HomeMy Public PortalAbout84-119RESOLUTION 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
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 preparedby 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 reduction of the noise impact by reducing
the amount of traffic related to the project requires a traffic
EXHIBIT 4
Res. No. 84-119/Page 2 of 318
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 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 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 -
Res. No. 84-119/Page 3 of 318
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 "O" 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
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 -
Res. No. 84-119/Page 4 of 318
Section 3. The City may expend funds which may be
necessary or appropriate in connection with the redevelopment
of Redevelopment Project 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 Redevelop-
ment Plan.
Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that the
provision of low and moderate income housing outside Redevelopment
Project No. 3 will be of benefit to the project and to Redevelop-
ment Project 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 Redevelop-
ment Project No. 3 attached hereto as Exhibit B, including
the change thereto as recommended by the Planning Commission
and the Agency, which the City Council hereby determines to
be necessary and desirable, is hereby approved.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 9t day of
July , 1984.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
J
- 4 -
VL&401..
Mayor PRO TEM
RESOLUTION 110. 84-119/PAGE 5 of 318
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF CARSON )
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 resolution, being Resolution No. 84-119
was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City atani ed
regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 9th day of
July 19 84 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the
ollowing vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: DeWitt, Egan, Mills, Muise and Calas.
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
n ' �- 44 /A-
City Clerk, City ot Carso Calitornia.
Resolution No. 84-,119/Page 6 of 318
EXHIBIT 1
J
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 7 of 318
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:
-1-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 8 of 318
a)
Faulty planning;
b)
the subdivision and sale of lots of irregular form
and inadequate size for proper use and development;
e)
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 9 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 10 of 318
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
-4-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 11 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 12 of 318
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
i
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
M
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 13 of 318
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
,torage 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 4 (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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 14 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 15 of 318
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
adequate buffering. This block also contains problems
associated with faulty exterior spacing as is evidenced by the
existence of storage spaces that surround the chemical
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 16 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 17 of 318
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
thisareaand, 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
-11-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 18 of 318
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
along 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 evidencesproblems associated with faulty
interior 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 other appurtenant uses. Second, this block also contains
some unutilized space on the eastern corner. ALso, the
location of some of the residential structures on the lots is
such that there are several portions of space underutilized.
-12-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 19 of 318
Much of this unused space is overgrown with brush, weeds, and
other overgrown vegetation, detracting from the value and
i
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, and 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)
This area 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.
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
causes 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 almost the complete lack of buffering structure and the
absence of landscape improvements evidenced in other
industrial areas in the City. The mixed and shifting uses in
-13-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 20 of 318
this area is evidenced by the existence of an office building
development adjacent to a metal recycling facility.
223rd Street (From Wilmington Avenue toAlamedaStreet)
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
mixed and shifting uses, it contains other specific problems
that constitute a serious health hazard to this area and its
environs.
First, fronting 223rd Street on the south is the vacated
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 not only inactive, constituting a severe economic drain on
the area, but is also a severe health hazard in that it is
contaminated 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
occur without public aid and assistance.
The other unique problem associated with this area relates to
another abandoned industrial facility, the Johns -Manville
-14-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 21 of 318
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 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 area 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.
-15-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 22 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 23 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 24 of 318
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 278th Street.
220TH STREET
The paving in the area immediately east of the intersection
at Wilmington Avenue is in a state of disrepair.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 25 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 26 of 318
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 61035. 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 27 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 28 of 318
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 $2509000,000. The
proposed 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 bonds 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 29 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 30 of 318
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 --
seg.), The Relocation Assistance Act (California
GOvernment Code Sections 7260, et seg.) 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 31 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 32 of 318
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
t
fulfilled the obligations imposed by applicable
laws, rules and regulations.
f
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 33 of 318
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
housingfor
rental or purchase by low and moderate
income persons and families. If insufficient
suitable housing units are available in the City
f 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.
-27-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 34 of 318
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
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
M!
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 35 of 318
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
-29-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 36 of 318
temporary move, adequate replacement dwellings are
available to such person.
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:
T
(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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 37 of 318
(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.
-37-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 38 of 318
(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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 39 of 318
move a business in accordance with notice
provisions of applicable laws, rules and
regulations.
R. 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 establish
at least one appropriately equipped office near the site of
the acquisition which is accessible to all the area residents
- who may be displaced and which is staffed with trained or
experienced personnel. Office hours would be scheduled to
accommodate persons unable to visit the office during normal
business hours.
C. Information Program
The Agency shall establish and maintain an information
program that provides for the following:
i?? Within fifteen days following the initiation of
negotiations and not less than ninety days in advance of
displacement, except as otherwise provided for by
applicable law, rule or regulations, the Agency shall
prepare and distribute informational materials to
persons eligible for Agency relocation benefits and
assistance.
12) Personal interviews and personas contacts with
occcupants of the property to the maximum extent
practicable.
-33-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 40 of 318
(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.
r
E. Relocation Resources Surve
The Agency shall conduct a survey of available relocation
resources in accordance with applicable laws, rules and
regulations.
F Relocation Pa ments
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.
G. Temporary Moves
-34-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 41 of 318
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 Housing
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.
1• Grievance Procedures
The Agency will adopt 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 42 of 318
E. Analysis of Preliminary Plan
The Preliminary Plan for ther
p oposed Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project Area No.
the r 3 describes the boundaries of
p oposed Project Area, and contains general statements of
land uses, layout of principal streets
building intensities and buildingpopulation densities,
basis for the redevelopment standards proposed as the
p of the Project Area. The
Preliminary Plan also shows how the
purposes Of the Communy
Redevelopment Law would be attained through the redevelopm nt
Posed
p redevelopment will
Of the area and states that the proposed redevelopmen
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.
fi proposes the same land uses and r The Redevelopment Plan
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
Redevelopment haw b of the Community
y 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 43 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 44 of 318
RESOLUTION NO. 84-776
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
i
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 RedevelopmentPlanwith 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
=1-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 45 of 318
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 landfillsiteswhich may contain potentially hazardous
materials.
