper parcelization, inadequate site size, and value of existing uses may prevent private revitalization of certain parts of the project area. Private Action. Much of the conversion of land uses in the project area to higher and better use is expected to come about in the private marketplace in response to Redevelopment Agency action to eliminate surrounding blighting influences and to provide adequate innfrastructure for development. Related The Agency is considering another redevelopment project Projects at the same time Redevelopment Project Number 3 is bei na considered. This project deals yvi th the development of up to 6.4 million square Feet ol commercial a, d indus- trial development on underutilized land in an Amend:7ent to Redevelopment Project Area Number 1 in the western section of the City. The cumulative impacts of both projects are considered throughout the DEIR. In addition to V,is pro- ject being proposed by the Carson Redevelopment Agency, a number of other developments are currently unders11ay near the project areas and are also considered in anticipating cumulative impacts in this DEIR. These developments include the following: v Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 95 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 o Continued development throughout the City of Carson and surrounding communities in accordance with regional growth projections in the SCAG-82 Growth Forecast Policy. o Alameda Street improvements including grade separation with rail line. o Development of existing Redevelopment Project Area Number 1 including up to 2.7 million square feet of commercial and industrial development. o Development in existing Redevelopment Project Area Number 2 in the southeastern section of the City, including up to 2.5 million square feet of industrial development. o Development of the Los Angeles Intermodal Container Transfer Facility. o Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit Project. o Watson' s Business and industrial Par; development, Public A number of public improvements will be required to serve Improvements the project area should Alternative 3 or Alternative 4 be approved by the Agency. These improvements are directly related to the project and include street and sidewalk improvements, driveways and utility improvements, and other improvements as outlined. The costs of these Public improvements may be borne by private developers or by the Redevelopment Agency through tax increment financing. Some may be funded through the City General Fund or from highway formula grants, federal revenue sharing or other sources. These improvements may be constructed as necessary to assist in project t-inple!nentation. Implementation phasing and financing of any of these projects rill depend on tine nature and phasing of private development in the project area and the availability of tax increment and other funds for their construction. done of these public improvements is assured as part of implementation of the proposed project. Those improvements which are included as assured mitigation measures for the proposed project are listed in Section 6, Mitigation Measures. The following public improvements are considered in the DEIR: o Miscellaneous repairs to curbs, gutters, sidewalks and medians requiring maintenance throughout the project area. 0 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 96 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 o Alameda Street. Development to full width with repairs to existing developed portion, street lighting, parkway paving and treewells. Bike route signs and striping are also required. o Sepulveda Boulevard. Additional right-of-way, street reconstruction, ,7edian improvements, curb and gutter, street lighting. o Wilmington Avenue. Street reconstruction, raised medians. o 220th Street. Capping near ',Jilmington intersection. o 223rd Street. Completion of right-of-way, parkway and median improvements where appropriate. o Water Mains. 12 inch main in Alameda Street from end of existing main line about 300 feet north of Doninnuez Channel or south from a proposed new east—:vest line south of 223rd Street. o Sanitary Sewer. Main sewer and lift station to connect to Wilmington Avenue Trunk Sewer, relief sewer In Sepul vela Boui evard between 41i 1 mi ngton Avenue and Alameda, new sewer into new level op„ient north of Sepulveda. l The total cost of these improvements has been estimated at $9,960,530. Detailed information about the proposed improvements is contained in the report "Redevelopment Project No. 3. Alameda Street Study", by 'Wilson-Bryant Associates, April , 1984. 10 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 97 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Actions and The following responsible agencies are expected to use Responsible the information contained in this DEIR with respect to Agencies their approvals of actions related to or involved in the implementation of this proposed project: Agency Project/Action Carson Redevelopment Redevelopment Plan Adoption. Agency Approval of Disposition and Development Agreements. Sale of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds. Funding and approval of public improvements construction. Acquisition and Sale of property. Relocation of residents and businesses. Other actions incidental to implementation of the above actions. City Agencies Street, utility and other infrastructure improvements. Approval of private development plans. Approval of zone c;nanges and General Plan amendmen'cs. South Coast Air Revie,,v of emission permits. Quality Management District 11 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 9.8 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 2. DESCRIPTI01 OF ENYMO11MENTAL SETTING The project is located in Carson, a mid-sized city located less than 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles. The City contains mainly industrial uses. It is currently approxi- mately 80% developed. The strong growtn in Carson during the sixties and seventies continues today, and the City expects to reach its full development capacity by the year 2000. The project is bounded by Wilmington Avenue and the Dominguez Channel on the west, Carson Street on the north, the city limits on the east and Sepulveda Boulevard and the Dominguez Channel on the South. There are two extensions of the project. One runs along Alameda Street between Carson and Dominguez Streets. The other continues along Carson between Alameda Street and Santa ,e Avenue. The aerial photo on the following page sho,vs the project area and its immmediate surroundings. The area is served by an extensive freeway and arterial street network and the Southern California Rapid Transit District. The Los Angeles Basin is subject to meteorological condi- tions that result in accumulation of air pollutant emis- sions and their conversion to photochemical oxidants, - resulting in levels of a i r pollution exceeding the national ambient air quality standards for all pollutants for which standards have been set except sulfur dioxide. A regional Air Quality Management Plan h.as been developed r,,hic'n would improve air quality but would not result in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 1 0,87 as required by the Clean Air Act. This plan is pending appro- val by the U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency. The Los Angeles/Orange County area depends on imported water for residential , industrial and agricultural uses. Importing water has high energy and environmental costs which will continue as long as water is imported. The Los Angeles/Orange County urbanized region is e,pacted to depend increasingly on external sources of electric power from coal and nuclear generating stations. Use of these power sources results in significant ris`:s or various types (such as risks of mining and transportation acci- dents, radiation leaks, terrorist activity), consumption of large quantities of cooling water and water for coal trans- port, pollution of the air in areas not now exposed to such pollution, excavation of large areas for recovery of coal and coverage of additional areas by mine waste. These elements of the economic and environi;iental syste m on 13 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 99 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project area 3 which development of the Los Angeles/Orange County region depends are important in considering the impact of any development in the region. The effect of a given develop- ment at nearly any site in the Los Angeles/Orange County region has similar effects on the more remote elements of the system. The environmental setting of those environmental factors where potentially significant project impacts are foreseen is discussed in greater detail in the environmental impact discussion following. 14 Ordinance No. 84-695/Pageloo of 354 ,�rp � ��. giidlM'E.J; +. e:wi�' +T �� t i se'��A •F~i �4 i'�I� �`� �.'.T`CF� r♦ 9YI.i i /i 'b L .tea 1 �(^�'�' ( }+7 P@ a°iR'r '".°. l j !rs"djt♦-N{}�kt" i�S�¢ i"_: r nil- =6Y PROJECT k ' , . BOUNDARY :F r. Y ..d .y�fifi M1 � . o- s � Ya t ; AMM AN �7nT ti ♦ - y„�. y„� ..---» .. %"' �` � „ A pt ri Z4 k 1 ti EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON , Figure 4. 15 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Ordinance No. 84-695/Page,101of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3. ENVIRI WI,iENTAL I ]PACT This section outlines the environmental setting, environmental impacts and mitigation measures for those environmental factors on which the proposed project may have significant effects. The table on the following pages summarizes environmental impacts and mitigation measures for the proposed project. Impacts on the physical environment of the project include changes in storm drainage as a result of construction of structures and paving, risk of potential accidents during construction and project operation, which have been found to be minor and insignificant, and increases in local and regional air pollution emissions relative to the case in which no development were to take place. No significant impacts on the biological environment of the project area or surrounding areas are anticipated. Impacts on the man-made environment include increases in traffic and resulting noise levels, increases in demand for sewer and crater services and potential increases in population and housing demand in the project's housing/employment market area. s� More detailed discussion of impacts in each of these areas is found in sections 3.1 through 3.21 following the table. 17 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 102 of 354 i s EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL 11PACT SUNI MARY ISSUE ENVIRONMIENTAL SETTING POTENTIAL E`NIPD:4ENTAL ItrPACT MITIGATION MEASURES Earth No unique geologic or seismic E,pesure of people and property Building codes provide problems in area. Exposed to to earinquake hazards, satisfactory level of safety, strong ground shaking. Uncompacted fill in old landfill Higher costs of site prepa- Building codes require adequate sites, ration and foundations, site preparation and foundations. Air Project is located in an area Some increase in local pollu- Regional mitigation measures that does not meet National tant emissions and concentra- through Air Quality Managsrnent Ambient Air Quality Standards, ticns. Minor increase in Plan. Local mitigation measures regional pollutant levels, through required TSM actions by site users. Surface and Area has some drainage deficien- Scme reduction in around water =.dequate site drainage will Ground Water cies. Area may contribute to recharge with coverage by be required by ground water recharge. Possibla impervious surfaces, region- hazardous wastes in old fills, ally insignificant. Plant and Urban plant and animal Changes in the nature and Nona Animal Life populations now exist in area. <,aur,t of landscaping will modify habitat, but no effect on rare/endangered species. fkoise Fete noise-sensitive uses, Area Reduction in noisa-sensitive Sound insulation required generates same traffic noise, uses. Increases in traffic in new multi-family residential noise levels in adjacent construction. )bise impact on areas. Construction noise, existing units not feasible to mitigate. Light and Glare Project area new has some Parking lot, building and Project include ` building, street and parking street lighting •sill to add��; ,eviea o` lighting to minimize lighting. by n:>.a development. glare and offsita ill�_inination, Land Use Project area includes older Significant increase in ^ itigation r_aasures for other industrial, cc,Tmercial uses, intensity of deveicpcent, impacts are intended to mitigate Reduction of use conflicts, impacts of land use change, Natural Resources Song oil production in project Sor.a nonrene,ra'ole resources ;cne area, will be ecnsumed in construc- tion and operation. Existing oil wells expecLedd to rand f.n. Risk of Upset Refinery uses have some onsite Some add ition-aI refinery uses Regulations by City and other r hazardous ateriais and require possible, upgrading of older g,:ncies regarding storage and transportation of those refinery uses. :;se of hazardous materials are materials, expected to result in acceptable level of risk. Population Project area has no residential Up to 13,641 a ditional jobs Other areas of city provide use, provides an estimated could be provided in project potential ..casing sites, but 5,737 jobs, area. Area nc:i an enployment not suff � I_-1C.f for all d-nand. surplus area. Indirect and induced jobs in region, Housing Na existing residential use. Secondary housing impact Smai1 9^' of . adevelc,^.n-enT tax incre- percent of rnarkat area demand, ment inccme requirx to be spent to tenefit lo:a- and ,-)deratc- incoome housing. Transportation/ Site has good arterial and free- Potential to significantly do- improvements to arterial intar- Circulation way access. Few intersections grade level of service at nearby sDcticns and free-say access. now overloaded. Froeway at or intersections when ccmbinsd •with Emphasis on transit lmprovef^ants over capacity at peak hours. other projects. Site access and TSf•1 measures by site tenants„ could cause problems if direct Site plan revi�� fcr a.ca3s end to arterials, perking. 1$ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 103 of 354 l.,,CleY cX; t,2d the 1:10etill, at 8: 15 ITEM No. bC. Associate Planner Mellein read the staff INTERSECTION AT VICTORIA report. Co:lllllisSioller ' Cvc s ould, a motion STRMT AND C17NTRAL AVENUE, t o 10 C 0 1�0 a 11 d file this item, seconded REGARD ING INFORMATION oN A L•%. C L)HIM i SS ;0 TI C r a Ills, and unanimously POSSIBLE BICYCLE LANI: AND carried, 1, L th Commissioners Braff,, Lindsay BICYCLE LANE WIDTH STAN- and Lockley absent. DARDS. ITEM NO. 6 D. :Associate !Tanner McNeill read the staff STATUS REPORf ON TILE 1984 report ANTI-LITTER PROGRAM AND JUDGING Or TIIE ESSAY AND Chairperson Curtis asked if the trophies POSTER CONTESTS will have tile I'llvii-on,711clital Commission's name Printed on them. Associate Planner Mellein stated that the Environmental Commission's name ,.ill not be printed on the trophies this year, but he will include this request' in the file I CO!dcl-, so that it will be done next year. Commissioner Fiona made a motion to ro- ceive and file, seconded by Commissioner Reyes, and unanii;iousIy carried, frith Commissioners Braff, Lindsay and Lockley absent, ITEM NO. i. None. NEW BUS14NESS ITEIM NO. S. Associate Planner Mellein stated staff WRITTEN CO3MMUNICATIONS received a report from the Community Safety Department regarding the Industrial Asphalt Company Fire. (Which was in- cluded in the folders.) Associate Planner Mellein stated that the folders also include information on the BKK Landfill site and the Rilolit- to-Know-Standards regarding hazardous waste procCdLlr05. ITEM NO. 10, Associate PInnnor Mellein reported on ORAL COMMUNICATIONS the ISSLICS previously discussed by the Commission relaardinl,, Freeway Signs, Land- PROPOSED CITY IDENTIFICATION soaping and the Signing for the Olympic ST(:NS AND LANDSCAPING FOR THE Games. REDONDO BEACH FREEWAY (ROUTE 91) , AND CITY fDENFIFICATION fie informed the Commission that staff has SIGNS FOR CENTER MEDIANS made an extensive survey of the San Diego, the Redondo !)each Freeway (Route 91) and the, Harbor Frceway (where it abuts the City houndaries) - 11c,explaincd that on the 91 Frcewav there is no Carson signing and also no tand/scaping. Environmental Comillissiion "'linutes ,1av 2.), 19,sl Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 104 of 354 ITEN1 NO. 10 (Con't) informed Ined t h o 1 :11:1 s s i o TI that t sUifi also made a Sul, .(2 v 11 1, the traffic corridors to the %-vi(ldloille. lie mentioned that 110 diSCLJSSOd this stud:, l%ith the City Traffic 1:11,,;licer, who stated there 'sore three locations W11 i Ch Z I n O suitable for the City morluniclit s i g n s. Later, the Public Works Diructol, i.111 ormed ?11 . Melloill that at this late date it would he Liaposs;hlo to install city 111011u:110,11, s til WIS priol. to the Olympics. A 1raft nionlotanduin had been prepared for the City Council, hilt 'Ile City AIIMLIII.Stra- tor felt that this item should come before the City (:Otlllc; l as all A1,1011da item and riot as a Memorandum, Since it is a Policy item. Associate Planner Mullein stated that he contacted Paul Natsuvall of Caltrans, who State'! that there is not enough time Lor M the proposed 91 Frcoway 1.a rids cap ill,,' Project to be completed for- the Summer 0_LVMPjcS. ?Ir. Natsuyan referred Mr. Mellcin' to Sandy Ankhasirisan of Caltrans, who Stated that She will contact .;off ?jzlrk of Caltrans to Speak to the Commission at the June nth rnectill.g on the land- scapin g issues. Sandy informed Mr. Mellein that landscaping is scheduled for the 91 F-Celvay between Vermont and Broadway, in 1985. Associate Planner Mclicin reported on pro- posed signing for the Olympic Games, lie stated that he contacted Scott Hutchison at the L.A. Olympic Organizing Committee. Mr. Hutchison 'stated that thc%A00C will provide aluminum signs and they will he installed on a temporary basis. Sonic of the signs will be 11 approximately 3'x4 in size, magenta and aqua in color, with the word "Cyclinlg," an arrow and a bicycle pictogram. Mr. Molloin showed the Com- mission an example of the colors and shape of the sign. Associate Planner Molloin informed the Commission that a report will be presented to the Council at the June 4th meeting, Outlining how the various departments are participating in preparin., the City for the Olympic Gaines. Associate Planner Mclicin informed the Commission that he contacted Thomas Kilday of Caltrans regarding the Freeway Sign- in,,. Mr. Kilday informed hint that State Law requires that Caltrans provides signs at the City Limits. Fnvironniontal Commission Minutes Mav 23, 1984 page 4 Ordinance No.84-695/Page 105 of 354 .lei "In 111,01nQ(l Conuaissiutt that trI:Ilmr:lry F r c L.l,Z IV ing for the oiv:llnic, CZllllcs was CI!4c ussed with [loll Jll�, go of stated Caltl�:llls has z, contract between their A,oncN and a privato contractor to provide torlool-ary 1-10cwav suns for the Summer Games. I lemPor;1tv I signs t:i.11 he nosted oil the tell Of the overhead on the ollstbounci and ..ost- bound Redondo Gcach Prect,,ay. \SsOC'Zlt" ')':Inner tdellcin sll"`OILUd LzlziL the Cormliission Instruct ,;LaFC to S_L�illlllt On Agenda item to the citv Council rc- questill", the Council to have the "lavor tr�lrlsmit a Letter to Caltrans requesting: L. InstzlIllIti011 of ZI "Carson City� Limits" sign o n t 10 11CCO RLQ 3 Ca L1 Frcc- ,III way (Route 911 g o I n, l,.c s t, at Central. Avenue, U so, the installation o a "Carson C L t, 1,i:lits" sign, coin, cast at F i,I u o r o a' Street C I T C the present con- struction activity will permit it to be installed at this time) 'nstallatiun of ;I ­(,.arson N:ex-I 3 4 Exits" s; ,n on the Redondo Beach Free- av west criv of I I going I a t li Point cast the Contral Avenue o'f-ramp. Also, the installation of a "Carson Ncxt Exits" sign, " Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 106 of 354 67- 6 FEM NO. I I n el- 4�Iry I;I A Di 0 u RN 1%1 L N-1 t'0 L I I'll I , joll, uwill 1:1 L I s I v Carricii, frith Co Infl,I 1 0 11 C t,s ra f C , l,i Ild s av :111 d F.ocktcv absent. "lee t i il, ad i ou r1led at ATTEST: SLLRL I AKY r. F i rivironmental Commission Minutes May 23, 1334 Page 6 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 107 of 354 ORDINANCE r10. 84-695 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CARSON ADOPTING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS THE OFFICIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to Redevelopment Project No. 3 (the "Project Area") a of the Carson Redevelopment Agency are to eliminate the conditions of blight existing in the Project Area and to prevent their recurrence by undertaking all appropriate redevelopment projects pursuant ' to the Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety z Code Section 33000, et seq. (the "Law"). 'i Section 2. The Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3 (the "Redevelopment Plan"), attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to the staff report, is incorporated herein by this reference. I Section 3. Based upon the record of the joint public 3 hearing held on the Redevelopment. Plan, the various reports and other information provided to the City Council , the City Council hereby finds and determines that: CA. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Law. a B. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the area in conformity with the Law and in the interest of the public peace, i health, safety and welfare. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. D. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Carson. E. The carrying Gut of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Carson and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the Law. F. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. G. Although the Carson Redevelopment Agency does not intend to displace any families or persons from the Project Area, the Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons which may be displaced from the Project Area if the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent EXHIBIT 5 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 108 of 354 displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. H. Although the Carson Redevelopment Agency does not intend to displace any families or persons from the Project Area, there are or are being provided in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities a and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. I. The inclusion in the Project Area of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part; any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its inclusion. J. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of t C the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Carson Redevelopment Agency. 9 3 Section 4. Based upon the record of such joint public hearing and the various reports and other information provided to the City Council, although the Agency does not intend to displace any families or persons in the Project Area, the City Council is satisfied permanent housing facilities will be available within s three years from the time occupants of the Project Area may be displaced and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to such occupants who may be displaced adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Section 5. Based upon the record of such joint public hearing and the various reports and other information provided to the City Council, the City Council is convinced that the effect of tax increment financing will not cause a severe financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. 2 _ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 109 of 354 Section 6. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby approved and adopted and is hereby designated as the Official Redevelopment Plan of the Project Area. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1984. 8 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk s 3 - Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 110 of 354 RESOLUTION NO. 84-119 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON APPROVING A PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO, 3 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS. AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby certifies that the Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR"), attached hereto as Section of Exhibit 1 to the staff report on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No, 3 of the Carson Redevelopment Agency was completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the guidelines thereto and that the 9 City Council has reviewed and considered the contents of the EIR prior to deciding whether to approve such Redevelopment Plan (the implementation of which is sometimes referred to as the "project"). With respect to the potential significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, the City Council finds as follows: A. The EIR identifies the impact on the old landfill / sites located within the Project Area as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as a detailed study of each former landfill site with respect to the existence of any hazardous materials or substances will be required before any development will be allowed thereon. B. The EIR identifies the impact on air quality as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as the Agency will implement the mitigation measures required by the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. C. The EIR identifies the impact on noise as a potential significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The project will only incrementally increase noise levels in residential areas surrounding the project as a result of traffic impacts. Reduction of noise levels within existing residential structures through sound insula- tion is excessively costly and economically infeasible considering the relatively small noise increase potentially generated by the proposed project. The redaction of the noise impact by reducing the amount of traffic related to the project requires a traffic EXHIBIT 4 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 111 of 354 C reduction of fifty percent or more which cannot feasibly be accomplished in carrying out the project. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of the Project Area which will create additional traffic. The social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved if traffic is reduced by the amount required to avoid any noise impact. D. The EIR identifies the impact on mixed land uses as a potential significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitioation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The proposed project may result in changes in mixed land uses. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of the Project Area through changes in mixed land uses. The social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved without such changes in mixed land uses. E. The EIR identifies the impact on the risk of upset related to the former landfill sites as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required 4 in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as a detailed study of each former landfill site with respect to the existence of any hazardous materials or substances will be required before any development will be allowed thereon. F. The EIR identifies the impact on population as a potential significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The project may result in changes in mixed land uses which will result in significant increases in employment and population in the Project Area. Such increases are consistent with regional projections and plans. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of the Project Area through changes in mixed land uses. Unless such changes in mixed land uses occur, the social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved. G. The EIR identifies the impact on housing as a potential significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The project may result in changes in mixed land uses which will result in significant increases in employment and population. Such increases will have a secondary effect on housing demand in the area. These increases in employment and population are consistent with regional projections and plans. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and 2 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 112 of 354 i increase the economic productivity of the Project Area through ; changes in mixed land uses. Unless such changes in mixed land uses occur, the social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved. H. The EIR identifies the impact on transportation and circulation as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as measures are included in the project to maintain the existing level of service on the major arterials in the City affected by the project. Further measures will be implemented to provide level of service "D" or better, as described in the EIR, at all arterial intersections in the City significantly affected by the project. With respect to streets and intersections outside the City, changes or alterations in the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Further, the City of Carson is cooperating with other public agencies in the region to alleviate the circulation problems existing in the Los Angeles-Orange County transportation corridor. J. The EIR identifies the impact on aesthetics as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as all new development will be required to comply with all zoning regulations. The City will review the development plans for new construction to ensure compliance with all development standards. K. The EIR identifies the impact on archaeological and historic sites as a potentially significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as surveys of project sites will be required and appropriate steps will be taken to protect any archaeological or historic sites that a are discovered. Although the potential for discovering such sites is remote, the foregoing mitigation measures will be incorporated into the disposition and development agreements for new developments in the Project Area. Section 2. The reports and information required by California Health and Safety Code Section 33352, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, are hereby approved. - 3 - Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 113 of 354 Section 3. The City may expend funds which may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the redevelopment of Redevelopment Project Area No. 3. The City Council hereby declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that the j provision of low and moderate income housing outside Redevelop- ment Project Area No. 3 will be of benefit to the project and to Redevelopment Project Area No. 3. Section 5. The City Council has considered the report referred to in Section 2 hereof, and all evidence and testimony for and against adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. All objections are hereby overruled. Section 6. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 attached hereto as Exhibit B, including the change thereto as recommended by the Planning Commission and the Agency, which the City Council 111 � hereby determines to be necessary and desirable, is hereby i approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1984. Mayor r ATTEST: City Clerk i . t r Ordinance fro. 84-695/Page 114 of 354 PART 4. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY. Section 4.01. Acquisition of Real Property. The Agency may acquire by gift, purchase, lease, or condemnation all or part of the real property in the Project Area. Section 4.02. Commencement of Eminent Domain Proceedings. Eminent domain proceedings to acquire property in the Project Area shall be commenced within twelve (12) years from the effective date of the ordinance of the City adopting this Redevelopment Plan. Section 4.03. Disposition of Real Property. The Agency shall sell or lease all real property acquired by it in the Project Area except property conveyed to it by the City. 3 Section 4.04. Nondiscrimination. All property in the Project Area is hereby subject to the restriction that there shall be no discrimination or segregation based upon race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or ancestry, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of property in such property. All property sold, leased, conveyed, or subject to a participation agreement shall be made expressly subject by appropriate documents to the restriction that all deeds, leases, or contracts for the sale, lease, sublease or other transfer of land in such territory shall contain such nondiscrimination and nonsegregation clauses as may be required by law. All deeds, leases or contracts for the sale, lease, sublease or Y > z 7 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 115 of 354 other transfer of any land in such territory shall contain the nondiscrimina- tion clauses prescribed in the law. Section 4.05. Dwelling Units Removed from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Market. Whenever dwelling units housing persons or families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate housing market as part of the Redevelopment Project, the Agency shall within four (4) years of such destruction or removal , rehabilitate, develop, or construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed, for rental or sale to persons or families of low or moderate income an equal number of replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the Redevelopment Project Area or within the City, in accordance with the law. 1 ) d 8 3 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 116 of 354 PART 5. PARTICIPATION IN REDEVELOPMENT. Section 5.01. Participation. Each person desiring to become a participant in the redevelopment of the Project Area shall enter into an owner participation agreement with the Agency pursuant to which the participant agrees to rehabilitate, develop or use the real property in conformance with this Amendment and subject to such other provisions as may be provided by the Agency. In such agreements, parti- cipants who retain real property shall join in the recordation of such documents as determined by the Agency. Section 5.02. Failure to Participate as Agreed. In the event that an owner of property in the Project Area fails to participate as agreed, the Agency may acquire such property by any available means, including eminent domain, or-may take any other appropriate action to ensure that the redevelopment of the Project Area is carried out pursuant to the provisions of this Redevelopment Plan and the Law. 9 Ordinance No. 84-695/page 117 of 354 PART 6. REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. Section 6.01. Redevelopment Activities. The Agency proposes to undertake, without limitation, the following redevelopment activities and Projects: A. The acquisition of real property. B. The disposition of real property. C. The improvement of real property. D. The rehabilitation of real property. E. The increase and improvement of the supply of low and moderate income housing in the City. F. The payment for all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of, the installation and construction of buildings, facilities, structures or other improvements which are publicly owned. The Agency may also undertake any other activity or Project not prohibited by the law. Section 6.02. Public Projects to be Undertaken by the Agency. The Agency proposes to pay for all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of, the installation or construction of the following buildings, facilities, structures and improvements which will be publicly owned: Alameda Street Item Quantity (1.75 miles) Clear & Grub 10.7 AC Conc. Removal 11,420 CY 3" AC Paving 88,600 SF 10 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 118 of 354 Alameda Street Item Quantity 6" AC Paving 591,360 SF Aggregate Base 64,220 T Curb & Gutter 15,270 LF Median Curb 12,890 LF Conc. Walk & Parkways 73,720 SF Catch Basin 41 EA 24 RCP 380 LF Landscaping 6,500 LF Trees 59 EA Street Lights 21 EA Rev. Traffic Signals 2 INT Striping 58,400 LF R/W Acquisition 93,380 SF Relocate Utilities 470 LF "V" Gutter 460 SF (Within the Los Item Quantity Angeles City Limits) Clear & Grub 0.2 AC Conc. Removal 550 CY 6" AC Paving 64,290 SF Aggregate Base 5,700 T Curb & Gutter 360 LF Median Curb 300 LF Walk & Parkway Paving 4,900 LF Striping 4,600 LF R/W Acquisition 11,100 SF 11 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 119 of 354 Carson Street Item Quantity (1. 32 miles) Clear & Grub 12.7 AC Tree Removal 45 EA Conc. Removal 410 Cy 5" AC Paving 381,160 SF Aggregate Base 23,950 T Curb & Gutter 5,545 LF Median Curb 11,820 LF Conc. Walk & Parkways 79,820 SF Catch Basin 7 EA 24 RCP 700 LF 36" RCP 1,620 LF Landscaping 5,910 LF Trees 68 EA Street Lights 15 EA Rev. Traffic Signals 2 INT Striping 38,700 LF Bike Route Signs 24 EA R/W Acquisition 11,300 SF Carson Street Item Quantity (Needed Parking Land Acquisition 33,000 SF Improvements) 4" AC Paving 33,000 SF Aggregate Base 1,190 T Striping 840 LF Lights 4 EA 12 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 120 of 354 r Sepulveda Boulevard Item Quantity (.25 miles) Clear & Grub 3.0 AC 52" AC Paving 87,800 SF Aggregate Base 6,850 T Curb & Gutter 2,700 LF Median Curb 2,700 LF Landscaping 1,330 LF Street Lights 7 EA Rev. Traffic Signals 1 INT Striping 2,000 LF R/W Acquisition 33,900 SF Wilmington Avenue Item Quantity (0.6 miles) Clear & Grub 4.6 AC Conc. Removal 990 CY Conc. Paving 1,890 SF 52" AC Paving 164,760 SF Aggregate Base 12,850 T Curb & Gutter 420 LF Median Curb 3,680 LF Conc. Walk & Parkway 8,800 SF Landscaping 1,840 LF Trees 19 EA Striping 17,040 LF 220th Street Item Quantity (0.6 miles) 3" AC Cap 5,700 SF Cold Plane (5 ft. wide) 300 LF 13 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 121 of 354 223rd Street Item Quantity (0.8 miles) Clear & Grub 0.3 AC Curb & Gutter 1,100 LF Median Curb 4,800 LF Conc. Walk 14,000 SF Median Landscaping 2,400 LF Parkway Trees 20 EA Street Lights 12 EA Pavement Striping 25,200 LF New Right-of-Way 13,400 SF Water Improvements Location Item guantity Alameda St. between 12" Water Main 3,000 LF the Dominguez Channel (Dominguez Water) and 223rd St. 6" Water (Carson) 10,200 LF Sewer Improvements Location Item guantity Sepulveda Blvd. be- 18" VCP (L.A. Co. 6,200 LF tween Alameda St. and Sanitation Dept. the Wilmington Exten- sion to the city 18" VCP (Carson) 3,200 LF boundary servicing areas east and west 8" VCP (Carson) 13,800 LF of Alameda. Lift Station 1 EA Storm Drain Construction of storm drainage facility on the south side of 223rd Street approximately halfway between Wilmington Avenue and Alameda Street. 14 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 122 of 354 Landfill Area Improvements The Agency shall construct or cause to be constructed all landfill area improvements , including but not limited to, methane gas collection systems and all other improvements necessary to ensure the development of former landfill areas which are subject to settling, subsidence, and other anomilous processes which have served to impair the development of such land areas. 1 15 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 123 of 354 l PART 7. SAFEGUARDS, RETENTION OF CONTROLS AND PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY. Section 7.01. Safeguards. To provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the provisions of this Redevelopment Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of the conditions of blight in the Project Area, all real property sold, leased, or conveyed by the Agency, as well as property subject to owner participation agreements, shall be made subject to the provisions of the Plan by leases, deeds, contracts, agreements, declarations or restrictions, and such real property shall be subject to provisions of the zoning ordinance of the City, conditional use permits , and other Federal , State and 'local laws, rules and regulations, all as the same may be amended from time to time. Where appropriate, as determined by the Agency, such documents or portions thereof shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles. Section 7.02. Retention of Controls. The Agency or City Council may impose further restrictions and controls on the land leased or sold by the Agency for such periods of time and under such conditions as deemed necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Law. Section 7.03. Other Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions Prescribed by the City Council . r' The redevelopment of the Project Area shall be carried out in accordance with any other covenants, conditions, or restrictions as may be hereafter prescribed by the City Council . 16 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 124 of 354 Section 7.04. Expenditure of Money by the City. The City may expend all funds which may be necessary or appropriate in connection with the redevelopment of the Project Area. Section 7.05. Proceedings Undertaken by the City. The City may undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to carry out the redevelopment of the Project Area. 17 Ordinance No. 84-695/page 125 of 354 PART 8. LAND USE. Section 8.01. Open Space. The approximate amount of open space to be provided in the Project Area includes, without limitation, all areas which will be in the public rights of way, parks and recreational areas, open spaces around buildings and other outdoor areas not covered by buildings or structures. Section 8.02. Street Layout. Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 is bisected in an east-west align- ment by the San Diego Freeway. This project area is served by three major east-west arterials, Sepulveda Blvd. which forms the southern boundary of the project area, 223rd Street, and Carson Street which forms part of the project' s northern boundary. Major north-south arterials serving Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 include Wilmington Avenue and Alameda Street. The latter is scheduled to be upgraded to a six lane highway. Other streets serving Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 are 220th Street, Arnold Center Road, and Westward Avenue. (See Diagram 10.02 below) . The street layout in the Project Area may be altered to accomodate the redevelopment of the Project Area. Section 8.03. Buildings. The limitation on the type, size, height, number and proposed use of buildings in the Project Area shall be determined by the zoning ordinance of the City and other applicable Federal , State and local laws, rules and regulations, all as the same may be amended from time to time. 18 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 126 of 354 Section 8.04. Dwelling Units. At the present time, there are no (0) detached residential dwelling units in the Project Area. Also, there are no (0) attached residential dwelling units in the Project Area. Section 8.05. Public Property. The property to be devoted to public purposes in the Project Area includes all public streets and rights-of-way which may be used for vehicular or pedestrian traffic, public parks, and all other public improve- ments, and public and private utilities typically found in public rights-of-way. 19 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 127 of 354 PART 9 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section 9.01. The Legal Description of the Boundaries of Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 Are Described below: All the real property in the City of Carson, County of Los Angeles, State of California, within the following described boundaries: Beginning at the intersection of the westerly line of Wilmington Avenue, 100 feet wide, with the northerly line of Carson Street, 100 feet wide; thence easterly along said northerly line to the westerly line of Alameda Street, 90 feet wide; thence northerly thereon to the northerly line of Dominguez Street, 66 feet wide; thence easterly thereon to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of that certain alley, 15 feet wide, adjacent to Lot No. 1082 in Tract No. 7664 on the west, as shown on map recorded in Book 84, pages 47 and 48, of Maps, in the office of the Registrar-Recorder of the County of Los Angeles; thence southerly along said northerly prolongation and along said easterly line and the southerly prolongation thereof, and southerly along the easterly line of that certain alley, 15 feet wide, adjacent to Lot 96 in Tract No. 6720 on the west, as shown on map recorded in Book 71, pages 79 and 80, of Maps, in the office of said Registrar-Recorder, and along the southerly prolongation thereof to a line parallel with and 107 feet southerly, measured at right angles, from the southerly line of Washington Street, 50 feet wide, and the easterly prolongation thereof; thence easterly along said parallel line to the easterly boundary of the City of Carson located in Santa Fe Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly boundary to the southerly line of Carson Street, 83 feet wide; thence westerly thereon and westerly along the southerly line of Carson Street, 66 feet wide, to the easterly line of Alameda Street, 62 feet wide; thence southerly thereon and southerly along 20 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 128 of 354 the easterly line of Alameda Street, 90 feet wide, to the southwesterly boundary of the City of Carson located in Alameda Street; thence northwesterly along said southwesterly boundary to the easterly boundary of the City of Carson located in Alameda Street; thence southerly thereon, in all its various courses, to the southerly line of Sepulveda Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence westerly thereon and westerly along the southerly line of Sepulveda Boulevard, 60 feet wide, to the northeasterly boundary of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District right-of-way known as the Dominguez Channel , as shown on File Map No. 11683 on file in the office of the County Engineer of the County of Los Angeles, thence northwesterly along said northeasterly boundary of Dominguez Channel , in all its various courses, to the northwesterly line of Wilmington Avenue; thence northeasterly thereon, in all its various courses, to the point of beginning. r r 21 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 129 of 354 PART 10. DIAGRAMS OF THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT AREA AND STREET LAYOUT; THE LIMITATIONS ON TYPE, SIZE, HEIGHT, NUMBER AND PROPOSED USE OF BUILDINGS; THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS; AND THE PROPERTY TO BE DEVOTED TO PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE NATURE OF SUCH PURPOSES. 22 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 130 of 354 Diagram 10.01. Open space / -v--�/ "T TO SCALt i Q C LEGEND: REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT BOUNDARY REDEVELOPMENT / PROJECT AREA NO. 3 NOTE THERE IS CURRENTLY NO OPEN SPACE IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 3 L 23 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 13,7 of 354 D�ogrom 10 02 Street Layout. / . A �.- �r ! Ah-' � ' - ,.x�—,, `---�„ ._.__.t_. �_... •'1I-- --"–., �- ---fin -,7 rz 17 CARS N ers—T .—..—.�..—nin rFffR /------=-------^-- 1B Bill III fell*'■lll ll llll[��ll■� .�l—� C T. _ 111 ..'•--�`, ..,.... 220 TH ----------- ST C. 1 -�, __�-- z 11111,x.1111/71 IIIT IIB✓ ..:::.. :...::.. .............. `•• 17 223 RD ST11 f1 I film •• •V \\\1» � f\111 .'. .a� •o �\G * ,� nnT to acAL[ a o` ` LEGEND: t ♦ FREEWAY r 1.1.11111 STREET REDEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT ` PROJECT BOUNDARY PROJECT AREA NO. 3 i 24 I Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 132 of 354 _Diagram 10._03_ Buildings r�o : -.� o ` > M MH-ORL � MOi f0 SIC.IC O LEGEND: ti + �•—e—REDEVELOPMENT + PROJECT BOUNDARY / ML-MANUFACTURING LIGHT MH-MANUFACTURING HEAVY REDEVELOPMENT �1 D- DESIGN OVERLAY /� (� ^ t .. DISTRICT PROJECT Q R E N N O. 3 I ` ORL-ORGANIC REFUSE LAND M H � CG- FILL OVERLAY DISTRICT NOTE COMMERCIAL,GENERAL � - THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE TYPE, SIZE, HEIGHT, B NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 ' ` I25 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 133 of 354 Diagram 10.04 Dwelling Units --! = - - - - i ----- �7, if-�i . r 17`':?f/ / ... � `, µSOY,•\�� oIL FOT TO SC<L{ I N . 4 LEGEND: ---�REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOUNDART REDEVELOPMENT / PROJECT AREA NO. 3 i NOTE : I -� THERE ARE NO DWELLING UNITS IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 26 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 13:4 of 354 Dioq_rom 10. 05. Public Property / — -�--__- �� lid �`� / / .;. - -....j—� '-` s= -- w S .w O .