Findings: Changes or alterations have been required in, or
r
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 46 of 31P
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-
T
L
I
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 47 of 31.8
No potentially significant effects identified.
5. 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.
Land Use
-4-
Resolution No. 84-119/Dal-e 48 of 318
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.
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 49 of 318
Prior to development of former landfill sites, detailed
analysis of the specific potential hazard posed by each site
L will be conducted, and mitigation measures incorporated into
specific project designs to deal with potential environmental
effects.
. 11. 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
met 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 ETR.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 50 of 318
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• TransporatationlCirculation
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 51 of 318
IFETY
M.
Figure 5-
22 LOCATION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 52 of 318
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
>:s Area designated by the
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,# State of California as a
special study zone as
determined by the
Alquist Priolo Act
of 1974
SOURCE: SAFETY, SEISMIC SAFETY
AND NOISE ELEMENTS,
CITY OF CARSON
GENERAL PLAN,
REVISED DECEMBER 11, 1981.
NES
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 53 of 318
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
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
r
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 54 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 4
NUMBER OF DAYS
FEDERAL AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS WERE
EXCEEDED
DURING 1982
average equal or
OZO
CARBON
MONOXIDE 2
SULFUR
DIOXIDES
TSP 4
LEADS
Anaheim
28
28
2
0
0
0
Costa Mesa
6
2
0
0
0
E1 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
NM
NM
Whittier
44
8
0
NM
NM
Niel Not measured at this station.
1 Days Ozone exceeded 0.12 parts per million, 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 TS� exceeded 260 ug/cubic meter, 24-hour average.
5 Quarters lead exceeded 1.5 ug/cubic meter, quarterly average.
TABLE 5
NUMBER OF DAYS OZONE EPISODE CRITERIA WERE REACHED IN 1980
N No data available for this station.
25
STAGE 2
(hourly average equal or
greater than 0.35 ppm)
1980 1979
0 0
0 0
N h!
0 1
0 0
0 0
N N
0 0
0 0
1 3
1 3
0 0
STAGE 1
(hourly
average equal or
greater
than 0.20 ppm)
1980
1979
Anaheim
6
5
Costa Mesa
0
1
El Toro
3
6
La Habra
14
21
Lennox
0
0
Long Beach
1
1
Los Alamitos
3
2
Los Angeles
10
14
Lynwood
0
6
Pico Rivera
38
38
Pomona
49
57
Whittier
5
16
N No data available for this station.
25
STAGE 2
(hourly average equal or
greater than 0.35 ppm)
1980 1979
0 0
0 0
N h!
0 1
0 0
0 0
N N
0 0
0 0
1 3
1 3
0 0
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 55 of 318
TABLE 6
NUMBER OF DAYS STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED
AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGE DURING 1982
Anaheim
Costa Mesa
E1 Toro
La Habra
Lennox
Long Beach
Los Alamitos
Los Angeles
Lynwood
Pico Rivera
Pomona
Whittier
OZONEI
Days
Maxi
28
0.26
6
0.18
18
0.17
66
0.32
2
0.16
6
0.22
28
0.23
91
0.40
37
0.26
108
0.39
66
0.31
44
0.31
CARBON
NUMBER OF DAYS STATE AIR
MONOXIDE2
WERE EXCEEDED
Days
Max
2
13
2
21
0
8
8
19
50
26
5
14
NM
NM
9
15
47
27
-- 6
13
0
12
8
15
SULFUR
DIOXIDE3
Days Max
0 0.04
0 0.06
NM NM
0 0.04
0 0.08
0 0.09
0 0.08
0 0.05
0 0.06
0 0.05
NM NM
0 0.09
1 Maximum 1-hour(SO22 24-hour) concentration, parts per million.
2 Same as federal siandard.
3 Days, maxima for 24-hour standard.
NM Pollutant not monitored at this station.
NITROGEN
DIOXIDE
Days Max
0 0.20
0 0.23
PJM NM
1 0.28
4 0.34
4 0.30
NM NM
8 0.41
0 0.24
2 0.29
2 0.32
4 0.30
C
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1982.
\I-
26
NUMBER OF DAYS STATE AIR
QUALITY STANDARDS
WERE EXCEEDED
AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM DAILY/MONTHLY
AVERAGE
DURIJG 1982
2TSP1 3
Days Max
S�LFATE
Days
Max 3
jEAD
Days
Max'
Anaheim
9 188
0
22.6
0
1.58
La Habra
18 248
1
28.1
0
1.52
Lennox
14 200
2
37.3
3
2.34
Long Beach
13 192
1
30.4
0
1.26
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
pollutant.
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.
\I-
26
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 56 of 318
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 the
heart and brain, of oxygen. It is not known to have
adverse effects on vegetation, visibility or material
objects.
Oxides of Nitrogen (NO ). Two oxides of nitrogen are
important in air pollution. These are nitric oxide (NO),
(' a colorless, odorless gas formed from atmospheric nitrogen
and oxygen when combustion takes place under high
temperature and/or high pressure, and nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), a reddish -brown, irritating gas formed by the
combination of nitric oxide with oxygen. Motor vehicles
are the primary source of oxides of nitrogen in the region,
along with combustion in power plants. Some petroleum
refining operations, other industrial sources, ships,
railroads and aircraft operations are less important
sources.
Oxides of nitrogen are direct participants in photoche;nical
smog reactions. The emitted compound, nitric oxide,
combines with oxygen in the atmosphere, in the presence of
hydrocarbons and sunlight, to form nitrogen dioxide and
ozone. Nitrogen dioxide can color the atmosphere at
concentrations as lo.,i as 0.5 parts per million on days 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.
i
In the South Coast Air Basin,.fuel combustion is the
27
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 57 of 318
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 1968, Towered
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 light from the sun.
Photochemical Oxidant (0 ). The term "photochemical oxi-
dant can include severaf different pollutants, but con-
sists primarily of ozone (more than 90%), and a group of
chemicals called organic peroxynitraces. Photochemical
oxidants are created in the atmosphere and are not emitted
directly into the air. Reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of
nitrogen are the emitted contaminants which participate in
the reaction. Ozone is a pungent, colorless, toxic gas which
is produced by the photochemical process. Photochemical
oxidant reaches its highest concentrations in the summer
and early fall when ultraviolet energy from the sun and
other conditions are most suitable for oxidant -producing �\
reactions. motor vehicles are the major source of emission
of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons (principal
ozone precursors) in the South Coast Air Basin.
The common effects of oxidants are damage to vegetation and
cracking of untreated rubber. Photochemical oxidants in
high concentrations can also directly affect the lungs,
causing respiratory irritation and possible changes in lung
function.
Particulates. Atmospheric particulates are made up of
finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust,
aerosols, fumes and mists. About 900, by weight, of the
emitted particles are larger than 10 microns, but about
90%, by number, of particulates are less than 5 microns in
diameter. The aerosols formed in the atmosphere are
usually 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 concen-
trations are higher during summer months.
Particulate matter consists of particles in the atmosphere
E
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 58 of 318
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 fuels.
Some hydrocarbons are highly photochemically reactive.
Hydrocarbon concentrations are generally higher in winter
because the reactive hydrocarbons react more slowly then and
can accumulate in the atmosphere to higher concentrations.
The major source of reactive hydrocarbons in the South Coast
T Air Basin is now the internal combustion engine of motor vehi-
\, Iles. Minor sources include petroleum refining, petroleum
marketing operations, and evaporation of organic solvents.
Certain hydrocarbons, such as ethylene, damage plants by
inhibiting growth and causing flowers and leaves to fall.
Levels of hydrocarbons commonly measured in urban areas are
not known to cause adverse effects in humans.
Environmental Project Emissions. The proposed project will 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 would result in higher
levels of air pollution than would be the case without such
development.
Tables 7 and 8 summarize air pollution emission factors
used in calculating project emissions and contributions 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, water heating and cooking; local and regional
emissions from motor vehicles traveling to and from the
project site; and combustion of fuels at power plants to
produce electric power used on the project site.
29
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 59 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 7
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION FACTORS
Hot soak 2.01 2.01 gm/day
.303 .303 gm/day
Assumptions:
Ambient temperature 75 degrees Fahrenheit
Operations percentage:
Cold start 35.06
Hot start 11.50
Hot stabilized 53.0%
Vehicle mix:
Light
duty
auto
Emissions in
Grams Per
utile
truck
12.190
% of
-------------------------------------------=--------
truck
1.4%
Heavy
duty
gasoline truck
Speed (MPH)
--------------------
miles
---CO-----
-THC
-------------------
NMHC
NO
----------------------
SOX Part
1.0
Idle
0 %
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
15
5%
27.69
2.51
2.70
1.93
.24
.34
20
15%
22.22
2.00
1.73
1.94
.24
.34
.34
25
10%
18.52
1.66
1.44
2.00
.24
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
.24
.34
.34
50
10%
11.33
0.96
0.83
2.56
.24
55
10%
10.84
0.90
_ 0.78
2.89
.24
.34
.34
b0
4%
9.08
0.76
0.66
3.46
.24
.34
Wtd Average
100%
17.73
1.57
1.39
2.31
0.24
0.34
Crankcase Blowby
.0003
.0003
Diurnal Emissions
4.442
4.442
gm/day
.175
.175
gm/day
Hot soak 2.01 2.01 gm/day
.303 .303 gm/day
Assumptions:
Ambient temperature 75 degrees Fahrenheit
Operations percentage:
Cold start 35.06
Hot start 11.50
Hot stabilized 53.0%
Vehicle mix:
Light
duty
auto
80.4%
Light
duty
truck
12.190
Medium
duty
truck
1.4%
Heavy
duty
gasoline truck
2.5%
Heavy
duty
diesel truck
2.5%
Motorcycle
1.0
Source: South Coast.Air Quality Management District, ENFAC-6 Model.
30
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 60 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 8
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION FACTORS
---------------Emissions---------------
A CO HC NOX SOX 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
lbs/mile
0.039
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.001
TABLE 9
AIR
POLLUTANT
EMISSIONS
Daily
------------Emissions
(lbs/day)-------------
Emission Source
Usage
Units
CO
HC
NOX
SOX
Part
EXISTING USE
Gas Consumption
0.26
mcf
5
2
31
0
0
` Electric Poorer
220
mwh
44
37
506
583
88
Mobile Source
111531
miles
4348
386
567
59
76
TOTAL EXISTING USE
4397
425
1104
642
164
PROPOSED USE
Gas Consumption
0.85
mcf
17
7
102
1
0
Electric Power
721
mwh
144
123
2657
1910
288
Mobile Source
336881
miles
13134
1165
1714
178
230
TOTAL PROPOSED USE
13295
1294
3473
2088
518
CHANGE
Gas Consumption
0.59
mcf
12
5
71
0
0
Electric Power
500
mwh
100
85
1151
132.6
200
Mobile Source
225350
miles
8786
779
1147
119
154
TOTAL CHANGE - 8898 869 2369 1446 354
Abbreviations: mcf: million cubic feet; mwh: megawatt -hours
31
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 61 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Table 10 compares 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 Freeway and south of Artesia Boulevard in Los
Angeles County, and includes all or part of the communities
of Carson, Lakewood, 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 20% of the total for the source -
receptor area, and less than 0.2% of the regional total.