[ C 0 Yr •�lqw .o 'C .T uNV�- \ I CHIN NI� O V V ' i YOT 10 )C.IL 4 LEGEND: N s — REDEVELOPMENT + PROJECT BOUNDARY REDEVELOPMENT u PROJECT AREA NO. 3 NOTE PROPERTY DEVOTED TO PUBLIC w USES INCLUDES PUBLIC STREETS AND _ T"s�,J6ND RIGHTS—OF—WAY, 27 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 135 of 354 F 3 RESOLUTION NO. 84-42 I RESOLUTION OF THE CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 THE CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: j Section 1. The Agency hereby certifies that the Environ- mental impact Report (the "EIR"), attached hereto as Section i of Exhibit I to the staff report on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 3 of the Agency was completed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the guidelines thereto and that the Agency has reviewed and considered i the contents of the EIR prior to deciding whether to approve such 3 Redevelopment Plan (the implementation of which is sometimes referred to as the "project"). With respect to the potential significant environmental effects identified in the EIR, the Agency finds as i follows: A. The EIR identifies the impact on the old landfill sites located within the Project Area as a potential significant environ- mental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as a detailed study of each former landfill site with respect to the existence of any hazardous materials or substances will be required before any development will be allowed thereon. B. The EIR identifies the impact on air quality as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or sub- s stantially lessen this effect as the Agency will implement the miti- gation measures required by the Air Quality Management Plan prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. i C. The EIR identifies the impact on noise as a potential 4 significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The project will only incrementally increase noise levels in residential areas surrounding the project as a result of traffic impacts. Reduction of noise levels within existing residential structures through sound insulation is excessively costly and economically infeasible considering the relatively small noise increase potentially generated by the proposed I project. The reduction of the noise impact by reducing the amount of traffic related to the project requires a traffic reduction of fifty percent or more which cannot feasibly be accomplished in carrying EXHIBIT 3 i 1 Ordiance No. 84-695/Page 136 of 354 out the project. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of the Project Area which will create additional traffic. The social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved if traffic is reduced by the amount required to avoid any noise impact. C. The EIR identifies the impact on mixed land uses as a potential significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The proposed project may result in changes in mixed land uses. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of the Project Area through changes in mixed land uses. The social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved without such changes in mixed land uses. E. The EIR identifies the impact on the risk of upset related to the former landfill sites as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as a detailed study or each former landfill site with respect to the existence of any hazardous materials or substances will be required before any development will be allowed thereon. F. The EIR identifies the impact on population as a potential significant environmental effect. Specific economic., social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The project may result in changes in mixed land uses which will result in significant increases in employment and population in the Project Area. Such increases are consistent with regional projections and plans. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of the Project Area through changes in mixed land uses. Unless such changes in mixed land use occur, the social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved. G. The EIR identifies the impact on housing as a potential s significant environmental effect. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. The project may result in changes in mixed land uses which will result in significant increases in employment and population. Such increases will have a secondary effect on housing demand in the area. These increases in employment and population are consistent with regional projections and plans. The purpose of the project is to eliminate blight and increase the economic productivity of "he Project Area through changes in mixed land uses, Unless such changes in mixed land uses occur, the social and economic goals and objectives of the project cannot be achieved. I Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 1375 of 354 3 3 H. The EIR identifies the impact on transportation and circulation as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as measures are included in the project to maintain the existing level of service on the major arterials in the City affected by the project. Further measures will be implemented to provide level of service "D" or better, as described in the EIR, at all arterial intersections in the City significantly affected by the project. With respect to streets and intersections outside the City, changes or alterations in the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies. Such changes have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Further, the City or 3 Carson is cooperating with other public agencies in the region to alleviate the circulation problems existing in the Los Angeles- Orange County transportation corridor. J. The EIR identifies the impact on aesthetics as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been i required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or sub- stantially lessen this effect as all new development will be required to comply with all zoning regulations. The City will review the ? development plans for new construction to ensure compliance with all development standards. 7 i K. The EIR identifies the impact on archaeological and historic sites as a potential significant environmental effect. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen this effect as surveys of project sites will be required and appropriate steps will be taken to protect any archaeological or historic sites that are discovered. Although the potential for discovering such sites is remote, the foregoing mitigation measures will be incorporated into the disposition and development agreements for new developments in the Project Area. Section 2. The reports and information required by California Health and Safety Code Section 33352, attached hereto as Exhibit I are hereby approved. Section 3. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to the staff report is hereby approved. Section 4. The Agency hereby recommends approval and adoption of such proposed Redevelopment Plan by the City Council of the City of Carson. I j 3 - Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 138 of 354 i Section 5. The Agency hereby further recommends that Page 15 of the proposed Redevelopment Plan be amended to read as follows: "The Agency may install or construct, or cause to be installed or constructed, any and all publicly owned improvements which may be necessary or desirable to make landfills or waste disposal sites available for proper use or develooment, or to abate any hazards created thereby. Such improvements may include, without limitation, methane gas collection systems." 1 Section o. The ,Agency also recommends approval and adoption 3 of the proposed Redevelopment Plan with such change included in � the Redevelopment Plan. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of 1984. a i s t t Chairman � ATTEST: s Secretary ! I 4 i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 139 of 354 3 MINUTES CARSON PLANNING CO}JMISSION REGULAR MEETING ! 7 JUNE 26, 1984 5 SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONERS City Clerk Kawagoe requested all Commissioners to stand and take the oath. REORGANIZATION Community Development Director Nemeth welcomed Commissioners James Bradley, Chomas Clayton, i Frank Gutierrez and William Takahashi to the Commission and congratulated Commissioners Elmer Bidwell, Joseph Harlow, Duncan SLI.lers and Maurice Tarling un their reappointment to the Commission. (Commissioner Sixto Abao , was also reappointed, however, he requested i an excused absence) . Ms. Nemeth asked for nominations for the position of Chair. Commissioner Sillers nominated Maurice Tarling for the position of Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Harlow. s Commissioner Harlow moved that the nominations be closed. The motion was unanimously carried. j / Commissioner Tarling was elected Chairman. i t Ms. Nemeth asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair to the Commission. ' Commissioner Clayton nominated himself for the position. Commissioner Tarling nominated ; Commissioner Harlow for the position of Vice-Chairman. i By a show of hands, Commissioner Harlow was unanimously elected Vice-Chairman of ; i the Commission, i CALL TO ORDER The neeting of June 26, 1984 , was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Tarling. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Commissioner Sillers. 5 ROLL CALL Associate Planner Mellein called the roll as follows: Members Present: Commissioners : Bidwell, Bradley, Clayton, Gutierrez, Sillers, Takahashi, Vice-Chairman Harlow and Chairman Tarling. -- Members Absent: Commissioners: Abao (Excused) . Also Present: Community Development Director Nemeth; Assistant City Attorney Barrow; Associate Planner Nellcin; Assistant Planners Ferguson 5 Edelstein; Recording Secretary Releford. } t I S EXHIBIT 7 S i j Ordiance No. 84-695/Page 140 of 354 MINUTE APPROVAL Comm i:;s ioa, r liar Lo raved, ;:econa,,,l 'v - CommLSsLoneL ',;dwell LO c111,r0v0 ti.a ?Jinutes 01 June L2, IS 4. The moLLOU 1:arr4Id _oLlows: APES : Commissioners: Eidorell, S111ers, liar Low, "Farling. AE STAIN:Co=..is ion rs: t,rad I, Clayton, Gut icr roz., Takaha s'i i. AUS ENT: Comm is ion cr s: ASao. AGENDA APPROVAL Common it Development 1)ir ec tar :;emeth stated that the Planning Commission and Environ-ental Commission will be invited to a joint orientation workshop on i , .dav, July 20, 1954 to be held _n the Community Building from 8 :30 to 4:30. - Ms. Nemeth requested that items Nos. SC and 8D concerning revisions to the Zoning Ordinance be continued to July 24 , 1954. $he also requested that the Commission not hold public hearin',s on June 10, 1934 and instead to adjourn that meeting to _he June 20th meeting. Associate Planner ?[aTlcia requsted that Item No, concorninq comments on the DEIR's for Redevelopment Project No. and the a.:end- ment to Project So. 1 be heard prior to ' Item i,as. 7A and 73 as the items are directiv related. Commissioner Harlow and '.'arling requested to j be heard under Commissioner's report. j Commissioner Harlow moved, seconded by Commissioner 3idwull to approve the Agenda as amended. The motion was unanimously carried with Commissioner Abao absent. ITEM id0. 6 SWEARING OF WITNESSES Chairman Tarling requested all persons wishing to speak before the Commission to take the oath administered by assistant City Attorney Barrow. JI� ITEM NO. 9 STAFF REPORT COMMENTS ON DEIR's for Redevelop- ment Proiect No. 3 and the Community Development Director Nemeth reported .Amendment to Project No. 1 that at the June l2 , 1984 meeting, the Commission made comments and raised concerns regarding the adequacy of the ;litigation measures prepared for the DEIR's for Redevelopment Project No. 3 and the Amendment to Redevelopment Project No, 1. For this -- - reason, staff invited Mr. Patrick Mann of the Orroyo Group, to respond to those _ raised by the Commission. Ms. Nemeth stated that Item No. 7.1 and 7P, concerns certif, i ation that the proposed Amendment to the llcdeveiopmeat Plan for Project No. 1 conforms •.:Lth t:;c. General. Plan } and that Project So. 3 conforms to the General Plan of the Cit-7. I Plannin;, Commission >Iinutes $ June _ 1?3'v�P;, 2 � { fif 7 , f i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 141 of 354 T T NO. 9 CONT. She stated that L:!,,- determination on the c011Lormit*,, of tite Project :'rcas with the General Tlnn, i:a v,: peen s1l71sVa:lL',jlI.7v IOVJsOd and for dlstr'b"Lld copies of t,lose %us011ltl0M; for both Project Area I and 3. The Resolutions were expanded to address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at its last meeting. Ms. Nemeth explained, for the benefit of the newly appointed Commissioners, that the City Council has scheduled a special hearing for July 9, 1984, to formally consider the Amendment to Project Area 1 and the creation of Project Area No, 3- She stated that because of that timetable, the Commission ,must act prior to that date an its determination of conformity and its Resolutions of recommendation on the General Plan. as. :'emeth introduced 'fc. Patrick Mann of the Orroyo Group to speak before the Commission. Mr. Pat >Iann, 40 East Colorado Blvd. , Pasadena, CA. stated that he is a principal of the Orroyo Group which was the prime contractor for tie preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Reports for both the Redevelopment Project Areas being considered. He distributed copies of comments received on the DEIR's and the suggested responses to those comments. Mr. Yann responded to the principal issues raised by the Commission at its last meeting; namely, the traffic impacts of the Iatermodal Container Transfer Facility and the mitigation measures provided in both reports for the housing impacts of the projects. He stated that with respect to comments received on the DEIR's from other agencies, nearly all the comments which were received were in response f to the 'Notice of Preparation which was sent out prior to the preparation of the DEIR's. A number of responses to that Notice of Preparation were received by the City after the Draft report was published which made it not possible to respond directly to those within the report. He stated that they have provided specific responses to those comments. Commissioner Harlow commented that his concern was with respect to the increased train traffic that would affect the Dominguez area. He stated that the DEIR's did not address that issue. Community Development Director Nemeth responded that it is not under the purview of the II Orroyo Croups contract to respond to the issue of train traffic affecting the Dominguez Area. She stated that the Orrovo Group was hired to assess the impacts of the City's project with is creating the Redevelopment Area. The City has currently been assessing a transportation study produced by both the Port of Los An,eles and the Port of Long Beach in the expansion of the Port. She stated that that -,tudv includes Intermodel Container Transfer Facility, the expansion of Alameda Street and the Consolidated RaiLline. Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1984/Pg. 3 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 142 of 354 i BEM NO ')A CONT. She stated that those draft comments which \\ raise the kinds of concerns that the Commission raised, will be presented to the City Council on June 27, 1984, with a request fur authorization for Staff to transmit those comments to the two Port Agencies. In addition, on Monday July 2, 1984 , the City Council will consider draft comments on the Light Rail proposal. Also, staff is currently working on additional comments to SC.,(, on the Consolidated Rail System. She stated that Staff has made certain that the outside projects has been referenced in the DEIR's. However, the DEIR's cannot mitigate the impacts of those outside projects. . Staff recommended the Commission receive and file the staff report on the comments for Redevelopment Project No. 3 and the Amendment to Redevelopment Project No. 1. Decision Commissioner Harlow moved, seconded by Commissioner Sillers to receive and file the staff report. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: i AYES: Commissioners:- Bidwell, Tarlin„ Har Low, Sillers, Bradley, Clayton, Gutierrez, i Takahashi. ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao. ITEM NO. 7A, 7B, 7C CONSENT CALENDAR Item Nos. 7A and 73 was pulled by Community Item No. 7A-Amendment to Development Directer. Nemeth. Item No. 7C Project No. 1, Conformity with was pulled for discussion by Commissioner General Plan Tarling. Item No. 7B-Redevelopment Project No. 3, Conformity with Community Development Director Nemeth reported 3 General Plan that Item Nos. 7A & 73 concerns the Resolutions Item No. 7C-Extension of Time - certifying the conformity of the proposed to Record Tentative Tract amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Map No. 40896 Project No. 1 with the General Plan and certifying the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan for Project No. 3 with the General Plan. She distributed copies of the revised Resolutions to the Commission for their review and recommendations. Ms. Nemeth explained for the benefit of the new Commissioners,that the Planning Commission is an advisory agent to the Redevelopment Agency and is not empowered to certify the Document for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and 3. She stated that the Resolutions are recommendations on 1) the adequacy of both DEIR's and 2) the conformity of the Redevelop- ment Plan with the General Plan. In response to Commissioner Bradley's question, Assistant City Attorney Barrow explained that the definition of Certification of the DEZR's refers to CEOA Guidelines which j requires EIR's to be certified by the Lead i i Planning Commission >:inutes June 26, 1984/Pg. 4 t y i I i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 143 of 354 ITEM NO. 7A S 7B CONT. Agency. The DI{IR is prepare.-d and di;;trih,uta-d to n mum i>er oC A,,eIt c ics tar [onus c'n ts. TLc comments arc r0sp0Itded to Sy ,�:':i >,a tiun measures, and that document i:; what becomes Lite Final EIR. bls. Ncnaeth added that tLe Lead A^ency certtfios rile dOCUnle_nt based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission and other comments received, that to the best of its knowledge they have complied with the procedural roquirements of CEl7A and that the document i.s adequate for the ustablishment of the Redevelopment Project Areas. Commissioner Tarling and Sillers •,;ere concerned with the recourse a property owner would have if he did not wish to participate in Lite F.edevelopment Project or disagreed with the price off`�red lot: bis pronerty. Assistant City Attorney Barrow stated that the property owner could .take his case to Court. He would be entitled to a jury trial whereby they would determine the fair market value of the property. The Commission voted unanimously to hear { comments from the audience. 1 Ms. Rosemary CreSDin, 2613 Washington St. , Carson, C.' h stated tat she received :,c_ Certified Notice of the Redevelopment Plan i recently from. the City and that the Port of Los An:-eles sent notices two wears aRo. She was also concerned that the Redevelopment t Agency would take her property. II Chairman Tarling stated that the Agency does not plan to acquire any property. He added that in cases of substandard properties in the Redevelopment Areas, the Agency may a acquire those parcels. In that case, the City will provide relocation assistance to i the property owners. Ms. Nemeth explained that the redevelopment Proposal that is before the Planning Commission is a study that was initiated by the City approximately six months ago. She stated I that scoping sessions were conducted and all property owners within the area were _ notified. She added that those projects proposed by the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach are not City initiated projects and the City does not have the power to stop those projects. The City can only make comments and recommendations. Decision ITEM 170. 7A - Resolution No. 84-775 Resolution No. 34-775 was introduced on motion of Commissioner Harlow, seconded by Commissioner j Sillers and carried by tile following roll call j vote: AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Sillers, Tarling { ABSTALN:Commissioncre: Clayton, Bradlev, - ^utierrez, "Cakahashi. ABSENT: Commissioners : Abao - 3 ?I Ian,ing .om L;sinn ..,.nutas June 26, ! m1934/1`:, 5 0 I Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 144 of 354 ITiia :10. 7A CONT. Resolution No. 84-775 Resolution \o. 84-775; cntitic.l: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON REPORTING REGARDTtTG ' THE CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE,: REDEVIi LOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1" was read by title only and moved to waive further reading by Commissioner Harlow, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell and carried by the I ollowing roll call vote: i AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Sillers. NOES: Commissioners: Tarling. ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao ABSTAIN:Commissioners: Clayton, Gutierrez, Bradley, Takahashi. Commissioner Harlow moved to adopt Resolution No. 54-775 with the corrections to Section No. 4 with amendments and attachments, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell. The notion carried as follows: AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Sillers. NOES: Commissioners: Tarling. ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao i ABSTAIN:Comm fission ers: Clayton, Gutierrez, j Bradley, Takahashi. I I ITE:f N0. 7B Resolution No. 84-776 was introduced on Resolution No. 84-776 motion of Commissioner Harlow, seconded by Commissioner Tarling and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Sillers, Tarling. 1 ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao ABSTAIN:Commissioners: Bradley, Clayton, Gutierrez, Takahashi. iy Resolution No. 84-776, entitled: "RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON REPORTING REGARDING THE CONFORMITY &WITH THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 3", was read by title only and moved to waive further reading and adopt with corrections to Section 4 with amendments and comments, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell. The motion carried as follows: .AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Sillers. i NOES: Commissioners: Tarling ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao ABSTAIN:Commissioners: Bradley, Clayton, Gutierrez, Takahashi. i ITEM NO. 7C Commissioner Tarling asked if the project for (removed from Consent Tract Map No. 40896 is being builtin accordance Calendar by Chairman with the City's new condominium standards. Tarling) Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 1984/Pg. 6 I i I I i I Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 145 of 354 i IT G2t N 7C CoNT. Associate Planner 7!rl Lv in r.tntod tI•.;:t ' the project was ;improved .!.: ! ; I � nuar;, 9R1 under o (I erent .at ol. .tnad::rd i Commun it yT i)uvelopment Director N,-r:eth stated that the project was approved nndOr the existing ord inane standards and that i grad in.� a a d foundation permitr have been 7 r,rooted. She stated that Staff rec Omni rnda- tion is that the CommisSion rout the extension of time to record Pract ?:an 40896. Commissioner Tarlin4 c-?nnento•.! that the 1 project was approved two Ica rs ago, was zrsnted two extension; are ..i,e proj ct does nut conform to the new condominium standards, therefore, i:c 'Olt that tho. Co^.mission � - should deny the request for a 3rd extension i oE time. Ill TeSpORSe t0 C i)mmis,ioner l:Utierroz,s q uestion, Ms. Nemeth stated that the new condominium standards are the subject of Items SC and SD on toni.ghts agenda and will be discussed iR detail at the Commission's July 24 , 198: meeting S:ie stated that the standards does involve sothacks, height, grading of the site, Len<ith of units. and - recreational and landscaDing for the project. In response to a concern raised by Ms Nemeth, ° Assistant City Attorsov Barrow stated that the Com-ission does have have the discretion to deny. a third extension of time for i recordation of a tract man. Mr. Barrow stated that in this particular case, the applicant has been granted approvals from the City for grading and foundation permits and have started to incur some expense and reliance upon those permits . The:• may wish to file a claim of vested right if the extension of time is denied. Decision Commissioner Harlow moved to concur with Staff to grant the extension of time to record Tract Map No. 40896, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Bradley, I Gutierrez, Takahashi. i NOES: Commissioners: Sillers, Tarlian �. AP.S Te\IN:CO mmissi oners: Clayton ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao. -. Chairman Tarling declared the meeting in RECESS at 8:35p.m. ,RECONVENED at 8:50 p.in. ITEM NO. SA SECRETARY'S REPORT PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE 1,10. 183-84 AND Associate Planner ?tellein reported on t!:e DESIGN OVERLAY REVI,1 proof of affidavit of notice to the applicant, NO. 258-84 Harry and Svlvia Naman, postings as required by law and other „ni11::¢s as requested '>v '. individuals and or-anizations. i:otices .;ere sent to all .property owners within 00-soot radius o! the prnposus! use as Listed on Lhe last equ:,il ized tax ass e.s s-:ent rolls. :Coticcs were aLso sent to 57 :iomeoo-:ners Assoc i.a t'_o a s. Planning, Commission `tinutes June 26, 1984/Pg 7 i i Ordiance No. 84-695/Page 146 of 354 ITEM N0. 8A CONT. and other to ter es t(�d Lnd I Cd uu l.:; a,ivlatn}; them 0 said pub 7.1 h e a r in;;. No w L L n n c onmuaIc at io ns were recciv ed. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner_ Edelstein summarized the staff report concerning a request by Harry and Sylvia ,Taman for variance to front and rear vard setback, parking lot setback, parking lot aisle width and architectural and site design approval, to permit construe- I Lion of a proposed grocery market on an existing foundation in the Commercial, General- I Design Overlay District (CC-D) . i '4s. Edelstein reported that the site previously contained a grocery market building, constructed in 1945. The building was fire- damaged in 1983 and was demolished in February 1984. However, the building's foundation was retained. The applicant wishes to construct a new market building on the old foundation. She stated that the proposed building setbacks are 5 feet in the rear yard, and 15 feet in the front yard. The required setbacks are 9 feet 1 inch and 18 feet 2 inches respectively. i 'he applicant also proposes to locate off-street parking spaces to within 2 feet of the present right-of-way. The required setback for parking is 5 feet from the existing or future street right-of-way. Ms. Edelstein stated that the applicant states that a substantial property right would not be enjoyed unless the variance was granted and that the new setbacks would result in smaller market. Also the existing foundation would not be utilized; the neighboring buildings are in line with the market and their satbacks,and the reduction in setbacks would reduce leasable building area rental income in property value to the owners. Staff recommended approval of the architectural and site design as conforming to the design standards of the City and grant the variance request, subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. Applicant Mr. Paul Smith, 7805 Sunset Blvd. , Los Angeles, CA. stated that he is the builder and that the applicant, Mr. Naman is not present. Mr. Smith stated that their request is to rebuild a market that was destroyed by fire. Fie stated that they have been working with the City Traffic Engineer to address the Issue of parking, landscaping and the noise that would be created by the refrigeration units. Mr. Smith submitted a certification list with signatures of adjacent property owners f certifying that they have no obiection to the establishment of the proposed use. In response to Commissioner Tarlings question, "fr. Smith stated that he has read the. ten (10) conditions of approval and concur with same. Planning Commission Minutes Juno 26, 1984/Pg. 8 i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 147 of 354 yy , C1E>1 NO. SA CONT, iu response to Commissioner C?.ivton's question, 1 Mr. Smith stated Lhat in accordance �.aith the City's requiremont for landscaping for commercial buildings, 1-hey will provide a 5 foot landscaping strip across the unri.re front of the building. A masonry wall will be provided at the rear of the iaadscani_n<_, area 3 and also interior landscaping wi11 be placed II in the front of the market. Commissioner Clayton commented that Darking bumpers should be provided and t',:a[ a core analysis should Le provided to determine the condition of the slab. ! I Commissioner Tarling commented that an additional condition of approval could be added to require a core analysis of he slab. Commissioner Gutierrez commented that the i trash areas should be enclosed and that the applicant should submit his plans to the P.ealta Department. 1 Commissioner Clayton was concerned that the plot plan only indicated one means of egress. He expressed that there should be at least two means of ingress and egress shown or, the i plot plan. i There being no other testimony to be heard Chairman Tarling closed the public hearing. Decision Commissioner Clayton moved, seconded by Commissioner Harlow that a condition No. 11 be added to the conditions of approval to require that the applicant provide sample coring of the existing slab and an analysis of its structural stability with a determination ; required by the Community Development Director that such slab meets current requirements for the proposed use. Should the slab not meet current requirements, a new slab must be constructed. The motion was unanimouslv carried with Commissioner Abao absent. Commissioner Harlow moved, seconded by Commissioner Clayton to concur with Staff 's recommendation with the addition .o£ Condition No. 11. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlot.+, Sillers, Tarling, Bradley, Clayton, Gutierrez, Takahashi. ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao. ITEM NO. 8B SECRETARY'S REPORT PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Associate Planner Nellcin reported on the proof NO. 251-84 of affidavit of notice to the applicant, Roy Abel, postings as required by law and other mailings as requested by individuals and organizations. ! t I Plann fine Commission Minutes i June 26. 1984/Pg. 9 1 I Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 148 of 354 ITE?1 NO- 8B CONT. Notices were sent Lo all property owner,; Within a 500—foot radius of the proposed use as Listed on the last equaLized Lax i assessment rolls. Notices Wert alao :cut to 57 homeowners Associations and other interested individuals advising them of said public hearing. No written communications were received. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Ferguson reported that this item concerns a request by Mr. Roy Abel to maintain and operate a waste paper storage and haling operation in the ML (Manufacturing, Light) zone district. He stated that the property is currently occupied by a paper baling operation and a repair facility for airlines interior equipment. Ferguson stated that a conditional use ? permit is required to permit the coatinued operation of the baling business. The repair facility is a permitted use in the zone, subject to the limitations relating to vehicle service and repair. He stated that the applicant proposes to upgrade the site in two (2) phases. Phase I involves the improvement of the site, which entails the removal of one (1) building and remodelling j shops "A" and "C". Phase II involves i completing engineering to incorporate the existing drainage channel. a Staff recommended the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project, and approve Conditional Use Permit No. 251-84, subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. Applicant Mr. Roy Abel, 16228 S. Figueroa Street, Carson, CA. stated that the baling operation moved from Cerritos, which did not require a conditional use permit., to Carson. He stated that when they applied for a Business License i . they were informed at that time that a CUP would be required to continue the baling operation. He stated that shortly after the CUP process began, lie was involved in a serious traffic accident which caused a considerable delay. Mr. Abel stated that he has read and does concur with the conditions of approval. There being no further testimony, Chairman Tarling closed the public hearing. Decision Commissioner Marlow moved to concur with Staff, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell and carried as follows: AYES: Commissioners: Bidwell, Harlow, Sillers, Tarling, Bradley, Gutierrez, Takahashi. NOES: Commissioners: Clavton ABSENT: Commissioners: Abao. 1 i Planning Commission 'linutes j June 26, 1984/Pg. 10 i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 149. of 354 i ITEM NO. 8C 5 8D Chairman Pnrlinp, dcicarod the public 'roar i't ; Amendment and Procedural Change opened , or discussion ('n ILemr; sC .ind S,) to the Carson Municipal Code concerning Amendments to Carson',; Muaic i_gal (Zoning Ordinance) and Code, j .1!nendment:to the Municipal Code II For Condominium and Planned Unit Audience Comments Development Standards .4t. Frank Borrv, representing the '.'O IC F. { I!oncowners Association, ,fated that .:e -.you id like to restate some pf the concerns raised by VOICE at a previously Planning Commission. Ile requested that a social impact stud: be i1 conducted it: commercial areas particularly when in close proximity to a residentiai zone. Also he requested that motels be regulated i to require 24—hour occupancy. Ile added that the City of Signal Hill as approved such an ordinance to regulate motels. t Community Development Director Nemeth state= that Item No. 8C deals with the hearing process only. Development standards will be the subject of item ^:o. °D for condominium ? and planned unit developments. She stated that the development standards for hotels _ and motels which would address hours o° operation, periods of time of room rentals, is a subject that staff is currently: stud.;ins s" and will be Presented to the Commission - ata later date. 7 fir. Chris Gerold, 2417 Artesia Blvd. , aedondo Beach, CA. asked if the Commission was tee - proper body to request staff to receive condominium or apartment house plans to j process with a City Attorney's waiver. Community Development Director Nemeth stated that a waiver of the Urgencv Ordinance for condominium developments cannot be set for i hearing by the Planning Commission. She stated that Staff would recommend that as soon as the City Council acts on the Ordinance, staff will begin to take applications even - though the changes to the Ordinance will not take effect until sixty days after the Council action. Mr. Gerold stated that being a developer , he .would take the gamble and submit applications for approval. Ile asked what body would be empowered to direct staff to accept the applications. `Ls. Nemeth responded that the Planning Commission can make I a recommendation to Council, however, t`.:ey cannot direct staff. She suggested that he submit his request to the City Council. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Harlow moved to continue Item Nos. SC and SD to Julv 24, 1984, seconded by Commissioner Clayton and carried by the followim„ roll call vote: - I AYES : Commissioners: Bidwell, Barlow, Sillers, Tarlin-;, Bradley, Clayton, Gut ic rrez, Takahashi. AP,S ENT Commissioners: Abao. Planning Comm issiou ..inutes June 25, 19>+4/Pg. 11 E� { Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 150 of 354 ITert No. 10 NEW BUSINESS y��11L I ITEM N0. 11 DIRECTOR'S REPORT Community Devclapm ent Director ':eme t'a reported that the City Council at it meeting of i June 25, 1984, amended the Ur cncv Ordinance � on Hotels and Hotels to permit those hotels i and motels that have received design approval from the CLty to make application for a building permit. „ e building permit may be processed butcannot be issued. She stated that the app licnt ions can be accepted provided the applicant signs .a waiver recognizing that under that waiver should tl;e ordinance change, those applications o.ould be subject to a conditional use permit. EH NO 12 RESOLUTIONS Resolution No. 84-777, entitled: Resolution No. 84-777 "A RESOLUTION OF TH-L PL,%N::ING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON GRANTING VARIANCE � NO. 183-84 AND DESIGN OVERLAY ^,EVIEW •.:0. 258-84 " was read by title only and introduced i on motion of Commissioner Harlow, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell and carried with Commissioner Abao absent. Resolution ':a. 84-777 was passed, approved and adopted on motion of Commissioner Harlow, seconded by Chairman Tarling and unanimously carried with Commissioners Abao absent. Resolution No. 84-778 Resolution No. 84-778 , entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARSON GRAN'PING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 251-34" was read by title only and introduced on notion of Commissioner Harlow, j seconded by Commissioner Chairman Tarling and unanimouslu carried with Commissioner Abao absent. i I Resolution So. 84-778 was passed, approved and adopted on motion of Commissioner Harlow, seconded by Commissioner Bidwell and unanimously carried with Commissioner Abao absent. ITEM NO. 13 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT In response to Commissioner Harlow's question, Associate Planner Mellein stated that a service request has been sunmitted regarding i the complaint about the outside storage on Del Amo and Wilmington. No wrritten response has been received. Commissioner Barlow thanked staff for their report on newspaper circulation. He stated that the newspaper which the City uses (The Carson Star) is not circulated to the north side of Carson. Vr. Mellein stated that a more detailed report will be presented to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Tarling asked if any thou�;ht had been given to putting; the i'lan.nin.; Commission .Agenda in the Carson Bulletin. � Citv Clerk kawagoe stated that the Agenda c that is placed in the Bulletin is paid for by the City. Commissioner Harlow requested an excused absence from the July 20, 1984 workshop. Planning Commission Minutes ? June 25, 1984/Pg. 12 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 151 of 354 's ITEM NO. 13 CONT. Chairman 'Carling was concerned that c'uc ; - Planning Qonunisslouwas not mentioned 'a in the Carson Newsletter. Associate Planner Mellei.n reminded the Commission of their request to name the new street in Tract Map No. 43132. Commissioner Tarling suggested the street be named after Joe Lupo who lived and owned the Harbor Tire business in Carson for a number of years. !!e stated that Mr. Lupo always gave his customers honest, fair and courteous service. He stated that ',it. Lupo j passed away some ten years ago. He suggested the street be named "Lupo Drive". Commissioner Harlow moved, seconded by Commissioner Clayton to name the street in Tract Map No. 43132 "Lupo Drive". The motion was unanimously carried with Commissioner Abao absent. i Chairman Tarlinu requested' Staff to costa::, t'•,e nee:-:t of kin to Mr. Lupo and inform them of the Commission's action. ITEM NO. 14 6tRITT_EN COMMUNICATIONS ;lone ITEM NO. 15 None ORAL CO2IMUNICATIONS ITEM NO. 16 3 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None ! ITEM NO. 17 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Tarling moved to adjourn the meeting in honor of the past Commissioners, ' seconded by Commissioner Harlow and unanimously carried with Commissioner Abao I absent. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.n. j CHAIRMAN ATTEST: i SECRETARY I� I Planning Commission Minutes .June 26, 1954/Pg. 13 i a Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 152 of 354 I IMJ I i:S .ADJOURNED MAY 23, !984 1 CALL TO ORDER File :1100tin g of NLIN 23), ��;ls C�Ijlcd to order all 7: 15 p.111. by Chairperson Curtis. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE coillmiss;oncr Vicna lud the ColllmisSioll in the Pledge of Allogiallcc to the ROLL CALL Associate P-lanner Niellcin called the -oil Present: Commissioner's Mason, Reyes, Vicna, Williams and Curtis. Absent: Commissioner I.illdsav and Braf E requested excused absences. COITI- missioliors Lockley and Maryland were absent Also Present: Associate I"anner Mellcin, I'cdcvelGFMcnt Pvcjcct Manalt,cr Ruv's and Recording Secretary Bowser. MINUTE APPROVAL Commissioner Vicna made ;i motion to appro%,c the Minutes of Nlav ?3, 1984 , seconded by Commissioner Reyes and unanimously carried, with Commissioners Braff, Lindsay, Lockley curd Maryland absent. :AGENDA APPROVAL Commissioner Reyes riadc a motion to approve the Algenda, seconded by Commissioner 11illiams, and unanimously carried, with Commissioners Braff, Lindsay, Lockley and Maryland absent. Commissioners Lockley and Maryland entered at 7:30 P.M. ITEM X0. 6A. Associate Planner Mollcin read the report. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Review of the Draft Redevelopment Project Manager Reyes gave the Environmental Impact Commission a brief history of Redevelopment Q l't for Proposed Protect Area Nos. I and 3. Ne requested the Report posed Commission's input on the short-comings Amendment to Rede- _ s or on veiopment Project the mitigating measures that are addressed Area No. I in the EIR. lie then informed the Commission that its comments, a tong with the various governmental agency's comments, would be in- corporated into the Final J:JR. Commissioner Lockley was concerned with the fact that the professionals are reviewing this report. lie stated that they would have more knowledge than the Commissio' n would, since they arc specialists. Adolfo Reyes stated that some -i,,cncios had submitted comment,; and that these and others would ho ncidressod in the Final i:IR; Com- missioner Maryland felt that it would he more appropriate to wait until. all of the comments were received From the various agencies, I�C- Core the Commission provides its input. EXHIRIT 6 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 1,53 of 354 1 1EM NO. OA. (Contll) C0111111ISsioner Mason stated that since til-j,e — arc 1 ,700 acres in one Of the nro iocts, he Celt that I w:. should be sot aside -ro 1, now residential dove I onment. Tho role of the Collllllis� sioll 1,holl the City or RU- dovolopmont Agoncy is the lend al"ClIcY Was ex- plainest L)V fir. PC\IQ S who also stated that the draft E I P s had h,2,211 prepared by a con s Li I t.:n t firm in consultation with -odovolopmellt staff`. Commissioner Locklov stated that since staff had already provided its innut, and all o[ the mitigating measures are correct in reference to the onvil-011171011t, lie made a recommendation that the Environmental CoM- illissiorl adopt a %llnuto Resolution giving La• or- able consideration to draft Ell' for the Allieni mcnt to P-edevelopment ' roiect No. 1, provided that all the impacts are properly addressed as well as the Miti,c'atliorl measures by the specialized agencies concerned, seconded by Commissioner Roves Commissioner Mason made an amendment that staff consider the use of the land for new residential housing for a iijillilij.-I of 1,000 units, and replace housing that is re- moved. Chairperson Curtis added that adcauate quality restaurants should be Considered for the area. Associate. Planner Nielloin suggested that the Chairperson's suggestion be rep-:orclod to sav provide zoning for quality restaurants. Motion was carried unanimously, with Commissioners Braff and Lindsay absent. ITI-4 NO. 63. Associate Planner Mellein read the staff report. OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL HNI IRON\ MFNTAL INPACT Commissioner Viena made a motion to adopt a REPORT TO PROPOSED RE- Minute Resolution giving favorable consideration DEVELOPMENT PROJECT to the Draft EIR, giving by Commissioner AREA NO. 3 Maryland. Associate Planner Mollein, asked if the motion was to include the same Iords as stated in tile recommendation. Commissioner Viona agreed to the comment of Associate Planner Mellein. Commissioner Maryland asked how a citizen of the City of Carson can express their interests to the Agency. Adolfo Reyes stated that if a person is in- terested in m2king C0j:jjljCjltS to the Agency, that these can be sent to the Chairperson, or the comments may be presented at In Agency "meeting. Environmental Commission \Ijantes May 23, 1984 pa"C 2 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 154 of 354 R-development Project Area 3 This al ternati `Je would, help 01 set Some of the housing demand generated by industrial development in the remainder or the proposed project area and in other projects in the City. HO'.,Jever, the proposed project area is, in general , not suitable for residential development because o-1 in- compatibility with t1ile existing industrial uses in the project area. No suitable sites 'vihich can be adequately isolated from adjacent industrial uses rail lines and high traffic areas are available. If this alternative .,,ere adopted, a General Plan amendment and zoning am,endments r:oul d be required to provide for residential development. Alternative 6. 01 "1iCe Emphasis. Emphasis on oi +ice levelopne- l?ould pernit higher intensity in the project area under current land use reaul ati ons. Under this alternative, as much as 10 million square feet or more or additional developient Could be Supported in the project area. However, Current market demand si:pports in< !Str is l development in tie Carson area, and the project area is surrounded by industrial us-as, Off ice development +.ro_lld require a major investr;ent in infrastructure i;mprovenlen s to support ti'le hi glici^ l evel of deve1 opi tent aild loll d require removal of existing industrial uses to provide an environment suitable for significant office develo!)irent. Because OF t(te high 2 ?pl Of i'.;l t goner at i 0n of '-i S alternative, i mT.)actS on r'egl 0ira I circulation e l ei'1,m'-S u- Qln g the Harbor Fro '!l iiI San Di Goo r-1 �e',d=;y H,t25ia and Long B2aG` �r '.'.: a" mu1d b° S°v2r? T1 i S 31 t2fi17"i,i ° iS probably not feaslIble w! tnlil ti;e il;iiltS Of l°Se regional circulatiof elements and '>iuld repui ,e st li3ohasis on • a .; r a su;)� �a;r- t,'ial e�.. � � "t'rdnSi';, t0 p+"0`,�l::e empl0j%°e dCC2SS, 123 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 15.5 of 354 E I R, 0_-dPv 01 opl-,2,n� Project A 3 TP-BILE_ 29 PROJECT AILTE�<iIATIVEES 'A',TD T;f"ract Factor Al terna'i v2 i � 1 na�ivn 2 Physical M eg I i g i b, e i t a 2 v e 10 -,-, 2n t on. possible hazardous �i c poss-10 12- hazardous fill sit^s d,nv-_IjoQed. rill s i'C 2 s a I ty i 7na C t. Biological Housing No houcing -1 n area. NIC) hCUSII Ig --Iq UY "S O�, 1111 o n .1 S°r_0rIrj-ar,,, secondary d-Aiand. d,--Tand resul Cinq Frc:,. b!; z-, 7­1 ov:Pent. M No addit-ionical L,ss eMpIo,;,—,j,_er,t- o-pair- 4,, s. tuni its prov`d2d ail jnn L i n f rast,,Llctur- L a S L ji n t u i a d di -i contal i l 4 41!T!,I st­r°>Ss &l L ur n, existing r-y Ci rcul a on L e:i, i- o additional i t-i es, re­;-',­j ; _U n, Nlarket/ Und-erut-M7,)--C,-1 7 f) EConomics I aild; no housing nr c-n-Icy- Ci o�I Si r.:Cl 0;' I oy- 0- pncr,�_Mll ZI?S 124 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 156 of 354 FIR, edeveloplm-nt Project Area 3 T;",,B L E i9 PROJECT P,LTERPIATIVES AND Ii.PACTS (CONTINUED) a�i l Al 'c rna i S Al t,eriiai,ive 6 $CiledcVelOOmentOil OeHclopii2nG 071 7eVelJDielC 011 possible hazardous possible hazardous possible hazardous fill sites. Some',inat rill sites. Nigh fill sites. less air quality air quality impact. IIighest air quality 4mpact than Aitn 3. and noiS2 impact. H--gligibl2 iE,paCt I`;e9li9lble impact i<egligi'ole 1 '^; CG JO housing in area. Provision OF lio housing 'in arP? . Some seCOndary demand. be-ween 1000 and i i9h2S'C tax incrJi eni. Some tax increment 2500 d':del l i n9 i or 1 0'tl-, modes a Le- 0r 10'r?-, 'Moderate- units "in area. Tax ii m ho',sin9. inCome hous-ing. inCreiilent for 1071- aid mo'Jerat2-inCOi'iie hf) Si n9 Jl..�ic.,Mao I i:2a '; ;r O, y •., _ aa//L�2 r� ,lobs than Al to 3. as nl"L2i na--4V- 2 i " it J' ji (? i y. r l,at 12SS .r. a�. �l. IJI Lllaii Al -M 3, es s cys"2i1, 1.�.n i n c rc11'.e(1t l if OQ2. - non j i'ic:JOr llii�aCt Oil °iajOr ^aCr, 0^ ii' Q( 'S iC C i real a"l,l On SI✓Stiiii S /Stein; „tax '! ^Cre en.- °9 Oinaa I 1 ':i)a: SOfiie !lean hour fiilanci 'ug. 1aj0; i?°1/ C011:g,2s 73f1 - - increased ,�i�,li7_dtivr, 0ris2t ir, d%;11anu for ,lost n',�;152 i; vC I -nd buc not i'WUsing dorp.and i.� 2.c I.:3J T'n" '- I""� • 'v^ developed to I l.S il! I I by iildI-sS rl%l 12� Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 157 of 354 L T o--j -1 11-IrE RELAT 10:11 SH 12 1211-:1-1 Si1;C),I1 T-TERN USES C -A'S E:D,'1RC !.T:NT *A'100 TfIE 2 A I'll 0 E`HANC,'E;1EI1T ex 2S P-ODIUCTID'IT"' 'C"osed voiect do2s not C0;-;)rC!-qise long-term, produlc- h en P i ;, I ;- U t V iy fr hot- em this The proposed plroj-,ct has Llj-, potentiv to irnprove we long-tc-rni. potential of proposed project area. The arn-, is 2-Dec�,--d �,-() i - -t t, I I U 'I-I v On n- - rm, Mond t 2 i i'i a I 'or indus- 'C,ria i and b!Asiness mw �is-- OP its st-1,0111 Con-Imit- nfent to 'CIi-Is us-- anj good access. The proposed project is consid2red juaG fiad now rather than reserving options i o., mm e a, yrnaG ,a >waUs it is oalGm4u61 ly '-.hat- mating a I -1y di F,rent a I terna ti v e s wou 1 d be se 11 ec,t--d i;i th,- my G. The pro- posed p,.oie--!'-- is 41 ntended si2ppor"t Lhe I ong-t-arim via- n the propos- 1)-1 v of U--s if proj-,ct and i s d i a 96 C G G. 1,25 Ordinance No 84-695/Page 158 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 9. SIGN I ICUtNT IRREVERSISEE E;1'IIR r?i E IT„1 Oi ;l`lOES This section discusses significant environmental changes which wool d be invo i v.