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF PROJECT EMISSIONS TO SOURCE/RECEPTOR,
AREA 4 TOTAL EMISSIONS, 1987
Existing Use
Proposed Project
Change
Area 4
Basin Total
- Emissions in Tons per D
CO
Tons
2.2 0.6%
6.6 1.8'0
4.4 1.2%
362.09
6227.7
NO
Tons
0.6 0.5%
1.7 1.7%
1.2 1.2%
100.75
959.0
32
Reactive
Organic Gases
Tons %
0.2 0.2%
0.6 0.7%
0.4 0.4%
Ee?<.' r '
1002.4
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 62 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 11
1 -HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
FOR TYPICAL STREET SEGMENTS
33
1 -Hour
1 -Hour
Average
Maximum
CO Concentration (ppm)
Alternative
Traffic
Volume
Ambient
CO (ppm)
At Distance
15 Meters
from Roadway
75
Meters
I. 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
6.8
Including Ambient
14
33.8
20.8
Wilmington at Carson
2,430
2.3
0.8
Including Ambient
14
16.3
14.8
Alameda at Sepulveda
2,220
2.1
0.7
Including Ambient
14
16.1
14.7
3. Alternative 3
' I-405'at Wilmington Ave
21,730
20.6
7.1
Including Ambient
14
34.6
21.1
Wilmington at Carson
2,610
2.5
0.8
Including 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
Carbon Monoxide CO)
Near
Concentrations Roadways, Federal Highway
Administration, 1980
Assumptions: F Stability (very stable),
wind speed
1 meter/second, ;rind angle
20 degrees to roadway, surface
roughness 10
cm, mixing
height 1000
meters.
33
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 63 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Carbon monoxide concentrations. Table 11 illustrates
carbon monoxide concentrations expected from motor vehicle l
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 to reduce
this hazard to insignificant levels. If mitigation
measures are not included in the project design, a project
EIR will be required to identify potential impacts
and mitigation measures.
Other hazardous substances which may be emitted by
industrial processes which may locate in the project area
will be regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
Construction emissions. Construction emissions include
emissions from motor vehicles used during construciton, 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 Management Plan Consistency. The proposed
project is consistent with the Air Quality Management Plan
which is based on the Carson General Plan, on which
regional growth projections for population, 'housing and
employment were based, and is therefore consistent with the
regional growth management plan. The project has the 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 with other
projects in the City, a total of approximately 65,000 jobs
is estimated at full development. This compares to an
34
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 64 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
increase of 48,000 jobs within the entire Long Beach/Palos
Verdes statistical area between 1980 and the 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 SCAG growth forecast
Policy. However, this employment represents faster growth
in employment only, and not more employment -generating land
use area than assumed in SCAG projections.
Mitigation 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 in the
next 10 to 20 years has a potential to adversely affect air
quality. Measures to reduce air pollution emissions in the
region may be adopted as part of the Air Quality Management
Plan. These measures cannot be assured at this time
because they depend on regional policies and other actions
which are outside the jurisdiction of the Carson
Redevelopment Agency.
Developments in the project area with industrial processes
which are likely to result in pollutant emissions will
require construction permits from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and will be subject to district
emission controls.
Measures to reduce tripmaking included in the discussion of
circulation impacts will also reduce air pollution
emissions.
The following mitigation measures are included in the
proposed project:
o Improvement of existing streets and parkways where only
partial improvements exist to the extent redevelopment
funds are available and private development takes place
in the project area. This mitigation measure will
reduce fugitive dust emissions from unpaved and
unimproved streets and sidewalks in the project area.
o Improvement of traffic flow through improvement of
existing streets in the project area to higher
standards, to the extent redevelopment funds are made
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 which will
reduce demands for on -street parking and improve
traffic flow.
Io Transportation System Management (TSM) measures to reduce
35
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 65 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
tripmaking including preferential parking for carpools,
use of company vanpools, transit use incentives and `
other measures which may be possible to incorporate on a
project -by -project basis. Because the nature of private
development that will take place in the project area is
not fully known at this time, specific mitigation
measures cannot be identified now.
3.3 Water
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 some 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 of most of the surface
Impact area of the project area with impervious surfaces. This
increased coverage will result in increasing the amount and
speed of runoff during storms. The area is protected b�,,•t a
storm drain system which provides protection for ;ost deve-
loped areas. Storm drain inadequacies in the project area
are discussed under Section 3.17, Utilities: The project
area's contribution to ground grater recharge is not
considered significant.
Mitigation Private developments constructed in the project area will
Measures be required to provide .adequate site drainage to the storm
drain system at the time of construction. Storm drain
improvements may also be constructed by the Los Angeles
County Flood Control District as funds are available and
projects reach high priority within the region. These
mitigation measures will reduce project impacts to an
insignificant level.
OR
Resolution No. $4-119/Page 66 of
EIR, 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
Impact project area. Because no rare or endangered species of
plants are affected, no significant impacts will result.
Mitigation
Measures None.
37
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 67 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.5 Animal Life
Environmental According to the Department of Fish and Game, the
Setting Dominguez Channel, which 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 t,•ao 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.
Environmental The project is likely to reduce the potential 'habitat for
Impact animals in the project area. The project will not change
the nature of the Dominguez Channel and development in
the project area probably will not disturb the possible
feeding of the least tern. Since there are no other rare
or endangered species involved, the effect of development
--- -- - is not significant.
Mitigation
Measures None.
C
38
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 68 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.6 Noi se
Environmental Noise levels in Carson are determined primarily by the
Setting level of vehicular traffic on immediately adjacent
streets and nearby freeways. Because of the 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 commonly 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 -night level
(L ). These two measures are numerically equivalent
winhin 0.5 decibel (dB) for most 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, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and many oth
agencies. er federal and state
In general, all streets with traffic exceeding. 10,000
vehicles per day have sufficient traffic to result in noise
levels at the property line greater than 65 decibels CNEL
or Ldn. Such levels are normally unacceptable for con-
struction of residential units under U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development standards and are not
eligible for FHA loans. Under California la•,v, a special
sound insulation study and additional sound insulation are
required when multiple family residences are constructed
that will be exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL.
Envi rona:aental Fi gure 8 111 ustrates traf f i c not se l evel s as a functi on
Impact of traffic volume and distance from the roadway. For a
typical roadway configuration, automobile/truck 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 some area of
private property exposed to greater than 65 d3 CNEL, the
"Normally Unacceptable" noise level for residential deve-
lopment. With a typical single-family home setback of 25
feet from the property line, the structure itself will be
included in the 65 dB CNEL zone for traffic volumes greater
than 15,000 vehicles per day.
39
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 69 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 12
INTERPRETATION OF COiaMUNITY 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 Normally acceptable for residential development.. The
noise exposure is above the 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 will be reasonably
- pleasant for recreation and play.
65-75 Normally Unacceptable for residential development.
California law 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 Clearly Unacceptable for residential development. The
noise exposure at the site is so severe that the
construction costs to make the indoor environment
acceptable would be prohibitive in most cases and the
outdoor environment would be intolerable.
In urban areas, the first row of residences bet, -Veen a
street and another residence will, generally, reduce the
noise level by 5 to 10 decibels, making noise from most
arterials acceptable for all but the residences immediately
facing the street.
Figure 8 illustrates the noise impact resulting from the
proposed project. Noise increases within the project area
may be as much as 2 decibels. In general, noise levels
along residential frontages are increased by no more than
decibel by project traffic. Additional impacts may result
from the widening of arterial streets, placing moving
traffic lanes closer to residential structures in some
cases.
40
-
A
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 70 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
—. — _ Typical property line
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
t
41
600
400
d
m
LL
c
m
C
300
U
R
3
O
0
C
E
0
200
v
A
/O
-
A
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 70 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
—. — _ Typical property line
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
t
41
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 71 of 318
42
PROJECT TRAFFIC
NOISE IMPACT
C.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 72 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
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 newly 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 mitigation measures are commonly used to reduce
Pleasures traffic noise impact.
Reduction in traffic volume can have some impact on noise
levels, but large reductions in traffic are required to
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 1,000 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 sufficient to result
in measurable reductions in noise level is not considered a
feasible mitigation measure and is not included in the
proposed project.
Barriers between the noise source and the noise -sensitive
area can be effective in situations where barriers can be
constructed, such as along freeway frontages or around
clusters of dwellings. However, 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% to 50/ of the
value of the unit for typical single-family homes ("Final
Report: Home Soundproofing Pilot Project for the Los
43
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 73 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Angeles Department of Airports", Wyle Laboratories, E1
Segundo, California, 1970).
Although sound insulation from urban traffic may involve
less expenditure because the sound is directional, signifi-
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 weather 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 affected, 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. Multi -family residences can be
designed to provide a built-in barrier between the street
-' and interior open spaces, with heavy insulation and double
windows protecting from traffic noise.
Sound insulation has both beneficial and adverse energy
impacts. Sound insulation requires closing the unit,
requiring forced -air ventilation or air conditioning. If
windows are opened for natural ventilation, the sound insu-
lation benefit is lost. However, sound insulating con-
struction is in general more weather -tight and 'better insu-
lated against heat gain and loss.
Sound insulation for all new multi -family residences in
noise impact areas is required by the Carson building code
and state law.
Mitigation measures should reduce noise impacts in new
residential construction to an insignificant level.
However, adverse impacts on existing residences in the
vicinity of the project area are not considered feasible to
eliminate because of high cost related to the relatively
small increase in noise level resulting from the proposed
project. Adverse noise impact on residential use is
therefore considered a potentially significant adverse
impact on the proposed project.
44
C
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 74 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.7 Light and Glare
Environmental The project is located in a developed urban area.
Setting Lighting in the 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 low levels of light. The project area abuts
residential areas in some locations. These areas are
sensitive to direct light at high levels during nighttime
hours.
Environmental The private developments constructed in the project area
Impact will include lighting for interior streets, security and
parking. Commercial or industrial structures may have
interior lights lit at night for maintenance or night wor;<
shifts.
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 levels are
generally low, and street lighting impact on adjacent resi-
dences is considered to be insignificant.
Urban street lighting has a significant adverse impact on
astronomical research using optical telescopes at visible
light frequencies. Street lights, such as high pressure
sodium lights, which emit light over a slide range of
frequencies, have particularly adverse impacts. Street
lights, such as lo,.,/ pressure soldium lights, which emit
light at a few specific frequencies which can be filtered.
out by appropriate filters have mucic less significant impact.
Street lights affect a large area through illumination of
the sky by reflected light, so impact is general rather
than locally around the sources of illumination. Because
the Los Angeles basin is already significantly degraded
by light pollution as an area for visual astronomy,
additional lighting is not expected to have a significant
adverse impact.
Some of the street lighting and commercial lighting in the
project area will be constructed near residential areas,
and may have some adverse impact on these residential
areas.
Mitigation Because the details of lighting plans for anticipated
MeasLlres private developments are not known at this time, specific
mitigation measures cannot be identified. The City's
design review of all commercial and industrial projects
includes review of lighting plans to minimize illumination
of adjacent areas and direct viewing of light sources.
This mitigation measure is assumed to reduce potential
adverse lighting impacts to an insignificant level.
45
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 75 of 318
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, wholesalers and distributors, petroleum
storage and processing. Along Alameda Street north'of,
Carson street, and along Carson Street east of Alameda
Street are a variety of small retail and service businesses.
Figure 4 on page 15 is an aerial photograph of the project
area illustrating existing land uses. Table 1 on page 6
summarizes existing land use in the project area.
Figure 9 on the following page illustrates land uses in the
project area and immediately surrounding areas based on
analysis of aerial photographs by The Arroyo Group.
Figure 10 on page 48 sholas existing zoning in the project
area and surrounding areas as currently proposed by the City
of Carson.
- - - - — — Figure 11 on page 49 illustrates General Plan land use for
the project area under current General Plan policy. The
Redevelopment Plan for the proposed project area will
reflect General Plan land uses.