^_d in the proposed project ghoul d i"t be implemented. Of particular concern are uses of non- renevable resources and irretrievable commitments of resources. Development under the proposed plan will commit an esti- mated $250 million or more in material and labor resources to the development of new industrial facilities and public facilities over the 10 to 20 year development period. Sub- stant i al quantities of building ma"teri al s and fuel 1.1i 1 1 be utilized in this cons tructi on. These resources Vii 1 1 be irretrievably committed to Similar uses in the same loca- tion for the indefinite future. These resources would be consumed to provide i'or similar development in any location, and no unusual c;;aracteri sti cs Of Carson iia:e 1 t a 1 2SS deSi r abl e 1 OCati 0n t1 an Ot hers for this development. These comiimitments of resources are considered Justified now because of the strong marke demand for industrial and public facilities and the need to revitalize 1-,1t2 project area. This market dei;iand results "from a combin titon of ",`i2 desires of individuals and fi;; ; to locate in Carlo„ because of i is accessi b i 1 i ty and otih2r 'fac'torS. J meeti n IC1,1h s mar:2 t d2 Band a t "t':;"- desl r e 1 oC,a i Olh general that t}hat demand :io'u I d be .:9L in d -less ei I ;dli ie?t way at another lOCat"loll. Y'e_r( itting the real '.'_Stlt�) fiai' 2t to Operate, absent a substantial :ar;<e t i nequi ty or pu.)1 i c interest t0 the contrary, iS oo;)Si• 2 ed 110 ;"'SLIM ii] an efficient alIocatt,'ion of reS0UrC2S. 127 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 159 of 354 Pro' Jecc Area, 3 T� i S S— On -t),-IS C'21."21 OW,2nt in accordance . 11 --- - r 'th Vile proposed projecl- could encouraq., eco..'Im-ic or pop or indir ctl Sir- rounding e,.rj,/ il iw ,i-ent. Gjnsideraltions include tl,n- potential or removing obstacles to nearby growth or deveIopmtent 'C'nat may place demands on existing co-M4flillinity services. The uroject, is specifically intended to provide For I V tll'- orderly cjro;.,,,'Ulh of Cal-son. Ca; ital iinprovcments proposed are l niuendeul i.-o insure �s a ab I e to serve 'Gill s dive I op, n i-Pe a,s 1. 1,1-, r- p Me ro v I �d ?n C i ty's de-v a I opj,,-�,n o^d i n'I]Ce s to insur2 that Bcvelo)::,ent occurs in tile 1-11'etilod and at tii, t 1;7,n ;,tide it can be acccnimoda;_-ed. Carson is part of a large urbanized region. The proposed project's role in Pro.,noll-ing this o:j IJ relativ11Y small il-i a cDn'Cext. B --�Usin-,Ss dl'2 1 j e 10 7'7!l n- 0 Q a.1p s CY,l 1S o a ti e�l tent a resoonsP i'of, bujsizl'i�-ss sp—&Ce. R',g e)i a 11 Ljrc,-!th mia" I-L, ex,pe-cl-Ccil L,) b- - I ] v a r j u - 1 1-1-'A 11 1 in a a th, 'G s wer2 no Pi oppm-tiin -,I n an vided i n Carso,-I. L 4 I - - , -,rE! - - zc j li 1 11 in Carsor, in a v a,--1 J, pw-ro.po-,e(i pro i S 1. 1 310 ' ,IJ� 1 be, J-DS w: P- 0 v i del r-su t 70°2k! o e C r P. C a of ,Jobs. 1 2 C, Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 160 of 354 EIR, Rede-velopmil-nt Projoct, Ar2a 3 c. j 17 ED �ikTIC'.13 CTISULT" The oil o-A ng 0rg 7lfl 7,,a t";oils %lere consul t2d in pr-2o',raIL-Jon of this Environ..;�-nt._,,] Ci y D-SO� I R,,�c r P--a L-1 o n Sup_-r i n L o ndi n Eric Forsb,-rg llomlilnunily Salety Direct-m iIanske Civil Encin erij-,,­ Assis!,,�.n,`_: E rl !,'oods PI I plam'1119 '_ol lis Lus,,ro Floii� is 'Patt-rsor, U I C 1 i f o r n-1 a, Di v 1 s1 on o s and G o I o gy, %,'c n c c 11 u f f m.,1n, R e g i o n a 7.i 4 S IC r a+ 17 4 1 '01 LI i n ri Ga;na, E.-.: I pp� a L au I i 11 u�11 i F 3 B o i0g1 . C Cal i forj,�a r,S u L i 2 J a r,e xe u, i D a ni v s j ins V L.Y �-.r s on C n_r 13 C'j;3,,.,e,-C V-I'c a Pre`. I(1 1 Dor,11 ­ Cons!_-I !lcLion in g, -,, t��_�U.� Nan arg,_-r Los A i,I c.,2 I?s C o,i n y n 2 2 s 0 V f c 2 L rl Jj o Los Pmgolcs Los n Los A 1 n Los Awl es In F1 e d o a I Ijlsl "icCj ne rr L-, Bounda1,y ­,o r,r d i Southern Cai, 3 �ot-iiia C o-,rd n ato- Consutl ZL to le C, Preparatlion of AD Eas" Colorado Poul ""',1 Pasadlona, 91,or (213) 795-91771 Project 1,13,nager- D r D a i,, i I n n, Pr i Project Planner: Peri �,Iur_-tta, ,%Ssociare 1.29 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 161 of 354 EiR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 12. RESPDII,SL TO CO:'1iiE:N'S Ord THE NA.F T EIR Tr,o comsi ents have bean r ecei ved in response t0 the Draft EI'. Sorne responses t0 the Agencv's Notice O1 Pr2Jaration of the Draft Eii ;;are received after the release Of the Draft EIR. These comments are responded to as if they .1ere cca!merits on the Draft EiR. Each agency's comments are listed together, follo'1;ed by a response to each comment. Following this sumtrnary of comments and responses are copies of correpondence received. Comments to the Notice of Preparation vlhich vrere receiv--d prior to publication of the Draft EiR are addressed in the body of the Draft EIR. Copies of this correspondence are On file Eli, the CarSOn Redeve i Opulent ;ltgenc_v and are available for }?l.lbl l C revlLnl/. Comments are listed iri Cilr0n010Uical Order by date Of C0rresp0indenCe. Fol ] otlirg ;,ritten correspond;=nc:> is a summary of comments and responsa� at the Planning Commission and Environmental Co�lmission. CGu_nt,v Sanitation Districts of LGs p\il[,eles COUr1ty, Iiay I, i vii (a2s,onse to NOtice of P epa- ati n received after end 0f ''otiCe 0° Prepar .tlo,n period] OI;m2iiL: li^� L:ISGiiCtS fia`,%e no obi--.-' 70n I)I'v-)OS2iA JiOI;=C� , teSpOilSe: InfOr, aLional G7ii'aen , no response. Los Angeles I,n Ar etles Coun7t1„ Flood CGn tl o L 1 ; rl Ct, iId`d v 1 u4, �tt _S; OnS.„ ii0ti C: O r i n received dfCer and' i Prreparation peri0d� Comment: P'crrn.its ';Jii are,`,/ censt,�UCtIGn dff°cline District 's r'iCj�TL G! ..'may 0'.” ac'F j I_S. J .. Response: Permits ';eiii pe r^CUeSt 'd jit t (ii:' SI;CaI cGnstru:, 0I -PCs d. COm:rent: ',n increase in pav;MI a r,.r' d�so e ,l F surf C@ ur:_u i ! l 1 t(,, urw'u "until produced by the project area. The adequacy Of t..e s Grail drfilildg? fa.cllilieS should be investigated, ReSp0ns fhe inCr2aSe ?n I)a ,,ed sU,fiac_ area a a -0C I 7 u project rrl1I not be significant except for individual ctis Drai naae for proj`ect-S ,,i l 1 ,, re�;; ^J the �.' ,� i G1= i .... t approval , and mitigation measures ,rill be in-I uden in O ac s, COm;k?ilt: i}i!ring periods of CanStrIIcti},on, pi0`ilS7ons Sho'ald be i13' -n Iilli"1'Iri7l7_e d'ilr1S f10'rIS Iro'1 Ulllldlig .:7�.'-33 �::'rodaC SJII ..;�..+ I . '�i-, ri ' Tiater7 al S, LC.� dS tn7 S ':Ill i ad b'@-Sely dr eCt tiie Cpc rd:: Otl acid maintenance Of drainage facilities. Response: The City requires control 0` erosion during all constructio-s ,s a condition of permit approval . 131 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 162 of 354 l �R-d 've l opmienL Po�eCt re, 0 Cal if o rn i a Req or,a,1 Ilat2r C:!a 1 i tv CC^' ' 'B I c- r ni n R,, i _ _, _ - =-- _ a-.,r,.l J'Oa rU, w.. YS,„^i0� rLS __Q On, v 5;)015e t0 .:once oT Prep a i0 i reC21 V2d dl==, end Oi ;OtICE of- 19 f Preparation r2spons2 perlcd) Comment: DElil si-I- d disC�!SSi0ri Of t112aSUres to [iilnimiz?? ;la':t-r GUal ity r2SUlti.'',g I`roin soil erOSlon d'Jring Response: Because the sites are relat ively flat, no significant erosion hazards are anticipated during constructi0n, and no;"m,ai ColiaLrUCti0n practice wil l b2 ad2g!.ia' e to reduC" dater quali ' y ;i1paCLS r 0r1 SOi erosion to an inSigr,iIicant level ..Jmff2nl,: Quantities 01 l-.!TjSL2%%,te_rs C0 iDUt,2d L`0 i-n„_ _.i.nl ry End treatm2nt p1a.lit Should d2 1d2n`.11i2d. T t DE1f shodld deimanstrate t9la tie san star'✓ s;"'':'!er '''l i 1 i -."n Ed ' IJai:2'1 v capacity t0 co i l e t, Lr ans :Dort, r tai✓ a.^: d1 Sp0:? 0 t^a a !'ii C10,nal flo';i. Cumulative impacts should be ccr;siderod, ,response: S2w--r averag2 and pea< --;,is arc 'd> rti led in UE G "S !.C7 and 101. Irle n"U-i is e-fir- t"d to req LI'I "° Srll,e '_.'C.: t�aJ=S it S'�...�r capacity in t o , ,< i'ro0—rL 0 id2nti ill cd at Lne Ilh;i° of l2 /'1u0;?'2nL O !t i n-1i "l a , parcel s. Tr2atne2nt pl ant c city '!i i l d:j: a i n ^._I ,c t,n standard prrgra- ^ed �m l ro i,` �i �l t „l 1.- , S-ni c i c Disrlct� o'r Los Angel es CUUiity, .in? gallons per day is approxi ',°1v U. ,�o; h2 aa ! 1 ?.�1 the Sanitation Distr'C`. s r r 'C Corrient : Discharg :s ogler than to th 3 i3O ry identified, l:eSi)0^Si?: °`i0 GiSCharg;'S 0`Lre, t'an anti cipa%r�d. Cali I or ilia Department of "later R2soU roes, Llay �i; c)`$ ��iOti f_9 01 C,n response r2Ceiiie 2r L,Oje 0! I`04- e o f O i',3 i0ri Dc� c 4,x ., p.. _ , _ t/.r,lici]t.. � :,12 D2p7r.., .. rli. )r .t:�c+ �e_^_.iYC^S ...dCa _Q ci L - wile ' 1.; conservation Measures that C y 2OplIC'b { e t0 %. i1 �r �] , appr'opr1Jte� Response .ho d2 ;ai I e 1 rec c;iii, nda,_ r r' c o f t r n are referred to 'h City Bu i i sing ) r) r.r,�nL' for U e , , .'' j c r'evie:'d and consideratiorn io, local r.> ula%loll. California Deoci,rtment Of TransnortatiOn, District 7. la`/ 22 %' /` - J i 0 Preparation response receive:- a'i.er close of Not- ice 11 t d+ 1 Comment: Encroachment onto CALTRANS rig9lt-eF- lay rill re l.lire a rr.lit . 'esponse 'Clod par mil s ral 11 be 00 La if nG llil2in " l rl ci i '^Lin, 131 2 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 163 of 354 Ccdf?`/e1 t P!'OJP_CL A,^emu 3 Comment: The project May create iaoactS to State transportation f-ici :i l is `es. The DEIR should include an evaluation of the potential impacts to facilitil,,s, as ='bell as possible mitiga io,n measures . Rc=SpGriSe: iiie ,potential impaCtS 01 the pr0 "'"'` Oh JLa tc f.rari pGr't a!`,i011 j,_,, faCilitieS and miti0aLion mieasures for these ILOdCtS are discussed in the Draft EP;, pages 60-77. :,iii: ? 3t5 on Draft rn^Ji i'On: 2f'.al '_`;:pact "=';J',: rt Pori. of Los Angeles, June 21, 1934 T n Gomlrnent: ine Harbor L+epartlment owns considerable ac eage t:,djoini; t'le proposed Redevelopment Project Pirea, and requests to be placed on the Official iilailing list for fiaure noLiflCations of actions. Response: The Harbor Department will be placed on the Elgency+s mailing 'list for the project. o!iiT.ent: It is difficul"t to !-ettlernnin2 t1?� dill Ci )a !ed tl'P_ I a'e for de'v'elopment. Response: The tifPe fraiii2 for dove opment of t"2 pi 0jt:,CL a?,d For ',!b I i i prove - Ems men Ls !S Lm.:,n0'>;n aL ;,fie 0:^eSen ' .Eile> Cu r::nt, i]_":e i opi,-_;11, rates i n the G i ty are censi scent i t; bui l dout. o i- Red2`V, I G l,! rrt PrGiect Areas 1 and 3 over the ne �t 71 „ r ITOri D d o, C G`rc - a 20-year tir:ie frc„r::, e',;as assn-ped lid � isyril imp� ,.L an,a +` sis, '_.viii;➢ent. TI;e proj2,t C:l2SC_4Ution iS (D c-;, - rrl l and use plan Sn0u ` ' _%e, includarl,., J I`e e: n ter' .x,,:21 G')..'J.�.:I i S 1:` _! SpOnS�. Tli_ $p .�rl iC u_ �� �t • il? +��rrj�r at this tilde. Jel1elOpii: It iS assailed to be corn$ 1Ster,, General Pl an land 1:S ' at, aor i S l i r: oat rG, . ., d ;Se Iap, 71glAre �. Uses are 2-,)eCte'1 1"-) "be sl! li 1,r tv -thous < a�`;'ela0"'; in Gth?r neli 11d11 St;laI projects iii Cars n , Comment: Landf i 1 l srtes s b2 I rsted 'lli i S Lt ! : c ass ai'1_I 1, n: ter : C d:1i➢p i ng p.� tGX.i c or tlaZar doi S S S a•ices {nown ocCUrrences? i�esponse: Landf ill Sites have hCl'! baem 1den_1 led '01 ,;ricer G;1 i i : 22. uecause many landfill SitcS a'.'e old, iS iSl ­Ci Si that hazaIrdous .2sa Ges may ha`;e bee e' i ii l i 6.SS i I Si -_._' '� � n r�1.7,;p al thoua'h no such instances are ':no,. n on the sii.es iii tii^ o:,a t area. This possibiIity should be considered in constr�ictioi - ld adequate mitigation measures included in protect deJeIGalt - Comment: Are air pollutant emissions based on Alt--rnative 3? Response: Air po l l lutant emission cal cul at i or: ar,2 u:;sed on ;',l tern. ;`;2 3, 133 Ordinance No. 695/Page 164 of 354 FIR, ,:_-develop, ent Project Area 3 I- elYt: N-sting sites for Lh,e least tern soould. b2 fd°il l '`12j 5`/ 1 'JCdL'l'Jl and last occurrence of nesting activity. l Pesponse: ^Porr=tion availa;)Ie froia toe Calif^r is Lppa o` ish and �. _ � n .� rt�;�2ni: Game i ndi Cates that various Sites i n the i O's'ier rc-aches of the Doimnguez Chdnnal mov be Used by the Least ier n 'for nest"ing, bi.it that no sites are kno:.m to have been used in the past tv✓o years. Comment: Eloise levels are likely to be increased by more than 1 dL)vith the addition of 00 vehicles )2r day to , ?e p;oj =ct area> P,re noise Sources OCiier than ..raffiC likely iii file prOleCt dr2:i? :espcnse: ;11thoU signi `ricant trai is g r?e,"„t _ ,y thle traffic is g2 n2raied over a ' id- rroirc'- area I,iia1t is S?rv°j by 6 arterlai Streets and 3 I`rc&-ia;ls, i;ie fact tha this CramliC d i s t r i o't;t n a Over a large n... 'i2r C I S .r:?e-- s Ln<i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 165 of 354 ::_iR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 California Office of Noise Control Comment: Use of HUD guidelines may b- appropriate for residential impacts from urban traffic, but may not be appropriate for industrial noise sources . Response: The noise guidelines of Table 12, page 40 are considered appropriate I or most sources of urban noise including machinery noise from industrial sources. The City noise ordinance and zoning code prohibit unusual noise sources such as impact noise v"here such noise would have an adverse impact on residenI-4aj areaS. Comment: Sound insulation costs from the 7.970 aircraft noise stiiidy are based on noise f r Oii1 all directions, and over estim n ate traffic oise mitigation costs. Sound insulation and barriers sh3uld not be rejected as noise mitigation methods on this basis . Response: Additional information has been provided on co"tential sound insulation from f ighriay traffic. So+!nd insulation for existing residences is considered an infeasible mitigation r„2asure J considering the small noise increases sul in;i fro.:. t;.e prej:.ct the variety of insulation problems t:;ai r.'ay ins encounter d, and ehe cost of administering and mplementing an i: sulaticn program for tine smal 'I numIber of unit,s affected. 13� Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 166 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Notice of Preparation Responses The following additional agencies had comments on the Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR which were received by the Agency in time to be incorporated in the Draft EIR. These comments are on file at the Carson Redevelopment Agency; California Air Resources Board, 1102 Q Street, P.O. Box 2814, Sacramento, CA 95812, April 20, 1984. California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health Services, 2151 Berkeley 6lay, Berkeley, CA 94704, April 27, 1984. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Telephone comments from Taira Yoshimura, April 20, 1984. Central and :lest Basin .later Replenishment District, 7439 East Florence Avenue, Downey, CA 90240, April 6, 1984. Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control ; 11-268 South Garfield Avenue, Downey, (,A 90242, April 4, 1984. Los Angeles County, Department of County Engineer- Facilities, 550 SoUtn Vermont, Los Angeles, CA 90020, April 18, 1984. Los Angeles Count/ Fire Department, P.O. Box 3009, Terminal Annex, Los Angeles, CA 90051, April 26,1984, i" County of Los Angeles, D_-partmant of Healn Services, 313 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, ", 91001.2, Harch '8, 1984, County Sanitation Districts o'i Los Ang?ies County, 1955 l!orkman i1i1i Road, lv'hittier, CA 90607, April 2, 1984. Southern California Water Company, 3625 �ti ��.;(1 S�rLe�, ADS April 5, 1984. Southern California Gas C0:'10any, 70U North Lcn g B2d it ooU i eVard, Co'pton, CA 90224, March 26, 1984. Southern California Rapid Transit District, 425 South Hain Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013, April 11, 1984. 136 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 167 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Comments at Environmental Quality Commission , June 6, 1934. Comment: The city should consider land for residential development . Response: Residential development Baas considered as an alternative to the proposed project (Alternative 5, page 122). This alternative was rejected because the project area is already developed in industrial uses and significant land use compatibility problems would result from allocation of some area for residential use. Comment: The project area should provide zoining for a quality restaurant. Response: The zoning for the project area permits restaurant deveior;;,ent, and the City should encourage such a use in an appropriate location to serve the commercial areas of tie project. Comments at Planning Commission, June 12, 1984. Comment: The EIR should address the cumulative impact of traffic iron the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility. Response: Traffic from the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility `;gas considered in identifying future baseline traffic for the EIR. The Intermodal Container Transfer Facility does not generate a large amount of traffic compared to typical industrial or office land uses. The employment at the facility is low, and employee :rZ�.fI'ic wi11 not be significant, According to the Environmental Impac , Report for the facility, true.: traffic using the fa.ci14ty is expec- ted to be approximately 2500 trucks per day i( all d; rections. ih,s traffic does not represent a SiC?,,^:1 flCi:lt lnCr?dSc On any l^d 1 `Ji '."ual street segment cr 1 nters2 cc i (,n l file !1i"O�cC "'d. At file l ii l.`_'r- section of Alameda and Sepulv-da, for exa ple, a.n esti!nated 90 trucks per hour chill use the inCersection in the peak hou), , Train traffic from the project is estimated at 7 trains per day inbound and 7 outbound for a total of 14 trains. This Leval o'f train traffic is sufficient to causc adverse i;,!pact on rediately adjacent residential areas. No signifiCa'tt tray': trail"C. 1!1i73Ct 1S expected as a result Of the proposed project. 137 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 168 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Comments at Planning Commission Meeting, June 25, 1984 Comment: A number of projects that vrill i ncrease train traffic in the project area are not discussed in the EIR. These include the Intermodal Container Transr'er Facility, the expansion of the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles facilities, and the development of a consolidated freight line from the ports. As many as 80 to 100 trains per day may result from these actions. Response: A section has been added in the Final EIR in the Circulation section ldenti Flying rail impacts aF these protential actions. These actions will have an effect on surface traffic in the project area, and will require the grade separation of the rail 1in�= througho!rt the project area to insure adequate circulation. 1 _ 3d Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 169 of 354 RECEIVED OIL, r 6 2 i9d4 DONAL I) L. ULAR,Mayor REDEVELOPMENT JAMES Vi. CRAGIN,Mayor Pro Tern GWEN DUFFY, Councilwoman MAS FUKAI,Councilman fir .J. PAUL Y. TSUKAHARA,Councilman At A "I T YY {f, /I DEkA 1700 West 162nd STREET GARDENA / CALIFORNIA 90147 I 121J/327-0220 MAY Y. DOI,City Clerk GEORGE KOBAYASHI, City Treasurer MARTIN H. REAGAN, City Manager March 20, 1984 MICHAEL J. KARGER,City Attorney Pir. Adorfo Reyes Carson Redevelopment Agency 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 Dear Mr. Reyes: RE: Notice of Preparation In accordance with Section 15103 of the California Environmental, Quality Act guidelines, please be advised that this agency has no comments with respect to the two following projects: 1. Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1. 2. Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3. If I may be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call me at 327-0220, extension 320. Very truly yours, HAY14ARD FONG, P.E. Community Development Director oy F Kato City Planner /RMEf vn 141 ' Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 1170 of 354 ,TAfc .v r_A!JOPMA—HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENfv GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN. Oo,—o, OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT i �rw) vm STQFET 4.ENrO CALIFORNIA 958TA (916) 445-1945 March 23, 1984 i I RE CE E- D Ms. Patricia Nemeth [,'IAn '1 }u 4 County Development Director Carson Redevelopment Agency "OMMUNITY C-`i'Ina,%AENT 701 East Carson Street DEPARTMENT Carson, CA 90745 Dear Ms. Nemeth: I am returning the enclosed "Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Report" forms submitted to this office by your agency. The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development is the agencv of the State of California responsible for the issuance or denial of a certificate of need for health delivery facilities. One criteria that must be met by applicants for a certificate of need is documentation of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Documentation of compliance is accepted by this office from the lead agencies which are the city or county bdilding departments or redevelopment agencies. This office is not the lead agency. Since the proposed projects are not health related, we are returning the Notices of Intent without comment. Thank you for your courtesy in submitting the notices for our review. If I may be of assistance, please feel free to call me at (916) 323-6963. Sin rely, Hometo Lomas Seliior Project Officer ,E�ertificate of Need Section HL:11T / Enclosures 142 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 171 of 354 Vi � /r�, i I ')1) , _ Re - Redevelopment Plan. for Project No. ! anal No , 3 Dear Ms. Nemeth- This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service . Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas >ervice to the project could be provided from extisting gas mains located in various areas without any significant impact on the = environment, The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made , The availability of natural gas service , as set forth in this letter , is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies . As a public utility , the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies , Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available , gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions . We have developed several programs which are available , upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project . If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs , please contact this office for assistance at ( 213 ) 603-1345 , Thank you , H.R. Speck Distribution Planninq Supervisor DS :bmh 143 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 172 of 354 •,ef _ `IIIIN COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES H DEPARTMENT OF PU3LIC SOCIAL SERVICES 3401 RIO HONOO AVENOF. FL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731'TE'L 12131 572.5720 P O BOX 5493, EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731 March 27, 1984 I { ADDRESS REPLY TO: 3000 W. Sixth Street Los Angeles , CA 90020 Patricia Nemeth, Director Community Development City of Carson 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 Dear Ms . Nemeth: The Department of Public Social Services is in receipt of your letter dated March 15, 1984, (Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Report) . This is to advise you that the Department of Public Social Services does not have an office in the City of Carson and , therefore, is not affected by this project . Further, the Department 's plans do not call for an office in the area in the foreseeable future Very truly yours, J0HN PALUBICKI, WELFARE ADMINISTRATOR SPACE SERVICES SECTION JJP:SF:sd ECE1IL! ":A" 9 ug4 DE-PARTM.PpJT 144 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 17,3 of 354 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES •DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ;> 313 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET•LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90012•(213)974- PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS DOUGLAS R.STEELE March 78 , 1984 DEPUTY DIRECTOR RE CE D. FINN,M.D., M.P.H. RECEIVE D MEDICAL DIRECTOR R APR 0 G 1984 i .s . Patricia C. e t: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �rrmu n i t v n t Di r e c t o r DEPARTMENT ' 1 :neni Alen•_}- , -r n 1 - _ ., .. Carson ; California 90745 Dear Ms . Nemeth : SU3JECT: NOTICE OF PREPARATION[ Or= DRAFT "7NVIRO —ML NTAL IMPACT REPORT, REDEVELOPIMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 3 The staff of Environmental Management reviewed the subject report and submit the following cor-ments for your consideration : b i.JOI SE Our debartment is interested in the effect the proposed project •. ill have on the ambient noise levels . The folio-;:,ing information is necessary to access community noise exposure : a. :`that is the exact nature of the project? Include all noise generating facilities, Other tvpe of operations to he conducted on the site, and antieibatec. traffic. b. An assessment of the noise impacts from the proposed project should be included. Information should be provided on noise levels experienced at c. What is the ambient noise level at the project site at the present time? If ambient noise level change will be due to increase in traffic, a traffic model must be provided. d. What is the existing and proposed land-use adjoining the subject property? Is it compatible with the su';ject property? e. Where are the Nearest residential properties located? 145 Ordinance No. 34-695/Page 174 of 354 Ms. Patricia Nemeth , Director March 28, 1984 Page 2 Such considerations would likely facilitate a proper assessment of noise exposure at the project site , and its potential impact upon the existing residential properties . Mitigation measures may be necessary to meet the City Noise clement to the General Plan . We recommend that the ambient noise level be maintained at its current level for the adjoining residential properties . All construction equipment must .:e properly muffled . In order to further minimize noise intrusion during the construction period , we recommend the hours of operation of all high level noise construction equipment be restricted to the hours between 7 : 00 a .m. and 4 : 30 p .m. LIGHT AND GLARE Identify any light sensitive areas adjacent to the project site . Proper setting of light and use of landscape barriers will minimize the impact of the new light and glare sources . We recommend that all light sources be pointed away from residential boundaries . Dust abatement measures should also be taken as necessary during the construction period . A clarification and 4dditional information are needed to accurately interpret the statement of the projects effect on public and private improvements . If you have any questions regarding this matter , please contact Ms . Margaret Berumen at 974-7837 . The opportunity to review this report is appreciated . Very truly yo s , Norman J . Michiels Acting Environmental Management Deputy KS:MB: 1 s 146 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 175 of 354 I I_:; ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CON IRU IJ( IRI T I-N S v/ !. ;VISII;NI rewlrf rl-rrrrrrr% __ RFAUIZ17 File No, 2-15.311 2-15.313 1.21 1,:6'IT)RT Review of t l [t1= /-,JZE-A iU: C?•Z_Y�tJ �l'T, '-i•'Li�l__t l_iv'T-- �'(-�_1�+C( ._ 'X71 [7��; c,�:�• , ., -;_ Map or 'Pransmittal Letter Dale Assignment No. 1649 1. lhia au•n ,s ,,..._,•, I:.• .vu+lorive of the Recd Cmtml District and not uMer its jurisdiction, 2. n„• r„a•: r. +, no requirements for this subdiviaion/applicatim. 3. 11,e r;uW,....... .. ran,.:b ly free of float hazard frrm major channels and stream,, but may be subject to 1n-al flrv.t !...,.,. t� ;-fer to the report of the City/County Engineer concgmimmq local drainage. I a. Ibrc i,rs o[ �.... n,/site lying in and adjacent to ( 1 steep hillsides, ( 1 natural watercr]urses, are subject to flood hazard because of ,rvc flow, ( ) erosion ( ) mwtic and/or depositim of debris. Defer to the ropor[ of tl... :.itv;.� y tlginoer cnceming local drainage requirt,rents, S. 'Ibis pn>p cm. .ai; .• .,y:,,I ii,mtly affect the environment as Car as the District's interests an ob,,,r,,d. e. Plan are•b. .. .,n.•nt,m the final map/grant of waiver and summit engineering documentatim to sulKort LJI,, limib:. Z Irinr I„ n., L'.• :Intl e0 /rant of waiver, a ,.,t— T P 9 f flood hag rw:eri nq mazmlentatim must G autrlil ttad • ¢ available and are Ezae of floor hazard, 8. ,I +r Lo apprmal of the tentative p, S fficinnt infntmetim mist be sutmittM a to U, 011L11 s r Im l„,.i:.; t,.• *•.vent of the drainage problem and proposed solution. 9, Provide my,r, rvin ;. nlimin.oe the flood hazard, Alprovemmnts my include ( 1 storm drains and/or cantx•1s, ( I .. t.mrl l ities, 1 ) '.ahicular access to structures, ( I 10. I icare (u., L:c:•. ,.:./(.cure easement to the District/County of LA./City of providing for A permit viJ: --I L,; :,.,y construction affecting- the Dla t l et r1gF o a—y-.r-r.-. ,t es, 12. N+pr,Nal of .., is rema,o.:..l•:.I ..-'. mrtons rated herein or siwaam m the returned map. -� 13. the rvc•I,c.: ,I . :.,i. _.I l not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the lA. the is uneatNfacto trace the re.v:;:,--,c.�i,.4 :mein nr sham on returned Imp. V ry' 15- the s,u,:ivi•:'.:: •.:m- : :. ]cn.: lased on the (FJPf) National Flood insurance pale Mope. - :a:tnents: AN • �.v�:�-i��12tG1f� AYE �.�/ita.�i t�Y.Q.rc�c A"ou�iT A ls1Zi'h10E� A�CL7�]ALY or.__ _.: •,c !T0 X1.1 ' � LU MAC.Y= m� _ _ .� T�.ICTI Otv� rt�U\/I Slfj f�jj 6i_I11t11aD Pity.. Spit_ �Y-jam � Gi,•�WS FZZOM Bun--DlKx-- J F-TZ m, Ea`S T11 t 5 W l C)c aZ 176ZA11J,q�E F/->L•1 1.l�i 1=-5, RECEIVED APR 0 5 1984 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT :r t o t ive to the above camnents may be obtained by contifctir 1+Sao t, -,, Engineering In:••,sc .., .: �1L-..ts i_ - I r Te ne (213) 226-4324 Approvers by Date of Report ItENJUlatlon Sect 11x1 ?7)3 I,] I'1t 147 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 176 of 354 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT rJ POST OFFICE BOX 3009. TERMINAL ANNEX LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90051 O�A�G MEH 267-2431 CLYDE A. BRAGDON, JR. FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN April 2 , 1934 RECEIVED r.DQ O .; 19R4 Patricia Nemeth Community Development Director :COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Carson Redevelopment Agency DEPARTMENT 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 Dear Ms. Nemeth : SUBJECT: CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA 43 This subject has been reviewed by our Department and the enclosed reports from the Fire Protection Engineering and Fire Protection Planning Sections respond to those areas which affect Fire Depart- ment responsibility and operation. Very truly yours, JOHN W. ENGLUND ACTING FIRE CHIEF By JOSEPH FERRARA SENIOR DEPUTY FORESTER FORESTRY DIVISION JF:grj Enclosures SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS BRADBURY GLENDORA LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROSEMEAO WESTLAKE VILLAGE ARTESIA CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA PALMDALE SAN AL HILL WHITTIER AZUSA CERRITOS HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PARAMOUNT SIGNAL HILL BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT HUNTINGTON PARK 148 LA PUENTE PICO RIVERA SOUTH EL MONTE SELL COMMERCE INDUSTRY LAWNDALE RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH GATE BELLFLOWER CUDAHY IRWINDALE LOMITA ROLLING HILLS TEMPLE CITY BELL GARDFN9 DI IARTF I A fANADA PI INTRIDf.F MAYWO(1D RDI I INf.HII I C FSTATFS WAI NI IT Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 177 of 354 March 26 , 1984 SUBJECT: CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA #3 i Our consideration of the impact on fire protection of the proposed development is based on the current level of service available within the general area. Any impact on fire protection is based on the current level of service . Additional manpower and equipment may be required as the need arises . The subject development will receive fire protection from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department . Fire Station 127 , located at 2049 E. 223rd Street , Carson CA 90810 is the jurisdictional engine company for this property. EQUIPMENT DISTANCE Time Men Engine 127 1 .5 Miles 3 Minutes 4 Engine 105 3 " 4 3 Engine 10 3 it 4 4 Truck 127 1 .5 if 3 4 R/S 36 4 it 5 " 2 Haz.Mat .Sq. 105 3 if 4 " 5 Deluge 105 3 it 4 1 Foam 10 3 " 4 " 1 This Department has been informed that this proposed development will be a community redevelopment area. Increased fire protec- tion needs resulting from development and the division of taxes creates a financial burden on fire protection; therefore , the district requires full pass-through of all tax increments due the district. The subject development is totally within the boundaries of the Consolidated Fire Protection District . By J N M. BILLINGS DIVISION CHIEF FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAU 149 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page1.1 78 of 354 March 23 , 1984 i SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 621 ACRES CITY OF CARSON Our review of the subject indicates no adverse effect to fire protection if standard fire department requirements for fire hydrants , water mains, fire flow, access , and design are met. Fire flows of 2000 g.p.m. to 5000 g.p.m. will be required de- pending upon the type of construction used. Hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet. A Fire Prevention suggestion that will reduce potential fire and life losses would be the installation of sprinkler systems in the projects residential dwellings. Systems are now techni- cally feasible for residential use. Incorporating sprinkler protection with required smoke detection will produce life safety products that will allow the Fire De- partment to arrive at a safer fire. Should any questions arise regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Captain Frank Brown at ( 213 ) 267-2467. ROBERT P. BLACKBURN t!G BATTALION FIRE CHIEF FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING PREVENTION & CONSERVATION BUREAU 150 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 179 of 354 .. „ � c : Carson KedcveL�p c.a :.yc;.cy aellflower' 701 E. Carson St. radbury Carson, CA 90745 Carson -ompton Dear Sir: -zidahy :l Monte We have reviewed the redevelopment plan for Project Area Noe 13 i3waiian Gardens and due to the nature of the work that our Department does we ',ermosa Beach- do not feel that this would have any environmental impact on our ? dden frills department at all. iisntington Park* nduRtry We would be happy to help in any way we can with the final ale draft of this proposals or if you have any questions that you ° -lewood feel we can be of help with. =;� Can., ia [�lintridgc a Habra freights If you have any questions Z can be reached at 922-8874. .-anco:ster -a Puente Very truly yours, ::anh.attan Deach• 'wJ Od Brian HAB Director almdale tolling Hills Est. // ;an. Fernando o Georg . Baca, /Chief Deputy Director ignal Hill 'outh F,1 Monte GFB:s p <slnut _stlake Village •'?artial City 151 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 180 of 354 STATE Of CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONRECEIVED DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051 0-0c , (213) 620-5335 APR 0 3 1984 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN1,11e : Notice of Preparation DEPARTMENT SCH# 84032102 Ms . Patricia Nemeth Carson Redevelopment Agency 701 E. Carson Street Carson, CA. 90745 Dear Ms , Nemeth: We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NO P) for the Rede- velopment Plan for Project Area No. 3, At this time we cannot de- termine if Caltrans will be a Responsible Agency, Any encroachment onto our right-of-way will require a permit . Our review of the NOP has indicated that the proposed plan may create Impacts to State transportation facilities. Once specific projects are identified we will require the following information so that we may evaluate the impacts of the project upon Caltrans facilities : number of daily vehicle tri s generated, peak hour trips, number of heavy duty vehicles (trucks, and the projected travel patterns of the vehicles using the proposed projects. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you require additional information contact- Richard Simon at (213) 620-4038. Very truly yours, W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief Environmental Planning Branch 152 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 181 of 354 f Car;c-,n, CA 90; near Ms. Nemeth: Ttlank you tot Che opporcuniry tc, resTn_ nn to the �.fotice of Prerx,rati-,n tnt the EnvirorraentaA. Impact t?^_p--;rt tot, the redevclopment Ptan for Pr^ ecr FV a No, < in the City of Cars,m, In response to your request rr)garding the scope and content of needed environmental data; SCRTD requires sufticient data in a project EIR tc H.i10w the project's impact �n retjional transit to be evaluatio ], .1,11 -h ,the data needed to evaluate a project-'s imT.act On reginncl ti al::>1t i':; contained in the general setting, project. description, listing ,t impacts and mitigation measures container- in any EIR prepared under the Caiitornia Environmentai Quality Act. Specitic transit reict.e:3 da,,, should, at a minimum, include a description of existim service en_ thF impact of the deve. c,Frient on the existing service. Transil lrnrOl�::ent such as bus shelters, signing or more elaborate measurer �houid b,= lncl:: 'lo_n in prO7ect mitigatior• measures in prOP:)tcion t., project irnpacr.s, Ttie SCRTD presently operates one bus _cute to the pro�x-sea pkojecr ;it-', Line 55, The line cur±entJy has subscantiai- on—bard space avai an_i: i_r th,, vicinity Ot the- prr)jr'Tr Possible ttattic, r­is(_ -;ind air �,ii t-..s:. impacts :t Lh,_ could be mitigated tc sr,;oe extent by -ii.verti ; autt drivers t: the totthcoming Long Beach--[,(,S Angeles Li ni Raid, Lystem�, The pot rvisi:-•r r prominent project area Signirr directifra auto ciritiers tc Station Park. and Ride iots scheduied to be located approxirn,�taiv One nriie east. of the project site on Willow and Plardlow Roads could heir accnmpi.i such auto diversion. Any project area '.ight Rail signing sh;,uid be coordinated With the Los AngeLeS County Transportation Cormnisstone Under the terms of its Ptopnsition A r.inding Memorandum of Jnderstan+inc with the Tags Angeles County Transportation Commission, the District is unable to expand the r°tatent_ revel of service, The City of C-xsor ;nay i,ish 153 Southern California Rapid Transit Oistrict z Se Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 182 of 354 Patricia 7'2rt!Il(,, n,nr i i l i i nn,+ i ,Sfr- ereiy, s Gary pivac irec or of Pla ing AttacPvents C 154 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 183 of 354 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTM ENT 0F COUNTY ENGINEER-FACILITIES STEPHEN J. KOONCE COUNTY ENGINEER 550 SOUTH VERMONT, LOS ANGELES. CA 90020 12731 738-2011 R E C V BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HIAM BARMACK L I E D PETER F SCHABARUM CHIEF DEPUTY KENNETH HAHN EDMUND D. EDELMAN DEANE DANA April 18 , 1984 EVELQpMEt,4TMICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Carson Redevelopment Agency 701 East Carson Street Carson, California 90745 Gentlemen: t Z`R r Cd 7d GLISG) Carson Redevelopment Plan Amendment to Project Area No. 1 This Department has reviewed the subject project and submits the following comments for your consideration, Sanitation Facilities A generalized discussion on sewage disposal, should be pres- ented in the proposed Environmental Impact Report . Included in this discussion should be comments regarding what type of impact the proposed development could have on the City ' s sewer system, and what mitigating measures would be taken by the City to off-set any adverse sewage capacity problems that may develop, Soils The EIR. should contain preliminary descriptions of they soils of the area and their engineering properties. The soils in the vicinity of the Dominguez Channel coulc hale poor founda- tion and fill bearing capacity. Any existirno trasl or Land fills in the area should be indentified, Water Facilities The report should contain quantitative data to demonstrate that an adequate water supply and distribution system facili- ties are available to meet the peak demands. of all water users within the servicle area in which the project is situ- ated and also provide the domestic water demands and fire flows required for the full development of the project . a We suggest that the Forester and Fire Warden be consulted to ascertain the required" fire flows and fire hydrants to ac- comodate the proposed development. 155 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 184 of 354 Carson Redevelopment Plan April 18 , 1984 Amendment to Project Area No. 1 Page 2 % It should be noted in the report that all water, system facilities necessary to meet the domestic demands and fire flows required for the proposed development will be constructed in accordance with Los Angeles County Code, Title 20 , Division 1 , Water Or- dinance and Standards of the Dominguez Water Corporation. The developer may be required by Los Angeles County Code, Title 21 , Subdivision Ordinance to post bonds to guarantee the construction of the water system facilities Waste Management and Pollution Control 1 . Portions of the proposed development site overlie closed landfills containing decomposable materials. It is suggested that potential hazards created by migrating decomposition gases be addressed, along with ground settlements . 2 . The EIR should also discuss the impacts ) of the proposed development on generation and disposal of solid waste. 3 . Generation, handling and pretreatment of industrial waste if applicable should be mentioned. The if area may be included or impacted by sites classified by State Department of Health Services ( DOHS ) as Hazardous Waste Sites (s ) . Information should be obtained from the DOHS on pos- sible regulations, or restrictions on development of such site (s ) . Very truly yours , a STEPHEN J. KOONCE City Engineer aaV__R � Ray Khojasteh Supervising Civil Engineer II Subdivision Section Survey and Land Development Division SJK:RK lmd 44 156 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 185 of 354 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` GEORGE DEUKMEJIA N, Gowrrror AIR RESOURCES BOARD 1 I W O STREET �'Lt�w (�)✓I�1 ,��I p, ,p vtl��J_� +- �, P.O. BOA SACRAMENTO, CA 95812 April 20, 1984 RECEIVED APR 2 5 1984 ARB No. 840303 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Patricia Nemeth Community Development Director Carson Redevelopment Agency 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 Dear Ms. N eth:� Your March 15, 1984, notice of preparation for the City of Carson Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 Draft Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed. Enclosed are our assessment guidelines which will assist you in the preparation of the air quality analysis for the proposed project and will provide the information useful to our review. For additional information, please contact Arthur Diamond, of my staff, at (916) 322-6076. Sincerely, Anne B. Geraghty, Manager General Projects Section Technical Support Division Enclosure cc: Brian Farris, SCAQMD Mark Alpers, SCAG Chris Goggin, OPR/SCH Arthur Diamond, ARB/TSD I 157 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 186 of 354 RECEIVED APR 2 � 1984 CONUMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Issue Date: Nay 4, 1983 DEPARTMENT Revised: June 10, 1983 Revised: tiarch 14, 1984 Report No. RP-83-002 Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments: General Development and Transportation Projects by Technical Support Division State of California Air Resources Board 1102 Q Street Sacramento, California 95814 ,= o i 158 I Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 18(7 of 354 Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments: General Development and Transportation Projects Table of Contents Page I I. INIRODUC:nora 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 III. IMPACT OF PROJECT PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES 2 A. Short-Term Emissions 2 B. Long-Term Emissions 2 C. Local Scale Analysis 3 D. orri or Ana ysis 3 E. IaF zardous o Tutant Analysis 3 F. Cumulative Impact Ana ysis 4 IV. CONFORMITY WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN 4 V. MITIGATION MEASURES 5 A. General Transportation Heasures 5 Q. 1Employe —onsore ransportation Measures 6 C. Residential roject Measures 6 D. Land Usc Uevcldpmenf 4eT asures 6 Figure 1 - California and National Air Quality Standards 7 Figure 2 - Cumulative Percentage of Hydrocarbon Emissions - 7 Mile Trip g REFERENCES 10 159 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 188 of 354 AIR RESOURCES BOARD Regional Programs Division ' May 1983 Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments: General Development and Transportation Projects I. INTRODUCTION Effective review of environmental impact reports (EIRs) may be the single most important factor in implementation of the policies established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Division 13, Public Resources Code) . The review process is the safeguard that provides for independent evaluation by decision makers and the general public concerning environmental implications of proposed projects and for evaluating the feasibility of implementing measures to lessen these impacts. Pursuant to CEQA (Section 21082) the following guidelines have been developed which outline the recommended content for air quality impact assessments of general development and transportation projects. Some of the information suggested may be satisfied through incorporation by reference to other documents such as previous environmental documents. When incorporating by reference, a brief summary of the information must be provided in the EIR, and the incorporated reference must be available for public review. Despite projected reductions in motor vehicle emissions resulting from compliance with federal and state motor vehicle related standards and substantial controls on stationary sources, many areas of the state are not expected to attain some health based air quality standards in the near future. As such, the guidelines place special emphasis on discussion in EIRs of project/air quality plan consistency and on the development of detailed air quality impact mitigation elements. Information set forth here does not supersede more specific guidance developed by local air pollution control districts. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Section . State CEQA Guidelines) Description of ambient air quality conditions prior to the proposed action. The description should provide sufficient information to permit independent evaluation by reviewers. The following information should be included in the discussion of the environmental setting: A. Airshed or basin in which the project is located B. Local climate and topography C. State and national air quality standards D. Summary of air quality trends for previous 3 yearsl including number of days federal and state air quality standards were exceeded Y The Technical Services Division of the ARB prepares annual summaries of air quality data for gaseous and particulate pollutants. This information is available upon request. See reference item 1. _1_ TSD 3/84 160 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 189 of 354 - at the closest monitoring station - countywide basinwide E. Potential effects of existing air pollutants on sensitive receptors such as: 1 . Schools (children) 1' 2. Hospitals (patients) 3. Convalescent homes (elderly) 4. Agricultural areas (crop productivity) III. IMPACT OF PROJECT PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES (Section . State CEQA GuidelinesT- All phases of a project and project alternatives must be considered when evaluating air quality impacts. Impact assessments should be calculated using "worst case" meteorological conditions and the most current emission factors available. Pollutants of particular concern are identified in Figure 1 . Several types of emission computations may be needed for the air quality analysis. All results may be presented in units of tons per year, pounds per day, and concentrations as parts per million (ppn). The ARB EMFAC6C composite vehicle emission factors may be used in calculations where more specific regional factors are not available. (See reference item 2 for information on how to obtain composite emission factors. ) A. Short-Term Emissions - Short-term emissions generated during the _ site preparation and construction phase of a project include fugitive dust resulting from grading and materials handling, construction workers' vehicular traffic, and the exhaust from heavy-duty gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Emission factor data for emissions generated during construction activities can be found in EPA AP-42, Com ilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Third Edition see re erence item . Once the appropriate emission factors have been determined, computations would be similar to computations shown below for long-term emission generation. B. Long-Term Emissions - The long-term emissions associated with a project include both the direct emissions generated by the operation of the project, and the indirect emissions induced by the project, due principally to the use of motor vehicles. If a project's completion date is anticipated to be 10 or more years in the future, an emission assessment should be done in 5 year increments to project completion. This assessment should identify and analyze emission sources (i .e. , motor vehicles, power generation, project operations). Factors in vehicle usage to be considered are: 1 . Number of vehicle trips associated with the project 2. Length of trips 3. Peak hour traffic count estimates -2- TSD 3/84 161 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 190 of 354 i 4. Percent cold-hot start 5. Types of trips and average speed 6. Vehicle miles traveled per day Models are available from AR6 for doing this assessment. They are URDEMIS #1 and URBEMIS #1 , The Manual Method (Reference item 4). Traditionally, reductions in vehicle miles travelled (VMT) have been targeted for reducing emissions associated with motor vehicle travel . However, with the gradual reduction of emissions due to increasingly stringent emissions standards, reductions in vehicle trips is as important in estimating potential emissions as reduction in VMT, especially for short trips. For example, approximately 60% of a catalyst equipped motor vehicle's hydrocarbon emissions will occur within the first mile of a seven mile trip at an average of 25 miles per hour (see Figure 2) . C. Local Scale Analysis - Estimate of project's air quality impact in the vicinity of project. Special emphasis should be placed on identifying locations of sensitive receptors ( i.e. , hospitals, schools, etc. ) and the actual exposure to pollutants. Concentration of carbon monoxide and lead are of primary concern. We recommend that a suitable microscale model such as CALI14E 3 (Reference item 5) be used to analyze the project's carbon monoxide impact. This model is applicable to intersections, roadway links, and ingress/egress points of parking. A lead analysis should be performed if local stationary sources of lead emissions are present in the area or if the project is in an area that exceeds the national or state lead standards. D. Corridor Analysis - When a project acts as a generator or ` attractor of vehicle trips which may result in a significant change in level of service of local roadways, freeways, or arterials, the affected transportation corridor should be analyzed. This analysis should include the expected change in emissions for the corridor due to changes of speed. This analysis should also take into consideration cumulative impacts as described in Part F. E. Hazardous Pollutants2 - Airborne hazardous or toxic pollutants expected to be generated by the project must be identified. The types of pollutant, quantities emitted, am lent background levels and potential impact on public health must be addressed. In addition, it must be identified if a project is to be located in an area which may be impacted by existing or planned facilities with the potential to emit toxic or hazardous pollutants. An air quality analysis of hazardous air borne pollutants should discuss the following points: 1 . Any additive or s nnerrgis�tic health impacts 2. Degree of risk to t e community See State of California Administrative Code Title 17, Ch. 1 , Part III. -3- TSD 3/84 162 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 191 of 354 J. Identification of threshold of adverse health impact 4. Control measures 5. Emergency plans F. Cumulative Impacts - The impact on the ambient air environment w Tc resu is from the incremental impact of a proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development activities should be discussed. The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15130) presents the following criteria for an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: 1 . A list of projects in the vicinity of the proposed project producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency, 2. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available, and 3. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impact of the relevant projects. IV. CONFORM TY WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN A. Section 15125(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines and Sections 176 and 316 of the Federal Clean Air Act contain specific references on the need to evaluate any inconsistency between the proposed project and the applicable air quality plan (i .e. , Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP]/State Implementation Plan [SIP]) . in many instances a project/air quality plan conformity finding can be made by determining the following: I' 1 . Is an Air Quality Plan being implemented in the area where the project is proposed? A local jurisdiction is considered to be implementing the AQMP/SIP if it: (a) has commited to implement the control measures in the AQMP/SIP designated for local government action or substitute measures with equivalent emission reductions; and (b) implements the control measures to which it has committed through ordinances, zoning or conditions of development. 2. Is the proposal consistent with the growth assumptions of the applicable Air Quality Plan? Several of the state's metropolitan area 1982 AQMPs do not demonstrate attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as prescribed by the Clean Air Act. Consistency with growth forecasts of such plans is not in and of itself a satisfactory reason to allow project-related emissions to go unmitigated if mitigation measures are reasonably available. -4- TSD 3/84 163 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 192 of 354 3. Does the project contain in its design all reasonably available and feasible air quality control measures? The Federal Clean Air Act Section 110(5)B(ii ) requires implementation of reasonably available Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in metropolitan areas which cannot attain air quality standards by 1982. Many urban areas of the state do not project attainment of the standards by the current statutory deadline of 1987. Therefore, project-related TC1.1s are an increasingly important source of emission reductions and need to be analyzed in the EIR. V. MITIGATION MEASURES Section 15126TTY7 State CEQA Guidelines) The EIR should identify all feasible motor vehicle trip reduction measures that can serve to mitigate project-related air quality impacts. There should be an assessment of the air quality benefits which could result from the implementation of mitigation measures. These should be stated in quantitative terms, including projected reduction in emissions, trips generated, vehicle miles travelled, total emissions and pollutant concentrations. The applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) should be used as a reference for TCMs prescribed for implementation in the region. In addition, mitigation measures not adopted for regionwide implementation may be reasonably available for specific projects. If the project's design includes AQMP motor vehicle trip reduction measures, this should be noted in the EIR; similarly, AQMP measures rejected as infeasible should be noted and explained in relation to the project. The names of entities responsible for implementation of proposed TCMs and the timeframes for their implementation should also be included in the EIR. We recommend that project proponents contact public transit, ridesharing, bicycling, local public works, and other appropriate service providing organizations during early planning stages to ensure that needed facilities and services are available and will be appropriately incorporated into project design. The following listing of measures is intended to be a guide only and is not all-inclusive; other measures to mitigate adverse air quality impacts are available. The measures are related to land use and transportation planning and management. Their purpose is to reduce motor vehicle trips, thereby reducing emissions of automobile-related pollutants on both a regional and local scale. A. General Transportation Measures - applicable to all developments - Direct support to transit agencies for service and/or facilities - Parking management - Bicycle paths and on-street lanes - Safe and convenient pedestrian facilities - Minibus, jitney, or other para-transit services within and between trip attractions -5- TSD 3/84 164 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 193 of 354 [i. neloyer-S onsored Trans ortation teasures ( for job sites) nera Measures iste above arid: - Employer-sponsored ridesharing programs - Employer-provided transit passes - Carpool/vanpool preferential parking - Employer subsidy to employees using carpool/vanpools - Employer-charged parking fees for single occupant motor vehicles - Onsite fuel for carpool/vanpool vehicles - Modified work schedules (flextime) for meeting carpooling, vanpooling, or transit schedules - Provision of employee services within walking distances, including banking, child care, food service, recreation, and other facilities - Shuttle services for employees for shopping and meal trips and to passenger rail or bus loading points - Secure bicycle parking facilities - Showers and lockers for bicyclists (and joggers) - Fleet management to reduce trips and improve vehicle maintenance - Decreased parking requirements for implementation of any of the above C. Residential Projects General Measures Misted above and: - Provision for transit access in street design - Neighborhood shopping and other day-to-day personal service needs within residential projects, without additional parking for such service uses - Major open space and recreational facilities within residential projects - Vehicle pools for high density developments D. Land Use Develo ment Measures Genera Measures tsted a ove and: - Mixed land use/balanced communities - Energy-efficient street lighting - Optimum insulation standards - Solar access siting - Solar space heating/hot water systems/pool heating - Energy-efficient built-in appliances r► -6- TSD 3/84 165 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 194 of 354 Figure 1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS C - --- California Standards' --_--- National Standards' Pollutant Averaging Time — -- -- Concentration3 Method' Primary'.' Secondary'.' Method' Oxident'o _ --- 1 hour 010 ppm Ultraviolet - - - (200 ug/m3) Photometry Ozone_--- — 1 hour ---- - - -- 0 12 ppm--- Same as Primary Ethylene (235 ug/m') Standard Chemdummescence Carbon Monoxide g 0 ppm Non-Dispersive Same as Non-Dispersive 8 hour Infrared /0 mp Primary Infrared 110 mg/m'1 Spectroscopy (9 DD-r*') Standards Spectroscopy 1 hour ppm -- INDIR) 40 mg/m3 (NDIR) 123 mg/m') (35 PDm) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Average - 100 u /m3 g Gas Phase Gas Phase (0 05 ppm) - Chemdum�- Sama as Primary Che mdummescence 1 hour 025 Porn nascence - Standard 1470 ug/m') Sulfur Dioxide Annual Average - 80 ug/m3 - -(0 03 Dom) 24 hour 0 05 ppm 365 up,m I - (131 ug/m')• ultraviolet (0 14 ppm) Pararosandme Fluorescence 1300 ug/m' 10 5 pom) - 1 hour O 5 pp- (1310 uq/m') $usp.indnd Annual Goomeiric 60 ug/m' 75 ug/m' 60 ug/m' Particulate Mean High Volume _ _ _ _ _ __. - High Volume Matto( - -"'-- ' Sampling $amph np 24 hour 100 ug/m' 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 - Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/m' Turbidimetric Barium Sulfate Lead 30 day 15 ug,m3 Atomic - - Average Absorption Celendai - - 1 5 ug,m3 Same as Pry- Atom-r. Ouarter many Standard _Absorovon - Hydrogen I hour --0 03 ppm Cadmium Hydrox- -------_ --- - - - Sulfide 142 ug/m3) rde STRactan Vmyf Chlonde 24 hour ppm Tedlar Bap-- -_ ------- _--- - (Clduruwthene! 126 up/m') Co llection. Gas -- -' Chromatography Vi"Nilly 1 observation In sufficient amount to Reducing reduce the prevailing visibility' Pnrpclee to less than 10 miles when the relative humidity is less than 70% -- _ APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKE TAHOE AIR BASIN: Carbon Monoxide 8 hour - -- 6 Pom NOIR Vrsihddy 1 observahon In sufficient amount to Reducing reduce the prevailing vrmbilrW - - - Perbdes to leas than 30 miles when the (7 ing/rit r eiebve humidity is Iess than 70% If OOTNOTES ON REVI RSE SIDEI _7_ Ten 3/84 166 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 195 of 354 NOTES. 1. California standards, other than carbon monoxide, are necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to values that are not to be equaled or exceeded. The protect the public health. Each state must attain the carbon monoxide standards are not to be exceeded, primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the En 2. National standards, other than ozone and those based vironmental Protection Agency (EPA). on annual averages or annual geometric means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone 6. National Secondary Standards: The'9vels of air quality standard is attained when the expected number of days necessary to protect the public welfare from any a calendar year with a maximum hourly average- known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. concentration above the standard is equal to or less Each state must attain the secondary standards within than one. a "reasonable time" after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was - promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equr are based upon a reference temperature of 250C and valent method" of measurement nay be used but rn ist a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All meas- have a"consistent relationship to the reference method" urements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference and must be approved by the EPA. temperature of 250C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of Hg (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table 6. Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest visibility refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant which is attained or surpassed around at least half of per mole of gas. the horizon circle, but not necessarily in continuous sectors. 4 Any equ,vab:nt procedure which can be. shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equi- 9. At locations whore the stave standards for oxulaot valent results at or near the level of the air quality and/or suspended particulate matter are woiated standard may be used. National standards apply elsewhere. 5. National Primary Standards. The levels of air quality 10. Measured as ozone. ARB Fact Sheet 38 (Revised 1/83) _g TSD 3/84 167 .:04' Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 196 of 354 Figure 2 110f SOAK CYC-LL G 90 177 OF UAISSION5 O go - F trl 10 FOENII 0 1985 AUTO WITH 60 CATAI.Y'FIC CONVERTER v 0 50 - Speed: 25 rnph -v > Temperature: 50' F Z .40 - O COLD IN M t7 4. [ 20 d 10 - �l p - 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles from Origin This curve is derived from exhaust sampl-• . takon, during the running of the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP) . Although originally derivod from early model catalyst and non-catalyst equipped vehicles, it is representa- tive of newer model catalyst equipped vehicle'.. Sourer•: 11rreent of hydrocarbon emis!Jon� derirvf from ARR FMFAC6C emission factor.. ff' \ TSU 3/84 168 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 197 of 354 REFERENCES Documents available from ARB may be requested from the following address: State Air Resources Board Public Information Office P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812 Information for securing other references is included in individual citations. 1 . California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data. These reports contain monitored air quality data for all pollutants from monitoring sites throughout California. Available as quarterly reports or annual summaries. 2. California Air Resources Board, EMFACK Emission Factors; California Statewide Mix of Vehicles, 19 - Oct eer . To e revised, Contains current composite mobile emission factors based on ENFACK. It is compiled in an easily usable format for CALINE 3 calculations of emissions resulting from motor vehicles at any given speed and year. 3. EPA AP-42 Supplement No. 11 for Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Third Edition (Including Supplements - (Research Triangle Parc1 , North Carolina, Environmental Protection Agency, October 1980) , pp. 3.2.7-1 through 3.2.7-5. Emission factors for heavy-duty gas and diesel powered vehicles and aircraft. Emission factors for heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered engines have been reprinted by Regional Programs Division of the Air Resources Board and are available without cost upon request to Regional Programs Division. 4. California Air Resources Board, URBEMIS #1 A Land Use Emissions Model (November 1982). URBEMIS #1 is a program which may be used to estimate the emissions which result from various land-use projects, such as employment sites, shopping centers, condominium developments, and single-family home developments. URBEMIS #1 provides comparison of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and total hydrocarbon emissions as a function of the type of land-use project being considered, the type and number of vehicle trips associated with the land use project, and the vehicle miles travelled for the various types of vehicle trips undertaken. URBEMIS #1 is available to operate on an Apple II+ computer (see reference #6) , or as a manual method. Both are available from the Air Resources Board. -10- TSD 3/84 169 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 198 of 354 5. California Department of Transportation, CALINE 3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predictin 'Air Po utant Levels Near Hi ghways and 7Frterjal Streets (November This publication contains documentation of the CALINE 3 Model and a description of the operating procedure. The publication also includes listings of the model in FORTRAN and BASIC languages as well as abbreviated versions for use on HP 67/97 and TI59 programmable calculators. Available for $10.60 from Caltrans Publication Unit, 6002 Folsom Blvd. , Sacramento, CA 95819 or call (916) 445-3520. A computer-assisted version of this model is also available (see k6). 6. California Air Resources Board, Air Quality Project Evaluation Tools, (1983). This is a package of three recommended computer models which are designed to run on an Apple II + micro computer. It is available from ARB for a price of $13.00. The package includes: URBEMIS #1 - estimates vehicle emissions from various land uses CALINE 3 - estimates microscale impacts of vehicle emissions PIVOT POINT - estimates effectiveness of TCM mitigation measures 7. California Air Resources Board, A Proposed Program for Reducing Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants in aC lifornia, ay . This report reviews past AP.B efforts, identifies the role and actions of other agencies, and discusses a framework for a regulatory program for the control of toxic air contaminants. 8. California Air Resources Board, "Examples of Transportation Control Measures" , report, (June 1982). A list of transportation control measures (TCMs) that have been implemented in various cities in the United States, with contact person or reference identified. Available from Regional Programs Division. 9. California Air Resources Board, "Attainment/Nonattainment Classification Status," informal informational report, (December 1982). This informational report contains classification status by county, ambient air quality standards, EPA definitions, and maps illustrating statewide classification status by pollutant. It is updated frequently and it is available without cost from the Air Resources Board's Regional Programs Division. -11- TSD 3/84 170 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 199 of 354 10. Urban Consortiun Transportation Task Force, S14D Briefs, (Washington, D.C. : Public Technology, Inc. , Quarterly Publication Quarterly reports on progress in nationwide demonstration projects financed by Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UTMA) to test new alternative transportation services and management ideas. Contact person is identified for each project. Two volume looseleaf report available without cost from: Public Technology, Inc. 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 626-2400 11 . Office of Environment and Safety, The Costs and Effectiveness of Trans ortation Control Measures in Ac ieving Air Quality oa s (Washington D.C. : U.S. Department of ransportation, August 981 ) This publication provides an assessment of the costs and effectiveness of a variety of transportation control measures. litany. of these measures are applicable for mitigating project impacts; therefore, this publication may be a good guide for use in estimating costs and effectiveness of project mitigation measures. Copies may be obtained without cost from the Air Resources Board's Regional Programs Division. 12. Fortman-Mayo, Marda, Bicycling and Air Quality Infornation Document (Washington, D.C. : Office of Transportation and Lan se o icy, Environmental Protection Agency, September 1979) x This publication provides a good overview of bicycling with comparisons to other TC1,1s. Suggested methodology should be modified to reflect evaporative emissions reductions in addition to reductions in running emissions. Reprints of modified methodology may be obtained without cost from the Air Resources Board's Regional Programs Division. Full report may be purchased from Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 13. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Local Government Guide to Project Mitigation and Other Improvement feasures for Air Qua ity (Draft 3-83) This document is intended as a guide for local government planners and other local officials in the San Francisco Bay Area. It concerns the actions that cities and counties can take both to mitigate air quality impacts of development projects they approve, and to improve air quality through non-project local actions. It is available from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109. (415) 771-6000 Attention: Irwin Mussen. RP-83-002 -12- A01 TSD 3/84 171 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 200 of 354 JOUTHERn CALIFOROIA WOCIAT= OF GOVERnMEnn 600 Louth Commonwealth Rvenue •fuite 1000 • Lof Rngeler• California •90005 •213/385-1000 DATE: April 24, 1984 RECEIVED 'PR 2 1984 TO: Carson Redevelopment Agency COM:bIUNITY DEVELOPMENT 701 East Carson Street DEPARTMENT Carson, CA 90745 Attn: Ms. Patricia Nemeth Community Development Director FROM: Metropolitan Clearinghouse SUBJECT: Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 SCAG No. LA-31951-NP Thank you for submitting the Notice to Prepare the environmental document for the referenced project for SCAG review. SCAG staff does not have comments at this time but looks forward to reviewing the environmental document when available. Sincerely, WENDY A. UR HY Clearin Ouse Official WM:wp 12a 172 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 201 of 354 TY nF r,nc ELES 7 J .. l Deal Ms , !demet11 SUBJECT e CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT /1121.21 ?his sulDjL3ct iias been reviewed by euI ! e�:artmen?. reports from the Fire Protection Engineering ai' Ll Fire Protection Planning Sections respond to those areas ai_tich affect Fire Depart- men f- rnsponsibi.lity and operation. t/ert, truly yours-, JO(ii� WV ENGLUND ACTING FIRE CHIEF By JOSEPH FERRARA SENIOR DEPUTY FORESTER FORCSTRY DIVISION JF-grj Enclosures SERVING THE UNINcngPORArED AREAS CF ,-')S ANGELES COUNTY ANO THE CITIES OF aG;Uaa H.,_L` 3aaD8S R'• GLEt+U =:. ...�avj".' N,i-.wa Lk RGSEMEAt' ,.lET :xE v!Llac;E aaiESIA aRCON H4Wau.:�. �.'.. .:.`iaapa 41t"dOaLE SAN O11,4AG bvH!?7iFR Al SA aRir:'z HID u _ .. c .' PA I;L% "GNAL HILL RA!D'.h!N PURi EN,1 NT H!iNfi . • 4173 ' - _a:. .Cl'H EL MnNrF 1HERCE NDU Rr >\NDaLE RA HC P.. C_,.-?^.:< spurs GATE 3F LFJ.V Ea ��J..HV ,ay+„NpaL, TEMPLE CITY Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 202 of 354 'larch 7L 19f 4 the need arises . The subject development will receive fire protection Crum chE County of Los Angeles Fire Department . Fire Station 127 , located at 2049 E. 223rd Street , Carson CA 90810 is the jurisdictional engine company for this property. EQUIPMENT DISTANCE Time Men Engine 127 1 . 5 Miles 3 Minut_er Engine 105 3 3 Engine 10 3 if 4 [ Truck 127 1 . 5 if 3 [; R/S 36 4 It 5 2 Haz.Mat .Sq, 105 3 " 4 Deluge 105 3 4 1 Foam 10 3 This Department has been informed chat this proposed development will be a community redevelopment area. Increased fire protec- tion needs resulting from development and the division of taxes creates a financial burden on fire protection; therefore , the district requires full pass-throuf:,h of all tax increments due the district . The subject development is totally within, the o _.ndsirie ^r the Consolidated Fire Protection District . 1 J N M. MILLINGS i 1 DIVISION CHIEF' FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING ADMINISTRATIVE' BUREAU 174 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 203 of 354 i : ire dt p':! t..- c , Eire flow, ac( ese r mew . Fire flows of 2000 g.p.m. to 5000 g.p.m . will ne required de- pending upon the type of construction used. Hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet. A Fire Prevention suggestion that will reduce potential sire and life losses would be the installation of sprinkler systems in the projects residential dwellings , Systems are now techni - cally feasible for residential use. Incorporating sprinkler protection with required smoke detection will produce life safety products that will a11ow the Fire De- partment to arrive at a safer fire . Should any questions arise regarding this matter , please: feel free to contact. Captain Frank Brown at ( 213 ) 267-2457. By ROBERT P. BLACKBURN err, BATTALION FIRE CHIEF FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING PRFVEN'C'TON } C70 TSERVATTO^T Rf,,RZAU 175 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 204 of 354 SIArf OF CALIFORNIA--HEARH AND WELFARL AGENCY �.1 ' ---._ _ EIhEEE���RGE DEUKMEJIAN, Croo ,r or DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES TISI GE RKCIFY WAY 6(RK EIEY, <.A 94704 •,-� � ,,. 415/540-2665 April 27, 1984 RECEIVED APR " U 11984 -OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Patricia Nemeth Community Development Director CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 701 East Carson Street Carson, California 90745 SUBJECT: City of Carson's NOP for Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 - SCH #84032102 The Department has reviewed the subject environmental document and offers the following comments. For your information and assistance, enclosed is a document prepared by the Noise Control Program entitled, "Guidelines for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental Impact Reports", which provides some general guidelines as to what this office considers important in EIRs. If you have any questions or need further information concerning these com- ments, please contact'Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, Berkeley, California 94704, 415/540-2665. Stuart E. Richardson, Jr. , R.S. , Chief Office of Local Environmental Health Programs erome S. Lukas, h.D. Senior Psychoacoustician NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM Enclosure cc: Environmental Health Division State Clearinghouse 176 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 205 of 354 GuIdellnes for Noise Study Reports as Part of Environmental Impact Reports California Office of Noise Control California Department of Health Services 2151 Berkeley Way Berkeley, California 94704 May 1982 Because complaints about environmental noise are so frequent, the Office of Noise Control recommends that every project with a potential for increasing environmental noise levels or which may be affected by existing or future noise sources should have a Noise Study Report. This report assesses how noise levels associated with the project may affect people. The infor- mation contained in the Noise Study Report should be summarized in the Environmental Impact Report or Environmental Impact Statement, and kept on file by the lead agency for review by those with a specific interest in noise. j The attached is designed to help those who prepare Noise Study Reports and Environmental Impact Reports and reviewers of Environmental Impact Reports. Because there are so many different combinations of noise sources and receivers (people impacted by those sources), it is virtually impossible to develop guidelines that cover all situations. Nevertheless, the guidelines should help to bring some consistency to the way noise information is presented in environ- mental documents. 177 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 206 of 354 i o Suggested Contents of a Noise Study Report I. A brief description of the project in terms of its effect on the noise environment and a description of the existing noise environment and its impact upon the project (homes near a freeway, for example). II. Two scale maps -- one showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified, and the second map showing the future condition (use a time span of no less than 10 years, unless the project's life span is less) with the proposed project and proposed land uses, receptors, and noise sources identified. III. A detailed survey of the existing noise environment. A. The noise survey should encompass the proposed project area and must include any noise sensitive receptors, both near and far. The survey should establish the exist- ing ambient noise level which may then be used to evaluate compliance of the pro- posed project with applicable noise standards. The standards should be local (city, county) but in their absence state or federal standards may be used The rationale for the selection of noise survey sites should be included in the report. B. The survey should cover the time periods when the noise environment may be affected by the proposed project. C. The survey should encompass enough days to be representative of the existing "nor- mal" noise environment. Discussion of the similarity or dissimilarity of the noise environment during the survey period with that during other times of the year should be included. D. For the tigte periods measured, the reported noise data should include the LLq, L,, LtO, LSO, L90, and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If day and night measurements are made, report the Ld„ also. Ldp, is approximately equal to CNEL; either descriptor may be used. It is imperative that the descriptor conform to that used in the appropriate standard. E. Summarize the present environment by providing a noise contour map showing lines of equal noise level in 5 dB steps, extending down to Ldn = 60. In quiet areas lower contours should be shown also. F. Identify the noise measurement equipment used in the survey by manufacturer, type, and date of last calibration. IV. A description of the future noise environment for each project alternative. The scope of the analysis and the metrics used will depend on the type of project, but as a minimum the following information must be provided: A. Discussion of the type of noise sources and their proximity to potentially impacted areas. B. Operations/activity data: 1. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, flights per day. hours on per dray, etc.). 2. Distribution of activity over day and nighttime periods, days of the week, and seasonal variations. 3. Composition of noise sources M trucks, aircraft fleet mix, machinery type, etc.). 178 ONC 5/82 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 207 of 354 - 2 - 4. Frequency spectrum ofsources (1/3 octave band data are preferable). F 5. Any unusual characteristics of the sources (impulsiveness, tonality, etc.). C. Method used to predict future levels. I. Reference to the prediction model used, if standard (e.g., FIIWA-RD-77-108, etc.). 2. If corrections to a standard model are made or empirical modeling is used, state the procedure in detail. 3. Show typical levels (e.g., L1, Lto, etc.) at the receptors. 4. Give any other data yielded by the model you used. D. Contours of future levels should be included (down to Ld„ 55 where applicable), and superimposed over projected population (receptor) densities. V. Impact A. Quantify anticipated changes in the noise environment by comparing ambient infor- mation with estimated source emissions. Evaluate the changes in light of applicable standards. B. Discuss how this project relates to the Noise Element of the applicable general plan. C. Discuss the anticipated effects of increased noise levels (speech interference, sleep disturbance, disruption of wildlife habitat, etc.). VI. Mitigation A. Discuss how adverse noise impacts can be mitigated, suggesting alternative tech- niques for mitigation, their relative effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. Provide a table listing the most and least effective techniques. For this table, effectiveness should be defined in terms of the number of people being exposed to noise at some given level. B. Responsibility for effectuating the mitigation measures should be assigned. C. Discuss any noise impacts that cannot be mitigated, and why mitigation is not feasi- ble. 179 ONC 5/82 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 208 of 354 C Summarization of Noise Study Reports in Environmental Impact Reports or Statements Information included in the Environmental Impact Report or Statement should be a summary of the noise study. The following information must be included: A. Maps showing the existing setting and the proposed project with adjacent land uses and noise sources identified. Pertinent distances should be noted. B. A description of the existing noise environment. C. The change in the noise environment for each project alternative. D. A discussion of the impacts for the alternatives. E. A discussion of the compatibility of the project with the applicable Noise Element of the General Plan or the most applicable noise laws or ordinances. F. A discussion of mitigation measures, clearly identifying the locations and number of people affected when mitigation is not feasible. G. Statements of: (1) where to obtain a copy of the Noise Study Report from which the information was taken (or the Noise Study Report may be included as an appen- dix, and (2) the name of the consultant who conducted the Noise Study if it was not conducted by the author of the Environmental Impact Report. 180 ONC 5/82 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 209 of 354 of C1AM G11nN ���ti�` COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS . OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California CHARLES W. CARRY Mailing Address: / P. O. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607 Telephone: 1213) 699-7411 / From Los Angeles (213) 685-521 7 Chief Engineer and General Manager RF�F�V�D jG84 May 1, 1984 I RFOEVe[oP, r File: 8-00.04-00/84 Acting Redevelopment Project, Mgr. City of Carson 701 East Carson Street P. 0. Box 6234 Carson, CA 90749 Attention: Mr. Adolfo Reyes Gentlemen: Initial Plan for Redevelopment Project, Area No 3 This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1984 with which you forwarded plans for the subject project. The Districts have no objection to the project as pro- posed. Your cooperation,i'n forwarding the initial plan to this office for review is appreciated. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at (213) 699-7411, Extension 350. Very truly yours, Marvin Holmes Project Engineer MH:ait Planning Section 181 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 210 of 354 I o G••_.. _ GEORGE ✓ '_K'.'EJIAN. G_ove...u. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-- LOS ANGELES REGION 107 SOUTH BROADWAY,SUITE 4027 LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90012-4596 (2131 620-0460 RECEIVED May 3, 1984 _ MAY �'_ 1984 Carson Redevelopment Agency s-OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 701 East Carson Street Carson, California 90745 Attn: Patricia Nemeth Re: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3, City of Carson. We have reviewed the subject document concerning the redevelopment plan for a 621-acre area along the southeasterly boundry of Carson. The following topics are of concern to this Regional Board, and should be included in the DEIR: 1. Description of the proposed redevelopment plan. 2- Description of the present use of the plan area. 3. Discussion of the measures proposed to minimize water quality impacts resulting from soil erosion. 4. The quantities of wastewaters to be contributed to the sanitary sewer system and the treatment plant to serve the plan area should be identified. The DEIR should demonstrate that the sanitary sewer system will have adequate capacity to collect, transport, treat, and dispose of the additional flow in a satisfactory manner. The cumul- ative impacts of this redevelopment and other projects on the sanitary sewer system should be considered. 5. Description of the quantity, quality, and location of discharges other than to the sanitary sewer system. The impacts of these discharges should be discussed. 6. Discussion of the storage of hazardous substances within the plan area. A list of underground storage tanks should also be included. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you havelany questions, please call Taira Yoshimura at the above number. V ry tru yours 21 7L WT Sc- A. SCHINAZI, Ph.D./ry Environmental Specialist«// ,182 CC: Office of Planning and Research, ATTN: Chris Goggin Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 211 of 354 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,_G_overnor DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES P.O. Box 6598 LOS ANGELES 90055 = 81984 RECEIVED MAY 1984 Carson Redevelopment Agency COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 701 East Carson Street DEPARTMENT Carson, CA 90745 Attention: Ms. Patricia Nemeth Notice of Preparation of DEIR for Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3, SCH #84032102 The Department of Water Resources' recommendations on the subject document dated March 22, 1984, are attached. The recommendations are related to water conservation and flood damage prevention. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at (213) 620-3951. Sincerely, Robert Y. D. Chun, Chief Planning Branch Southern District Attachments cc: Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 183 Ordinance of No. 84-695/Page 212 of 354 11LULI V L Department of Water Resources Recommendations MAY ; 1984 for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation -OMMUNITY D=VELOPMENT �PARTMENT To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures shoul e implemented: I Required by law: I 1. Low-flush toilets (see Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code) . 2. Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20-1406F) . 3. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations) . Recommendations to be implemented where applicable: Interior: 1. Supply line pressure: recommend water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of, a pressure-reducing valve. 2. Flush valve operated water closets: recommend 3 gallons per flush. 3. Drinking fountains: recommend equipped with self-closing valves. 4. Pipe insulation: recommend all hot water lines in dwelling be insulated to { provide hot water faster with less water waste and to keep hot pipes from heating cold water pipes. 5. Hotel rooms: recommend posting conservation reminders in rooms and rest rooms.* Recommend thermostatically-controlled mixing valve for bath/shower. 6. Laundry facilities: recommend use of water-conserving models of washers. ..7. Restaurants: recommend use of water-conserving models of dishwashers or retrofitting spray emitters. Recommend serving drinking water upon request only.* Exterior: 1. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn dependent uses, such as playing fields. *The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in developing these materials. 184 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 213 of 354 I I 3. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 4. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 5. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 7. Grading of slopes should minimize surface water runoff. S. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or household grey water for irrigation. 9. Encourage cluster development which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 10. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. This would aid in ground water recharge. 11. Flood plains and aquifer recharge areas which are the best sites for ground water recharge should be preserved as open space. i k -2- 185 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 214 of 354 Department of water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention r In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: 1. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. It is the State's policy to conserve water. Any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. 2. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or a Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown on the Environmental Impact Report. 3. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood. 4. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for all hillside developments. 5. Revegetation of the slopes should be done as soon as possible. h. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as required. . 7. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated with r sediment transport during construction. 186 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 215 of 354 W451F We1FP PFClPM 1F10N COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LPS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California J9 I �/ � CHARLES W. CARRY Mailing Address: / P. O. Box.4998, Whittier, California 90607 Telephone: (213) 699-741 1 / From Los Angeles (213) 685-5217 \ Chief Engineer and General Manager May 1 1984 (`LL ;f File: 8-00.04-010/84 RECD/VFD .1 Mr. Adolfo Reyes Acting Redevelopment Project Manager pMF,�T City of Carson 701 East Carson Street P. 0. Box 6234 Carson, CA 90749 Dear Mr. Reyes: Redevelopment Project No. 1 This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1984, with which you forwarded plans for the subject project. The Districts have no objection to the project as pro- posed. If you have any further questions, please contact the undersigned at (213) 699-7411, Extension 350. Very truly yours N Marvin Holmes Project Engineer Planning Section MH:ait 187 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 216 of 354 ROA1.O Or II AIIIIO-II COMMIAS I ONER`v P O R T OF LOS ANGELES (213) 831-9339 E.•r,u MRS.GENE NAPLAN /. ! �t. V+.��0 S.P.[oi V.vOCi ST Q 1 IC Ff// JOSEPH ).ZANINOV r1 �# t ` P,O, Bo. 151 � FREOERIC A.HEIM /0 i� T[if... 18-2387 THE REV.AoNY.o cNBA RTLETT CITY OF LOS ANGELES ] POLA SPRO (213) 519-3900 CHARLES T.GIASON TOM BRADLEY ,[ .[...v MAYOR June 21, 1984 RECEIVED ; s i 21, Carson Redevelopment Agency pEUEVELOFMENT City of Carson 701 E. Carson St. Carson, CA 90745 SUBJECT : COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I.,,PACT REPORT Redevelopment Project Area 3 Gentlemen: In response to the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated May 1, 1984 for Redevelopment Project Area 3 the following comments are provided : , A. The Harbor Department of the City of Los Angeles does own considerable- acreage adjoining the proposed Redevelopment Project Area 3 . It is requested that the Port be placed on the official mailing list for future notifications of actions pertaining to this project and other proposed projects that may effect our property. B . After review of the DEIR it is difficult to determine the anticipated time frame for project implementation. Please include relative time frames for construction of the development phases. C. The project description contained in the DEIR is very general with references to heavy industrial and business park land uses. It was difficult to analyze the overall project without a more definitive plan. A proposed land use plan indicating the various types of land uses by location should be included. 188 THE HOST CITY OF THE 1984 OLYMPIC GAMES AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 217 of 354 Page 2 of 3 SUBJECT : COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Redevelopment Project Arc+a 3 D. Page 21 lists landfill sites in the Carson area; these sites should be indicated by name or number on page 22 to clearly show their location. Also on Page 21 is a statement that "some class II sites may have experienced dumping of toxic or hazardous substances" . Is this speculation or are there known occurrences? known occurrence should be indicated on the list of sites. E. were the air pollutant emissions discussed on Page 29 and shown on Table 9 (page 31) based on the Alternative 3 scenario? F. On Page 38, reference is made to "nesting sites for the least tern" in the project area. These sites should be identified by location and last occurrence of nesting activity. G. On Page 40 it is stated that "noise levels along residential frontages are increased by no more than 1 decibel by project traffic " . The increase in project traffic has been estimated at 30,000 vehicles a day, and considering that the project is proposing heavy industrial land uses with a high volume of truck traffic, only 1 decibel increase in noise seems overly optimistic. The last sentence on Page 44 states that "noise impacts on residential use is therefore considered a potentially significant adverse impact on the proposed project" . A 1 decibel increase in noise from traffic would not normally create a significant adverse impact; are there other noise sources in the project area that were not addressed? H. Figure 9 (Page 47) indicates existing land uses in the project area; suggest an additional figure be included showing land uses upon project implementation. (See comment C) . I. Page 62 contains a statement that traffic from committed developments and projects were included in the analysis. Was the vehicular traffic generated by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach's Intermodal Container Transfer Facility project included in the traffic calculations? It is not clear from Table 16 ( Page 64 ) that truck trips associated with the proposed heavy industrial uses and business parks planned for the area were included in the trip generation calculations . 189 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 218 of 354 Page 3 of 3 SUBJECT : COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Redevelopment Project Area 3 J . Page 108 contains a statement that there is a class II dump site in the project area, its location should be identified (see comment D) . Is there a history of and specific information concerning this class II dump site? If so, is should be included in the EIR. The Port, as an adjoining property owner, supports the formation of the proposed Redevelopment Project Area 3 in the City of Carson. The close proximity of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility should act as a catalyst to increase the business activities in the general area. The property immediately adjoining the container transfer facility could easily be redeveloped by its owners with facilities to support the railyard . F. L. GORMAN Chief Harbor Engineer ABG: nb #12 09 6 s 190 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 219 of 354 STATE OF CAI IFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR % GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN; Crovernor J OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH , 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 '.`11_ June 22, 1984 (916/445-0613) RECEIVED Ms. Patricia Nemeth J U L Z i984 City of Carson Redevelopment Agency 701 E. Carson Street COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Los Angeles , CA 90745 DEPARTMENT Subject: SCH 84032102, Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 Dear Ms. Nemeth: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter certifies only that you have canplied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines. Section 15205) . Where C applicable, this should not be construed as a waiver of any jurisdictional authority or title interests of the State of California. The project may still require approval fran state agencies with permit authority or jurisdiction by law. If so, the state agencies will have to use the environmental document in their decision-making. Please contact then im- mediately after the document is finalized with a copy of the final document. the Notice of Determination, adopted mitigation measures, and any statements of overriding considerations. Once the document is adopted (Negative Declaration) or certified (final EIR) and if a decision is made to approve the project, a Notice of Determination must be filed with the County Clerk. If the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must also be filed with the Secretary for Resources (EIR Guidelines, Section 15094(b) ) . Sincerely., John B. Ghanian Chief Deputy Director JUN2,81984 f OFFICE OF PLANNING 191 & RESEARCH Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 220 of 354 State of California Department of Health Services Memorandum a Terry Roberts Date June 14, 1984 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Subject: Redevelopment Plan for Project Area rl and r3 SCH #84050205 and SCH =84032102 From ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 714 P Street, Room 430 322-2308 The two EIRs contain identical errors and therefore will be commented upon simultaneously. 