The project area includes a number of vacant parcels,
totaling approximately 312 acres, or approximately 45 of
the total area of the project. In addition, approxiiiately
61 acres are developed as storage and low -intensity commer-
cial uses such as auto dismantling yards and similar uses.
Other uses include petroleum processing and storage (51
acres), various industrial uses (141 acres), transportation
facilities and flood control channels (94 acres) and open,
space uses (22 acres). Approximately 10 acres of imiscella-
neous retail and service uses are found along the Alameda
Street and Carson Street frontages.
The project area includes a number oilold retail, service
and industrial facilities which show a low level of property
maintenance. In part because of a lack of public infra-
structure to serve the area, these uses cannot be upgraded
to more modern uses with adequate parking, attractive land-
scaping and more modern construction with improved energy
conservation and fire protection.
The photographs of Figure 12 illustrate some of the typical
land uses and conditions of public improvements in the
project area.
I
46
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 76 of 318
Residential- Single Family
Low Intensity Commercial
Residential- Medium Density
J�
I
Residential- High Density
Retail/Service
Open Space':
Light Industry
VIA
Heavy Industry
77
Low Intensity Commercial
J�
I
/ Petroleum Processing, Storage
J
Open Space':
C> /
Transportation
Golf Course
Flood Control
t
j
Vacant
PM ENT
PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON, CA
Figure 9
EXISTING LAND USE IN THE PROJECT AREA
47
ML -
SAN
MH
44V
"o
Wr a,
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 77 of 318
h
MH
h
ML -D I
JL - —
/ 4
L
ML l
25
�a
.25 �
—� OS -,
RA T
J
L
ay M O
MH
W V
48
RS - Residential, Single -Family
RM- Residential, Multi -Unit'
RA- Residential, Agricultural
OS- Open Space
SU- Special Use
D - Design Overlay Distrlct2
ORL- Organic Refuse Landfill Overlay District3
CN -Commercial, Neighborhood Cit.
CR -Commercial, Regional Center
CG -Commercial, General
ML- Manufacturing, Light
MH -Manufacturing, Heavy
Figure 10
EXISTING ZONING
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 78 of 318
i
7
/ 3
/. j _ �_
�I lI
a if
{? 7
1 I
I.; : I; GC
/
—�
_F PEEWA,
c
HI a
t / /7
,
O Ij
J
1i5Ip �
LDR - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
MDR - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
HDR - HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
GC -GENERAL COMMERCIAL
RC - REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
7 LI - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
HI - HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
P - PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC FACILITIES
r�
r
tIH rUH HtUtVELU,'Mt!V i YHC.iECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON, CA
Figure 11.
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN'
49 FOR THE PROJECT AREA'
Resolution
No. 84-119/Page 79 of 318
At grade rail crossing on Carson Street.
cc
x
'„„aaeuy
Mixed commercial uses along Carson Street east of Alameda.
Figure 12.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF
50
PROJECT AREA CONDITIONS
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 80 of 318
EIk, 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 now occupied by low -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 throughout the EIR are the direct and indirect
environmental impacts of these changes in land use.
If the redevelopment project is not adopted, nonresidential
square footage in the project area is expected to increase
by approximately 2.4 million square feet over the next 15 to
20 years, an average increase of 100,000 to 200,000 square
feet per year. Under the proposed project, the area is
expected to experience development of approximately 6.4
million square feet, an average increase of 200,000 to
400,000 square feet per year. In addition, 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 Alameda
Street is a residential area separated from the project area
by a rail switch yard and the Alameda Street right-of-way.
The project over the project lifetime is expected to result
in the removal or upgrading of a number of visually
unattractive land uses. In addition, new structures will be
constructed to higher standards of construction, energy
conservation and fire protection. The level of maintenance
in the project area is expected to be improved as investment
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 the 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 will create
51
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 81 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
demand for supporting commercial uses and for housing for
employees. These indirect impacts are discussed under popu-
lation effects in Section 3.11 and housing impacts in
Section 3.12.
Mitigation Changes in land use to a higher and better use are a
Measures key element of the proposed project. The 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 with 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
to reduce impacts of development on adjacent parcels to
insignificant levels. Compliance with the provisions of the
zoning ordinance and the City's design review of 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 control over
development through adoption of a design for development for
the proposed project area, parts of the proposed project
area or specific development parcels.
C
52
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 83 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.10 Risk of Upset
Environmental R�6 of upset includes risk of explosions, release of
Setting hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset
conditions.
Environmental The 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. However, portions of the project site
contain inactive landfi11s, some of which contain
materials that decompose biologically/chemically. A bi-
.product of this decomposition is methane gas, which is
explosive.
Mitigation For the development which occurs on landfill areas that
Measures contain materials that potentially can cause explosions, a
1 andfi i 1 gas control pl an wi 11 be required. Regul ati ons
by other agencies regulating the storage and use of
-- --- hazardous substances are expected to reduce the potential
risk of upset to an insignificant level.
C,
54
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 84 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.11 Population
' Environmental The City of Carson is near its residential development
Setting capacity under current regulations. Substantial land area
exists in areas that are designated for industrial use.
The 1980 population of Carson was 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.
environmental
Impact
The proposed project has the potential to encourage
population growth in the project's housing and employment
market area by providing additional jobs on the project
site that would otherwise locate elsewhere in Southern
California. Table 13 summarizes projections of
population, housing and employment for the project's
housing/employment market area from the SCAG-82 Growth
Forecast Policy.
The proposed project has the potential to provide
employment for approximately 13,641 people. Timis
represents 1600 of the primary housing/employment marketarea's projected employment growth from 1980 to 2000.
The proposed project will also prov id2 indirect employment
(that employment caused by the directly affected
industries buying needed inputs or supplies from other
industries) and. induced employment (that employment that
arises from the households spending mages or intone
received form both the directly and indirectly affected
industries, thus further increasing demand). Appropri-
ate multipliers to determine indirect and induced
employment in the Southern California area were identi-
fied in the study "SCAG Region Input-0utput Model," pub-
lished by SCAG in 1978. Based on multipliers for
typical business park and industrial uses, the proposed
project will provide up to 17,310 indirect and induced
jobs. This represents 180 of the primary housing/
employment market area's projected employment growth from
1980 to 2000. Combined direct, indirect and induced jobs
provided by the project represent 31%, or 30,951 jobs, of
the primary housing/employment market area's projected
employment growth from 1980 to 2000.
The subregion in which the project is located is an
employment surplus area, with a ratio of 51 jobs per 100
people compared to a regional average of 49 jobs per 100
people (1980). The subregion will continue to be an
employment surplus area in the year 2000, with a ratio of
57 jobs per 100 people compared to a regional average of
55
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 85 of 318
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 Growth
Forecast Policy, October 7, 1982, policy 15c, "In SCAG's
review of development proposals, oppose industrial or
commercial development which would result in a level of
employment which 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
would be expected to be integrated into future editions of
the growth forecast policy and would then become
consistent with it.
To the extent that the proposed project represents
employment that would otherwise not locate in the SCAG
region if the project were not undertaken, the project
represents additional population impact for the region.
In general, the proposed project is expected to be a
substitute for employment that would otherwise be
provided elsewhere in the region, and this effect is
minimal.
Mitigation The population increments expected to be generated by this
Measures project will result in higher levels of traffic and
increase demands on municipal agencies. Mleasures to
reduce such impacts include various measures to increase
services to the area. These are discussed else,ihere in
the DEIR.
55
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 86 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 13
57
Employment
1980 2000
237 287
199 247
436 534
51 57
323 391
538 578
262 307
56 73
93 118
284 349
,556 1,821
59 64
,606 7,640
49 52
POPULATION, HOUSING AND
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIOJS
FOR CARSON HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT
MARKET AREA
Regional
Projections in Thousands
Population
Housing
Statistical
Area
1980
2000
1980 2000
19.
Palos Verdes
424
453
151 173
20.
Long Beach
425
479
183 218
TOTAL PRIINIARY
849
932
334 391
Jobs/100 people
18.
South Bay
510
538
207 223
21.
East Central
904
957
272 310
22.
Norwalk/Whittier
613
648
208 238
35.
Buena Park
155
171
52 61
38.
'West Coast
319
371
118 151
- — ----23.
L.A. CBD —
120
140
- 49 -59
TOTAL SECONDARY
2,621
2,825
906 1,047 1
Jobs/100 people
SCAG Region
11,536
14,752
4,428 5,988 5
Jobs/100 people
Note:
Portions of Carson
fall in
the Palos
Verdes and Long BeacIF
Regional Statistical
Areas.
Source:
Southern California
Association
of Governments,
SCAG-82 Growth
Forecast
Policy,
October 1982
57
Employment
1980 2000
237 287
199 247
436 534
51 57
323 391
538 578
262 307
56 73
93 118
284 349
,556 1,821
59 64
,606 7,640
49 52
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 87 of 318
-IR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
` l 0 3 A 6 L I F S
14
II
12 Za+e.K
5 .0 13 24
. a ,
25
7 u.,c. 93 <..,,.. 27
28
16 IG 26
45
—
180 2 '�,c" 22 B-
36
41
—� 38 x e
`.
35 M 43
Figure 12
Regional
Sta ti 3ti cal Areas
58
i
C
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 88 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.12 Housing
Environmental The project is located in a developed urban region with
Setting substantial housing stock. Housing in the housing/employ-
merit market area 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 will not have a direct impact on
Impact, housing. By providing jobs at the project site, the
project will increase housing demand in the project's
housing/employment market area. At the regional ratio of
one job for every 0.79 housing units, the project would be
expected to create a demand for an additional 10,776
housing units in the region in the long term. More than
half of the employees 'working at the project site would be
expected to live within the housing/employ- men t market -
area indicated in Figure 12. 10,776 housing units repre-
sents 3% of the housing units in the primary
housing/employment market area (in the year 2000) and 1% of
the housing units in the primary and secondary
housing/employment market areas for the project (in the
year 2000). Because the project represents a small
percentage of the housing stock available in the
housing/employment area, the project is not expected to
have a significant impact on housing availability or
housing cost in the market area. The transfer of housing
ownership represented by the employees in the proposed
project will be a small percentage of total transfers in
the market over the next 5 to 10 years.
Mitigation Under California redevelopment law, redevelopment
Measures agencies are required to set aside 20% of all tax in-
crement revenue for use to benefit low- and moderate -
income housing. For housing units displaced by direct
Agency action, law requires the agency to pay fair market
value for the units, and to pay relocation costs and
differential costs of finding an equivalent unit and
financing.
Any low- and moderate -income housing units removed by the
Agency must be replaced on a one-for-one basis.
59
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 89 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.13 Transportation/Circulation
Environmental The San Diego Freeway cuts through the project area in
Setting east/west alignment. The two significant north/south
arterial streets in this area are Alameda Street and
Wilmington Avenue. The most significant east/west
streets are Sepulveda Boulevard, 223rd Street, and Carson
Street. Each of these streets is classified as a major
highway on the City of Carson's master plan of highways;
a major highway is an arterial street with a 100 -foot
right-of-:aay. In the project vicinity, these streets are
built to major highway width (four to six lanes, divided)
except in the following segments: Wilmington Avenue
between Carson Street and Del Amo, and Sepulveda
Boulevard between Wilmington and the eastern City limit.
There is only one significant street improvement programmed
for the project area in the near future. The Los
Angeles County Road Department plans to widen Alameda
Street to at least 80 feet (curb -to -curb) between Pacific
- - - - _ Coast Highway and the Artesia Freeway. The State also
plans to make Alameda Street a state highway in lieu of
the proposed SR -47 freeway.