1 . Table 12, page 40 (both reports). Use of H.U.D. guidelines for eval- uating noise impacts may be appropriate for residential areas affected by traffic noise, but may not be applicable for evaluating residential areas affected by heavy industrial noise, which has very different noise spectra and time patterns. Both redevelopment plans show heavy indus- trial uses adjacent to residential areas . Industrial noise effects should be evaluated separately or in combination with traffic noise effects . What are the levels recommended in the City's Noise Element? 2. Mitigation Measures (page 43, both reports) . Sound insulation of single family homes from aircraft noise may be "prohibitively expensive" . How- ever, those 1970 cost estimates are not necessarily applicable to homes exposed to traffic or heavy industrial noises because these sources typically are unidirectional . The EIRs contain no data justifying rejection of barriers or sound insulation as appropriate mitigation measures. If you have any questions or need further information concerning these com- ments, please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas of the Noise Control Program, Office of Local Environmental Health Programs, at 2151 Berkeley Way, Room No. 613, Berkeley, CA 94704, 415/540-2665. �EF. Co lin h y �. , Chief ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVIS ^^ JUi� 1 S i 34 p E � 2RES_?,RCH JUN2;a 1984 OFFICE OF PLANr.111,1G i & RESEARCH 192 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 221 of 354 STATE Of CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GCORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GwernZ+� OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET r SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 -M1 June 22, 1984 RECEIVED Ms. Patricia Nemeth Carson Redevelopment Agency J'JL 2 1984 701 East Carson Street Carson, CA 90745 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Subject: SCHTr 84050205, Ammendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 Dear Ms. Nemeth: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Envirorinental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the com- ments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) attached. If you would like to discuss their concerns and'recomDendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate agency(ies) . When preparing the final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (CBQA Guidelines, Section 15132) . The certified EIR must be considered in the decision- making process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the ca mTenting agency(ies) by writing to then, including the State Clearinghouse number on all correspondence. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093) . If the project requires discretionary approval fran any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk. Please contact Christine Goggin at (916) 445-0613 if you have any ques- tions about the envirorruental review process. Sincerr y., John B. Ohanian Chief Deputy Director cc: Resources Agency attachment JUN 2�81\984 OFFICE OF PLANN!l I=_ { 3 P.ESEARCH 193 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 222 of 354 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AaORGE OEUKMEJIAN Gn...... CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD— LOS ANGELES REGION " c — I 107 SOUTH BROADWAY.SUITE 4027 �l LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90012-4596 (213)620-4460 !T' ,`�L•s✓'� / _• ' June 29, 1984 RECEIVED JUL 2 1984 Resources Agency COMMUNITY DEVELOP MENT 1416 Ninth Street DEPARTMENT Sacramento, CA 95814 ATTN: Dr. Gordon Sna,7 Assistant Secretary for Resources RE: Draft Envirormiental Impact Report for Development Project Area 3, City of Carson, SCH ;84032102 Gentlemen: No have reviewed the subject document concerning the proposed redevelolx^ent plan for a 700-acre area in Carson. We do not object to this plan, provided the sanitary serer system will be able to adequately accommodate the proposed developrw_nt projects. r The discharge of wastewater other than to the sanitary sewer system may be subject to waste discharge requirements prescri�d by :1:is Regional Board. Sufficient information should be provided at least 180 •-ays prior to the discharge so that we may determine the need for requirements. Appropriate permits must be obtained from the local permitting agencies n prior to the installation of all underground storage ta ':s. Tank installa- tion must conform to all applicable local regulations regarding underground storage tanks containing hazardous materials, including motor vehicle fuels. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please call hir. Taira Yoshimura at (213) 620-5625. ✓erY 1 yours, LEWIS A. SCHINAZI, Ph.D. Environmental Specialist IV TY:pag Cc: State Clearinghouse, AT N: Chris Goggin .1-1�y of Carson, A.7114: Patricia Nemeth 194 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 223 of 354 J . Report of County Fiscal Officer =� The report of the County fiscal officer shall be added to this Report upon receipt . [ATTACHED] [REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER ] -42- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 224 of 354 RECEIVED U I � ) Ir �Iitl11 f °'`°', COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES / AUDITOR-CONTROLLER i?EnEVElOPA1ENT II • TAX DIVISION 153 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION, LOS ANGELES, CA. 90012 (213)974-8361 MARK H.ELOODGOOD MICHAEL L.GALINDO,CHIEF .unit OR-CONTROLLER •. TA%DNISION THOMAS J.KOZLGV✓SKI ' DANIEL O.IKEMOTO ASSISTANT AUDIT OR{ON MOLLERS June 14, 1984 Mr. Adolfo Reyes Redevelopment Project Manager 701 East Carson Street P.O. Box 6234 Carson, California 90749 Dear Mr, Reyes: Re: Carson Redevelopment Project, Area ##3 The attached schedules are transmitted to your agency with Section 33328 or 33328.3 of the Health and Safety Code. licence We are also submitting our invoice for the costs incurred in pre- paring these schedules as Provided in Section 33328.7 of the Health and Safety Code. If you have any questions regarding the schedules or billing, please contact Richard Ballard at (213) 974-8379. Very truly yours, WkM'% H. BL00DGoCD AUDITOR--CTrROL LER I Michael L. Galindo Division Chief WZ:JAG:vs >hclosures cc: Sharon Yonashiro i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 225 of 354 AUDITOR-CalPROLLER, TAX DIVISION CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROD, #3 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR ASSESSED VALUATIONS Fiscal Year 1983-84 Secured Valuations Locally Assessed Land : $ 31 ,390,038 rg�rov�nents 47,801 ,223 Personal Property 2,373 828 Gross Total $ 81 ,565,099 Less: Exempticros 242,602 Total - Locally Assessed $ 81 ,3221497 Public Utility 3� Tand ► =roveaents $ 3,809,710 Personal Property 3,285,710 671 ,020 Lbttal - Public Utility 7.766,440 Tbtal Secured Valuations $ 89,088,937 Unsecured Valuations Land im�Drovements $ 7,679,234 Personal Property 5,955, 110 Gross Total 13,634,344 Less: Exemptions -0- Total - Unsecured 13,634,344 GRAND TO $ 102,723,281 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 226 of 354 AUDITOR-CO'nMLLER, TAX DIVISION CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROD. # 3 SCHEDULE OF ASSESSED VALUATIONS Fiscal Year 1982-83 Secured Valuations Locally Assessed Lard Irprovements $ 28,433,344 Personal Property 4Nli: 01 Gross Total $ 807,862,379 Less: Exenptions 194,909 Total - Locally Assessed $80,667,470 Public Utility 0 Land Trprovements Personal Property Total - Public Utility N/A Total Secured Valuations $80,667,470 Unsecured Valuations Land -0- improvements $ 62194,069 Personal Property 5.291 ,428 Gross Total $ 111485,497 Less: Exelptions -0- Total - Unsecured 111485,497 GR71ND TOML $ 92, 1 52 ,967 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 227 of 354 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - SECURED FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 Acct. No. A enc A.V. Rate Revenue 1 .42 Hospital Facilities No. 2 D.S. 89,088,937 30.50 L.A. Co. F1 , Con.Storm Dr. DS #2 '58 862868 ,004629 $ 578.19 30.55 L.A. Co. F1. Con.Storm Dr. DS #3 164 86,2861681 ,005592 4,825,15 30.60 L.A. Co. F1. Con.Storm Dr. DS #4 86,286,681 ,0 325.60 Remainder-West Basin MUD-1111.999 8 088 07365 6,355.01 9 805.50 L.A. City Comm. Coll . Debt S. ,937 .023700 21 ,114,08 887.03 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. 89'088,937 .001709 1 ,522.53 887.50 Los Angeles Debt Service 89,088,937 .007749 6,903.50 89,088,937 .022815 20,325,64 Total Debt Service $ 65,357.72 1 .00 General Tax Levy 89,088,937 1 .000000 890889.37 Grand Total $956,247.09 ti Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 228 of 354 i i AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - UNSECURED FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 Acct. No. Agency A.V. Rate Revenue 1 .42 Hospital Facilities No. 2 D.S. 30.45 13,634,344 000604 $ 82.35 L.A. Co. Fl . Con. Storm Dr. D.S. ##1 152 7,679,234 .002404 184.61 30.50 L.A. Co. F1 . Con. Storm Dr. D.S. ##2 158 7,679,234 .004834 371 .21 30.55 L.A. Co. F1 . Con. Storm Dr. D.S #/3 164 7,679,234 .007104 30.60 L.A. Co. F1 . Con. Storm Dr. D.S. #4 704.53 325.30 Dominguez-West Basin MWD-1111004 7,679.234 .009179 704.88 325.60 Remainder-West Basin MWD-1111999 12,002,327 .020100 2,412,47 805.50 L.A. City Comm. Coll . Debt S 1 ,6321017 ..016600 270.91 887.03 L. A. Unif. School Dist. 13,634,344 .001846 251 ,69 887.50 L. A. Unif. Debt Service 13,634044 .007718 12052.30 13,634,344 .028816 3,928.87 Total D.S. S 9,804.82 1 .00 General Tax Levy 13,634,344 1 .000000 136 343.44 Grand Total $1462148.26 s Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 229 of 354 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 SCHEDULE OF AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 `ct No Agenc_ y Name Revenue (Net of CRA PTR) 1 .05 Los Angeles County General 1 .20 L.A. Co. Accum. Cap. Outlay $ 1 =094,704,788.79 3.01 L.A. County Library 245,775.72 7.35 Dominguez Fire Pro. Dis, of L.A. Co. 17,847,199,72 15.10 Co. Lighting Maint. Dist. No. 941 1 '941 ' 199.56 19.56 Co. Lighting Maint. Dist, No, 1697 65,573.65 23.42 Co. Lighting Maint. Dist. No, 10042 14! ''3`'16 30. 10 L.A. Co. Fl . Con. Dr. Imp. Dist. Maint, 5 10'071 .95 30.70 L.A. Co. Flood Control Maint. 3220,155.59 61 .80 Southeast Mosquito Abate Dist. 32,225,155.59 66.30 Co. Sanitation Dist. No. 8 Operat. *25,456.43 8 350.90 Central W. Basin Water Rep. Dist. 1, +55.45 409. 15 County School Services 137, '29.69 400.21 Children's Inst ' I Tuition L.A. nd 3,055,548.08 805.04 Comm.C6,02,209-70 .A. City omm. Coll . Dist. � 805.20 L.A. Comm. Coll . Children's Ctr. Fd. 30,201 ,;67.27 C887.03 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. 2 374,509.17 347.06 Co. Sch. Serv. Fd. 18, 149,659.S1 - Los Angeles 1?, 1r}c,,51 887.07 Dev. Ctr. Hdcpd. Minor - L.A. Unif. ` 87.20 Los Angeles Childrens Center Fd. 11230,409.27 3,579,593.+6 Total 1 Revenue (Secured & Unsecured) $5422,912523.76 '— - -- `Section 33328 Subdivision "D" Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 230 of 354 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3 SCHEDULE OF AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE - DEBT SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 AccL.No. Agency Name Adj. Pate Net Rate Revenue SECURED 1 .t+2 Hospital Facilities No. 2 DS 1947812,605,302 .000649 ; 1 264,333.81 L.A. Co. Fl . Con. Storm Dr. DS #2 158 192 ,658,061 , 191 13 I • ` `.- L.A. Co. F1 . Con. Storm Dr. DS #3 +64 192 6 3 061 1 1 .00 + 2 8,336,314.31 %60 L.A. Co. F1 . Con Storm Dr. DS /!4 5 9 5592 10,189 438.71 192,658,061 , 191 .007365 14, 189,266.21 3'5.60 Remainder-West Basin MWD-1111999 21 8 5.% L.A. City Comm. Coll Debt S. ,397,051 ,859 .023700 x,071 ,101 .2 7.03 Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. 109,043,725,644 .001709 1 ,363,557.2% '387.50 90, 122,869,718 .00771+9 6,983,621 ,1; 0 Los Angeles Unif. Deb[ Service 90 122,869,718 .1)22815 20561 ,532.7: Total Debt Service - Secured (A) 569,043,t65�5_' UNSECURED 1 . +2 Hospital Facilities No. 2 DS 13,947,036,819 .000604 841240. 1( ! .A. Co. Ff . Con. Storm Dr. D.S. #1 52 5,886,526,308 .002 1 404 t+1 512.0 •5u L.A. Co. Fl . Con. Storm Dr. D.S. h2 '58 5,886,526,308 .004834 284�' S4,6E ". % L.A. Co. Fl . Con. Storm Dr. D.S. 3 '64 T " 0 L.A. Co. F1 . Con. St x,886,526,308 .007104 18, 178.8"' Storm Dr. D.S. f4 5,886,526,308 .009179 540,324.2 %' Dominquez-West Basin MWD-1111004 433,460,950 .020100 x7,125.6! Remainder-West- Basin MWD-1111004 1 ,042 ,869,213 .01660o 173, 11;.21 c L.A. City Comm. Coll Debt S 8 6 u ti 7 , 116.2 Los Angeles Unif. School Dist. � , 9 ,.375,3 + + 00184_ 160, 572.0! �' ,'• i0 Los Angeles Unif. Debt Service x,395,463 ,)07718 g3,6gq.W 7,692,395,-+63 .028816 2,216,64o.6t> Total Debt Service - Unsecured (B) 54,699,963.6E Grand Total (A) + (B) $73,743, 129.2i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 231 of 354 K . Report of Fiscal Review Committee . r' The report of the fiscal review committee shall be this report upon receipt . AC -43- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 232 of 354 Neighborhood Impact Report 1 . Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surrounding Area a . Relocation No relocation is contemplated in the Project Area . Qualified and eligible persons required to move as a result of Agency redevelopment activities will receive relocation advisory assistance services and receive relocation payments in accordance with applicable laws , rules and regulations . Refer to Part D of this Report which, contains the Agency ' s "Method or Plan for Relocation . " b . Traffic Circulation , Environmental Quality and Community Facilities and Services The Environmental Impact Report contained in Part of this Report , contains information on the potential impacts upon residents of the Project Area and the surrounding area , in terms of tral'Cic circulation , environmental quality , availabi; ity c? community facilities and services , and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood . Part B of this Repor : . "A Description of Physical , Social and Economic Conditions Existing in the Area , " also contains pertinent information concerning the above-names impacts to residents and adjoining neighborhoods . c . School Popu.iation and Quality of Education Af -44- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 233 of 354 The Project Area is served by the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Los Angeles Community College District . The EIR contained in Part I of this Report indicates that the implementation of proposed Agency redevelopment activities will not have a significant impact on school enrollment . However , proposed housing projects combined with other new proposed private housing development may result in a requirement to expand school facilities . The cumulative impact on enrollment will be monitored and provisions of additional facilities may be made when actual neeJs are known . d . Property Assessments and Taxes In general , the taxable valuations of property within the Project Area and adjoining properties should increase as construction or reconstruction of public and other development improvements occurs . The County Assessor may increase property valuations at the maximum rate of two percent per year under Article XIIIA of the California Constitution , regardless of Agency redevelopment activities . In cases where real property- is conveyed , the County Assessor will likely assess the property at the newly recorded market value . Additionally , the County Assessor will likely reassess the added value to property and improvements due to any new development or rehabilitation which occurs . 2 . Relocation and Low and Modereat Income Housi:,g -45- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 234 of 354 a . Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed The Agency does not intend to displace any low or moderate income families . Agency redevelopment activities in connection wlt- the implementation of the Redevelopmet,t Flan will generally be limited to the provision of public improvements and facilities , the study and redevelopment of landfill and waste disposal sites , and increasing and improving the City ' s supply of housing , although some land assembly by the Agency may occar . The Agency does not intend to destroy or remove any dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income from the low and moderate income housing market as part of its redevelopment activities . Displacement , if any , is anticipated to be very minimal . The Agency would be require;_ construct , develop or rehabilitate , or cause the construction , development or rehabilitation of, dwelling units equal in number to those destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as a result of Agency redevelopment activities . b . Projected Residential Displacement When actual displacement is contemplated , if at all , relocation surveys will be undertaken in accordance with all applicable laws , rules and regulations . Until then , the actual -46- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 235 of 354 number of households eligible to receive Agency relocation benefits and assistance are not known . However , as noted earlier , few , if any , of these displacements are anticipated to be the direct result of Agency activities . The Agency will conduct individual household surveys in order to determine the number , type and location of comparable replacement housing units and the required number of referrals thereto for an overview of the steps in the relocation process that will be undertaken by the Agency prior to displacing any person . C . Number and Location of Replacement Housing The specific number and type of replacement housing units required , if any, are not known at this time . Most or all of any such units constructed would be provided within the ''ity . If the Agency acquires property , enters ! !,to a disposition and development agreement, , owner participation agreement or other similar agreement , or undertakes any other activities requiring or causing the destrucion or removal of housing units from the low and moderate income housing market , the Agency will provide the housing required pursuant to applicable laws , r-ules and regulations . Although it is unlixely that the Agency will cause to be removed any dwelling unit in the Project Area , if any such removal should happen , then dwelling units will be constructed , -47- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 236 of 354 rehabilitated , or developed by the Agency . The actual number of replacement dwelling units to be provided for in this manner would depend upon circumstances which are unknown and unanticipated at this time . d . Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income Housing Planned Other Than Replacement Housing The specific number and location of low and moderate income housing units planned for construction or rehabilitation other than replacement housing units is not known at this time . The Agency , as part of the implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan , intends to assist the development of affordable housing. Such assistance may provide for new construction , rehabilitation , or both . e . Financing Method for Replacement Housing Requirements The Agency will employ as necessary any of the financing methods available to the Agency to meet replacement housing requirements and other obligations under applicable laws , rules and regulations . It is anticipated that not less than twenty percent of all tax increment revenues which are allocated to the Agency will be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing and improving the -48- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 237 of 354 supply of low and moderate income housing in ` the City . 1 Zn instances in which the Agency plans to enter into a disposition and development agreement , owner participaiton agreement or other similar agreement , the Agency may consider provisions in such agreements that all or portions of the replacement housing or relocations costs be assumed and pair: by the Agency benefiting private persons or entities . The Agency may also assist the development of replacement housing by the issuance of its mortgage revenue bonds . f. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing Objectives If replacement housing is to be provided , the Agency shall take necessary steps to cause the construction , rehabilitation or development of such housing in accordance with the time limits prescribed by applicable laws , rules and regulations . Relocation plans prepared by the Agency shall contain schedules to ensure comparable replacement housing is available in accordance with the requirements of applicable laws , rules and regulations . -49- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 238 of 354 M. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer and Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies 1 . Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33328 , in connection with the proceedings for the approval and adoption of a redevelopment plan for a redevelopment project area, the county officials charged with the responsibility of allocating taxes are required to prepare and deliver a report to the Agency and to each taxing agency. Such report is to include the following: a. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the project area as shown on the base year assessment roll . b . The identifications of each taxing agency levying taxes in the project area. C . The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the base year assessment roll from the project area, including state subventions for. homeowners , business inventory, and similar subventions . d . For each taxing agency, its total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries , whether inside or outside the project area. e . The extimated first year taxes available to the redevelopment agency , if any, based upon -50- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 239 of 354 information submitted by the redevelopment agency , broken down by taxing agencies . f . The assessed valuation of the project area for the preceding year, or, if requested by the redevelopment agency , for the preceding five years , except for state assessed property on the base roll . In that connection , on June 26, 1984, the Agency received a report dated June 15 , 1984, which was transmitted to the Agency by Mr. Michael L. Galindo , Chief of the Tax Division of the Auditor-Controller of the County of Los Angeles . A copy of the report in its entirety and the transmittal letter from Mr. Galindo is provided in Part J of this Report to the City Council . The first schedule contained in the report of the county officials shows that the total secured valuations , including public utilities , for the base year of 1983-1984 in Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 is $89 ,088 ,937 . The total unsecured valuations are $13, 634, 344 and the total assessed valuation of all taxable property on the base year assessment valuation of all taxable property on the base year assessment roll is $102, 723, 281 . The second schedule contained in the report of the county officials shows that the total secured valuations, including public utilities (which was zero) , for the previous fiscal year of 1982-1983 was $80, 667, 470 . The total unsecured valuations were $11 , 485 , 497 and the total assessed valuations of all taxable property where $92, 152, 967 . The. total assessed valuation of all taxable property increased from the -51 Ordinance No. 695/Page 240 of 354 1983-1983 fiscal year to 1983-1984 fiscal year by $10 ,5701314 . The third and fourth schedules contained in the report of the county officials show the amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the base year assessment roll from the Project Area . The third schedule shows the revenue to be derived from the general tax levy and debt service on the secured roll while the fourth schedule shows the revenue to be derived from the general tax levy and debt service on the unsecured roll . The total revenue derived from the general tax levy and debt service on both the secured and unsecured roll is $1 , 102 , 395 .35 . The fifth schedule contained in the report of the county officials shows the total revenue from debt service tax levies for each taxing agency on all property within its boundaries , both inside and outside the Project Area. Finally, the sixth and seventh schedules contained in the report of the county officials set forth the total ad valorem revenues from the general tax rate levy and the debt service levy of each taxing agency on all property within its boundaries , whether inside or outside the Project Area for the 1983-1984 fiscal year . That total exceeds one and one-half billion dollars . 2 . Summary of Consultations With Affected Taxing Agencies Prior to the publication of the notice of the joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan , the Agency attempted to consult with each affected taxing -52- Ordinance No. 695/Page 241 of 354 agency with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan . The Agency sent the attached correspondence and a copy of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to each taxing agency on May 14, 1984 . No comments were received . -53- Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 242 of 354 so'v, c CITY OF CARSON q �RF' UNt.►���C" May 14, 1984 Honorable Governing Board: On May 8, 1984, we transmitted to you a copy of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 of the Carson Redevelopment C Agency and a preliminary report regarding such Redevelopment Plan. Pur- suant to California ;Health and Safety Code Section 33328, the purpose of such transmittal was to seek- your opinion and advice with respect to such Amendment and the allocation of taxes pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33670. With respect to the allocation of taxes, please note in particular pages 4, 5, and 6 of the proposed Amendment which pro- vide for the allocation of taxes, a limitation on the amount of taxes which may be allocated, a limitation on the establishment of indebtedness and a limitation on bonded indebtedness. Please contact the undersigned at (213) 830-7600, extension No. 280, with your opinions and advice or provide us with the name, address and telephone number of a person at your taxing agency whom we may continue to consult with directly. The Agency and the City Council of the City of Carson in- tend to hold a joint public hearing regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan on July 9, 1984. Notice of such hearing will be published once a week for four consecutive weeks beginning June 4, 1984. Very truly yours, 1 AUOLFO REY S. REDEVELOP�t NT PROJE MANAGER C AR/cf PATRICIA NEMETH, AICP, COi,1MUNIlY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 243 of 354 EXHIBIT 2 i REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. THREE mq� f yl 3 r±Y3[ ' h I Ratl ;'ems 4 s CITY OF v CARSON a n SSON, OF fop �Rg UNL1M� y Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 244 of 354 i REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 3 x Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 245 of 354 i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PART 1. DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Section 1.01. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PART 2. PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Section 2.01. Purposes and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 PART 3. ALLOCATION OF TAXES AND FINANCING. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3.01. Allocation of Taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Section 3.02. Limitation on the Amount of Taxes Which May be Allocated to the Agency . . . 4 Section 3.03. Payment to Taxing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . 4 _ Section 3.04. Limitation on the Establishment of Loans, Advances and Indebtedness . . . . . . . 5 Section 3.05. Proposed Method of Financing . . . . . . . . . 5 Section 3.06. Limitation on the Amount of Bonded Indebtedness Outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . 6 PART 4. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. . . . . . . . . . 6 Section 4.01. Acquisition of Real Property . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 4.02. Commencement of Eminent Domain Proceedings 7 Section 4.03. Disposition of Real Property . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 4.04. Nondiscrimination. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Section 4.05. Dwelling Units Removed from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Market . . . 8 i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 246 of 354 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PART 5. PARTICIPATION IN REDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Section 5.01. Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Section 5.02. Failure to Participate as Agreed . . . . . . . .9 PART 6. REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Section 6.01. Redevelopment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Section 6.02. Public Projects to be Undertaken by the Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 PART 7. SAFEGUARDS, RETENTION OF CONTROLS AND PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 7.01. Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 7.02. Retention of Controls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 7.03. Other Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions Prescribed by the City Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Section 7.04. Expenditure of Money by the City . . . . . . . . 17 Section 7.05. Proceedings Undertaken by the City . . . . . . . 17 PART 8. LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Section 8.01. Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Section 8.02. Street Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1II Section 8.03. Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lg Section 8.04. Dwelling Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Section 8.05. Public Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 ` Y I 3 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 247 of 354 i Jr TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PART 9. LEGAL DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Section 9.01. Legal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 PART 10. DIAGRAMS OF THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED IN THE PROJECT AREA AND STREET LAYOUT: THE LIMITATIONS ON TYPE, SIZE, HEIGHT, NUMBER AND PROPOSED USE OF BUILDINGS; THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS; AND THE PROPERTY TO BE DEVOTED TO PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE NATURE OF SUCH PURPOSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Diagram 10.01. Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Diagram 10.02. Street Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Diagram 10.03. Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Diagram 10.04. Dwelling Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Diagram 10.05. Public Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 iii Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 248 of 354 PART 1. DEFINITIONS Section 1.01. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings herein, unless the context requires otherwise. "Agency" means the Carson Redevelopment Agency. "City" means the City of Carson. "City Council " means the City Council of the City. "Project" means any and all undertakings of the Agency pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan or pursuant to the Law. "Project Area" means the territory included within Redevelopment Project Area No. 3 of the Agency, more particularly described in Part 9, below. "Law" means California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. , as amended from time to time. "Redevelopment Plan" means this Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 3. "State" means the State of California. 1 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 249 of 354 PART 2. PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES. Section 2.01. Purposes and Objectives. The purposes and objectives of this Redevelopment Plan are to eliminate the conditions of blight existing in The Project Area and to pre- vent the recurrence of blighting conditions in the Project Area. The Agency proposes to eliminate such conditions and prevent their recurrence by pro- viding, pursuant to this Redevelopment Plan, for the planning, development, design, clearance, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the Project Area, and by providing for such structures and spaces as may be appropriate or necessary in the interest of the general welfare, including, without limita- tion, recreational and other facilities incidental or appurtenant to them. The Agency further proposes to eliminate the conditions of blight existing in the Project Area and prevent their recurrence by providing for the altera- tion, improvement, modernization, reconstruction or rehabilitation of existing structures in the Project Area and by providing for open space types of uses, public and private buildings, necessary public infrastructure as well as other needed structures, facilities, and improvements. The Agency further proposes to eliminate such conditions and prevent their recurrence by providing for the replanning or redesign or development of undeveloped areas. 2 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 250 of 354 PART 3. ALLOCATION OF TAXES AND FINANCING. Section 3.01. Allocation of Taxes. Taxes, if any, levied upon taxable property in the territory described in Part 9, below, each year by or for the benefit of the State of California, any city, county, city and county, district, or other public corporation (hereinafter sometimes called "taxing agencies") after the effective date of the ordinance approving this Amendment, shall be divided as follows: A. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of the taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the ter- ritory described in Part 9, below, as shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the taxation of such property by such taxing agency, i last equalized prior to the effective date of such ordinance, shall be allo- cated to, and when collected, shall be paid to the respective taxing agencies as taxes, by or for such taxing agencies, on all other property are paid; (for the purpose of allocated taxes levied by or for any taxing agency or agencies which did not include such territory on the effective date of such ordinance but to which territory has been annexed or otherwise included after such effective date, the assessment roll of the county last equalized on the effective date of the ordinance shall be used in determining the _ assessed valuation of the taxable property in such territory on the effective date) ; and B. That portion of the levied taxes each year in excess of such amount shall be allocated to, and when collected, shall be paid into a special 3 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 251 of 354 fund of the Agency to pay the principal of and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or other- wise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the Project. Unless and until the total assessed valuation of the taxable property in the territory described in Part 9, below, exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property therein as- shown by the last equalized assessment roll referred to in paragraph A of this Section 3.01, all of the taxes levied and collected upon the taxable property in such territory shall be paid to the respective taxing agencies. When such loans, advances, and indebtedness, if any, and interest thereon, have been paid, all moneys thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in such territory shall be paid to the respective taxing agencies as taxes on all other property are paid. Section 3.02. Limitation on the Amount of Taxes Which May Be Allocated to the Agency. The amount of taxes which may be allocated to and received by the Agency from the Project Area for expenditure by the Agency in connection with the Project shall not exceed two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) expressed in 1984 dollars and adjusted annually thereafter in accordance with changes in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area Consumer Price Index as maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. Section 3.03. Payment of Taxing Agencies. Y The Agency may pay to any taxing agency which levies a property tax in the Project Area, an amount it deems appropriate to alleviate any 4 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 252 of 354 Section 3.06. Limitation on the Amount of Bonded Indebtedness Outstanding. The amount of bonded indebtedness to be repaid in whole or in part from taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 3.01 , above, which can be outstanding at one time, shall not exceed eighty million dollars ($80,000,000) expressed in 1984 dollars and adjusted annually thereafter in accordance with changes in the Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area Consumer Price Index as maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. 6 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 253 of 354 financial burden or detriment caused to any taxing agency by the Project contemplated by this Redevelopment Plan. Section 3.04. Limitation on the Establishment of Loans, Advances and Indebtedness. No loans, advances, or indebtedness to be repaid from the alloca- tion of taxes described in Section 3.01 above, shall be established or incurred by the Agency beyond a period not to exceed forty (40) years from the effective date of the ordinance of the City adopting this Redevelopment Plan. Section 3.05. Proposed Method of Financing. The Agency may issue bonds and expend the proceeds from their sale in carrying out the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to this Redevelop- ment Plan or the Law. The Agency may finance the redevelopment of the Project Area by the issuance of bonds payable from taxes allocated to the Agency pur- suant to Section 3.01, above. The Agency may borrow money or accept financial or other assistance from the State or the Federal government or any other public agency. The Agency may borrow money by the issuance of bonds or other- wise or accept financial or other assistance from any private lending institu- tion, or by any other means provided by law. The Agency may finance the redevelopment of the Project Area by any legally available means. The Agency shall pay principal and interest on bonds or other obligations when they become due and payable. The resolution, indenture or other document or documents providing for the issuance of such bonds or obliga- tions shall make adequate provision for the payment of principal and interest when they become due and payable. 5 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 254 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 2 i ENVIRONIMENTAL IMPACT SUMIMARY ISSUE ENVIPGNMENTAL SEE TIRG POTENTIAL ENVIRWIENTAL IhPACT MITIGATION MEASURES Fire Protection Site now has fire protection Existing water distribution 'later system improvements re- for developed areas only. system inadequate for proposed quired to provide fire protection development. Additional fire prior to occupancy. Fire Depart- manpower and equipment requires ment review of development plans. based on annual review of city- Internal fire detection and wide requirements, suppression systems required. Police Significant police demand with improvements may reduce police Additional stiff needs deter- Protection small facilities and mixed uses, demand in existing developed mined base=d on annual review areas, increase to areas nod of citywide needs. vacant. School No school population in project Possible indirect increase none area, in demand through housing impact. Parks and Small recreation demand Increase in employment may Same redeval a^ent income Recreation in project area. Score recre- bring sane increase in ray be used for park improve- ation facilities near project, recreation demand. ments. Energy Project area consumes electric Increase in energy consumption Building codes re,uire energy and gas energy for industrial with increase in intensity of 00nservation measures. processes, lighting, space and of development. water heating, other uses. Water Supply The site now has adequate i�ew water distribution Iines Cavelcpers required to install water for existing uses only, required with new develop-ent distribution lines. Scma improve— mints constructe,' by City. Sewer system Sanitation districts provide Additional sewer collection lines Sanitation districts will deter- sewer collection and treatnent, lines and treatment capacity mine if capacity exceeded and required with new development, will install additional facilities. Storm Drainage Area has some storm drain Development may chance drainage Developers required to provide deficiencies, patterns and runoff rages, not adequate site drainage to significant beyond sites. storm drain systen. Power, Gas, Project area now has utility Services will be upgrad&j None Phone services. as required by utility providers as development takes place. Solid Waste Regional management by Sani- Adds to solid waste generation, None tation Districts of Los Angeles insignificant at regional County. Fotential long-teen level. regional problem. Human Health Potential asbestos-con",ninated No unique or unusual health iditigation measures 'cr asbes- site in project area, hazards posed by project, tos-contaminated siie reviewed reviewed prier to development. Aesthetics Site includes variety of land Undeveloped areas :will be Design reviea b,,, City, uses, sane unattractive uses., developed, potential foe' some mid-rise or high-rise structures. Recreation Project area provides some '41nor increase in park and Project may involve same recreation facilities, recreation demand with new recreation improvements. development. Archaeological/ Project area has potential to If archaeological sites are Site preservation or excavation Historical disturb unknown archaeological present, they are likely to be - required. Contractors required sites. Some known sites exist disturbed by construction, to notify City if ertifects found, near the project area. A. 19 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 255 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.1 Earth Environ ental The terrain of the City is relatively flat, with eleva- Setting tions ranging from close to sea level 'to the top of Dominguez Hills, with an elevation of 195 feet. Because of the small slope, landslides and erosion are not a problem, although during heavy and constant rainfall , minor slope erosion does occur. Soils in the City are composed almost entirely of stream-borne alluvia, with the predominant soil types being sands and clays. The sands, located primarily in the south and west, pose f&;, er construction problems than the north and east clays, 'ahich are expansive. Portions of the City of Carson have been designated as special study zones by the California Division of (Mines and Geology. The City is located on the western margins of the Newport-Ingle ✓ood Fault zone, a seismically-active area. The most destructive earthquake in recent times on this fault system was the Long Beach earthquake in 10133. Carson, along with the rest of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, is subject to the possibility of severe earthquakes. The City has eighteen inactive sanitary landfills. Another two sites lie right outside the city limits 'Co the north and to the south. Some of these sites contain materials that decompose chemically or biologically and may produce landfill gases and 'nave problems of differential or unstable settling. (See, for example, Converse Davis Dixon �. soil study for a parcel in "the project area, February 17, 1978) . Enriron^ental The project w-1II result in minor grading for preparation Impact of building sites and excavation for utilities. In some locations, significant soil movement is anticipated. The project wi 1 i result in exposure of additional people to ground snaking from earthquakes in the project area because the project .iill result in increased enployiae:nt in the project area. This potential ground snaking is similar throughout the Los Angeles Basin and no unique or unusual risk is posed by the proposed project. Mitigation Standard building code provisions provide a satisfactory Neasures degree of protection from ground shaking. A landfill gas control plan will be required for developments 'Niiich are on landfill areas which contain organic deposits and are prone to settlement. No additional measures are recommended. These mitigation measures are included in the proposed project and reduce the potential impacts to an insignifi- cant level . i I 20 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 256 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 F� TABLE 3 SANITARY LANDFILLS IN THE CARSON AREA Sanitary landfill sites are designated by the Sanitation Division of the Department of the County Engineer. NAME CLASS 1. B.K.K. II 2. Cal Compact II 3. Martin Adams II 4. Southwest Conservation, Inc. II 5. Gardena Valley No. 1 and 2 II 6. Gardena Valley No. 4 II 7. Gardena Valley No. 5 II 8. Broadway - Main II 9. Alameda Street II 10. Hardwicks II 11. California by Products II 12. Southwest Steel No. 1 III 13. Sanitation Districts III 14. Shell Chemical III 15. Werdins III 16. National Supply Qo. (Outside of West City Boundary) III 17. Southwest Steel No. 2 III 18. Compton Reclamation Area II 19. Gardena Valley No. 6 II 20. Miscellaneous Dump Sites Abutting City Boundaries III Class I = For toxic or hazardous substances Class II = For chemically or biologically decomposable substances Class III = For non-water soluble, non-decomposable inert solids (Some Class II sites may have experienced dumping of toxic or hazardous substances) 21 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 257 of 354 i Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT OF CARSON ffi=CLASS 11 :..CLASS III ` ` J O Q W m m 2 c Q U N O J rtesia reeway O Y i H U Victoria St. 17 12 University Drive 12 3 . y r z �. k'?>>3 18 '11 Carson St. 223rd St. 0 ward ow Rd. -i � . ' 0 r' m Sepulveda Blvd. q LL Y OF CARSON Lomita Blvd. ...s,,,.: : m OURCE: SAFETY,SEISMIC SAFETY i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 258 of 354 Aiondry Blvd C0 -- ..-aC�� S yo CARS N 't Area designated by the State of California as a special study zone as j 1 determined by the 3 �a e Alquist Priolo Act ' , of 1974 w iv Artesia rep, 3 '� -- L"' p s ViCiOt12 St. s University �Lrive � 192nd St Lcl 5 limo � S v° FS�_ _ •{•::.::{; '.. i Je r e ki " r ;a-, S Carson JI y ' 223rd Sr 1 � : r." Sepulveda .r Blvd. a 1 _ r Y OF CARSON CITY OF LOS ANGE UE "SOURCE: SAFETY,SEISMIC SAFETY rte'=9 9 `• �,� - - _ AND NOISE ELEMENTS, - 4 CITY OF CARSON GENERALPLAN, -' .. •" `` " REVISED DECEMBER 11, 1981• r-'- -_ I ')P V i 1 0 } r __ aFigum 6. -� 23 SEISMIC SPECIAL STUDY ZONES Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 259 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.2 Air Environmental Carson is located in the South Coast Air Basin. Setting Generally, air pollution in the basin is a regional problem. Pollution levels in Carson are a result not only of local emissions, but also those in other parts of Los Angeles County. Tables 4 through 6 summarize air quality for selected pollutants in Long Beach, which is the closest site to Carson at which pollutant levels are recorded. Concentra- tions reflect a slow decline over the past 15 years as motor vehicle pollution controls become more stringent and apply to larger portions of the vehicle fleet. Because of low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine in sunlight in a complex series of reactions producing photochemical oxidant (smog). The National Ambient Air Quaility Standard for oxidant is expected to be the most difficult of the standards to achieve in the region. Pollutants emitted in the Carson area contribute to the regional oxidant problem. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have prepared an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which has i been forwarded through the State of California as part of the State Implementation Plan for compliance with the Clean Air Act. The State Implementation Plan is now being reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If EPA approves the plan, the control measures contained in the plan will become requirements for local implementation. The AQMP does not project compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 1987 for all pollutants under the development projections of the SCAG-82 Growth Forecast Policy. Achievement of emission reductions forecast by the AQMP will require institution of a large number of control measures included in the plan including: o Additional restrictions on vehicle emissions. o Annual inspection and maintenance program for light and medium duty vehicles. o Transportation control measures including encouragement of high occupancy vehicles, physical improvements to roadways and transit system improvements. o Additional stationary source controls. 24 i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 260 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 4 NUMBER OF DAYS FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED DURING 1982 CARBON SULFUR OZONEl MONOXIDE2 DIOXIDES TSP4 LEADS Anaheim 28 2 0 0 0 Costa Mesa 6 2 0 0 0 El Toro 180 NM 1 0 0 La Habra 39 8 0 0 0 Lennox 2 50 0 0 1 Long Beach 6 5 0 0 0 Los Alamitos 10 NM 0 0 0 Los Angeles 48 9 0 0 0 Lynwood 13 47 0 0 0 Pico Rivera 66 6 0 0 0 Pomona 66 0 0 *1 111 M Whittier 44 8 0 NM N"1 NM Not measured at this station. 1 Days Ozone exceeded 0. 12 parts per ilillion, 1-hour average. 2 Days CO exceeded 9 parts per million, 8-hour average. 3 Days SO?? exceeded 0.20 parts per million, 24-hour average. 4 Days TSP exceeded 260 ug/cubic meter, 24-hour average. 5 Quarters lead exceeded 1 .5 ug/cubic meter, quarterly average. s° TABLE 5 NUMBER OF DAYS OZONE EPISODE CRITERIA WERE REACHED IN 1980 STAGE 1 STAGE 2 (hourly average equal or (hourly average equal or greater than 0.20 ppm) greater than 0.35 ppm) 1980 1979 1980 1979 Anaheim 6 5 0 0 Costa Mesa 0 1 0 0 El Toro 3 6 N La Habra 14 21 0 1 Lennox 0 0 0 0 Long Beach 1 1 0 0 Los Alamitos 3 2 H Los Angeles 10 14 0 0 Lynwood 0 6 0 0 Pico Rivera 38 38 1 3 Pomona 49 57 1 3 Whittier 5 16 0 0 N No data available for this station. 25 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page. 261 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 6 NUMBER OF DAYS STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED i AND ANNUAL MAXIiMUM HOURLY AVERAGE DURING 1982 CARBON SULFUR NITROGEN OZONEl MONOXIDE2 OIOXIDE3 DIOXIDE Days Ma x1 Days Max Days Max Days Max Anaheim 28 0.26 2 13 0 0.04 0 0.20 Costa Nesa 6 0.18 2 21 0 0.06 0 0.23 El Toro 18 0.17 0 8 NM NM N111 NN La Habra 66 0.32 3 19 0 0.04 1 0.28 Lennox 2 0.16 50 2.6 0 0.03 4 0.34 Long Beach 6 0.22 5 14 0 0.09 r D,30 Los Alamitos 28 0.23 IN]11 NM 0 0.08 NM N I Los Angeles 91 0.40 9 15 0 0.05 8 0.41 Lynwood 37 0.26 47 27 0 0.06 0 0.24 Pico Rivera 108 0.39 6 13 0 0.05 2 0.29 Pomona 66 0.31 0 12 NM MM 2 0.32 Whittier 44 0.31 8 15 0 0.09 4 0.30 1 Maximum 1-hour(SO 24-hour) concentration, parts per ;pillion. 2 Same as federal standard. 3 Days, maxima for 24-hour standard. NPl Pollutant not monitored at this station. NUMBER OF DAYS STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS !r,'ERE EXCEEDED AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY/i11ONTHLY AVERAGE DURING 1982 2TSP1 3 SULFATE 3 �EAD n Days iiax Days Max Days- ;1a;< Anaheim 9 183 0 22.6 0 1 .53 La Habra 18 248 1 28.1 0 1.52 Lennox 14 200 2 37.3 3 2.34 Long Beach 13 102 1 3°3.4 0 1.25 Los Alamitos 19 218 0 24.5 0 1 .98 Los Angeles 17 177 2 27.7 0 1.87 Lynwood 16 216 2 36.8 1 2.76 Pico Rivera 27 215 2 30.8 0 1.89 1 Total Suspended Particulates. 2 Number of days/months violating state standard for polIutar:t. 3 Highest 24-hour average of year, ug/cubic meter. 4 Highest monthly average of year, ug/cubic meter. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1982. 26 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 262 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Air Pollutant Effects. air pollutants have a number of adverse impacts on Human health, result in degradation of materials and finishes, and are harmful to sensitive plants. The sources and effects of various contaminants are discussed briefly below, as reported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon-containing substances. Carbon monoxide concen- trations are usually higher in the winter when more fuel is burned and meteorological conditions favor the buildup of directly emitted contaminants. in the South Coast Air Basin, gasoline-powered motor vehicles are the largest source of this contaminant. Carbon monoxide does not irritate the respiratory tract, but passes through the lungs directly into the bloodstream. By interfering with transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood, carbon monoxide deprives sensitive tissues, primarily t'ne heart and brain, of oxygen. It is not known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility or material objects. Oxides of Nitrogen (P10,,). Two oxides of nitrogen are important air p in ollution. These are nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gals formed frain atmospheric ni"trogen ` and oxygen :•when corlbusti on takes place under hi g;h temperature and/or high pressure, and nitrogen dioxide (1102), a reddish-brown, irritating gas -For!eed by the combination of nitric oxide ,witih oxygen. %lotor vehicles are the primary source of oxides or nitrogen in the region, along with combustion in power plants. Some p etro i eum refining operations, other industrial sources, ships, railroads and aircraft operations are less important sources. Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photochemical smog reactions. The e;lni tied compound, ni tr i- oxide, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere, in the presence of hydrocarbons and sunlight, to form nitrogen dioxide a,'-Id ozone. Nitrogen dioxide can color the atmosp;'lere a ; concentrations as i o�:w as 0.5 parts per million or. dlays of 10-mile visibility. ✓ Sulfur Dioxide (S02). Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent, irritating gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. In humid atmospheres, some of it may be changed to sulfur trioxide and sulfuric acid mist, with some of the latter eventually reacting with other materials to produce sulfate particulates. In the South Coast Air Basin, Duel ccrnbustion is t;he 27 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 263 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 primary source of S02, while chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing are minor sources. Introduc- tion of low sulfur fuel oil , beginning in 1903, lowered S02 emissions. Shortages of natural gas have resulted in greater use of low sulfur fuel oil , possibly adversely affecting air quality. At sufficiently high concentrations, sulfur dioxide irri- tates the upper respiratory tract; at lower concentrations in combination with particulates, it appears able to do still greater harm by injuring lung tissues. Sulfur oxides, in combination with moisture and oxygen, can yellow the leaves of plants, dissolve marble and eat away iron and steel . Sulfur oxides can also limit visibility and cut down the 1iglit from the sun. Photochemical Oxidant (0„1J. The term ”photochemical oxi- dant can include several different pollutants, but con- sists primarily of ozone (more than 90°6), and a group of chemicals called organic peroxinitrates. Photochemical oxidants are Created in the atmosphere and are not emitted directly into the air. Reactive h1 drocarbons and oxides of nitrogen are the emitted contaminants ;1hich participate in the reaction. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas i;hich is produced by the photochemical process. Photochemical oxidant reaches its highest concentrations i n Lh2 sums _Iler and early fall when ultraviolet energy From t,),2 sun and other conditions are most suitable for oxidant-producirig reactions. Rotor vehicles are the ila;;o'r source of -ol's ion of oxides of nitrogen and 'reactive hydrocarbons (principal ozone precursors in tale South Coast Air Basin. The common effects of oxidants are damage to vegetation aiid cracking of untreated rubber. Photoc'neaiical oxidants in high concentrations can also directly ai=feet the 1 ,_ings, causing respiratory irritation and possible changes in lung function. Particulates. Atmospheric particulates ar; nade up of finely divided solids or Iiquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes and mists. About 90%b, by ':del ght, of tie emitted particles are larger than .10 microns, bit about )0%, by number, of particulates are less than 5 microns in liameter. The aerosols formed in the atnospher2 are .lsually smaller than 1 micron. In areas close to major sources, particulate concentrations are generally higher in the winter, when more fuel is burned and meteorological conditions favor the buildup of directly emitted contaminants. However, in areas remote from major sources and subject to photochemical smog, particulate cone.,+n- trations are higher during summer months. Particulate matter consists of particles in tie a t:,l,0sp^ere 23 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 264 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 resulting from many kinds of dust and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, from combustion products, including automobile exhaust, and from atmospheric photochemical reactions. Some natural activities such as wind-raised dust and ocean spray, also emit particulates into the atmosphere. In the respiratory tract, very small particles of certain substances may produce injury by themselves, or may act in conjunction with gases to alter their deposition sites and scope of action. Suspended in the air, particulates of aerosol size can both scatter and absorb sunlight, reducing the amount of solar energy reaching the earth, producing haze and reducing visibility. They can also cause a wide range of damage to materials. Hydrocarbons and Other Organic Gases. This group of pollutants includes the many compounds consisting of hydrogen and carbon, found especially in fossil fu° ls. Some hydrocarbons are highly photochemically reactive. Hydrocarbon concentrations are generally high,ar in vdinter because the reactive hydrocarbons react more slo:rly then and can accumulate in the atmosphere to higher concentrations. The major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the South Coast Air Basin is now the internal combustion enair,e of motor vehi- cles. Minor sources include pa troleuai refining, petroleum marketing operations, and evaporation al organic solvents. Certain hydrocarbons, such as ethylene, damage plants by inhibiting growth and causing flo'.;'ers and leaves to fall . Levels of hydrocarbons commonly measured in urban areas are not know to cause adverse effects in 'humans. Environmental Project Emissions. The proposed project rill result impact in higher levels of primary pollutant emissions and concen- trations than the no project case. In general , any deve_ lopment in the South Coast Air Basin 'ijould result in hianer 1 evel s of air pol 1 ution than ,voul d be the case without such development. Tables 7 and 8 summarize air pollution emissiOn factors used in calculating project emissions and contribtions to local and regional air pollution levels. Table 9 reports project emissions based on these emission factors. Project air pollution emissions come From three principal sources: on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, seater heating and cooking; local and regional emissions from motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site; and combustion of fuels at power pla is to produce electric power used on n project site. 29 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 265 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 7 MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS Emissions in Grams Per P1iie ---------------------------------------------------- % of Speed 01PH) miles CO THC NMHC NOx so x Idle 0?6 2.62 0.24 0.21 0.07 0 0 (gm/min) 5 3% 71.13 6.42 5.50 2.34 .24 .34 10 3% 38.74 3.53 3.06 2.04 .24 .34 15 5% 27.69 2.51 2.70 1.93 .24 .34 20 15% 22.22 2.00 1.73 1.94 .24 .34 25 10% 18.52 1.65 1.44 2.00 .24 .34 30 10% 15.65 1.40 1.21 2.08 .24 .34 35 10% 13.51 1.20 1.04 2.16 .24 .34 40 10% 12. 15 1.07 0.92 2.50 .24 .34 45 10% 11.53 1.00 0.86 2.37 .2 + .34 50 10% 11 .33 0.95 0.83 2.56 2, .34 55 10% 10.84 0.90 0.78 2.89 .24 .3=!_ 6U 4% 9.08 0.75 0.66 3.46 .24 .34 1411-d Average 100% 17.73 1.57 1.39 2.31 0.24 0.34 Crankcase Blootby .0003 .0003 Diurnal Emissions 4.442 4.442 gm/day .175 .175 gm/day Hot soak 2.01 2.01 qm/day .303 .303 gm/day Assumptions: Ambient temperature 75 degrees Fahrenheit Operations percentage: Vehicle mix: Cold start 35.5% Light duty at!-'L-.o 30.4;5 Hot start 11.5% Light duty truck 12.1% Hot stabilized 53.0% Medium duty truck 1.40_ Heavy duty gasoline truck 2.5`6 Heavy duty diesel truck 2.5% NiotorcycI Source: South Coast Air Quality ilanagement District, E1,11FAC-6 Nodel . 30 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 266 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 8 AIR POLLUTION EMISSION FACTORS ---------------Emissions--------------- CO HC NO, SO,t Part Natural Gas Consumption lbs/million cubic feet 20 8 120 1 0.15 Electric Power Generation oil fired, lbs/mwh 0.20 0.17 2.30 2.65 0.40 Vehicle miles, 1990 grams per mile 17.70 1 .57 2.31 0.24 0.31 1 bs/mi 1 e 0.039 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.001 TABLE 9 AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS Daily ------------E;;lissions (lbs/day)------------- Emission Source Usage Units CO HC NO„ SO„ Part EXISTIJG USE Gas Consumption 0.26 mcf 5 l_ 31 0 0 Electric Pow--r 220 nrrh 44 37 5000 533 88 Mobile Source 111531 miles 4348 305 557 59 76 TOTAL EXISTING USE 4397 425 1104 6�2 164 PROPOSED USE Gas Consumption 0.85 mcf 17 7 102 1 Electric Pow.-r 721 m;111 144 123 2657 1910 288 Mobile Source 336881 miles 13134 11015 1714 178 230 TOTAL PROPOSED USE 13295 12911 3473 2003 518 CHAN,It E Gas Consumption 0.59 mcf 12 5 71 0 0 Electric Pmger 500 mw.h 100 85 1151 132 200 Mobile Source 225350 miles 8786 779 1147 119 154 TOTAL. CHANGE 8898 859 2369 144.5 354 Abbreviations: mcf: million cubic feet; m+;!n: mega,aatt-hours 31 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 267 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i, Table 10 co �pares project emissions to estimated total emissions for the source-receptor area in which the project is located. Source-receptor area 4 includes areas east of the Harbor Free,�iay and south of Artesia Boulevard in Los Angeles County, and includes all or part of the communities of Carson, Lake,;rood, Cerritos and Long Beach. In the case of all pollutants for which source-receptor estimates are available, the change resulting from the proposed project represents less than 236 of the total for the source- receptor area, and less than 0.2% of the regional total . TABLE 10 COMPARISON OF PROJECT Ef9ISSI.9NS i0 SOURCE/RECEPTO;? AREA 4 TOTAL E;IISSIO �S, 1937 Emissions in Tons per Day ieactive CO '!Ox Organic Gases Tons � Toi:s � Tons Existing Use 2.2 0.6% 0.6 0,5`0 0.2 0,2`6 Proposed Project 6.6 1.3% 1 . 7 1. 7`6 0.5 0.7`0' Change 4.4 1.2`.6 1.2 1.2_t 0.4 0.4% Area 4 362.09 100.75 33.07 Basin Total 6227.7 959.0 1002,4 32 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 268 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 11 i i 1-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS FOR TYPICAL STREET SEGMENTS 1-Hour 1-Hour Average Maximum CO Concentration (ppm) Traffic Ambient At Distance from Roadway Alternative Volume CO (ppm) 15 Meters 75 Meters 1. Existing Conditions I-405 at 'Wilmington Ave 19,180 18.2 6.2 Including Ambient 14 32.2 20.2 Wilmington at Carson 1,940 1 .8 0.6 Including Ambient 14 15.8 14.6 Alameda at Sepulveda 1,630 1.5 0.6 Including Ambient 14 15.5 14.6 2. Alternative 2 I-405 at Wilmington Ave 20,800 19.8 5.8 Including Ambient 14 33.8 20.8 Wilmington at Carson 2,430 2,3 0,8 Including Ambient L? 16.3 i4.8 Alameda at Sepulveda 2,220 2.1 0.7 Including Ambient 14 16.1 14.7 3. Alternative 3 I-405 at ',Jilmington Ave 21,730 20.6 7.i Including Ambient 14 34.6 ?l.l Wilmington at Carson 2,610 2.5 0.8 T ncluding Ambient 14 16.5 14,8 Alameda at Sepulveda 2,940 2.8 1.0 Including Ambient 14 16.8 15.0 Notes: methods of Caline 3 - A Graphical Solution Procedure for Estimating Carhop ilonoxlde CO)�encentrations hear Rodd':/a' S, Ted 2r%T7igi1'>lay Administration, 1980 Assumptions: F Stability (very stable) , ';rind speed 1 meter/s2co;,u, ./ind angle 20 degrees to roadway, surface rougnness 10 cm, :Mixing 1000 meters. 33 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 269 of 354 EIP, P.edevelopme,nt Project Area 3 Carbon monoxide concentrations. Table it illustrates carbon monoxide concentrations expected from motor vehicle traffic on arterial streets surrounding the project. These concentrations were estimated using the Caline 3 air pollu- tion model and show a small contribution by the project to carbon monoxide concentrations resulting from the proposed project. However, because assumed background levels of carbon monoxide are higher than the National Ambient Air Quality Standard, continued violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard are expected. The project may result in an increase in the number of days on which carbon monoxide concentrations exceed the standard at receptor sites near the project area. Hazardous emissions. The project area contains a site which was contaminated .with asbestos from previous industrial operations. Improper grading and site preparation on this site would carry a risk of asbestos emissions. A project study will be required prior to development of this site to identify the potential hazard from asbestos and to identify mitigation measures 'Co reduce this hazard to insignificant levels. If mitigation measures are not included in the project design, a project EIP will be required to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures . Other hazardous substances which may be emitted by industrial processes �,ahichl rgaly locate in the project area will be regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Constriction emissions. Construction emissions include emissions from motor vehicles used during constr�iciton, and emissions of fugitive dust resulting from project construction. Because the project will be developed in phases over a number of years, grading at any given time is not expected to be sufficient to result in unusually high emissions of dust, and this effect is not considered significant. Air Quality ranagement Plan Consistency. The proposed project is consistent with the Air Quality ilanagement Plan which is based on the Carson General Plan, on tiih it c regional yro,ath projections for population, 'noising and employment were based, and is therefore consistent ,vith the regional growth management plan. The project has t,ie pote- ntial to accomodate a significant proportion of the employment projected for the project's statistical area over the next 10 to 20 years. The project has the poten- tial to provide an additional 13,641 jobs in the Long Beach/Palos Verdes statistical area. Together ;;its other projects in the City, a total of approximately 65,000 jobs is estimated at full development. This compares to an 34 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 270 of 354 EiR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i increase of 48,000 jobs within the entire Long Beach/Palos Verdes statistical area bet,,raen 1930 and th.- year 2000 (Table 13). Development in the project area under the proposed project may result in faster development of addi- tional employment than under the SCA6 groirth forecast policy. However, this employment represents faster growth in employment only, and not more employment-generating land use area than assumed in SCAG projections. s°aiitigation Although the project itself is not expected to contribute Measures significantly to regional pollution levels, the total of projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin i,n the next 10 to 20 years has a potential to adversely affect ail- quality. Measures to reduce air pollution emissions in the region may be adopted as part of the Air Quality 1anag,-meat Plan. These measures cannot be assured at this time because they depend on regional policies and other actions which are outside the jLIrisdiction of the Carson Redevelopment Agency. Developments in the project area with industrial processes ,which are likely to result in pollutant emissions ,,Ii 11 require construction permits from the Sout] Coas'' Air Quality Management District and will be subject to district emission controls. Pleasures to reduce triomaking included in t e discussion of circulation impacts swi 1 l also reduce air pol 1 emissions. The following mitigation measures are included in the proposed project: o Improvement of existing streets and parkways adhere only partial improvements exist to the extent redevelopment funds are available and private development ta!<es place in the project area. This mitigation .,Pasure ;dill reduce fugitive dust emissions frog unpaved and unimproved streets and sidewalks in the project area o Improve7ent of traffic flow through improvement of existing streets in the project area to nigher standards, to the extent redevelopment funds are !ada_ available from the proposed project for such improvements. o Provision of additional off-street parking in new developments relative to existing industrial areas developed under previous parking standards 111hich ;gill reduce demands for on-street parking and improve traffic flow. o Transportation System Management (TS;,i) measures .o reduce 36 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 271 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i tripmaking including preferential parking for carpools, pP use oI company vanpools, transit use incentives and other measures vihich ;nay be possible to incorporate on a project-by-project basis. Because the nature of private development t'rlat will tare place in the project area is not fully known at this time, specific mitigation measures cannot be identified now. 3.3 hater Environmental The project is located approximately 5 miles from the Setting Pacific Ocean. The project area is bounded on the west by the Dominguez Channel , a major flood control channel . The area is relatively flat and may provide for s0m:e ground water recharge in areas not covered by impervious surfaces. Public water supply issues are discussed in section 3.17, Utilities. Environmental The project will result in coverage 0f most of tle surface Impact area of the project area with impervious surfaces. This increased coverage wi11 result in increasina the amount and speed of runoff during storms. The area is protected by a storm drain syste;M which provides protection for most deve- loped areas. Storm drain inadequacies in tfie project area are discussed under Section 3.11, Utilities. T e project areas contribution to grOLl lae Charg' is not considered sign fificr:nt. Nitigation Private developments constructed in the project area will easures be required to provide adequate site drainage to the stor:-n drain system at the lima of construction. Stor°11 drain 1lMprOVe„lentS ltdy a1 SO b2 constructed by ti'le Les Angeles County Flood Control District as funds are available and projects reach high priority within the region. Taese mitigation ;Measures wil l reduce project i .-.,pacts to an insignificant level . 3 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 272 of 354 FIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.4 Plant Life Environmental The project is located in an urban area that is substan- Setting substantially developed. There is no significant remaining natural vegetation. The native vegetation has largely been replaced by imported species. Environmental The project will reduce the plant population in the I-pact project area. Because no rare or endangered species of plants are affected, no significant i!;ipacUs „ill result. :'Ii ti gati on i-teasures done. 37 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 273 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 �.5 .Animal Life r _nvirornmental According to the Department of Fish and Game, the Setting Dominguez Channel , t?hich runs along the project area, may contain nesting sites for the least tern, an endangered species. These potential sites have not been used in the past two years; however, the least tern changes the location of its nesting sites often, so it is possible that the project area may be used for nesting at some future time. It is more likely that the least tern uses the Channel for feeding grounds only. E virw:mnental The project is 1 il;eIy to reduce the potential habitat for impact animals in t ; project area. The project wi11 not change the nature of t''ie Dominguez Channel and deve1oment 1n the project area probably ,,i 1l not disturb tie possible feeding of the least tern. Since th'_'re are no other rare or endangered species involved, the of ect of development is not significant. ; itigati on �leasu�-es .done. 33 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 274 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.6 Noise Environiental Noise levels in Carson are determined primarily by the Setting level of vehicular traffic on immediately adjacent streets and nearby freeways. Because of tie large number of industrial facilities in Carson and the nearby harbor, truck traffic is expected to be a higher than normal percentage of traffic volume. Both the San Diego and Harbor Freeways near the project area are established VFR helicopter routes and experience regular helicopter traffic. No nearby airports have significant volumes of traffic over the project area. A number of rail lines serve industrial users in the City. Community noise levels are cornoniy expressed in decibels on a scale !which averages noise levels over a 24-hour period and accounts by a weighting or penalty factor for the greater importance of noise intrusions at night. The two such noise measures in common use in California are the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-right level (Ldn). These t;lo measures are numerically equivalent within 0.5 decibel (d3) for ;cost urban traffic noise situations. Table 12 summarizes the significance of various community noise levels based on standards and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, t'r,e E;^'d iron- mental Protection Agency and many other federal ar,d state agencies. In general , all streets iitil traffic exceeding 10,000 vehicles per day have s ;fficient traffic to resin in nose levels at the property line greater than 65 decis:els CiNEL or 'dn. Such levels are normally unacceptable for con- struction of residential units under U.S. Depart„ent of Housing and Urban Develop; !ent standards and are not eligible for FHA loans. Under California law, a special sound insulation study and additional sound insulation are required when muitiple family residences are constructed that will be exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 c!B CIEL. E.avironme:ital Figure 8 illustrates traffic noise levels as a function l;;pact of traffic vol L.r3e and distand 'fr0!il the roads-lay. FOr typical roadway configuration, automobile/tl°uck mix and day/night vehicle mix, any street serving more than 10.000 vehicles per day (higher than a local street, but typical for an urban collector street) will result in so:ae area of private property exposed to greater than 65 d3 CNEL the "No rma11y Unacceptable" noise level for residential d1ave- lopment. With a typical single-family home setbac1 of 25 feet from the property 1 ine, the structure itsel f ,;i 1 1 be included in the 65 d3 CNEL zone for traffic ','olu:iies greater than 15,000 vehicles per day. 39 Ordinance No. $4-695/Page 275 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 12 INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY NOISE LEVELS Noise Level CNEL or Ldn Interpretation below 55 Clearly Acceptable for residential development. The noise exposure is such that both the indoor and outdoor environments are pleasant to most people. 55-65 Mo;^:al ly Acceptable for residential deval opment. The noise exposure is above t'rie threshold of annoyance for many individuals. Noise exposure is great enough to be of some concern, but common building construction will make the indoor environment acceptable, even for sleeping quarters, and the outdoor environment „ill be reasonably pleasant for recreation and play. 65-75 NOM21ly L°naccept.able for residential development. California la.r requires additional sound insulation in multiple family residences. The noise exposure is sufficiently severe that unusual and costly building construction is necessary to insure quiet indoors, and barriers are needed between the Site and noise source to make the outdoor environment acceptable. over 75 Llea.rly Unaccapa bl e for reS I de lti al d?vel opmen . The noise exposure at the site is so severe that the construction costs to ma<e the indoor en`-!ironineii is acceptable would be prohibitive in most cases do i til%? outdoor environment sviould be intolerable. In urban areas, the first rol:�l of residences a street and another residence ',Jill , generally, reduce the noise level by 5 to 10 decibels, making noise from most arterials acceptable for all but the residences is^•n?diately facing the street. Figure 8 illustrates the noise impact resulting fro,n the proposed project. Noise increases within the project area may be as much as 2 decibels. In general , noise 1 - als along residential frontages are increased by no more than 1 decibel by project traffic. Additional impacts niav result from the widening of arterial streets, placing !iiiF,'ng traffic lanes closer to residential structures in so+ie cases. 40 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 276 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i 600 400 Y J LL ' d U` c_ m _ D w h c 300 h U 3 v 0 cc U��v E /�/� a Y 200 u c �G ya 100 6 10 d8 cx E ——— — r ———Typical property line 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Traffic Volume, Vehicles per Day Figure 7. Traffic noise level as a function of traffic volume and distance from the roadway. Noise levels are calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model . Noise levels are shown in decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Level (Ldn)° ' Source: The Arroyo Group 41 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 277 of 354 COUNTY OF LOS FNGr'_cS _vra w v Change in noise level, dB CNEL or Ldn ry +0.0 Project impact o ± (+0.0) Cumulative impact with other o projects and regional growth. Artesia rreawaY - ? j +o.0(+1.1) E� � S 1 '.Prscy Drive ? + co CD ++ s ✓ Co r -ter +0.2 l+oAl� --� -\, +n-5 i .el � �_�j C� Wardiow Rd. fV + = i + - � ;c CV �a ,L0:3(+03 4 r � r "Y OF scN_ CAB i- . C i A 'i 3 , „ARSON . CA j" Figure 42 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 278 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i Rail traffic is also likely to expose residential areas in the City to noise levels considered normally unacceptable for residential development. Increases in rail traffic in the project area may result from development of the Los Angeles Intermodal Container Facility adjacent to the southern end of the project area. Developments within the project area are not expected to result in increases in noise level or construction of residences in areas exposed to rail noise. No significant adverse rail noise impact is expected. Noise from industrial processes taking place in ne'aly deve- loped industrial areas near residential areas is not expec- ted to result in significant noise problems. The City's noise ordinance and zoning ordinance prohibit excessively loud operation of machinery or other noises near residen- tial areas. Mitigation Three i7itigatlon measures are co'ilrmonly used to reduce Neasures traffic noise impact. Reduction in traffic volume can have soile lillpact on noise levels, but large reductions in traffic are required "co bring about significant noise reduction. To reduce perceived noise by 10 decibels, or by about one-half the perceived annoyance, requires a tenfold reduction in traffic. For example, a traffic volume of 10,000 vehicles would need to be reduced to IX0 vehicles to halve the perceived annoyance. Cutting traffic in half produces a noticeable but small 3-decibel decrease in noise level . Cutting traffic on arterials to levels s_rfficient to result in measurable reductions in noise level is not considered a feasible mitigation measure and is not included in the proposed project. Barriers bets✓een the noise source and the noise-sensitive area can be effective in situations the+ e barriers can be constructed, such as along freesiay frontages or around clusters of dwellings. Hos:ever, this strategy is in general infeasible in developed areas along arterial streets because of the need to maintain access to the street. This strategy is therefore not included in the proposed project. Sound insulation of new or existing residences is an alternative method of dealing with noise imPactS along arterial streets in built-up areas where it is no longer possible to use berms and setbacks to reduce noise impact. Sound insulation of existing residences is in general pro- hibitively expensive, on the order of 25°o to 50-6 of the value of the unit for typical single-family hoes ("Final Report: Home Soundproofing °ilot Projecc for the Los 43 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 279 of 354 E.R, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Angeles Department of Airports", !.;yle Laboratories, El Segundo, California, 1970). f Although sound insulation from urban traffic may involve less expenditure because the sound is directional , signiri - cant sound insulation in existing residences is difficult and expensive. Some sound insulation, which may compensate for the 1- to 2-dB increase in sound level resulting from the proposed project, may result from iteat,her sealing around windows and doors, and installation of storm windows or double glazing at relatively low cost. However, because of the minor effect and difficult administration of such a program for the small number of units affectd, such a program is not recommended. Sound insulation of new multiple family residences can be particularly effective in solving traffic noise problems at relatively low cost. °rlulti -family residences can be designed to provide a 'built-in barrier bet:+een the street and interior open spaces, .-rith heavy insulation and double windows protecting from traiPic noise. Sound insulation has both beneficial and adverse cnerg_y impacts. Sound insulation requires closing the unit, requiring forced-air ventilation or, air conditicnina. If windods are opened for natural ventilation:, the oi;nd insu- lation benefit is lost. However, sound ins:ujating con- struction is in general more •veaLher-tigat and better, insu- l laced against heat gain and loss. Sound insulation for all new multi family r_­s 4 i n noise impact areas is re:lui r,d by th' Carson b.;i 1 ding code and state isitigation measures should r�aduco noise impacts in new residential construction to on insiq,lificant level , However, adverse impacts on existing reSid;2^, s?S l l the vicinity of the project area are not considered reasible to eliminate because of high cost related to the r2iatively small increase in noise love] resu l t i ngg fro:- the proposed project. Adverse noise impact on residential use is therefore considered a poter,tilly significant adv,rs2 impact on the proposed project. 44 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 280 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.7 Lig.at and Glare Egvironmental The project is located in a developed urban area. Setting Lighting in tyre project area includes street lights, residential and commercial interior and exterior lighting. Bright display and parking lot lighting is used at a number of sites in the project area. Undeveloped sites in general have 1 oe`,i levels of 1 ight. The project area abuts residential areas in some locations. These areas are sensitive to direct light at high levels during nighttime hours. Lwiroi^ime-ta'.` The private developments constructed in the project area Zr;pact sviI 1 incl ude 1 ighting for interior streets, s:.,curity and parking. Commercial or industrial structures may have interior lights lit at night for maintenance or night evork shifts. I i New and replacement street lighting may be constructed as part of the public improvements constructed by the City as � part of the proposed project. Street lighting 1e`iels are generally lo,-j, and street lighting impact on adjacent resi- dences is considered to be insignificant. Urban street lighting }tas a significant adverse irpact on astronomical research using optical telescopes at visible light frequencies. Street 1ionts, such as high ur?ssure sods um 1 i gh.s, evict c emt t 1 i gn;, over a w ae range or frequencies, have particularl . adverse iFilipaCts. tr '2 lights, such as lo,!.] pressure sol d i!!m l i nhts, w'n i i t light at a fc`;l specific, fl,e NJencles which � e i1 2it 9� t can b out by appropriate filters have much less signiicant. impact. Street lights affect a large area through illu:tination or- the sky by reflected l 1 ght, so impact is general 'i^3:filer^ than locally around dice sources of illumination, 5 cause the Los Angeles basin is already sinnifi can tly d-graded by light pollution as an area for visual astron-.7:1, additional lighting is not e;:nected to ira•✓e a si +ri=icant adverse impact. Some of the street lighting and commercial 1i`phting inn tine project area vii 11 be constructed near residential r^ as, and may have soiTie adver,.e impact on these reSl `left areas. 4i tigation Because the details of lighting plans for ant IcioaCed 'eas gyres private devel op,nents are not known at this t ime, sped i s mitigation meA-sures cannot be identified. The City's design revies�a of all commercial and industrial p 0 jects includes rev iev of 1 fighting plans to miniiaize illu,ainatiOn of adjacent areas and direct viewing of light sources. This nnitigatlon measure is asswned to reduce potential adverse lighting impacts to an insignificant le!-ei . 40' Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 281 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.8 Land Use Environmental The project area is currently partially developed for Setting commercial and industrial use. Land uses include major manufacturers, ,iholesalers and distributors, petroleum storage and processing. Along Ala:neda Street north of Carson street, and along Carson Street east of Alameda Street are a variety cf small retail and service businesses. Figure 4 on page 15 is an aerial photograph of the project area illustrating existing land uses. Tabla 1 on page 6 summarizes existing land use in tie project area, Figure 9 on the f01 10',ri n p a g 2 i 11 ustrat2s 1 and uses i n the project area and i;,!mediately surrounding areas based on analysis of aerial pnotographs by Tl,e Arroyo Group. Figure 10 on page 48 s;no`.Vs existing Zoning in tie project area and surrounding areas as currently proposed by 'r-N2 City of Carson. Figure 11 on page 49 illustrates General P1 an i ;:nd us> for the project area under current General P1 an policy. 11 12 r e n 0'r t,. r OpOS2' p'r0;;2C� area 1 F.2 e l21 Opm nt i an r 2 nr d e ':!> > 1 reflect General Plan land uses. The project area inc11.aes a n!!^ ber or _a-_6nt ;ia"c'ls, totaling approxi mate IY 312 ,:ores, 0r appro::i ;):ateIv 45`, ;f the total area of c,i_� project. In addition. :npr0xi;..ate? 61 acres are d2vel oped as Sto'ratge n ltl cial uses such as aut0 d1Sirantling ✓'a1"ds 2nd s i^.i i`.... Ut(i2r uses i n d2 P e t. eUil prOCi SS I ilg aiid StOf Q2 (5 1 acres), various industrial uses (1 1 acres), trans pOr"a'tion faci l i ties and flood control cha lnel s (9J1, aCr°S) and open space uses (22 acres). Approx l;iia'cely _0 ac,--as of ,r; scel l a- neouS retail and service uses are found al0n,i tn:2 Al oleda Street and Carson Street frontages, The project area includes a Iii);iJei' of old reGa'11 , Ser'iiS:°_ and industrial facilities '.,ni-n s;iow a ic''i level of D:°operty maintenance. In part because o lac: of public infra- structure to Serve the area, tees? us2s Cannot be !irgraded to more rmdern uses %;i,i:h a dlequ a)�. e `� •v ,;fir_ Scaping and tilore modern COJISti"L;C ti o.1 i17pi'0','2J conservation and fire protection'. The photographs of Figure 12 illustrate soe of t'.n2 t, nical land uses and conditions of public ir.p-0ve,.ients in tat project area. 4 tJ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 282 of 354 U1 t It r - F ^ i ii YFF l/+ f•�' O Residential-Single Family iu Residential- Medium Density O Residential- High Density Retail/Service LL 01 Light Industry 1 Heavy Industry Low Intensity Commercial NEI Petroleum Processing, Storage Open Space v / Transportation { � / Golf Course ;��t: F Fc` Flood Control r f _ Vacant ;; } E !R FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER CARSON , CA J Figure 9 y' EXISTING LAND USE IN THE PROJECT AREA 47 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 283 of 354 OS 25 Jo ML` i RM-25 OS / .I i ML-D M-2 t 'MC sax ovf6a_i 1?FC r#Y —�' M RA 11 MH r l, f M y T MWORL J l7 Z Q MH in 0 J RS- Residential, Single-Famlly RM- Residential, Multi-Unit' RA-Residential, Agricultural ^¢z LL OS- Open Space M Q� Su-Special Use D - Design Overlay Districtz MH ORL-Organic Refuse Landfill Overlay District3 a / CN-Commerclal, Neighborhood Ctr. = CR-Commercial, Regional Center y U/ CG-Commercial, General ML-Manufacturing, Light a MH-Manufacturing, Heavy E I R F O R R E D E V E L O P M E N T PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON , CA Figure 10 48 EXISTING ZONING Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 284 of 354 r HI GC + HI i LDR-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MDR-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HDR-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GC-GENERAL COMMERCIAL RC-REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LI-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL -' H1-HEAVY INDUSTRIAL P-PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES z �� Figure 11. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 49 FOR THE PROJECT AREA Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 285 of 354 i I I x. . 1,jp :µµ r, f 1 row`C At grade rail crossing on Carson Street. a s�46" Mixed commercial uses along Carson Street east of Alameda. Figure 12. PHOTOGRAPHS OF 50 PROJECT AREA CONDITIONS Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 286 of 354 EiR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Environmental The proposed project is expected to encourage the Impact development of new commercial and industrial structures on vacant sites and on sites novi occupied by lose-intensity commercial and storage uses. In addition, a substantial portion of the area now occupied by older structures in poor repair is expected to be upgraded through revitalization efforts. Table 1 on page 6 summarizes the land use changes anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The land use changes as a result of the proposed project area are, in general , considered to be beneficial impacts. The project is expected to result in more efficient use of available land for more intensive development, and to result in the elimination of unattractive, poorly maintained struc- tures and land uses which prevent the further private improvement of the area. The land use changes to a higher and better use is a key element of the proposed redevelopment project. Impacts discussed throughoutt the EIi; are the di sect and indi rect environrnerrtaI iI,pact's of these changes in ; and use. If the redevelopment project is not adopted, nonresidential square footage in the project area is expected to increase by approximately 2,4 mi 1 1 ion square feet over the next 15 to 20 years, an average increase of 100,000 io 200,000 sq;.iare feet per year. Under the proposed project, the area is exuected to experience development of approximately 6,4 million square deer., an average increase of 200,000 to 400 000 q s uar2 Beet per ��2ar. In ad ition, under the proposed project, some existing space is expected to be significantly rehabilitated to current standards each year. The project is in general surrounded by other industrial areas of Carson. East of the project area across ;jlameda Street is a residential area separated f roiil ''I"e project area by a rail s,jitch yard and th:� Alameda Street right-of-slay. The project over the project lifetime is 2_,)_C' f4 to -as,lt in the removal or upgrading of a number of visually unattracti ,e land uses. In addition, ne,ri structur=s .till be constructed to higher standards of construction, e�lercv conservation and fire protection. The level of maintenance in the project area is expected to be improved as investrlent in the area increases. High quality development of land uses and increases in intensity in the project area are expected to result in some secondary impacts on land uses in other areas of tiie City, in particular, industrial development may create demand for supporting industrial uses, some of which may locate in the project area In addition, industrial use vii ll create 51 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 287 of 854 EtR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 demand for supporting commercial uss and for housing for employees. These indirect impacts are discussed under popu- lation effects in Section 3.11 and horsing impacts in Section 3.12. Mitigation Changes in land use to a higher and better use are a ieasures key element of the proposed project. Tile entire Environ- mental Impact report deals with the impacts of this change in land use, and mitigation measures throughout the EIR are intended to deal .fith the direct and indirect effects of this change. The City's zoning ordinance contains development standards for the development of individual parcels for industrial and commercial uses. These development standards are intended t0 reduce impacts 01 development on adjacent parcels to i insignificant levels. Compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the City's design .reviel,.t o` major projects are expected to reduce impacts of development on adjacent land uses to insignificant levels. in addition, the Agency may choose to exercise additional cotrol over development through adoption of a design for development for the proposed project area, parts of the proposed project area or specific development parcels. 1, 52 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 288 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 " 3.9 r1a t sral Resources Envi ronMental Potential natural resources i,npacts include increasing settiig rate of use of any natural resource or substantial depletion of iron-renesiable natural resources. Environmental The project wi11 result in the commitment of building Impact materials and energy to project construction. This use of these resources is an insignificant portion of the available resources and such impacts are considered insignificant. ,17 ti ga ti c ,'ieasu 'es None. I 73 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 289 of 354 cIR, Redevelop—ment Project Area 3 3.10 isk of Upset Environmen3,a Risk Of UDSet includes risk of explosions, release of Setting hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. Eaviron-menta7 Ti3e project itself does not represent an unusual risk of Impact explosions or release of hazardous Substances beyond that risk posed by other, similar business and industrial developments. Fio;iever, portions of the project site contain inactive landfills, some of Which contain materials that. dec0ilpos2 biolcgicaliy/c;lenicail rl bi- p'roduc t of this decc!Tt osi ti on is ile tlla 2 gas, ih is explosive. Mitigation For the development ;,,nick occurs on 1 and fil1 areas that reas•'7ures contain materials that potentially can cause explosions, a landfill gas control plan ail be required. Regulations by Other agencies regulating the SCorag2 and use of hazardous substances are e 1p,cted to red;;ce t''le po tend ,l risk Of inset 'to an ins-1gniilCant 1 ?v2{ , i j4 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 290 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.11 5 opal ati on Environmental The City of Carson is near its residential development Wettiig capacity under current regulations. Substantial land area exists in areas that are designated for industrial use. The 1980 population of Carson vias 81,221 compared to 77,130 in 1970, a 5.3% increase for the decade. Carson's contribution to regional population is less than .67% (sixty-seven hundredths of one percent) and population changes in Carson have an insignificant effect on regional growth and development. j Levi ro.,mi-p:tal The proposed project has the potent i a i to encourage impact population oro,v'th in the project's housing and aIployment market area by providing additional jobs on the project site that would other�.Ii se locate elsewhere in Southern j California. Table 13 summarizes projections of population, housing and employment for the project's housing/employment market area from the SCAG-82 Gro,.vth Forecast Policy. The proposed project has the potential to provide employment for approximately 13,641 people. This represents 16% of the primary housing/employment market area' s projected employment gr0.rth from 1980 to 2000, The proposed project will also provide indirect a pl oyment (chat employment caused by the directly affected industries buying needed 'inputs or supplies from 0tiier industries) and induced & pIoyllent (that employment t'iat arises frCi i the a0U52a01 dS Spending 'r?ages or i tiCG P.e received form both the directly and indirectly ailecied industries, thus further increasing demand, Appropri- ate multipliers to de te;°+nine i idi rect and induced employment .i in the Southern Cal i forn i a area ware iden'rli-- fled in the study "SCAG Reglon input-Output Nodel ,;' pub- lished by SC :G in 1978. Based on m!l ti pl i ers for typical business par, afid industrial uses, tae pro00sei1 project gill provide up to 17,310 indirect and induced jobs. This represents 18'6 of '_hie priiTI-Iry housing/ employment market area's projected empl oy,nent yro`e;i;i i`rorn 1980 to 20110. Coaib i ned direct, i ndi Nect and i nd:_iced j 0s provided by the project represent 31%, or 30,9751 jobs, o` the primary housing/employient market area's projected employment growth frolii 1980 to 2000. The subregion in which the project is located is an employment surplus area, with a ratio of 51 jobs her° 100 people compared to a regional average of 119 jobs per 100 people (1980). The subregion ,,ill continue to 'I,e an employment surplus area in the year 2000, :,lith a ratio 0f 57 jobs per 100 people c -�a' ;eN, �- j p p.- cnpared �0 a region'-11 a�. �.,� 01 55 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 291 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 52 jobs per 100 people. Expansion of employment beyond that projected in the growth Forecast policy is therefore contrary to current regional policy. (SCAG Gro,,�ith Forecast Policy, October 7, 1982, policy 15c, "In SCAG's revieri of development proposals, oppose industrial or comrnerc ial development ;,h is vjoul d r2su i t in a 1 2vel of employment ,jhi ch would exceed the SCAG-82 forecast..."). Because SCAG's policy is to adopt local agency policy regarding population and land use, the project land uses =could be expected to be integrated into future editions of the grcwth forecast, policy and .•roul d then beco.n?_ consistent .ri th it. To the extent that tile- proposed project represents employment that ;you l d oth2rrri se not locate in the SCAG region if the project were not undertaken, the projec` represents additional population impact for the region. In general , the proposed project is expected to be a substitute for employment that would o:`her�.�ri se be provld2!i else',/here in the region, and t is effect, is minimal 1Ni tigatlon 1 'tle popul ati on i ncremen is e x?2cted to be gene,^a t:2d by t;1i s leasures project wi 11 resul t in higher 1 evel S o traffic. and increase de!iands on municipal agencies. ileasures `v reduce such impacts include various ifi2as1j^es Co in r?a58 services to the area. These are discussed else,:rh2ra in t+ie OEIR. �o Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 292 of 354 EIR, Redevelopm ont Project Area 3 TABLE 13 POPULATION, H OUSIi,JG AND EI<1PLOYiJENT PROJECTIONS FOR CARSON HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT NIARKET AREA Projections in Thousands Regional Population Housing Employment Statistical Area 1980 2000 1980 2000 1980 2000 19. Palos Verdes 424 453 151 173 237 237 20. Long Beach 42.5 479 183 218 199 247 TOTAL PRIMARY 849 932 334 391 436 534 Jobs/100 people 51 57 18. South Bay 510 538 207 223 323 391 21. East Central 904 957 272 310 538 578 22. Norwalk/°:lhittier 613 648 208 238 262 307 35. Buena Park 155 171 52 61 56 73 33. West Coast 319 371 113 151 93 113 I 23. L.A. CBD 120 140 49 59 234 349 TOTAL SECONDARY 2,021 2,323 9O6 1,017 1,55'- 1,321 Jobs/100 people ,n SCAG Region 11,536 14,752 4,423 5,988 5,606 7,640 Jobs/100 people Tote: Portions of Carson gall in ti^:e ?alos Verdi--s aind Lnno, 32rci Regional Statistical Areas. y Source: Southern California Association of Cr ern: ents, SCAG-82 GrowLa Forecast Policy, Octnr' J02 57 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 293 of 354 . -IR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i E a S A A 9 E E E S ti 5 .7� 230��. .oL� S1,-zrI ze b i8 'r.�.:i" 22 36 17�_-" 'PJ3 _•-; 2 �2 1\ i Figure i? Regional Statistical Areas 58 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 294 of 354 Elk, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.12 'lousing Environmental The project is located in a developed urban region with Setting substantial housing stock. Housing in the housing/employ- meat market araa includes a variety of types of housing with a range of housing costs. In 1980, Carson had 23,259 housing units, compared to 20,378 units in 1970. Total housing projected for the housing/employment market area is summarized in Table 13. There are no housing units in the project area. Environmental The proposed project wi11 not have a direct iri!.;oact on impact housing. Ey providing jobs at the project site, the project !Jill increase housi rig iel0and in the projects housing/employment market area. At the reqional ratio of one job for every 0.79 horsing units, the project 'Trould be expected to create a demand for an additional 10,775 housing units in the region in the long term. ;lore than half of the employees working at the project site would be expected to live 'nithin the housing/employ-- meat market area indicated in Fig+_ire 12. 10,776 housing units repre- sents 31S of the housing uni';,s it the primary housing/employment market area (in tm,, ar 200; and 1' the mousing units in the primary and secondary housing/employment market arras for the project (in the year 2000). :ecause the project repr es2nils a s:;al '. percentag,, of the ho'.',si ng stock avai l abl e i n t'n, housing/e;nploymnnt area, the project is not e p2ctal to have a significant impact on housing availability or housing cost in the mar'r.et aria. Tj12 transfer of 'Housing ownership i"F'preSen e by t 11 e cmp ^ye° i ' _.s l.li� pi o;7„ -d project II I be a small pPrcentag of ::td1 trans .-'rs in the market over the next 5 to 10 years. Mitigation Under California redevelopment lavi, redevelopment pleasures agencies are required t0 set aside 20%, of all to i;I- crement revenue for use to benefit low- and moderate- income housing. For mousing units displaced aced by dlreCt Agency action, requires the agency .,0 Jay fair ;riarket value for the units, and to ;.,ay relUCation Costs an1A differential costs of finding an equivalent unit and, financing. Any low- and moderata-incoii;? housing uniis rerioved by 11'12- Agency must be replaced on a one-for-one basis . do Ordinance No'. 84-695/Page 295 of 354 I E-R, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.13 Tra^,s :ortatio,n/C irc7ll av o1 E7111iro:: 2ritaI The San Diego Freeway cuts throuch the project area in Setting east,/laest alignment. The two significant north/Saut'n arterial streets in t?iis area are Ala meda Street and `ii l llhi ngton Avonue. The most sl gni Fi cant east/'e,-S t Streets are Sepulveda Boulevard, 223rd Si;reet, and Carson Street. Each of these streets is classified as a major highway on the City of Carson's master Man of hiciivlays; a major highway is an arterial Street .,itn a 100-foot rig'rlt-of—;ray. Ir. the project viclnh ty, these streets are built to major hinh,,lay width (fo.;r to six lanes, divided) except in the fol l Cali ng s^gm—_n'ts: 1,1i 1 mi ng ton Avenue between Carson Streek, and Oel A,,no, and SePul `edla Boulevard bet`.leen blil;nington and the eastern City limit. There iS O ly Ong S7gihlf,,_I Street iCfiUrOVe!i12nt programmiled for the pl°oject area in the near future. The Eos Angeles County Road Department plans to .ii del? Alameda Street tG at least X50 feet (curb- to-curb) 1 t'.1?2l PaChfic Coast highway and the i;rLesia FreeSla . liie Si; t2 .l $0 p I dnS t0 `na'.:@ Al ameda JLr2e a Scat? rTi jay 111 l 2'_, 0! the proposed SF,-47 fi'Ceialay. Existing average daily traffic volumos in the City are shoigm in Figure ',_Se ^".iate� ,ere obtain:�d by factoring a one ,oprcont annual rai:c 1n+i-o Ue `!O11.':iics s'ioV1n on the City's 1"32 tral'Fh J 1'l0;i map. hiaineda S','r t presently carries bc•t;/2en 1(1,000 and 16,000 ;,hl c es per day, elhi l e 'sli l mi ng ten A�;en::e c;ar, ies bete,,e1 12,000 a: •3 32,000 vehicles per d.ay. Carson Street ; s c-> rd es >> 10,000 .`ehicles per d.+,y irl ;ils area_, ,.nil = 2 3rd t + = ` :':� handles about 14,000. To estaYlish a bast case for analyzing Crag is Conditions in the project area, tr a.ffic vn i ulne esti!:iates for Cal State Doi11ing'_iez 'ii l Is' future gro',i'G-I ajid 1-he 1?'' -ac r2 Si to (SOUtil of i-405 be-l-men "lain S ,'eet and A`Jalo1h) /;2.-e_ prepared. Appropriate trip ge^e'ratlon rates '.;ere applhed to proposed dev-e': optnents i n th'$_ areas; tie tr17S 'were titian dlstriDU�;,ed aihd assig-ried to tthe st?^let i1.�t'.i'�r�C. Figure 14 shows the unconstrained average daily traffic increase from the project condition. EX,ist;i's7 traF'Fic vo1unleS `,1er'e C01T)Ined ''ri h L`fl,_ ;rafFi V 1 umes associ ated Sri th the colnmi tted tra I Ii c pr ijec'tio ds to obtain the exi sting pi uS cox.mi tted (Ll incorgs tr i ni-d) traffic vol umies sno'lvn -in Figure 16. This s h s Lhe base Co which project-associated traffic `ei-ill oe added. '0 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 296 of 354 i EIR, Redevelopment. Project Area 3 TABLE 14 ASSUMED ARTERIAL CAPACITY VALUES Level oi, S2rvic2 "D„ Daily Tiro-4[ay Facility Capacity 6-1ane divided arterial 55,000 4-lane divided arterial 33,000 4-lane undivided arterial 22,000 2-'Ian2 divided art2rial 15,000 10-lane fr2-,:aay 175,000 2-lane ree;ay '_45 9 0 C0 6-lane freeway 115,000 61 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 297 of 354 . FIR, Redevelopr2nt Project Area 3 I i Assumed average daily traffic capacity values for arterial streets at Level of Service "D" are documented in Table 14. Alameda Street, Carson Street and 223rd Street are four- 1 ane divided art2ri al s in t'ne pr'oj ect area. tai l in i ngton Avenue is a four-lane divided arterial south of Carson, and a four-lane undivided arterial north of Carson. Sepulveda Boulevard is a two-lane divided street east of 14ilmington. Comparisons of the capacity values ��.ith the existing plus COiiim4tted traFfic volumes wit in t'le pr0;ect area reveals three potential problem locations: I!ilmington Avenue betsieen the San Diego Freeway and 223rd Street, and north of Carson Street is projected to approach its ass;Kied capacity, and Sepul vada Boulevard is projected to slightly eXCeed its assu,ied capacity Past of Alilmingt0n. Div iron'me:,tal i•12tnodolonV. Tile traffic analysis for the project area l =pact began ';tits the collection o F existing traffic data, and information about co imi teed de, 1 op ,ent and s',.'r-'_t improverient projects 'Chill t e City o` Carson. Tr ai'fic g°nerati0n far t?le n0-pr0 c ails or^ aac a-1 ternatives ,ias calculated 'based on land use data. Pct' 2, .ter c ',,'as d s ! u _d Proj r_la _ d �. a �fi i, :ri�_�_� co S `.s"t2m. in and adiaCent t0 the City' S -''le J c! ar Ol, ail',. � _ resulting trafiiC alignment was added to tile e: ist-ifig i- 1us c0 ?;iii teed tra f i c v01 iJ;les t0 ob to i n 1-,cita i t r a I C v o I p}"ojec ti0ns For "the o-project and i f ,rt COildi OnS. The final dSSin 211tS 'rleYe utili =2d t0 dnalyZ2 tin; did 1,"lt2r- SeC,ion defi-i2nCies in ttie project area; t 2 d2`'iCie1Ci2S analysis led to to reCOf,:Tendati0n of m"itig",ticn !,l'asures for Fl 7 t2f"flat '.- 2 end illternai'✓e 3, 62 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 298 of 354 EiR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TA3LE 15 LEVEL OR SERVICE BESCRIPTION Level of Service Traffic FIo;f Quality A Lo.'r volumes, hlgih speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; bet,,,aeen one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles ;ih i ch 'wait t'rrough more than one signal cycle during peal: traffic pericds. C Operating speeds and ma. eJvera!)i11t`f closely controlled !D�/ other traffic; between 11 and 30 percent or t'le signal cycles have One or more vehicles 'r;hiCh l7ait tiT^ough -mmre than ono signal cycle during pea!: traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. D Tolerable operating speeds; 3' to 70 percent or '-he signal cycles have One or more vetllt,les th-1ch ':'twit t'1r0Ugil luore than One S anal c'r"1e during pea:, traffic periods; n ten used as design standard ill urban areas. r t CapdClty c GIaYIT'aill t?'ai'ii C VOitllie ail ilYterS22 On can a c c on-ii n c d a te; rOStrictad 57eeds; 71 to 100 per..nt Oi ;2 Signa I cy,^ j 2s iia''J° O('O Or m0i'e Ve ill{,1 e' - , more than one signal cycle during oe ;: tr rfic p?':'?o•'a > F Long queues o7 t a 1 C; l v:,. b , a i t O:>; s i-:jp µg'—J O, i •viiJ duration; trarf-ic v0I .:i;a and spud Can drop to Ze.'o;17 trafrlC `loIu"e !;tit l be Less t`lan %',"le volume .. 11c`if OCCUr at level or service E. Source: Hi-0 h I'll ay Capacity IanuaI rig:r:!ay Research Board S,ecia1 ,?s rt 37, Na'ti 0 ma: Academy Of sciences, '.lasilington, B.C. , i O�s ;J, J21. 03 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 299 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Ar,a 3 TABLE 15 TRIP GENERATIGi'l Trips Existing Alan 1 Altn 3 Land Use Units Per Unit Units Units Units Retail/Service 1,000 sq. ft. 40.0 65 65 131 Business Park 1,000 sq. ft. 10.8 392 1,176 1,594 Heavy Industry e;;ipioyees 3.6 2, 149 3.959 7,321 Low Intensity Coml acres 50.0 01 30 0 i Petroleum Processing employees 2.0 255 300 255 Open Space acres 7.0 22 22 0 Existing AI to 2 A Ito 3 Land Use Trips Trios Trips Retail/Service 2,614 2,611 5,227 Bus?neSS Parr 4,234 12,702 17,21'D Heavy Industry 7,736 14,284 23,150 Low Intennsity Corm 3,050 1,500 0 Petroleum Processing 510 500 510 Open Space 154 154 v TOTAL 18,293 31,853 51 , 111 64 Ordinance No. 84-695/1'age 300 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 1/ ASSUMED DIRECTIONAL TRIP DISTRIBUTION 19.9% To the north and west via the Harbor and San Diego Freeways and Artesia Boulevard. 21.3% To the north and east via the Long Beach and Artesia Freeways. 19.3% To the south and east via the San Diego and Long Beach Freeways and Pacific Coast Highway. 6.8% To the south and west via the Harbor Freeway and Pacific Coast Highway. 5.5% To arterial streets to the north. 12.9% To arterial streets to the west. 5.4% To arterial streets to the south. 5.2% To arterial streets to the east . 3.7% Internal to the City of Carson. 65 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 301 of 354 Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT OF CARSON m � _ N 3 O O J O O ca t0 tD Q Z N m Q c 0 1U �j 0 8 8 rtesia reeway O p0 0 L) N N victoria St. 15 6 100 c ° 6,500 3,500 rai 00 3 p V 0 00 o M 0 0 N O ^ N University Drive ', I O 192nd St. v I n O O � O r9 N C N O N f+1 Del Arno Blvd. 15,300 17,300 20.400 O O Ta r N M o0. r T i to god N ! ay 7 ^ J r-- p ro r o i N O t0 C� O O N Carson St. 25 ginn 22-500 12,200 8 200 6.100 26,500 o a p M p � ° C O cli t N 2 191 ann i 223rd St. _ 19,400 18,400 16,300 14,300 n Wardlow Rd. l � i Qp0 p C7 T c op o 3 0<0 O r N En� r j ztN 14-300 Sepulveda Blvd. 23 500 18 400 � 22,400 a oo M ^• 3m 3m M m i N rjo c p 47 U i vi Lomita Blvd. Y OF CARSON__ \� 16,300 a 12,200 CITY OF LOS ANGE L ESO m 20 400 n Q 4yo Q i� EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON CA parw= Figure 14. atmdmteftl 66 EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 302 of 354 Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1<W0j IT OF CARSON — Committed Traffic Demand (includes projected increases from i Cal State Dominguez-Hills& o ° 180-acre site near 1-405/Avalon/ M m 11 rV- a Del Amo) n 16 500 U 16 00 16 500 16,500 rtesia Freeway O ' O O O H U N O ° O � Victoria St. ' M 1,500 0 I 1,300 3,800 0 N N O LO M M University Drive 1 5,500 t \ � 192nd St. 500 LO CV ° o m U) I M lL) _ Del Arno Blvd. 4,100 5.500 P 3 800 .40 sa r � I Lo 9oT r� fA r J r TM o o r Carson St. 200 300 300 3,800 0 3,500 0 3,800 C 10-000 1 223rd St. 1,200 800 1,200 1,200 n Wardlow Rd. 1,200 1,100 t a �l r o p <10 °o i o az rn O t CO -n Z cok OI � O C� ➢r +� I 71t r yjJF O' rn Z\N Sepulveda Blvd. 3 r 2,800 1,800 1,400 1,400 T i ---- �0 ° o° o LL o O O c c ° 200 CARSON o Y OF _ M \ m 1,000 Lamit'@Avd. ` _--- -- 'o CITY OF LOS ANGELES`� v� j > $ o N no c o +`,�3 �\ iE F 2 iL Q QaS'o �O f y e EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON, CA ft=D= Figure 15. 67 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INCREASE OVER EXISTING Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 303 of 354 Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITN OF CARSON i m w io m ° O J ;f, O C°p O ° > (W9 G �` N Q Q e- C `n U 0 119500 � 102j200 102 200 119,500 Artesia Preewa y O p ° co o ° U ;ton N Victoria St. s o \ ° 28,800 27,300 19,100 7,600 o &00 o c CD ° M cp O o O CV) p L0 N .or M University Drive t# 192nd St. f t` \pp11�7,900 0 0 'iU t C14 M Del ` Arno \ 61vd. 19,400 22 800 24,200 ! 8,601 21,300sa roe, / N O 90T \ M to M e� /8,500 ai Co Carson St. N 12 400 3; 6.400 27,300 26,000 26,300 �= ; CO CD 1201.800 M C 1 M '��M f. _?30 .4.300 223rd St. 20,600 19,200 17,500 16,500 a wardlow Rd. t ^0 32,700 O n (7 T ��1 - p N 1 C P� ;� Ut D C-A Z M DtL) rn 19,800 15,700 iii ' Sepulveda Blvd. ?r ' 25,200 25,300 1 3 / i t LL N+ Nl in Lomita Bivd. Y OF CARSON__ O / 2 400 CITY OF LOS ANGELESG4`�rz` 21400 . 17,000 io E I R FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3 CARSON, CA Figure 16. 68 EXISTING + COMMITTED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 304 of 354 E1R, Redevelopment Project Area 3 The anticipated development levels in the proposed project area and the associated traffic generation, are listed in Table 16. The table shows the existing level of develop- ment, the development anticipated under the no-project condition (Alternative 2), and the development level anticipated under the project condition (Alternative 3) . Traffic generation rates for each land use were obtained from Institue of Transportation Engineers trip generation data and City of San Diego Traffic Generators data. Total traffic generation estimated for the project area ranges from approximately 18,000 in the existing condition, to 32,000 in the no-project condition, to 51,000 in the project condition. The assignment of project-related traffic was performed using the net traffic increase estimated for the project area. Commuter Computer supplied Parson Brinckerhoff with a residential distribution of people in its data base who work in the Carson area. The directional distribution applied to project area traffic is based on the Commuter Computer Data, and is shown in Table 17. The net unconstrained traffic increase in the project was assigned to the street and highway network using this directional distribution. The unconstrained traffic volume increase which could be anticipated under the no-project condition is shown in Figure 19. The net unconstrained traffic increase anticipated for the with-project conditon is shown in Figure 20. Analysis. The analysis of traffic conditions involves both average daily link volumes on arterial streets, and estimated peak hour intersections analysis for key intersections in the project vicinity. The intersection capacity calculations are based on existing traffic counts, which have been increased to reflect the approximate level of peak hour increases which would be associated with the estimated average daily traffic increase. Table 18 lists the intersection levels of service associated with existing conditions, existing plus committed (base) conditions, Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. It has been assumed for this analysis that an intersection Level of Service "D" is an acceptable future condition. In the no-project condition, no intersections would exceed Level of Service "D". In the future condition with the project, the intersections of Wilmington Avenue and the San Diego Freeway ramp and 223rd Street would exceed Level of Service "D" in the afternoon peak hour. 69 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 305 of 354 Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES C&Y OF CARSON m w ; /( U; `------�--m J O > O Q 0 O° m 0 O 00 O1 Z r � � Q c 0 400 400 rtesia Freevvay O F C G -- U Victoria St. r °o p 100 0 0 00 0 o 0 ° University Drive 192nd St. O O O LLV) M r r- Del Arno Btvd• 200 7 / 200 200 Oo 0 CD o i 1 i o N J I Carson St. ` 2,800 300 1 500 500 600 ° ! r 9100 A 223rd St, 400 500 900 2,200 9 Wardlow Rd.200 1,300 14 ro O 0 ^O <r O 01 m T Z 'MI 40 m I r 0 Z�y Sepulveda Blvd. 7 'Ann \ 3 , 700 700 LL ° ° r Lomita Blvd. Y OF CAF�SON —,�. U r H ANGELES S ` m 100 200 m 300 CITY OF LOS �\ m o a O� Yr \ a -m g` . O EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CA Figure 17 70 ALTERNATIVE 2— AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INCREASE OVER EXISTING Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 306 of 354 Alondra Blvd �� COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT OF CARSON m ' lu 3 -- -� d W O M N O Q N t7 N C9 M 2 « Q g 900 900 U Artesia reeway O p F}- O 001 i p U O O N Victoria St. T� N 0 200 0 M 0 p O N 01 N O O � N University Drive 0 192nd St. 0 N r O O N N Del Amo B1�' 500 600 r 1,600 ! 500 p 500 sm o 0 Iy °o N• J p , O N N W Carson St. 1,500 6,700 800 1,100 1,200 1,500 ` 00 O O � • ° to 7 500 C� 1 223rd St. O 1,000 1,100 2,100 5,200 0 Wardlow Rd. 500 �o0 31100 0 11 ar � O 40 Co Z f1 4 D' - i .FCC Nt m yr Z,•N Sepulveda Blvd. 1,600 80 > 600 1,600 fy 1' BIB_ OF CARSON _z��9 �► V , (n ANGELES ` 'v ` 6 • i 800 CITY OF LOS o 400 m uric m FFe c d REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3 CARSON , CA r% • Figure 18. 71 ALTERNATIVE 3— AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC INCREASE OVER EXISTING Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 307 of 354 Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT OF CARSON 1 VA W 8 N L---__ ; f\ 3 Q JWU' �ca n 2 Q m O 105,900 123,200 � 1 , rtesla freeway O pp p 0o U Victoria St. La co 29,000 0 7,900 M p O O Z O O N 61 p N N r N University Drive 192nd St. 0 22,300 0 N p a V7 pd NAmo Blvd• 23 900 25 800 22,300 0 0 I m M ^ M r s o J o o_ N Carson rson St. N d 13,700 11,800 6,800 27,000 27,700 0 0 a a 208,000 bro 223rd St. 21,100 20,000 18,600 18,900 0 Wallow Rd. 00 34•000 n 0 La {�N N N M P TI D r N M pC (YI Z y�to r Z'�Q1 vede BW 26,400 20,800 16,300 N �� I 26,000 �s r o 0 0 p N it W, G 17,200 m e a a 21,500 Lomita Blvd. OF CARSON_ tj i 2,700 CITY OF LOS ANGELES p Ca a$ N C , F %01 1 FIR- FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMB—ER 3 CARSON:-CA- i EXISTING +COMMITTED+ALT, 2 72 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (includes Redevelopment Areas 1 &3 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 308 of 354 A COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT OF m w w ` 00 a Z O 0 -114.50 O O Artesia Freeway ', > p V C1 P N M Victoria St. ° 8 300 M 28,000 M O £ O O O O ° Cf O M N p M M N ,a r N M University Drive r n 192nd St. x \30,400 °o ° o `o o p 2 N z , 'Del M A Blvd. 22,900 26.100 28 500 2,9 25,1001,E Cl) P90 N M PP M C C1 n Carson St. a 14600 15,700 ? 7.300 0 29,300 27,800 28,700 0 ° ; °a M 217,300 ZF 223rd St. -- 21,700 21,100 20,400 22,500 0 Wardlow Rd. � < � 00 35,800 10 l C O C zry <,O N T Z I r N M z n' Ch ➢ rn O1 m I � Z',y at Sepulveda Blvd. 22,300 17400 s ' 26,900 27,900 l N p : C r N N m 2 / y Lomita Blvd. Y OF CARSON_ Q0 0 . 17,600 a 13.200 CITY OF LOS ANGELES ,�`'� � N 21,80 E5 O N Car m ` ]7 I LL 2 Q 4y7? M ��O/ Q EIR FOR REDEV ELOPM'ENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON , CA { ft� Figure 20. 73 EXISTING +COMMITTED + ALT. 3 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (includes Redevelopment Areas 1 &3) Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 309 of 354 Elk, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TABLE 18 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE i Alternative 1 i Estimated 1984 Estimated Base V/C LOS V/C LOS Alameda & Carson .43 A .43 A Alameda & Sepulveda .6 B .69 B Wilmington & Carson .68 B .68 3 Wilmington & 223rd .77 C .77 C Wilmington & 4U5 Ramps .87 D .87 D ----Alternative 2---- ----Alternative 3--- Basic Mitigated Basic Mitigated V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Alameda & Carson .64 B - - .80 D - - Alameda & Sepulveda .77 C - - .77 C - - Wilmington & Carson .72 C - - .73 C - - Wilmington & 223rd .79 C - - .83 0 - - Wilmington & 405 Ramps .87 D - - .95 E .79 C 1Note: All future data (V/C & LOS) are the combined values for both Redevelopment Project Area 3 and the Amendment to Redevelop- ment Project Area 1. Assumption: Level of Service "D" acceptable future condition. 74 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 310 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 The total estimated unconstrained average daily traffic under the no-project condition is shown in Figure 17. (The estimate includes traffic increases generated in Amendment to Redevelopment Project Area 1 under the no- project condition). ;lill:Tington Avenue is projected to exceed its assumed capacity betwen the San Diego Freeway and 223rd Street and north of Carson Street. Sepulveda is projected to exceed its assumed capacity east of Ni lini ngton Avenue. Volumes on the San Diego Fre_­:ray substantially exceed the assumed capacity of an eight-lane freeway (even in the existing condition) . Estimated unconstrained a•rer: ge daily traffic voliiales in the project condition are shown in Figure 20. (The estimate includes traiffi C i ilCrease s generated in the Amend-,,en`­ t0 Redevelopment Project Area 1 under the project, Condition.) In this condition, 'ulilmington Avenue is projected to exceed its assumed capacity bets,4een the San Diego Free':v'ay and 223rd Street and north of Carson Street. Sepulveda Boulevard is projected to exceed its asssl!!1ed caoaci ty east of Wi l mi ng ton iA venue. ';of u;aes on t;;e Sai. Diego F,^ee;lay Substantially exceed the assU;lied capacity of an eig;it-lane freeway (even in the existing condition) . Mitigation To iTlitigate the identified delicienciP_S .,14 11 the project ® leasures area, improve traffic v'oIu;-nes on the aready-Congested S-n Diego, Long Beach and Artesia F r ee'ways, a nllhiber of tr.n 1C improvements and transportation syste'n i-anageTlent rreas!.lres I. are recommended for tills prof eCt. T i12 r'L'c i:i-nded imp•rov em,ents For both ,-'al ternati ve 2 a.rid r;i t: -iIa ti ve 3 are l i Si,ed r ! rs"t, "fo l 1 owed by a l t s zu 1 ng a 1-110 se improvements ':•ifj4Ch al'e reCCmilended only for f`t1 rn e 3, 1. tliden 1'iilir:i; -ton and Sep uI v;_da I a ,la si:2^ P1 ;n st adards ',where t+ley are not fully improved. 2. Upgrade at stre,2 liitersections as need-2,1 3. Regl.lire specific, detail _d anal s"is ol° traffi ,ac J c ;mr is and mltlgatio'1 illeaSUreS ,,hanever a i,la,Jor n ;J de'1?11 is proposed. 4. Limit -the nu!Tfber of ingress gild egress points developments ar;li ch ',1i l l attract large amo!.ints o 5. Locate na',a signals at intersections as traffic signal warrants are met and signalization is justified. 6. Require major nevi employers to set up traffic mitigation programs. Elements of suc}1 progra;lis miglt include flexible working hours, staggered silifts, financial incentives for ride-snaring or transit use; prerar=nti, l 75 Ordinance No. 84 695/Page 311 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 parting for carpoolers, and informational programs for carpool matching and public transportation. r 7. Install '-eeYdav access Guide signs t0 redirect traffic from southbound I-405 ramps at !filming cn Avenue to south- bound I-405 ramps at :'lardlo,i Road, utilizing 223rd Street. Under the project condition, tine follo�,iing improvements are recommended: 1. Widen and restripe the off-r, l;,p of the northbound San Diego Freeway at l,il!Tington Avenue. Resat signal timing at that intersection 't0 acc011Todate morning and afternood pea'. flour loads. 2. Rest'ri pe I.Ji l mi ng ton Avenue for one add " i 0nal t:—rough lane in each direction bat';ieen t.ne San Diego =ree'aay northbound ramps and 223rd Street. Adjust signal timing at !i l ini ngton/223rd Street and coordinate ';a1 t}1 signals at the freeway ramps. ;.'king. Almost, all 0( tie parking n20 dl'' '.iitlt ,l le project area are currently accolr,Iliodat-ad by off-street parking. On-site Observations and discussions 'wito the City's traffic enginear revealed no eCi3tina prob1ei0 locations TM.ii thin tile -rOposed project area. AS traffic demands lcrease, ^n-street par..ir;- '.'ii '. l j create Core con fl i Cts '•ii"! it throng:; tr31 7 C. 1`,ere Or? i t -s is recommended tirlat all `Ui:Ur? , d C°.veio'-.);re< ),^-S1 `:? parking i n accordance t12 ty P . i!i 0d2, T'le City shou'1d phase OUt 0n-str°et pdr:; i'g On iiea'iiJ'y- raveled arterials. It is also i,;portant _ .at true:, t anei' 'eriny areas be pro` ided on-site. 12r2i07"P CIS ;le•;! prosecil3 are pro, posed >rhl i ch 4i 1 1 require trplc: ;naneuver i ng, it is that the City enforce tide loading, tru_,. maneuve:-ill,, and I Gri o;ljay r--0U i-Mnts of the Par'"i ilcl Cc,' i�9_Rbl aC Transportation. EXisting bas routes Ou•c ",;- 1� Southern Cal i f Ornl a Rap i d T ransi t Di st`ri Ct, "t;';2 NTyo'Irance rl:-imclpal Bus Line, and the �`IUnicip? I 51!S !_; lie, ?ra shown in Figure 21. Continuous north/s00ti scrvic2 is provided along both Alaomeda Strut and Avalon 71oulevard, and several routes serve Cal State Dominguez Hills. It is noteworthy that they-e are no continuous east/ ? st routes Li1r0! gil $1e Cl t,y of Carson dt the proscnt Llin2. The proposed Los Angeles-Long Beach rail line, currently under study by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, is sho•r?n in Figure 21 cutting "giro+_Igh tl'le 76 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 312 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 northeastern corner of the City of Carson. Proposed stations along this line would be located at Compton Boulevard, Artesia Boulevard, Del Amo Boulevard, and Wardlow Road, which becomes 223rd Street in the City of Carson. Since major expansion of the employment base is proposed in j both the proposed project area and in the proposed Amend- ment to Redevelopment Project Area 1, it is recommended that the City of Carson pursue the possibility of new bus routes with the Southern California Rapid Transit District as these areas develop. Three conceptual routes, which could provide through service in the City of Carson, are recommended and are shown in Figure 21. The proposed routes along Main Street and Del Amo Boulevard would primarily serve the Redevelopment Project Area 3, the Redevelopment Project Area 1, and the Carson Mall . An east/west route, possibly using Wardlow Road and and downtown Carson with the Wardlow station on the Los Angeles-to-Long Beach rail line. s 77 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 313 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Bicycle Facilities. Currently, there are no bicycle paths or lanes within the project area. Th.a City is in the process of implementing a four-phase bicycle improvement program. Existing bike lanes, and those which are included in the four-phase program, are shown on Figure 22. Figure 22 also includes all of the proposed bicycle facilities that are in the Bikeways and Open Space Element of the City 's Master y as er Proposed bicycle facilities within the project area include a Class I bike path along the Southern Pacific Railway right-of-way and a Class II bikeway along Carson Street. The City's planned improvements should provide adequate bicycle circulation opportunities for the proposed project area. No additional bicycle facilities are recommended. 78 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 314 of 354 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT O RSON .'M'.1 L.A.-LONG BEACH RAIL LINE (PROPOSED) w .•.••••RTD 55 .� o -----�--> Iii RTD 446 w m 0 RTD 127 Z O Q c t1111111111111111IRTD 130 O U RTD 53 J 1111MENTORRANCE 3 O C rtesia reeway GARDENA 3 > - i 0 0 PROPOSED (CONCEPTUAL) U C MEN 0 University Drive \ 192nd St. r. r - De Arno Blvd, 000 00 00000 00 000000000000000000000 000000000 000000 0 I o \ s 9Q I I F �I O r9Q9l. 000000000 000 000 Is 11 2111111211111111121. ... .� - .a..............■ Z 0 r 0 O 0 1 0 : b 0 223rd St. C , owatubQed)000000 r �% 0 1 r <r o r : ��' i• o l m P ¢ T Z r c°j ie y73 i m r • `F O n 7-r cn Sepulveda Blvd.: � 1 : � t LL ur _Omita Blvd- Y OF CARSON__ `= t _ ` - - CITY OF LOS ANGELES !, `` a o r ,yam . EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON, CA $` IIl1II�1QD1�1t Figure 21. 79 TRANSIT SERVICE . Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 316 of 354 Alondra Blvd T.. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CIT OF CARSON ; 3 w m OOOuoo_ oo00000000 t7 0 z 0 a 0 0 0° 6 O Artesia reeway O 0 H 00 v Victoria St. ..•.•• •• •.•••.••.•••.••O •••••••.•.••••• .'O• O • O • University Drive O 192nd St. 0000000000000000 00 Del Arno g\ d. O �O 0 r r P9o� 0 0 r ^PP 0 0 % r �`1 O ° -J 0 Cf � r- ° 0000000000 00 000000000000 pr-1 1 0, Carson St. O 00 000000; 0 CY . O O 223rd St. ° 0 0 Wardlow Rd. I 0 t -< 0 10 0 =I� � 0 0% i 0 .c°~oc 3'' �1� f O .F 0, rn 0 Z v O Sepulveda Blvd. O 000000 00 0000 000 1 i 3 � LL i 3�3�' c° r W%%%'L•EXISTING �mQm r ••••••.COMMITTED Lomita Blvd Y OF CARSON__ V r OOOOPROPOSED rn ANGELES „Z'c, - - 'o CITY OF m o m A-r o C a EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON, CA Figure 22. �ffiKDl� 80 BICYCLE FACILITIES Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 316+ of 354 ? Pedestrian Facilities. 1'iscussions i'ilth C1ty Staff reveal no Severe 1)edestrlan probl ?ms at the present tilde. The lac" of side,aalks along some streets in the project area creats the potential for conflicts between a.t.itos and pedestrians, though no serio:.is problems hav; ba_en encountered to date. The only recommended action in regard to pedestrian faciIitl2s is that the Cittj require nevi d=velo�inents to provide sid--calks adjacent to the str=et an_f nradual ly phase in a comprehensive network of side•,al :"s adjacent to arterial streets . Rail Facilities. The pl-oject is exp°ct2d 1;o ha'!• no impact on rail traffic in the project e:rea. However, t'rra rai i line$ passing t,firU'Iqi t,lt? project area are eX09C: 'd t0 experience Slgi11i1Cdilt irlCreases in traffic as d feSUlt Of construction of_ the lntermodal Container Transfer Facility ,Just east Of the prof-Ct area, LOS PIrgeles and Long Beach Harbor expansion, and CtinSOlidation of freiglt i,rafilC a l ong L h l ar;1+?dd "-i t rai I I l rl?S. i h,2S:= l i n'S, Cif no%1 }land i e fe'P!e t lan �'`l _ 100 r � ' trains p��r �.�ay, r_vuld handle 30 to trams per day as a result OP ti. 2 e dC .lo s. Ibis voIUme of rai I traffic wc,uId fL?i`!'_ 3 SiynliiCallt dd'dei"Se liTpaC on S3 et / and LralJ - flow at at-lira:? !i 2rsP 'ions In tlii? proje- t `:r°_�? . and lira.,e SY)ar�ttl^1 Oi ° ,gall Fine_ you 1 d c> regui r'i2d• 31 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 317 of 354 EIR, Redl=_velopmen1, ProjeCt Area 3 11 '_blic : r'rices I Fire ProteCtion Dmviron: ental Fire protection for the City of Carson is prov-1ded udder Setting Contract ':I1 t,l the Lo:; Angeles County Fire Departi en'i:. There are six stations that serve ure City, t'.,o OF r✓ 1iCil are located outside of the City lirai'ts. Th se stations are: Station 7 Address 10 1860 E. Del Boulevard, Carson 35 127 '4, 223 S ,reet, Carson 137 U,I. Redondo Beach 8Oi-lle',�ar'd, Gardena 105 18915 S, Santa Fe Avenu COIn; t0i 110 755 E. Victoria t n 1.J.'ia S:.rc��+,, .i!A1 SOiI 127 2049 E. 223 Stree�, C,a Scan Tii2 C1 tj 0f Car Son haS an ;' .icate r) 1 c o v.ad -r r.?1y proved' su1ficent T1r2 f10'd L`i,l le mai nta"iill ':q 10:fleStlC :Dater supply and ddC'Gi!a 2 , -serve. T,i? pro JecIt S1 s served by ✓eraj 8" 'aai.2r !!lains. Jl •'1Ce 1OSL pro J eC I acep. -Is zoned For a � 3V ! iii US I usa ,zj , x° vlatei, system 1 S Stronn, wi� 1000 -lr., 3 u., 2j P..1 , Fnviron-eni=;1 The pr 0joct ',,i 11 re^ui ,'e r .,iO> l re d' :,pact prov ire I '-e c s. , } 1 Q� p+'a: C' oI ! `�c Lui :'S All malio St,^uctur'ea 'aouid ": e 1}?t rf7di f prOteCtiOa SyS .alils i71CInoing r19: s:'nsors ails Sir; ^t;i "'" systems as approved !)v t'ne Los um Fi;'� D2Darti1 in t. The proposed I'"ojeCCJdOeS i'Q 1-Cl .;d2 n?'.!/ -ypeS of _ ,;rUCti_ireS C; US-_S ;h iiC,n iould C;?:3ir7a OI equ 1;}hen L, Lira i n 1 ng, "C- u s^d by �i"ne ( I re Dt? The pry p0S-- Oj Ct, Jg ''; ' i Gi' r i ::iel s u V-_ the City, I:iay resu I L in ad 12d ',na 1 )0 rat" _ a z:lu i p'are needs to serve Citywide demands. Such ,.=eds ;,w° evaluated annually based on experience of the it Departli?nt. r"d,di tlon.a1 Tl '? inspPci 10,'l S CF i,".A_ ',/ c..'! be re;u i red. y "it!?iation The '0110`Ning mitigation measures wil ! be inCi1.;L?d in t"a vasures proposed project. These ri h iga tion ' as uiI,, s a ,� e nac�ed to reduce potential fire o,'oteck�ion syscel impacts to an insignificant level . . Ai1 designs and plans for C0ilStrilCtlOn 011 i;il,n nrC,ie,"v wi11 be reviewed by the F ire Deg drti,eilt pi"i01" i.0 approval the City. 83 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 318 of 354 n., e Pr rc:.Uc�+'clJplte;l� , , o,Jc,:t Area 3 2. A11 structures to ba cons iructed sail l be provided with fire detaction and suppression systems as required by City codes. 3. Any proposed d=vaI oprlent.- 'wi 1 i be 'requi red "o ins al 1 water mains and llyd'rants p'ro'viding Vi re fIaw and access distances a.s re^ui red by t;ia ire DePartr.lent. 4. An., proposed deve i cpi?bents i.,,i i 1 be raq!ui r ed to pi-o,di da adequate access for fl 'ra egri,),ien i; Vin_ dl1 ;true ores on the project, site as ,-2cui ad by t;iie Fira u'pa,,,•t- ent, a037re 'ro`�ecton Eaviron ?entaI Po11Ce prot.CCion for the City o Ca;"SOr is h 'a d"d by 5ett=ni the Los Angeles County Sierifi' D2pa-tr!ent located at 21350 South Avalon 5oulevard. his Station also serves a portion of unlncor por dzed LoS A!hg?l °S r^o!Jp / ?;' r tth? Cl;j of aLoutt t'.'?e S?iile SlZe i::5 Cc.i"::on The pr °:7 , C cCt ,'ou i d Ie '2� •,�.,' „0 1 ,n 1 ;pa-Ct 1nCraasas h ? pal i :? ca-I l S vv i:he pro t S1 h p0S51b12 Cil3inge5 f 1, 'he ty;)es Of Calls receiyPd. a'rhaL; Or not the project ',you i d r2r_; 1h ^2 aid} ,',i 'Dnal LO I iCe S%d {-_o e nds OCh tie Oi,? i Y' : i 217._1tS '. l ti, C1L 'Ni?' C}1 .t r2 e`/-3,i '.iI d regularly. ;itie 3tio41 8= Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 319 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Libraries Environmental The City of Carson's four libraries are part of the Los Setting Angeles County Library system. One of the libraries is a regional branch and the other three are local branches. Additional library services are available at California State University, Dominguez Hills, at 1000 East Victoria Street. The county system libraries are located at: Name Address LA Regional Facility 151 E. Carson St. Dominguez Library 2719 E. Carson St. Villa Carson Library 23317 S. Avalon Blvd. Victoria Park Library 17906 S. Avalon Blvd. Environmental Currently, all of the libraries are able to meet the Impact demands of the residents except for the Victoria Park Library. Potential growth in the Dominguex area would strain the small Dominguez Library. The project is not expected to generate significant increases in library usage since residential land uses are not included in the project. a Mitigation Measures None. 85 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 320 of 354 Alonara Blvd �OUNTY _ '10 CARSON x — L FIRE STATION j ■ SCHOOL 7_ y t PARK l— ---�+ q` ❑ LIBRARY I wk __ C 6 3 m 3 _ - � •i�rtesia Eraer+s/ -_ - :1,❑ Vllt(34 5:. 4 ANIMAL ■ ;_' CAL STATE UNIVERSITY .'CONTROL AT DOMINGUEZ HILLS 4\ SHELTER , university Drive 0 1 _ ° 192 st 1 ■ VICTORIA; ■ ® - - COURSE .L as gel SHERIFF'S " � ■ - ■' DEPARTMENT`` \ - ' CITY r Carson Si - ❑ ■ HALL © `.,`3\ ❑ S'k-CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 223rd St.L\ _ ' I � 7 i 1 ❑1 �l a , a Y 'pL:VeGa i BiVd. a omita Blvd _" - „JY C CARSON _ !-,'}- CiJ AN `. CITY A s k,. '_ o-? - -2 -D F / "G •'.� _ Ill T -_ - -. s . .. �.3J (',•.a"` vzmmxmar a�.s.,._..w..mwa 86 Figure 23 `' < ` PUBLIC FACILITIES Ordinance k. 84-695/Page 321 of 354 S S GGvd,Aa2Pm]wt Area 3 awls Emimge t a; The Los Angeles Unified School District a4 9, cmpto iq udde4yhmlmwm 2oviG el mGGO, joior and d Q school wr,wa. T e r eaG « w y,.3 Pdvlw whorl : in the City. All OF d, public yon ol = have current enrollments +Ion are less than theEayiR of d, school S. OF the eighteen G ads school : in the City, G f teen of these are atIGw GnRer9nt Lin oGmyi9, d th by f or th a„blid S ] ea a an ao Per-cent of . em«IR, cdiooia S t lm :d,soid, D ina--z IIi s,zlead! :: mm ystVR xlStrea'Caroa ThC— mcaw; had an enrol im out of (,)32-2- « a% 2, y ou of m OF ]y% G QtPeGGt ,ra:t aollmytc a wi Q, G Q ,£ 'arson. , Gives v G is mnaster place Q Scrim0- QG 2600: student-S. A 2, :qever, enrol t«m: have note edl 1600E Emim q- ;a yaiw wood«« a Ga in 1- i,,j tzm! m: no ct :o!G rill :, motG;w! l: yw: ;1 9, \mJmt :yon m of Lis L. pr ect mould m% :Z«:t oj gmllmw2 ewer wgGvdy ,rmw6l9yE:nn i9- cant impacts an3eyyd ymm 'are a26J:w« } ;mss hoe. 87 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 322 of 354 L iR. ReiieV-' lojallent Project Area 3 3.15 Fi sca i l;::G act En`Jironmanta A nu;"ber of agencies currently receive tax rOVanue from the c� Setting project area. Los Angeles Col_!nty rec.e ives substantial property tax 1nCom= a-s th" a gcnC y .Ji th file highest, property tax rate In the project area. Other property taxing agencies have much 1ciier property tax rateC. The City of ' arson does not iripose a property tax. The City receives revenues in the area from sales tar, (25.6/ of general Fund revenue in 1982-83), franchise taxes on util ir_ies, business licenses, motor vehicle in lieu fees, transient occupancy (hotel /inutel ) tax and a variety of other sources. live Larson ")edevelOp!1-- nt Agency reCelv`s r?VeaUe Ur1f1C1 - pally trom tax increment incom<' from redevelopment projects. Under state law, the agency may coil2-ct a portion of the property tax resulting fro!-.i increases in value of property in redevelopment project areas "following !!, jeCt adoJtion, Til- Agency revel Ves no% Only that -eve- nu? that kJ0UI d 0 2r',"I se go t0 ths: i l y Of "arson (!^!hl C'^ does r1O iu.JOSe a Dr0[)rtV ti; ) htit t';L= ? 1' % 1 ,0uld recei ✓ _ be 2d by Los f1n_°1 es C ol.inty and aI otnIer taxing ag2nCies . The adoption of the redeve, ,,Dm,,2nt projec'.. amendrle-It iri�y have tisca l i;n;.)acts o;. a n.!;n''; er of ,':enf ring 2 `eri o i n 4a n l the Carson i;ede ✓2 ( Dr, aenl 'agency n 1 ✓'s dX 1 nC.^e+P-r?n' COWe I ^;inn the project, the pi c ` -rt-v 1, .;X 1 ncome o` aLher ac,er,C1(_'s ill v be rediIC°d re I ati V° t0 tf'°I i' 111C011Ie i F t 2 Or oji'_CL are.a bJ °r' to d 2 v 0 1 op tilide!' Ill arir:�'`: forces. Ho ver, the extent that d_ '✓el ".;men% in the project area occurs at a !igher rat, tnan '.veula occur wi L'f10ut Agency action, G'i12S_' a C 2S ✓;oi_i l d not have re• eivcd this 1nC0:n2 iii Ci:i'+' =:se, i.i h n�.njp C = Cof(liJlete and the fi cn no Ionm,r neods t.<x � inc=ie to pay tax 1 (1Cr'PIl!."lt r v,'ntl-' fiords us?d to f 1 !ianCe Project costs, inc0! ,e is ."flen rcCel `de0 i)y _!lcs-2 a% ='1-i at the hi firer rate. Some ag!3nC1es may 2x 2rlence it j"ier ser`i— co--,—,t Lo ,�(> project area as a result of tf;<, red eveIop!;12nt project. Others rray experience 1ovi2r costs as a resui of i'llprove!llent of cordl .,ionS i1 til'-_' projeCi; a.'-:,', OUgll Redevelopment Agency actions. Environmental The analysis that follows is intended to provide order-of- Immact magnitude esi:i!ld es of cos,, and r2vanue lr➢;?acts o'i the adoption of the amei`ldmenr. to Rede`✓°lopmienL Project ii mbe!^ y On tn Cltj% of (.arson, th_' Carson ede`✓el plilent AC1OnC /, and 0-ther taXln9 agencies In the proJ,ecL area,. This impact analysis 1S based on a n: !11D2r Of aSS'.i;l:,_'t10nS ahiJUt the rate Of i1e`+el OU!ii2nt iii the pro ieC:= C)J Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 323 of 354 Ell', Redevelopment, Projecl, Area 3 Without the redevelopment project, the value of that deve- lopment, the rat'- of increase in property values for existing and new structures in the project area, the allocation of principal City costs and revenues Lo various land uses in the City, and outer factors. Changes to any of these assumptions may result in difP_rent conclusions about the impacts of the project on a given agency. Carson Redevelopment Agency. The project 1-1ill impose a number of costs on the Carson Redevelopment Agency. Costs include Agency administration and project-relat:�d costs for public improvements, property acquisition, relocation, site preparation and other project-reiace,i costs . The ,Agency receives revenuo from tax increment Iinancinc.. The tax increment r2 venue received by tiie agency depends on a number of factors includ4! nu: 0 Speed of development. The faster me 21 oprien't i;ekes place Lh2 Sooner an increment it taxable Va1 '!' 1n the prOjcc6 ar2d, and Lh r ror e to iiCr 9; hilt reV2nt.i°_ 1li l 1 be received Ir✓ the ,Agency. For the purpose of this analysis, development Was assumed to ca'2 place at a uniform rate over a period of 2U years t0 full buildout of tine project. o Property value inflation. IT property values increase rapidly, property e changr�s 'ai 1 i res!.i I t ul ^071';h 0` the tax base 'r/ithout rety 1f11jr0`R';ie'1tS. For tii purpose of this analysis, Prop `/ -ert �1 x.25 ,:'r2 „SSuIi12d ;,o increase at 4,/ per �`2ar. �A 1 ion rat:_ :v0uId reduce the amount a Vdi l abl e Co tne_ AclIncy i or puu i i C Works construction aril land conversion. o 'ate of property transfers. If prop--rty %✓al Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 324 of 354 _�,,, R 7opinen"" P rojec-Li, i.7tiu r ,r/I E t Q 1=ISC,GL I 'iP,GCTS Oi; CARSON REDE''IELOP"';.NT AGF;lCy 20-year Revenue Project;ons for Carson P.eJavelcp'nent Agcncy %'-,JES (eCCO) ------------ Annual 1935 535 1937 938 1--- ?990 ---- ----------------------------------------------- -- --------- --------------------------------------------- nnion ;at Value 30 $/sq ;t 2391 ksf 71 730 13107 74511 759'?1 ;.00 78286 20400 0.-tilitton 2.05 1135 1,162 1490 1519 1563 1573 1508 I us ?.ti:rket Value Inflation 4.OZ 2812 28::6 2921 2977 3034 3092 3152 !n 'l-rkat Value 73107 745 1 1 73:x;? 77, JO 7'1;1:^;b' !,C Sv", 0 8194,1 r -1e55cd Value (NDtc ?) 20 $/sq f1- 2391 ksf 4Td20 58997 501§2 51331 525>0 53310 55044 L ,s D.�T:)lition 2.Q„ 956 930 1C04 1028 1052 1076 ?101 Iess Transfers at Assessed Value 5,0Z 2',"3 '401 2,=59 '; .,al inflation limit 0 =�'8 2577 2637 2697 2104 0 9?2 434 957 973 1::02 1025 Plus Transfers at Market Value 5101 3587 ,315 3726 3797 3870 3744 4020 -n-_;ng Assessed Value 48997 50?8'1 ;.331 ;25'30 53310 55044 5'0.-9 91 Y,ET Assessed Value Increment, Existing Stock 1177 1137 1197 12C3 1220 1233 1247 ,,r ✓unsfr;ction initial G;arket Value 0 _ pg x'733 '613'1 _'1-37 1114 u.a5 6?225 s R aloe lnflation 4,0; 0 320 671 1057 31 =?3 2A49 Plus '��.� Construcricn 6.0' Const Cos` Escalate., R ail/Service 38.40 $/sq fr 3250 sq ft 125 132 110 1 9 .53 57 177 1114 5 Park 24.95 S/sq ft 60100 sq ft 199 7S) 161;5 1-05 !3_�3 2(;07 2127 c Fa--< 50.75 1/sq ft 0 t sG O 0 0 us�riai o � J 0 b 23. 5 >/sq it 255250 G fr 7 63 1 %6 95 0 3.'2 cq:n al ,�'ax Cv s'r,.,.tion + a�„a00 .,q f. 7593 -;72 Tri L ,. r' Vi - ndi:a 'stet '/aloe . 7995 167:35 ;:i7 5'017 '3s5 -.12.5 7 0?:.. n i ng r-S 55� Value 0 43617 592? X00 X6756 �d61 T n-,f rs at A ss'd Value 5.0; GO ! 2 ;<i 2539 923 PI , 9, I�;;al i ,flai ion Iirnit "7 °!_., Tr sfers .t . Val 2'G° G 52 310 .493 683 839 1111 :- a rartet ,v° 1' 23 3051 ? u : a Construction 7995 _ 17? 9131 >�' 9720 X91 i J.,C6 11333 aloe Ircrement, iee:v Cons,ructior, 7993 ..617 L-.9.- �' 53-1 151 2 50 v/. 1151 71 C .-I Assessed Value Increnent, Existin_ + New X71 - -. _ 0 9170 17804 9 37109 007 5,590 72299 ^.Huai T-< incr-anent rc-venue 1,00) of value i::cr,-Wont 92 i73 27i %12 .d'J 597 73 -,ding C::,nagi t (� million ,2 1 ) 8,0 x Annuli Revenca 0,7 i,T 2 4.3 5.8 1 .:cumu l a-F,d TLX ?ncreaent revenue 92 2'•) r l 913 1393 1573- 2713 -------------------------------- ------------- --------- ------------------------------------------ ::n ni - � on 6,CN !nflation 22'00 "2CO 2"2 225 2J3 X52 J8 --------- "/b a Incorn� Housing 20% x Annual Revenue ;;3 3 `1 2 7-' S� 113 1115 AL FkJJ CT STS 213 243 279 313 3 9 337 423 ENJES LESS COSTS (Available for public corks -127 -70 -8 5) 2 21') 295 and land ccnversicn) ” REVENUES LESS COSTS -127 -IS5 -204 -145 -13 1r7 rtes: Assass:r's o,`f?cial value not available al- time of ,sti;nate. Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 325 of 354 EIR, Redeveljop„r.e 1nt Project, A1^2d 3 i TABLE 119 FISCAL IMPACTS ON CARSON REOE`lELOPMENT AGc,"lCY (CONTINUED) 1992 1993 199, 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ---------------------------------- 319^4 33517 85121 87755 8.°,421 90113 91849 93512 95410 9nl l ';''108 101011 102951 1639 1570 1702 1735 1753 1302 1337 1372 1903 1945 1?32 2020 205a 3212 3274 3337 3401 3 65 3733 3cGO -1570 5740 3312 3%35 3160 4038 C 517 851'21 35755 &3421 90118 918,9 93612 9:410 97241 99108 10:011 102951 7('4927 ,6291 51552 x3328 60121 61429 62756 64100 65403 5.x381'5 63243 5:572 71118 12535 1126 1151 1177 1202 1229 1255 i"232 13P9 1337 365 393 %+22 452 2753 2320 2883 2946 3010 3075 3141 3203 3275 3341 ;'^_ 3185 3557 043 1072 1095 1119 1144 1169 1194 1219 1245 1271 !297 13 24 1352 4097 4176 4256 4333 4421 <15G6 4592 4631 4770 4852 4555 5051 51413 57552 588328 60121 61429 62756 64100 65463 66846 53243 69672 71113 72585 74076 1251 1275 1292 1309 1325 1344 1353 1333 4103 42'1 ;45 458 1491 75012 9G030 i05371 124129 1-}3103 1154317 1E5973 21150 2.3031 265707 °97630 3311 i0 '57159 3000 3601 4255 4955 5736 6573 7479 8-360 9521 10563 i ;07 13244 14637 188 199 211 223 237 251 275 232 299 311 336 355 373 2255 2390 2533 2635 2'45 3J17 3193 3390 3594 3'v9 4)33 280 4537 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 9575 10150 10759 11405 120;9 12315 1,3524 14399 15^62 115178 7149 '.173 9^6G 2013 12739 13504 14314 15173 16083 17x43 13071 i9i55 C4 21723 %31.1 24183 90030 IC5371 124129 143403 154317 1.5973 2;1500 2380 i 2-5707 2 97 33'1'0 x.,1769 106038 -11043 84514 9)232 114978 131934 150187 ;9930 '.S,X�h2 21,,;33 2.'3121 26137`d 92590 322839 3552 4231 4962 57.19 6597 7504 ;1' ^5!8 81 V> 6 11_19 .629 161-44 1350 i608 1335 2185 2507 %354 3227 3328 '40110 4521 50:?-5 '5559 6133 3751 5.72 5319 6200 7170 8216 :3'•9 575 11972 i3335 12884 0555 18353 12018 2739 13504 14.314 15173 16033 17C48 10,171 1)15D 2030-1 21523 22314 24133 24614 99232 114978 131934 1:0137 1699.30 1:9352 213'583 2;3121 251379 292590 .'2e8 35,121 35875 100509 116270 133243 151514 171175 192525 215071 239524 255303 29;035 324357 356912 859 1005 1163 1332 1515 1712 1923 2151 2395 25-8 35,0 3244 3559 6.9 8.0 9.3 10.7 12.1 13.7 15,4 17,2 i 9.2 21>, 23,5 25,9 23.0 3571 4576 5739 7072 8587 1021'113 12222 14372 16763 121.-5 3c6 2-510 291;9 ------------------------------ -- ----------- _ __ _ /-------------------- 301 319 338 358 330 402 427 452 479 .,^..3 739 5'!'11 605- 172 '2'01 233 256 303 3 112 335 430 479 532 533 649 714 472 520 570 625 683 745 811 882 958 1010 1127 1220 1319 386 485 592 708 832 967 1112 1258 1.137 1613 1811 2024 2250 878 1383 1955 2653 3495 4452 5574 6&;3 8230 9398 1712 13733 15986 Ct i Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 326 of 354 EIR, Red-velopment Project Area 3 TABLE 20 i FCSCAL lf,?PACTS ON THE CITY OF CARSON Revenue impacts ( 1984 dollars ) One-time revenue: Building Permits 0.6% of value $ 1 r06 40U Plan Check Fees 85;0 of bldg permit 904,740 1_,959,140 Annual Revenue at buildout: Sales/Use Tax 1% of sales Retail /service, sales SIOO/sq ft, 65,000 sq ft 3 65,UOU Business Park , 10',Y retail at $100/sgtt, 120,200 square feet 120_,200 Industrial , 1U% retail at $100/sq Tt, 51O,5U0 square feet 51O bO0 TOTAL Sales/Use Tax $ 695, /CO MisceI Ian eoiis Revenues (` ancn S e tax, business license, permits, etc. } 100,000 TOTAL ANdNUAL REVENUES 5 7`'S,7UU Cost impacts ( 1934 dollars) One-time costs Building permit revi _,v and plan c'r--c!, (cost assumed equivalent to f°es } 1 y6�1 ? a0 Annual costs at buildout Community Safety (5% of 1983-8=4 budget mount) 5 269,000 P�1bIic ;•forks - (' , or 1;83-v/1 i Uudget Administration (b` of 1933-84 budget amount fCr Finance and Administration 97, 16O TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 515,15,1 92 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 327 of 354 tIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Project Cash Flow. Table 19 summarizes Agency cash flow from the proposed project under the assumptions above. The project cash flow may vary depending on whether the Agency chooses to undertake projects from current income or to sell tax increment revenue bonds to be paid from future tax increment income. In order to provide improvements early in the project life to encourage project area revitalization, redevelopment agencies typically sell tax increment revenue bonds related to income from specific development projects. Bonds are commonly sold allowing a large margin of safety within the agency's anticipated cash flow from a project. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Agency can sell revenue bonds equal to 8 times the annual tax increment revenue stream from the project. Table 19 shows that early in the project life, relatively little tax increment income is available for public improvements. As private developments tai<e place, tax increment flow is increased. At buildout of the proposed project, after an assumed 20-year development period, an estimated $3.6 mil lion per year in tax increment revenue is available to the agency. A total of $28.6 million in current dollars is estimated to be available over a 20-year project life. Over an additional 20 years, more than $100 million would be available for debt service. (This amount would be much less measured in 1984 dollars.) Under the assumptions of the table, the Agency receives sufficient tax increment revenue to undertake the proposej. Improve- ments in the project area, as well as to purchase proper- ties in blighted condition for resale for ants-;priate development. Cash flow estimates beyond i0 years are strongly de ;endent on assumptions about interest rates, the rate of inflation in costs of improvements and property value­,, t'i' rate of development in the prod cct area and other facLo!'S. Actial Agency cash flow may be substantially difFerent :h,pendir,g on changes in these factors. City of Carson. The City of Carson will incur additional costs to provide a full range of public services to the project area at increased intensity of develo?m_nt. Sor,;? City costs, such as for maintenance and code e[iForcement, may be reduced as improvements are made in the project- area. The City will receive revenue frr,;m plan check and permit fees at the time of development, and from bLISincSS licenses and sales taxes as new business activity takes place in the project area. 93 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 328 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 TA3LE 21 FISCAL IMPACTS ON TAXING AGENCIES Agency Cost Impacts Los Angeles County Small increase in service costs for non-residential services. No increase for residential services. Los Angeles County Flood Costs for flood cc trei Control District iicorovemvncs to serve project area. Los Angeles County Fire Increase th additional deie- Protection District 10pment. decrease :vitli improved construction, maintenance. School Districts 1d0 increase in costs. Costs a_liocated to reside ntial areas only. Note: Tax rate based on approxi,nite a',zr c ,r prk)j-ct «r allocations t0 districts vary iii-hin Li12 or0j c-'C area ,P on the number of di str1C s and di strl !,a x- r g �-s '!: -1 i ^i : ..1 tax rate area `t!i thin t;-,e- project area. 1 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 329 of 354 !­M, :edevelo;;inent Project Area 3 In the 1982-83 Carson budget, general government: expenditures accounted for 33.310 of general. F.lund expendlt'u�reS, par;Cs and recreation for 28.70, col,Yiunity safety 24.3%, public works 13.3;0' and 'r•.�a1 t. 0.4 General fund r_%lenues came 45.6% from property taxes, 14.2% from other taxes (non-property), 18.3% from other agencies, 9.3% from use OF money and property, 4.0;o From fines and forfeitures, 6.2°6 from licenses and per,-nits, and 1.2'0' from Other ­venues. -total -estimated G n2ra1 rL;n.': revenues ';;ere J1�,807,J9!1, Table 20 sumiiarizes e:: ect, d Costs and revenu;=S "Co Lle it J of Carson fron] the proposed proj ect. Under he- assurp''-icns ` ��nueS ar the table City re J ��"e e-• �� - - n t.� �pw L•_d 4.0 50:11e•11�1.=� City expeildhtureS to ServJ the protect area. One-tithe revenues from p iin c:, and perml F 12s 'a 1-?_ assumed to balance the on°-title Costs 1 i?CIIY"Tc a I Y'?`/1 etlh ng development- Orojects as LY':='% co!l before "t,': i / Sal eS tax r`vem.les are esti i,;=,ted based on a typica 1 Sales rate Of 5100.00 her square foot o Floor area. - scales are assulr'2d to ta.;,2 pl a,_,, i n bust Hess par!: ur: industrial areas as .cell at u much tAst`,S are all :Gated on ? dS SUilot?^i1 l•'. C StS i`0" safetd, l) ,b 1 is 'vor",s, Ind general u�10? .1 assignee On 2 'Jer-'Jnit-di'ea basis ';0 all '2ve1 "] area e ty, t- s of �h Ci T„ pro;;:=c;. 'i1I result i .:n of de`,e ' oped area of sppr,, , 1: Lely Lnese cos LS are dSSi :]il p S j l ' resulting from p "oject In general , ':'J!1°_tiiei" ti':P 1. 1ty 172ihei S i1Scali ! . " 7i industrial d_°Velop,nent dei-2fldl3 0 :le ? 0!Ii1L Oi i'?`3i sales f'r om the n r Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 330 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Other Taxing ;1100nci es. A number of taxing agencies provide services to various parts or the project area. In most cases, 'these agencies are not expected to incur substantial additional Costs as a result of the proposed project.. Because additional costs related to ne,.a development are smal 1 , agencies will not suffer by diversion of tax increment revenue to the Carson Redevelopment Agency, which is responsible for substantial public 'improvement expenditures in the project area. Table 21 summarizes cost impacts on key agencies serving -the project area. Los Angeles County receives approximately half or the total properly 'tax revenue in the project area. Most county services supported by property tax are related to residential areas rather than industrial and comMarcial areas. Costs of social services, which are a Substantial part of county expenditures, are assigned 'to residential land uses. County street system costs are supported in part by other revenues. School districts also have costs related to resida,itial uses rather than industrial use, and will not incur additional costs as a result of the proposed project. Fi re Protecti on Di stri cts may ihave S(Di 2 aCid7 ti Oiicl expenai tunes as a ras i % Of ;1e overal t 9-cow t 1 i n project aced, pr0j C cr^3 ?'1 O t7tr C ?'! ;.r?:li?; in the City. These add! i Iona1 os is may be offset by the impY '1 ent of tie pY,oj ct ar_ Cyl'l i g '0 etl.,. ,." ', Of p o o r i y i?aintained p'.,i `va'G? i;ev_Io;^_illentS, ar;d 1 11r)'i0'': fl re deteCtlO.. aild`Shlppre5Sl0i i^BqUii'C!A2t1 .S lii n devel opman t. The Los Angeles County r l ood Control D i s t r i c som e COStSfOr addi'El 0i i a ! liii� O'JeinentS to prote-t par'CS of f the project area. '1 hese expend) t%tir'eaS `;;o:l d b2 Y' qUi i" n M the O;+g run '°i)?t:1°r or not �Fle r°d 'le Op 1211'v Da t, c _ adopted. 96 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 331 of 354 EiR, Redevelopment Project. Area 3 3.16 Ener-,,y i^1'0 ; ental The 1rpOrtanCe of energy conservation has b^en i-. ad2 Setting to the public in recent years as a result Of' increases in the price of entry, r2cogniticn o, tyre national 1,iterest in reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and increasing concern Ydi tit the en'"17 ronl'nanta1 l coact of cod I and nucloar sources on 'v,'hich the U.S. wi11 depend "ior expansion of generating capacity. - 'J7TJ ,°3"tat Because the C!ro ?'th anticipated as a reSl_11t CT tie project Ipac"t is a small proportion of regio,?al grovit;i and dG2s not rcpi"eSen"t a sign?f;Ca"ltlY dilleren energ`' use ccG,Ma.red t0 gro:ah in other locations in the r gion, t';2 itrpaCt of this growth incre:1,ent on regional energy reSoui^C2s is not expected to be signiiicar?t. Ho°,te'1ar, all urrnec ssary energy use is or concern and mitigation measures should be considered to reduce energy consumption. (Estiriates of energy Usage by the propos'ed pr oi,c't are dl scuss;npl und'_r Section 3. 17, Utilities) . t"iCn iiie f01loljinc ;nitigatioin C'eas>>i" are iiCluded :il "ti,, leasures p';"oposed project "to reduce enei''gy COnSlaliip"t10f1: 1. Cc'm p 7 a l - s i 1?+� ,! Li? Call fC1 ! i4 i-_,,,, ^(ry rG7;!i�lS�iG.'? $Landa;^GS or e n2rgy-cG^sei"vine C:1S r CtlCn 'LeC Hirt ai 1 ,neiCJ coiIStrl C „ion, Z. At't<ntjon Co meal?3res to rod!uce vehicl ^_ mi i -,s and 2i?c0U't"dg2 use Of nigi?-OCCUpail'y '.2llc 1 arye si ngl _ t_nan prod ec is a.s GUt i =d C1rCuiat7o , ill' lgatl0n il:'_asLr2s, `3- 97 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 332 of 354 E!R P-nt],2vel op� ,ien Project rAc as 3 I I-a ter Fj v i r 3 in n n r -0 !"1" I -oie-� area is Provldled by Do,-,,iin(7 J!n 7 P f J C C!I Setti'Jg Water Corporation. In genera'I , the -;,,isting mains to the Project area have large capacitli.as. 11,1,ater supply and distribution facilities are adequate in the proposed project area for the present developnmo;lt. -1 e area nor, -h 0 Clawson Strc2 i, �nd eact of P,7 acneda rl'fi M:-M-M al I'l I -! 4 act is ful ly devel oped. .Iator i - 1 -C s t�,-e area sout-ii o I' Carson S d, v.,,s t 0 a da S a S-e i.&,ou Ii for any i'I C rea se J d�_,V el 0 p�ll2q a.S r�- Su_j L�, OF L1,12 proposad project,. lhere ca.re ia-cj- areas of k,!-Irj2,,e-j ped, -, ., d soll-h of 223rd S e e t and b o lt_'n east a n d S t ;A' :.:.ieda Street. The developilient of these are-is into !jsos „ c, ou1 neCesit.mt-a eXtension of a 12 -inch water main in I A.1 ,1l112dal Str,­nt north from the --j-,d an i 4 n line i ' about L 1 1 north o� DciFiI!"F7!jn7 , - - Channel o s,)Ii Pro PO S_ad .,, %J 'a S s n l -, nu - o 2, j iS th rd rt9ti 3t40n ater sery ce to the pro 4 n- j--I, ",l �sjcn.,� "-o ;P�ee� fj - - , , I ” L, I aaszljl��_S cl'o,14 rle u rl-?12n is as estate-! I S11-1G' l'ov Los AnzeJ -s -,ouj,t F i re D epa r'Ctll--n t pr for ' i , to- Cobs" t i c n. �,_Ler -ervice -o the prcposol pl-oj act a,-ra Y oe constlrljcL,,�d 'o Pr V a 'd 0 V 10 P e- P p--,,,!el-I S. I This (j,a i o n service m pa--t- 0 an i i is Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 333 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Prr)ject Area 3 1 TABLE 22 PROJECT 14AT1.1t CONSUMPTION gal/day per ------Existing Use----- ----Alternative 3------ -----------Change------ LAND USE unit Units Total Units Total Units Total -------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- Shopping Cenier 100,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da Retail/Service 100.0 65 ksf 6534 gai/day 131 ksf 13068 gal/da 65 la• 6534 gal/do ;1otel/1dotel 150,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 'rsf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da Office Park 200,0 0 ksf 0 cal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 qal/da Business Park 200,0 392 ksf 78408 qai/day 1594 ksf 318359 gal/da 12'2 !<sf 240451 gal/da Heavy Industry 200,0 1934 ksf 326813 gal/day 7039 ksf 1407859 aa!/da 5105 ksf1021046 gal/da Storage/Low Intens Coral 400,0 61 ac 24400 gal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da —51 ac —24400 gai/da Petroleuci Proc/Sttorage 500,0 51 ac 25500 gal/day 51 ac 25500 gai/da 0 ac 0 gai/da Local Park 600,0 0 a-- 0 gal/day 0 ac 0 nal/da 0 ac 0 0a1/da School/Public 200,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da TransportM ood Control 0,0 94 ac 0 aaI/day 94 ac 0 gai/da 0 Etc 0 gal/da Open Space/Golf Course 600.0 22 ac 13200 cal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da —22 a.. —13200 gal/da Vacant 0,0 312 ac 0 gal/day 0 ac 0 qc I/da —312 ac 0 gal/da --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksf 534855 gal/day 8764 ksf 1765286 gal/da ks 1330432 gal/da TOTAL 534855 gal/day 1765235 qai/da 1230432 gal/da 99 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 334 of 354 EIR, p I,o of-:re t a I All sarvico the pro4eCt area is provided by the S Los "Inrieles Cot-mty 3anitation District Nu-nbar 8. ',!a I I jo, se—.1or col 1 Ilc�Ui on 1 ii vies and se,JI-ge area t;-nen t are prov id. d t by Sanitation District Number 8. major trunk lin-s in the pro,jj ec C area un along illi ng-L-.o n Avenue and portions to F Sepulveda Boulevard. Sewage qenerat-ed by the Ci ty i s carri 2d by -the Joi nt 11a ter PollutlionOutfall sYst--:,7j W the LOS Angcles County $an i t a L i o n DjS�-rjC�S' J04.n-t I - I - I'l a'L-,e�r Pollution Control P I ant I o c a'I- n t-I i e IS-i i fn"'i e s t c o r n-e r o 1 Ca--o.-i. T i i i p.)11 a.,,11-1 h a s a Peak Capaci t a 1- 620 iiii 1 1 ion gal 1. ons day. t i p r e Is en-,c I I I .D ly OTIera Ll rig a t approx\il-ia te l 350-'100 iT,,-1 "I I i or, gallons a day. nuiron-ental Teat portlion of th.e proposed project area that is bounded :-Pact by 1:4ili-nington Avenue and Alameda Street on LItie ,,:eIst and eas�,- and Carson Street a-1161 t:ie Doilli nguc� Chaiinel On t"I e nt di nort-h and sou Ch, tf,,-"s "I ir];"t-31 Cr no r U to 1 1,,r 9, areas c ii ere not d 2 V a I j L. presen t time- ou,-, d a,it increased se'I'ler deve 1 opmant. Tille project (--a c,j 4 s un o -ind ny Carson St,re"_-`� -c.stl-rn c't- 11 HI-iii ts, 'Je I -fla Paul evard, a;-,j thie C�-,annc-1 S 3 U 1 1-1 i t r r Dd. in he area "s �,-�ve i S PU I Veda GO 11 e V a'J en : Ill lo n A,.,,2 ie Street ai-id a n-.j s-2,-•,tr LInl 1 l )e !n d and in o i In I.t) L d v -1 0 9 a ic i On S e,.,.:,-,- s e,ry ice to i. d r , i d j ,,l I C 'J,es i q e-i i"easures to ir- s"I e District prior to constr,,,,--Iic,,. fl -11ij 0, Ila 0'-- trunk " j"JeS is r-qj-' =tj based I I I !ng r en r� -I T))!-o j e C t su-h SI Cons te CAI 10- Q r, a LI o n oic i LOS County. this ml Hga' icn rntasur, wi 11 rrdi( scrvic-- J.0 0 ill li Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 335 of 354 EIP., Redeve,epl7ent Project Area 3 i TABLE 23 PROJECT AVERAGE SEWER FLOII! gal/day Pper -----Existing L's a----- � ----Alternativg 3------ -----------^�. ..��angz------ LAND USE unit Units Total Units Total Units Total --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- Shopping Center 100,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 cal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da Retail/Service 100,0 65 ksf 6534 gal/day 131 ksf 13058 gal/da 65 ksf 6534 aal/da Hotel/74otel 150,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da Office Park 200,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day .0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 k_ 0 gal/da Business Park 200,0 392 ksf 78'08 gal/day 1594 ksf 31°859 cal/la 1202 ksp 240451 gal/da H_.avy Industry 200,0 1434 ksf 386813 gal/day 7039 ksf 1407859 gal/du 5105 ksf1021046 gal/da Storage/Low Intens Comi 400,0 61 ac 24'00 gal/day 0 ac 0 cal/da -61 oc -24400 ga l/da Petroleum Proc/Storage 500,0 51 ac 25500 gal/day 51 ac 25500 gal/da 0 ac 0 gal/da Local Park 500,0 0 ac 0 gal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da 0 ac 0 cal/da School/Public 200,0 0 ksf 0 cal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da Transport/Flood Control 0,0 94 ac 0 gal/day 94 ac 0 gal/da 0 ac 0 y^al/da Open Space/Golf Course 500,0 22 ac 11000 gal/day 0 so 0 gal/da -22 ac -11000 gal/da Vacant 0,0 312 ac 0 gal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da -312 ac 0 gal/da --------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------- TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ks` 532555 n2,1/day 8764 ksf 17652.96 g W---a 6373 :-af1232632 cal/d.a TAKE- 2 : ~ PROJECT PEAK C^Ct:-r p C i LO'rI cis per ------Existing Uz; "�I.. - LANU USE unit Units Total U ------" ^;i�s To`al U ;its Toi%„ ------------- ------------ -------------------------- - Sopping Ccnter 0,00038 0 ksf 0,00 cis 0 ksf 0,00 0 i,�p O,CO cfs Retail/Service 0,00038 65 ksf 0,02 cfs 131 :<si 0,05 g s 65 isf O.C2 c'� Hotel/Motzl 0,00056 0 ksf 0,00 cfs 0 ksf 0,00 cfs G sf 0,00 cis Orrice Park 0,00075 0 ksf 0,00 cfs 0 ksp 0,00 cps 0 '-af 0,00 cis Business Park 0.00075 " � .. 3:2 0,29 cfs 7 'rsr 1,20 c;s 1202 lest 0,90 Cfs Heavy Industry 0,00075 i934 ksf 1,45 cfs 7039 ksf 5,24 c.., X105 �sf 3,'4 cfs Storage/Lo•,i Intens Coml 0,00',50 61 ac 0,09 cfs 0 ac 0,00 cfs 61 -D,O9 c`s Petroleum Proc/Storage 0,00188 51 ec 0,10 cfs 51 a 0.10 0,00 cfs ac Lccdl Park O.00183 0 ac 0,00 cfs 0 ac 0,00 cfs C GO cfs School/Public 0,00075 0 ksf 0.00 crs 0 ksi O, 10 cfs of O,GJ cfs Transport/Flood Control 0.00000 94 ac 0,00 cis 94 ac 0,00 cfs 0,00 cps Open Space/Golf Course 0,00188 22 ac 0.04 cfs 0 ac 0.00 cfs -22 -0,04 cfs Vacant 0,00000 312 ac 0.00 cfs 0 ac 0,00 cfs -312 0.00 cfs ----------------- -------------------------- ------------------------ TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksf 2,00 cfs 8764 ksf 6,63 cfs st 101 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 336 of 354 E1R, Redevelopilent Project area 3 Sto ! Dra3 n�ge Environmental Because of its 1o':9 elevation, isolated areas of Carson � Setting di"2 Subject t0 flooding dui"li'ig rdlHS'tOr'?S. li2r2 are a fe;a flood hazards ill the City of Carson. In the pro4C-L area, there iS one area that has been ldent? f.!2d as a storin brain deficiency area. The primary flood 'Hazard area is the Dori nguez Flood Contro 1 Channel , n4l i clh runs through the projeCt area. The storm drain deficiency area in the proposed project area floods when 50-year storms occur, causing flooding ovicer curbs and congesting traf"ilc. i. 'a7a 0 e„sal TH2 proposed prod eCL Vl111 r�SUl h!h d(t lncr2a Se 3n S'LO riTi '_;rraact fl o;=r frog LA - project area as a result of i ncr'ease. coverage of the site by ii-pervious surfaces. 3itic,a-Lt ion Private develonments in the proposed project area will be Neasures required to provide satisfactory drainage to a+bailable storm drains. The stor:hh drain deficiency areas in the proposed project area are expected to be corrected oi.,r L proje 'L ii'fetii,e. Th_s2 tl,vo mesas,_! e S"LOkiil d'ra 11?ip.;i ? all ia$lgriii iC=JfC ; 2't _1 . C� \ Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 337 of 354 innora Blvd 1 - OUNI T Y OF L 0 S A N G c'-E S "7 CITAOi 4.CARSON 0 STORM DRAIN DEFICIENCY EXISTS FLOOD HAZARD AREA FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY AREAS wv, Z OBTAINED FROM THE FEDERAL 4i - <1 FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAP I F 05 Artesia rraa w,dY Victoria St.— I 1�1 0 University Drive K— n t D Blvd.; 2- 0 v, 00 .4,w 223rd St. Al r:,ow 0 ji Sepulveda a Blvd. P J - J i mita Blvd. C ( N, Y OF yi S ANGELES 1� OF LOS SOURCE: SAFETY,SEISMIC SAFETY AND NOISE ELEMENTS, CITY OF CARSON GENERALPLAN, REVISED DECEMBER 11, 1981. 0 f-1 D E V E I P fi P R C' 7 ,g�l Figure 24. 103 FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 338 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Electric Power, Gas, Telephone Environmental Power, gas and telephone service are provided to the Setting project area by Southern California Edison, Southern Cali - fornia Gas Company and Pacific .Bell , respectively. No significant service problems now exist in the project area. Environmental Existing facilities appear to be sufficient except for Impact power facilities on Wilmington Avenue, Carson Street between Wilmington Avenue and Arnold Center Road and Alameda Street between 223rd Street and Winchester Inn. Southern California Edison Company is presently conducting negotiations with their customers regarding these areas. No problems providing service by these utilities to the proposed project are foreseen, and impacts on these services will be insignificant. Mitigation Measures None. C 104 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 339 of 354 ED,, Rechvel opriient Proi2cc Arca 3 M �7 01 ELECTRIC PTAIER COPISU?P7I0 ! mwh Per ------Existin Use----- ---; --_ 9 - 1l fernafive 3------- -------- f-ACD USE Total Units Total „hanger-__.__.._ un; Units Units To a 1 hopping Center 0.034 0 ksf 0 mwh 0 ksf 0 mwh 0 ksf 0 n1wh 'etaiI/Service 0.034 65 ksf 2 mwh 131 ksf 4 m;rh 65 ksf 2 mrrh ioto1/MloIe1 0.035 0 ksf 0 m•:rh 0 ksf 0 m•wh 0 ksf 0 n•wh ffice Park 0.049 0 ksf 0 mah 0 ksf 0 m,vh 0 ksf 0 m.rh cusiness Park 0,080 392 ksf 31 mwh 1594 ksf 128 rm-4h 1202 ksf 95 mwh Ilaevy Industry 0.080 1934 ksf 155 rmh 7039 I:sf 563 m'.ah 5105 ksf 408 rmgh Storage/Low Intens Com1 0,100 61 ac 6 rn•vIn G , Petrolcum Proc/Storage aC 0 mw -6� ac -6 rm, h � 0_500 51 ac 26 m':rh 51 ac 26 m.;h 0 ac 0 meth Local Park 0.010 0 ac 0 11'-1' 0 ac 0 mwh 0 ac 0 mwh School/Public 0,017 0 ksf 0 mwh 0 ksf 0 m::h 0 ksf 0 mwh Transport/Flood Control 0.000 94 ac 0 m,vh 91' ac 0 rnwh 0 ac 0 mwh Open SDace/Golf Course 0.010 22 ac 0 mwh 0 ac 0 m:ah -22 ac 0 m'wh Vacant 0 m.eh 0 ac O 'm1h -312 ac 0 m',vh --------------------------------- ------ac TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksf 220 mwh 3754 ksf 721 mxh 6373 ksf 500 mwh .Abbreviations: rnwh: megawatt-hours; ksf: housand sq::are fee:; ac. acres -r.1n r ,, nn GO NA7Uitr,L G�1S MJSiJ P I T 0�! kcf . per ------c"c i s T i❑c ;Jse--_- � +_,rna t i v:a 3------ 'AND USE - • - - ,� - C'nange------ '- unit Units total --L'r.i'-- Total Jnits Total ------------------------------- -----------------------kcf---- I nnopping Center 0.10 0 ksf 0 0 0 kcf ---0 ------0- cf -- Retail/Service 0.10 65 ksf 6 kcf f 5 6 'r,cf Hats l/."?otel 0.16 0 ✓.sf 131 ksf 3 kc 0 kcf '; ksf 6 I,cf ;sf 0 kcf Office Park 0.10 0 ks� D kcf 0sf 0 kcf ksf 0 kcf Business Perk 0.10 392 t<sf 37 kcf 159'- ksf 152 kcf 1202 -f 115 kcf Heavy Industry 0.10 1934 l"sf 181 kcf 7039 Xs" kr? �< Store c/Low Intens Coml 0.24 070 510' `•" 485 kc g' 61 ac 15 kcf 0 k-cf -61 ac -15 kcf Petroleum Proc/Storage 0024 51 ac 12 kcf 51 12 kcf 0 ac 0 kcf Local Park 0.13 0 ac 0 Pxf 0 Ec 0 kc; 0, ac 0 kcf School/Public 0.10 0 !csf 0 kcf 0 ksf 0 ';cf ^• sf 0 kcf Transport/Flood Control 0.00 94 ac 0 kcf 94 ac 0 kcf 0 a. 0 !ccf Open Space/Golf Course 0.03 22 so - 1 kcf 0 ac 0 %cf -?'2 ; -1 ksf. Vacant MO 312 ac 0 kcf 0 -. 0 kcf -- ---- a TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksf 255 ..cf---° 376: 1',sf 817 ;<-f 33 'rsi- 592 I:cf - Abbreviations: kcf: thousand cubic feet; ksf: thousand square .feet; ac: acres 1G5 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 340 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 Solid 'taste Disposal Envi r ormental Solid waste di. sposal in Los .Angeles County is the Setting responsibility of fire Sanitation District of Los Angeles County. Refuse collection in the City of Carson is handled by private companies. Most of this refuse is taken to a transfer facility in the City Ihich also accepts refuse from a large area surrounding the City. Although there are ei gig teen 1 andfi i l 1 sites in the C i ty of Carson, none are currently active. Solid -caste frron the transfer facility goes to three landfill sites outside the Clty in Puente Hills, 1.1est Covina (a privately-c;rued facility) and 'to Chiguito Canyon, north of Magic Pdountain. Environmental Although the Sanitation Districts have landfill capacity Impact to meet needs in the short term, public opposition to landfill construction in recent years has the potential to shorten the life of existing l andfi l l facilities and mai;e construciCi on of nc'!J i andfi 1 l S i tes di ff i cut t. Th i S is a regioinal pr obl i� and not unique to (1_ P—ojeia up,_tar quest-Ion. Pi ti gati on i•�easures None. 106 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 341 of 354 EiR, Red=velopment P cicct. roa 3 TABLE 27 SOLID WASTE GE !ERATIONI Ibs Per ------Existing Use----- ----Alternative 3------ -----------Change------- LAND USE unit Units Total Units Total Units Total --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- Shopping Center 14.9 0 ksf 0 lbs 0 ksf 0 lbs 0 ksf 0 lbs Retail/Service 14.9 65 ksf 974 Ibs 131 ksf 1947 IDS 65 ksf 974 IDS Hotel/Hotel 20.9 0 ksf 0 lbs 0 ',Ksf 0 IDS D ksf 0 lbs Of`ice Park 14.9 0 ksF 0 lbs 0 'kSf 0 IDS 0 !csf 0 IDS Business Park 29.7 392 ksf 11644 Ibs 1594 ksf 47351 Ibs 1202 ksf 35707 IDS Heavy Industry 29.7 1934 ksf 57442 I'os 7039 ksf 209067 !bs 5105 1,sf 151625 1 b 5-orace/Low Intens Coml 74.5 61 ac 4545 1 b 0 a 0 1 b --51 ac -4545 1 b etroleum Proc/Storage 148.5 51 ac 7574 lips 51 ac 7574 ibs 0 ac 0 lbs Local Park 100.0 0 ac 0 lbs 0 ac 0 Ibs 0 ac 0 lbs School/public 14.9 0 ksf 0 lbs 0 ksf 0 lbs 0 ksf 0 lbs Transport/Flood Control 0.0 94 ec 0 lbs 94 ac 0 lbs 0 ac 0 lbs Open Space/Golf Course 50.0 22 ac 1100 lbs 0 ac 0 Ibs -22 ac -1100 IDS vacant 0.0 312 ac 0 Ibs 0 ac 0 lbs --312 ac 0 ibs -------- -------- ----------------------- TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksF 33277 IDS 8754 ksf 265953 lbs- 6573 ksf 132651 lbs TOTAL 83277 1 o 255933 !bs 182661 Ibs 107 Ordinance No.° 84-695/Page 342 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 i i I 3.18 11�.3an }feal th Envi;onaentaa Potential human health impacts include the creation of any Setting health hazard, and the exposure of people to potential health hazards. In the project area, there is a Class Ii landfill site. Although this site is currently inactive, two potential health hazards exist. Additionally, there are toxic wastes, including asbestos, at the Johns- Manville site in the project area. `nv!ro:.men'zal New constru.-'ti on 1 ocated on or dear th2 Cl ass I 1 1 and`i 1 1 impact in the pr04eCt area that could have beCn useu for hazardous dumping Aji11 be exposed to significant, hazards resul I-Ang from the migration of toxic, explosive gases. The decomposition of organic 'wastes produces .ret;rane as a by-product. Structural stresses caused by differential settling o-` the soil due to the decomposition of t'r:e fill material ivi11 also off'ct b{lildiilos 10cated direC --iy on the 1 andfi 1 1 . Cevel ac;;tents 1 orated near the J:,,,ns- Manvi 1 le sit-, ivay be exposed %o toxic iaza;'d , such as asbestos. Mitigation The State Depart=ment of Heal t i regal ales davel o; rr nt on sleas tires and A thin a 2000 foot radius o i l aly id^nti i i d iazardous waste 5 i to 1 n Cal i "Corn i a, '_;i ordc?r UJ (Oonst-uct reSi- dences '-vdi thin t-iii s area, the dev0 1 Cop: -.-,t' US i; . c 0 c:^' •� a variance to t; e State's e0!'.i',2 e �rl C r i �. C,i i,J i.� ,.:I' ii?Jai'„�:i_ Heal th. These regal a ti ohs have been taken to protect p iil)I i:: i;eal t`i. Additionally, the City requires that a "--tailed hazardous OdS COnGr01 plan b° a pr0 :'nd ;ri0. t0 Jui 1 di n n?. :;ii t i SSUance for n'e':'j catistru0 ti 0n Oii C i : SS 11 1 a ?iii l l Si teS. Thi s p1 an crust i ncI u d e datai 1 ed engi near i ng d'r, >ii nos cal cul a., ion s;'1G`.I nq � o S i u n0. ,i?e pr'vb l &I 01" di Sett1eient 1971 i be S01`i2d tii'i^0:1 h 'D llzd 11 'SiCil. `J J 108 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 343 of 354 El %, R_development Project Area 3 i i7eS th e Z. S En, irwm,,ental Aesthetic i!r;oacts o projects include the obstruction or Setting scenic vie;vs and vistas and the creation of aesthetically offensive sites open to public vie;i. T,e proposed pro- ject area is predominantly indusrtrial and is characteri- zed by blight and substandard properties and asbestos contaminated sites. ?JirL?n^,:e tal tle t)roJ_ t Swill result in the el iminat70n of vacant land l:i pace areas t v i _ I ,C,. ai fdy O�j�rUC ,;i SOm° ac;,Jnr; res i dences, e ? I c,eneral , the project r.i l 1 i :oreve �,ne aesthetic appeal of the project area by el i?,;i:,a.tinc blight, particularly numero!.1s unsin!�tly and dteriorated structiures. Ili tigatiux] ilea sa:i~es None. 109 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 344 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.20 Recreatio;: G:1*1ironmantal There are fourteen existing parks and one proposed park in SetttilIg the City of Carson. Addi't'ionally, 'the County operates a 161.6-acre golf course in the City. Excluding the public golf course, there are 136.5 acres of public parklands in the City, faith an additicnal 12.1 acres to be p;^ov'ided at the proposed Moi ne Tani: Farm Park Site. The City's seventeen public schools also provide recreational services. The parks in the C'ity provide a Aide range of recreational opportunities, including baseball diamonds, soccer/foot- ball fields, basketball courts, children's play areas, game courts, activity buildings, swinging pools and picnic areas. Based on a 1930 population of 31,221, t?ere are approximately 1 .? acres Of pdri< faCl I i't7e5 'fU'." e'/ery 1,000 people in the City of Carson. The Circulation and Bike F e _ + • aC111 „�7 S �1 _w�nv Ui the Ci General Plan discusses planned bicycle routes. Sole of the Class I and Class II routes +,,4ill be in the prcject area. A Class I route " ill run througii t` -, project along Alameda Street and a C 1 as!z 11 rouCe %Ji l i run a1 o,nq- Carson Street. Es vice e; al n a � s Avai l abI e 1 ' tab e = " �. ui-� � � ivCr., ti Ul+ '1 is in I '3ic't Short Supply In Ch� City. lit°re are C 't i _it'j 110 par,:s . n the project area Since 'i ;: is a Heavy 1lvilStridl area. There is a Skeet Shooting r•cinge Ua ti7e p."UjeCt Si t3 tn_a be el i nnate, ij ti a proiec ., i•17tigatior, llaasur_-s, "]one, 110 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 345 of 354 FIR, RCdPvelo.or,ien`, Pro,7ece Ar-a 3 TABLE 28 PARK AND RECREATION FACILI HES Approximate Park Name Site Address Acreage Avalon Park 700 E. Gardena Blvd. 10.8 btalnut Strut Par;: 440 E. ;lalnut St. 0.7 Stevenson Par:, 17400 Ly-sander Dr. 1-1.7 Victoria Raaio,:al Puri, & S;tim i ng Pool 419 E. 92 St. James Anderson, Jr. Memorial Park 19101 S. 'ailmington Ave. 8,5 Fieri f.age Par': 1340 E. Dimondale C r. i Del Amo o ^k r 'D 7 A:d10 vi. ; Dolphin Par',, 21205 ,ter St. !? , Dominguez Par,, 21330 S:,tj, ;=e A ve. „9 Join D. Calas, Sr. iemorial Par;< 10100 F. ;) Sl: a,°son Pool 2 L ri-_ndship Park i - ueneral 11infield SCott Park U, S yj ir;aing Pool 23:10 Carriage Crest Parx 2800 S. of 1 S • ±3rce: L nd Use, �U t- S << 2, Public Ser�rI_- rani � i'�i��., and Recrea L l c E, P-1 revised ?-lay 17, 1922. :;a~ c � _ 11 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 346 of 354 E111, Redevelopment Project Area 3 3.12 Al though a total of seven S`, -e landJil.arks h been Setting recorded in the area surroulding Crlson, none ar-2- listed for tie C i t,,1 itself. This is due in part ­19 oe,,mi-ess of the C-Ity. oniy one sic_, of local historic, s , gm cance is located i n the C i tty of Carson; hc',I v located in the project area. Th� it is not I site is part of a village i,,;iich dates back to L-he I 500's. I tt, has been 2xten S4 v2ly damaged and the area co t, th, sit- j,I I - it- I- ,currently undergoing d'eveliopmient as an industrial par''. ,i v r- .,,7,-P, a' I Most OF t:'2 City, ', as inventoried for CU tUrall reSOUrces !7, a c t 1977. !o cultural re so u r c 2 s I iere iilanl` -led in e proposed project area. Al though 50;7!e Ll"Cas :11 ,U 1 n t fie City were excluded from the inventory, t-n2se loca -iotjs I tended to be those areas which had already tboen P-.,I,t2n- Sively altered by grading or lal 11 1 dilll operations or by residential , aj- r'l-wra-, n: 1 . �1_ . ­3 1 ; It ,,-I - I -P"Ien An arcflaeologic-1 �,2- F (ls sep�rc� j - , � I - _o, i i 10) A-I propos,��d prociC F,Pca ',Vas completC-d o,- 19,314. 1�I o o i-)g-,�Cu sit--s are rel-orade for th-- proposed Project Erea; since area has no, e'en CC filet ly sulrve,,ed, !,-h2 ex- Itst-ence- of sites t'le-ie cannot be ruled out. Because of t:ie absance of Si tes !!l 2 Inn od oj,2t_t, p � s j-, area an d t n- Se v er a i o n -Ch, i F t 0 project area has uh,j;I, ia] for damagi,no poss P)l e arclh,�-,,,'_0109i C-)l and lo�- s crl,cal „°O S tJ "ro:)osed T:roi,-,c t :as i S S-;1 -1 n C. 1-o n u-i t ul r a I ?es ),,!r f-a s S;i o'1 1977. v- a I -t e r a t-7 o n d 0 e s c,I'-- f i-_c.-s s a r i i d r resources A m '­r o1 Is are pronos2d to i2 Ll POt2ntial ly s;jnificaniC of less 0, r !-, S 7,0 r I a r1ch a e 0 10 9 1 cal and p a I eon'--o 1 3 ii cu if S S. -1 . iq t i g F,,Moil . 1, � I U_ 1--S2 i on I,-_easures can, ;0,3 Z1, -,�I ) -'`Cq n t ST 1 R e G, and d-_ve 1 1,1)1 icn­ be- _,�ji -- A.cency and tne prival-,o develop°_r, 1. A cul -tural rvsou-Cos ­.!rve �sn c�,i 1 y 1 L each area for uhicn grading or c -7 ar di,!,.i Proposed. T11' ,,s c, !1 'U,,ral -es,,,,rrces survay s,.iould, survey of local documiented archaLoloni, I L sites and a field survey to g ca] and histo-i- L F VE, sit2s. confirl-.1. Cl cuiT,:�nted s"­�s -nd ideziti OT 1-1- I I 1 3 1 A I t— U 1 n sites. Tl n- sL!rv2y should I ue a- s i - end re_Coi�,Mend a method OF potential d,,1,e_l op-.I�� i, I OF i mpacts. U 2. Th-e resul is of tl,)-- c�j-j tjr�� I d Ordinance No 84-695/Page 347 of 354 EN, Redev2l opiiien Projec6 rea 3 transmitted to 1oca1 universities, museurs and governtmant agencies directly concerned tii"th archaeology o"f the r'ag'i on. These agencies should be "informed of t;e potential for dove l opmLn`t of I i dant"i f7 ed Si"teS and 4112 l 1"tended phasing of d2velOpi eilt, aiid 1rV'/i ,,.°.d to dOCl1;;2nt tn2 Sli.2. 3. Agencies expressing interest in the site Should be permitted access to the property for conducting legitimate arc}1c.e010(jical research, 'iii accordance '.:!ith recoi%mendations of the cl.11turai r250urc2S Survey. 1. deiitl"fi2d a " ila 010 ]iCa1 Si"P..S 0f Si ^nii"i• '1t '/31 '12 lillCn caM 0C b' aXCa'Jated i)—or �o d2ve i opmei"t^Snou I d p r 0'L p 2cced i n C::2 cpeCi Tic plan tilro!Ign Oi"12 0! t follotwing technic;:.;cs: Preservation of the area in open space use laithout !isruption c"f the site and ri soi2 ii2ans of o.°o coon from intrusion. Burying o' J ; 2 in C 1j12r L.ii 7i °in'% f? and —ma 111 tai ns is accessi bi l i ty I"or p0ss i b a :'!'L.!;" excavation. Phasing 0"f d a v e op."?2n to avoid di SrLOti0i 0"i c^,2 S - TTY inTT-1i e, cava ion cn;l La!1 2 pII^I t v 5. Specii is p1aiiS 'o i I l Or0'vi Ll or .. 'v aitd, 00^um2nCatIan of arcl a Ol '_ 1 d Ja1 iint0 cl :A ! Si 2s of sinni 1 i can G 113 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 348 of 354 Ei,R, Redevelopi,en-C, Projec-L ,,,r2a 3 4 The follo-J"Ing IS a SUM,.Mary of environmenlil.al ei f2ci:s identi- fied in Che main text of the D'EIR which cannot be avoid-, if eitl-,,_,r alt-erncitiva 3 or 4 is implemented. 1. Modification of Physical Appearance of Undeveloped Areas. undeveloped areas wi Tl significantly change the appearance of these areas. ?iris impact cannoiC t)2 avoided vili "Cho '- preventing devolop-mz!nt in the ProjeCt area. TMs i.-I!,pact -is not� c--ns4 dared of- signi- ftcanul public Concern. alt_�rzf ;ion o' 1­10_ Z, Physical OPPea-Fn` Of tf 2 land 'iay be considered S4g--,4 i cant L),,.i somie individual area s general Y r C,�,a-r d, a, 6 , S. Tn- a s b1 i g;iced and tic, Si g n i i Caii Plant 1 i I xi sty 4 n i,Ie: Project area,. 2. Reduced Air Miality. Increases in traffic. llectri- Ci tj-'_and ga—SU sa-e—"!i 1 1 7'ed,,,,c2 a i r qua 11 ty r2 I P: t., case in -ililcll no to o C i-1�,,y,. T I - ,I C 1_1 G lilcr2:Scj local Cirlissions 11 n-_r, eil s? I a n J r 0"'a-1 ^O a concen'Crations. fV,2, lonal iii- rquality 6J I I re'];Jcadi b) a siali 1 ar extent by sii-10 I air d2 ✓e 1 o,)-,i:-,-,t n 2 ar-1 the SOU th C 0 a S Lt ii 41 r 5, stn, b 11 p r i 1C t,S ';iii 4,-, e t0 th P-0ject. 3. 1 it c r e a s-_s L e ii!c rn-a 3�_,s -i c n d Cons t-i'd-ETE _a I ev c I s a siiJl 0. -a S:_ s '. S_ imilpa-t 4 p roj ec-4 mare av&i 1 V1 Gls? A. advalrs_- c­f,- S,;Iould no I C ;D C 0:',s i fl,-,r s i cin ni 4. Ciodli f i C at z-!*o n Sl L l d U ­1 po:>a v, in,-op 0 s 0 d, � ti Pro c e n s i lr .i,r C!1 o 2 e I o 7); o Pro- j n-C it and 1C,I e el ';l 1;1 o 1 fir 7 i1fEpaCt can n to b�� p 2v f 21 l3 -3,,i i-, prev��nul 11l 0 in ­fsie propos-c! 5. Additional Fraffic or,, Local t 2 r-, a1 s Y i 2 e, employees io t.1,2 p-ooj-f,d tralf-Fic on local I I i _U i to sy s te m in I,n e, V I c*1 j y s increased traffic increase le,12-is of ,n a%7 t1 reduce level of service on arl ".-arial streak's U-) traffic system 11-.Ipro,✓eiments are not to ,')I-p' n for this increase. Soi-Ifle such moasures are in- Clud-nd 1,1 the proposed project and in the Clt,,'s regul.— p-ogra- of transportai ton sYst-om, mianige-mient and sti ifliprovel-,10-1cs, but some adverse impacts /i I i the proposed project. 115 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 349 of 354 EIR, Redevelop:;ent Project ,area 3 i 6. Indirect housing Market Impacts. Additional employment in the proposed uroject area s1i11 result in indirect impacts on housing costs and housing availability in the proposed project's housing/employment market area. Because of the sip a 1 1 increment -in employment rel a t i e to total ho,,ssing and employment in ti,e proposed project's market area, such effects are expectedto be s;na11 . 7. Increases in Regional Energy Consumption. The project wi l i resi. i t in increased energy conslflmp do i in tfle region relative to the case in ah i ch no develop; ent v ere to occur. This additional energy coIsumption is similar to that wh1Ch 1'!o+uI d occur i If 'tile deveI opi,lt,.nt ':'n?,e t0 tak- place at any location wi thin tite region or ;a i t'nou t tine intervention of the Carson Redevelop;!?entaa�2ncy. 8. Temporary Disruption of Traffic and 3usiless activity During Ccnstru�tion. Construction oi, sstructur:-s, s;,reets and utilities trill res!.ilt in ier�orary disruption of traf- fi c and business acti ;i ry, d :°i r y i dura vi o o F construc- tion. Tiose 7mpaCts are 'cons?ldered ii0r ai d!.;r'li?g CnnS' rl(C- tlon activity, and no construction of LInuSLia1 dl!rat1o71 C'r physical extent is an ticipa ted. 116 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 350 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3 5. CMULPATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects include effects of related projects producing i„ipacts related to those of the proposed project, and impacts of different types whiich are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. Cumulative effects are discussed throughout the DEIR vihere they are considered potentially significant. Related projects or anticipated developments for which cumulative effects are considered in the DEIR include the fol l o ri ng: 1. General growth of population and enployment in the region in accordance Nith regional ior-casts, S'CAG- 82 GroEwth Forecast Policy and the Carson General P1 an. 2. Devel opneiit of existing Redevelopment Project Area i adjacent to the proposed project anend:rent, including up to 2.7 million square feet of commercial and industrial development. 3. Devel ooncnt in existing Redevel opmen Project 2 in the southeastern Se:tion of the City, including "p t0 2.5 million square feet of industrial devel opmien t. 4. Development of proposed R--development Project Araa 3 in the southeastern sec Lion of the City. 5. Development of the Los Angeles Intermodal Container Transf :r Facility. 5. Long Beach-Los ,nreles Ral l Tansi t Project. 7. 'Watson' s Business and Industrial Park Davn opmen. The above projects, if all are able to develop °;i t'i i n t'-e 20-year project time fra :e assu :ied in t47 DFI° ,^e t\, 111 expected to resu i t i n di rect ^p i oyrrent of b t;leen '.0.000 and 45,00 U 'obs i n tie n - ;. ! g iC J prOj� t'S prii3ar,, i �. �inai �;;ij) ! Oyi: _:lt market area. This emplovnent is nearly half the proj2ct:ed gro:,ith in eii;T;l oyii:vnt bat'-;een the `dears 1930 and G0'�)J Projected for, the Long Beach and Palos Verdes sta istical areas b, SCAG-82 Groath Forecast Policy. Bet_,.., project area includes a substantial porno!: or t �, industrial area within this statistical area, this projection is considered consistent, with tare SCA-G-82 gro,:'rni forecast policy. Cumulative effects of these projects on the regional circulation system are the principal cumulativa effects o; concern. The San Diego Free,day in the project area currently operates at capacity during rush hour. Mitigration measures discussed in the circulation Se ion o 117 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 351 of 354 EIR, Redevelopment Proj-,Ec Ar-,a 3 ti'10 DE a-I e I Ii t 2n dc d to d-a a 1 t,'I 4�ripaci.s of i,oi-n -,, p proposed project and :Mler pi-ojel--ts considered. H o,,,;e v -r, actions 'Lo reduce demar id and increase capacity in thlIs Url- 1-1�!e Carson corridor are o,,Qsid-- t' jurisdiction of I)1-2n'C' A q a;ic", a. -�.,2 Ci ty 0 C,-�rsof I. 6 1 , s c orri,der is tCie sljbje.,-t Dif Origoing regional stud Cs to de'L-,e-jflInee solutions Lased on f? Iticl;)atod regional impacts of + n proposed project on nis of s-st- renional J J - water, sol id was'L2 disposal and o'ciers are sifililar t0 the iir;paf:Ls Viiat would e,{4S- H file pro Ject ✓ cre -to L- devel c-:)ed ,-L"' an?! otlier 1 oCa, cuion I it Whe recDicn. I F i n d u s t.r i o �' U,-VIl op!'2n` demand fi2r, not in Cars,on U, -OL191, `if- proposed project, It is 1 N"",elv fFlucil OF file development proposed lioul d occur a L a no'C n r lOCatiOn in tlI- region. itigation Curnulative i7mp; _,-ts on ragional systesiis ,-)F transport ' I I , L,a'r 1. n I a n d o t';-I:-,- Can e e a s u re s ',later, s,2,,i--r, so I i d iast-e d J spo s mi i ti go�Ued by ado t.-. 1� lon 01 a project of r.� dove! OY i or soeed th-- VOPOS°d PI-0j rL iS inn; n,-12,d to el -1:1.-. n- S o blight 4 i I t j,, I �4 , I a pr'o' g n -;-)iiLiyr I pro �-,ct area, F,,,d - pro' C Q i � 1 - !�. lesser lnt�ensi' v or slo,,'ier il-11,Aementatic-n �otjjd rlo�,, focal needs For -Hnirov--m;�nt or I-lie projec', ti gat-i on -e a s u,re s o T- 1 0 4 J°0 Lrips ri c r,2 a s-'i-, -,, y ,l corridors are outside 4 e d'0 V Or -,T! I ,I r'I; rsoq. M 2 Ell s X19 r-e S iii i is dod in t,:iL Lt -14 'pf-R-al—Ing p e c n c c n s 41 S i-,!'n.1- J it policies. 1 2 CJ ,y is in studil-s and ac i oils '-o t:11 1 G?",,ac a Diego re2,Jay Corri,or. Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 352 of 354 EIR, Redevelop!nent Project Area 3 i r i,ITIGAT The fol l ut/i ng is a s!_ ;, ,- Of mi ti gati on lileasures as i den- tified in the -main body of the DEIR which are propose!] to :Jllnimize t;'le sig;7T icarit e i-OCts 01 'L" - propose(] 'project. 1. Mi ti cati on of Traff i C I�roacts. Pl i ti gdti on measures included in the proposed project to reduce impacts on the circulation system include requirements for new develo,m2nts LO Pr'OVi de ad2duat2 Pal-king and access in accordance 'wi th the City's d2Vel ooment reg,i l ations. 2. "Mitigation of Fire Pi°otectioil Im?Jacts. All projects will—So—rev ieI,Jed by ti72 dc-Pai'V1'ei7C to liisur2 adequate access, 1.,lator supply and internal "Fire detection and SLIP- pression systems. 3. Mitigation of Energy Impaci:s Measures to reduce energy coJlsurlpti on i nc ude Cone 1 i arlc2 with Ca 1 i Porni a Energy Co;,mi si son standards ",`or ener ov-consery i;lg cons truc- t ti On t e—hni q i;s "i 7i <91 l n° construe t i 0n a:nd a tteq i 0n to mieasures 31t C2 '1=yllCi ii i "S triVel <_d uiid -n 0i;rage ! se Of ni gn-occuparicy i etii C 1 2s ii­ 1 I ', arge Si ngil onant projects as Ot11;1il.-:v under CirculaL"Ion =Nitro:it) 4. ilitiaation of D2Ta:nds of °u b1iC Ee:cilities. Pub I i C T ac 1 i tieg needs a1i 1 i be ;irOltZ1 a r'2pl:lr?;1i2 ', necessary p',1J 11C b,, av,i l ab12 0. Oil ail 'r SChedu I e Ol' a a1 f ab i l l u a"v „ : t i i.T: (hive 10 ']en 1 . S OCCi7- Pl ed 1 n or Co 1 nsure L%''d n':) i-aCil itieS or ser:'ic s 2Yi3G. 5. M ti g `i.1 On of l '_.,n';C i ull:'l sca 2 _ i I .. c'1 c: � T �dCi � '0t, '7 i 11v ad'r2rS2 iii L iii CT p ' 1 i' I SC2 r" i(C J' L! P7�'`;1 (� ' '° ; ,'_.i� 1l :2 n11 ti gated till"OUd i l i OCc' tii,•l C; i�:] ( 'InCi "..�n't i ', ;_ t0 pays Public costs in su p?r_t of it"":J d 3``e i 07i"eny' a$ d-ve'1 O:m2nt to insure try.-, !.iUlliCi,;D,1 i CG;. s iil) no municipal r_'venues. 119 Ordinance No 84-695/Page 353 of 354 EIR, Redev210pment Pro-ject Area 3 7. ALTERJATITIVES TO THE P'OPOSED P22" ECT The folIo'aing section summarizes alternatives to the pro- posed action. Each alternative is briefly described and its environmental impacts summa.rizcd. Three alternatives were analyzed throughout the EIR. Alternative 1. No Neva Development in the Project Area. This alternative is considered prixnaci y as a basis for comparison 'raith other alternatives. Under this alter- native, existing uses would be maintained throughout the proposed project area. No redeveiopm-ent project ',!ou1d be adopted. This alternative should not be considered a realistic alternative for adoption by the Agency. This alternative would result in minimal impacts on traffic and other urban services. The project area would continue to serve as a mixed commercial/industrial area. Implementation of this al terna`i ve ;ioul d require drastic controls by the City aiid probable cond2iination of ma'iv areas in the proposed project ar;�a ..o prevent their V development. Alternative 2, No Project. This alternative considers projected deveiop;nent in `}12 proposed protect area base on current land use r2l.uiaticns and development trends, but without the adoDti 0n of the Red2 V 10 n n', Dr04,Ct Under this al t2rna'Ci v?, dive � opm2n"t would con,tin_;0 7 n tide proposed project area by pri �i- e r r J �t � Oiler"�`/ O':lner5, a'1d some i!"Oro'venionts ',r0u j d t•a ;e X71 ace e as r�.Iu"i r°2d' b':, �t City of these dive f)'ers. 'io` t ver, signifiCant areas 0 blight including inCGi patibI Iarld Uses and IaC: 0 adequate public faciiities and infrastructure _,ouId continue to exist in the proposed project area. Deve"ioo- ment '1/o a 1 d be expected 'to "take p ar . a r a s 1 n the proposed project area thlan :could be t y adoption of the redeveIoomenr project. In comparison 'Jai th al "ternati ves 3 and 4, t�?i s d 1 t?rnar 1 'J� would have less impact on urban Systems 1ncluding traf lc. Plater, sewer, sol i d ',aas"Ge di soosa . and other U t i i 'i +_i er, - - Holiever, because redevel opMent i;av increment finircing woul d not be available to pay "i or publ i c i;npro'rerr ;its ';-I the project area, this alternative viouid place a nza';ier burden on the City for support of t;;e land uses in t proposed project area. Under this alternative older, obsolete and unattractive industrial facilities 'would be ex0ected t0 c011 ti nlf2 t0 exist in the project area, maintaining an Undeslr•1-bi2 en', i- ronmant for 'the development of na,a businesses and 121 Ordinance No. 84-695/Page 354 of 354 P-0jecic Al-ea 3 the iTD^CVGffaIt OI f k',he a', e1 . Al terna IL-Ii ye 3. Fu I 1 0 a ve I opment. Th i s al tlerna Gi v 11 v 0 1 v e s t;12T U 517�)11 i I d ou_-Co f Li12 p roj l,c tt_ Brea a L a i� z-i II Il e i nt-nsi 'ty under burr eil t I and usa regal a.'L-.i ons and ant.icipo i:ed market condi ti orls. Th 1 s a1 e r n a t-i ,,e is described t In r, o LT g f i,i,i t the -r-I l,. Under this alternative, an estimated 6.4 million square felt of n ej industrial development could be accommodated in the project area, more than double the current estfina-ted 2.4 m i 1 11 on s,7,1 Ia re i e 2 t of coil_.­Ilerci• l and industrial floor space. Tails d2velop;,nent ,iauld requir-e- signilicant expansion of th.e urban infrastructure o-I streets and wui litias ser±ring the pro Ject area, and wouid bring an estimated 13,641 employees to the projec-'C This alternative would result In gredLter impact. an circulation and other urban sYsielis than other r a t n-r n a fives considered. Hmi-ever, becaiis, increi,ent be availabli, for d,_`/el0TT,'rt Oir supporting public ';�iprovc­­­s 1 1 hes- ij-Ipa_,S t) Constructed, al I ol, ing ai%�a o je . 11 �-4!Ie v:?I op 0 is and b0st use. A I ternative 41. T!nis a! ternati,,­2 represenis 1 Pss de v e I o pme n,,- 'u-,n a n Al term C 4 vp 3 umd�r t-e sa.7,if� i -and 1 1 1 L, �L - p1331. T I I i s f)ro j c o n S C n'- 1.1 j "I j-1�,� i-j� I ,i i- L j 1,7 Plan an-' zo-ning in -he n ;D. Ij I a I t-e r n a z,i .,culd iivo i rn p r ov e iii -$ 'Uhl On :,l ,2 r 1 v 3 a c On `t0 a-11 -11 n a'-:, 7 0(i v 0 11 patilb !e land uses. Under !.,h I s al �_°rna hi traCi Jr- i,: ,,Qcts I 3i o e d L o insure that all inter L, , sec-110tIs vr,�­2 capab I e Gi perFor;,gint, at oF service D or ou u� .I. I ev, . service I , Mould axis a . ;:,eat: hours, 0 i s_-ry i D is q,3'i ra I lv c o n s i d e re d a n a C-1 ei)IC%1-)1 2 u r 1)a.n of t-lj i-p. Under tliis a' ternai­jve_ L e,r, e�s d C1_ 41 f) feet of now ca now cot! I �t DC project a, ea. Alternat Ve S. L 1 4 S 1 I rl I s '?I ves the Use Of par ti 0f Ilie project area or d e v o ment oF n--,I,l residential us"s ircludim-4 sjJjgI, _- f a.li-1 1 G ul t7 fC,- ,.ily UnitS. T f 1 2,r,r C, .1 1 - _s, o�, approxima '-he p-r, o4 ect e 1, area, 'I are d,2si gna -d f,,,,^ approximately 10100 t, a '2 5 0 0 d:(e i I i n g units c-0 v i ded, depending on density and mix of re S units provided.