Existing average daily traffic volumes in the City are
shown in Figure 14. These estimates were obtained by
factoring a one percent annual growth rate into the volu?nes
shown on the City's 1982 traffic flow map. Alameda Street
presently carries between 14,000 and 16,000 vehicles per
day, while Wilmington Avenue carries between 18,000 and
32,000 vehicles per day. Carson Street carries less than
10,000 vehicles per day in this area, while 223rd Street
handles about 14,000.
To establish a base case for analyzing traffic conditions
in the project area, traffic volume estimates for
Cal State Dominguez Hills' future growth and the 180 -acre
site (south of I-405 between Main Street and Avalon) were
prepared. Appropriate trip generation rates %vere applied
to proposed developments in these areas; the trips were
then distributed and assigned to the street net+.,ork.
Figure 14 shows the unconstrained average daily traffic
increase from the project condition.
Existing traffic volumes were combined with the traffic
volumes associated with the committed traffic projections
to obtain the existing plus committed (unconstrained)
traffic volumes shown in Figure 16. This is the base to
which project -associated traffic will be added.
.O
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 90 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
61
TABLE
14
ASSUMED
ARTERIAL
CAPACITY VALUES
Level of Service "D"
Daily Two -Way
Facility
Capacity
6 -lane
divided
arterial
55,000
4 -lane
divided
arterial
33,000
4 -lane
undivided
arterial
22,000
2 -lane
divided
arterial
15,000
10 -lane
freeway
175,000
8 -lane
freeway
145,000
6 -lane
freeway
115,000
61
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 91 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
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 -
lane divided arterials in the project area. Wilmington
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 Wilmington.
Comparisons of the capacity values with the existing plus
committed traffic volumes within the project area reveals
three potential problem locations: Wilmington Avenue
_between the San Diego Freeway and 223rd Street, and north
of Carson Street is projected to approach its assumedcapacity, and Sepulveda Boulevard is projected to slightly
exceed its assumed capacity east of Wilmington.
Environmental Methodology. The traffic analysis for the project area
- - --- - - Impact began will the collection of existing traffic data, and
information about committed development and street
improvement projects within the City of Carson. Traffic
generation for the no -project and project alternatives was
calculated based on land use data.
Project -related traffic was distributed to the street
system in and adjacent to the City of Carson, and the
resulting traffic asignment was added to the existing plus
committed traffic volumes to obtain total traffic volume
projections for the no -project and project conditions. The
final assignments were uti lized to analyze lin': and inter-
section deficiencies in the project area; the deficiencies
analysis led to the recommendation of mitigation measures
for Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
C
62
Level of Service
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 92 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 15
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION
Traffic Flow Quali
A Low volumes, high 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;
between one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one
or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal
cycle during peak traffic periods.
C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by
other traffic; bet.veen 11 and 30 percent of the signal
cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more
than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods;
recommended ideal design standard.
D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal
cycles have one or more vehicles ahich wait through more
than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; often
used as design standard in urban areas.
E Capacity; the maximum traffic volume an intersection can
accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the
signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through
more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods.
F Long queues of traffic; unstable flo,,v; stoppages of long
duration; traffic volume and speed can drop to zero;
traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at
level of service E.
Source: Highway Capacity ManVal, Highway Research Board Special Report 37,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1955, p. 320.
63
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 93 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 16
TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Units
Retail/Service
1,000 sq. ft.
Business Park
1,000 sq. ft.
Heavy Industry
employees
Low Intensity Coml
acres
Petroleum Processing
employees
Open Space
acres
Trips
Existing
Altn 1
Altn 3
Per Unit
Units
Units
Units
40.0
65
65
131
10.8
392
1,176
1,594
3.6
2,149
3.969
7,821
50.0
61
30
0
2.0
255
300
255
7.0
22
22
0
C
64
Existing
Altn 2
Altn 3
Land Use
Trips
Trips
Trips
Retail/Service
2,614
2,614
5,227
Business Park
4,234
12,702
17,218
Heavy Industry
7,736
14,288
28,156
Low Intensity Coml
3,050
1,500
0
Petroleum Processing
510
600
510
Open Space
154
154
0
TOTAL
18,298
31,858
51,111
C
64
0
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 94 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 11
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.
M
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 95 of 318
-EI-R FOR REDEV ELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3. CARSON_ CA
Figure 14.
66 EXISTING
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 96 of 318
0
O
0
100
200
d'' o
� o
M/
1,200
tee.
P
O
NO
Q
10 000
1,200 o Wardlow Rd. 1,200
100
� o
=+l r-
0 �1 O
h O1 N
---� T l 2
n O
rnr-
�
o rn
z, m
iepulveda I Blvd.
2,800 1,800 1,400 1,400
/r*ffy
200 OF CARSON---
CITY
ARSON__CITY OF LOS ANGELES
�C
t 0
4$0 `` r
ti, Q
PMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3, CARSON, CA
Figure 15.
67 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
INCREASE OVER EXISTING
y
R FC
EV
192nd St.
Alondra Blvd
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ClT OF
CARSON
o
Cl)
Committed Traffic Demand
06
(includes projected increases from
to Amo
y
40
ra
Cal State Dominguez Hills &
00 0 0
0 0------r
0
;
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 97 of 318
Alondra Blvd COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CIT OF CARSON
m � _
W
J o tD O
0 0 ca 0 O Q
Q ev c
0 119 500
10 'oo 102200 U 119,500
rtesia Freeway
O O C
c c co co
O to '' clN Victoria St.
c v 28,800 27,300 19,100 7,600
ori Apo o c
O
O r N E#
r—
O M University Drive
792nd St.
17,900 0 0
cv m
r M _..
Del Amo Blvd. 19,400 22,800 24,200
18,60q 21,300,P.r o
c coo O o o i
C1 s
r N T n
M Pam M O O
r oy
O \ CV
Q
I to C°v.
Carson St. a 12,400 8 500 6,400
27,300 26,000 26,300
M cn M N 201.800
N M...23$00
223rd St. _
20,600 19,200 17,500 16,500 0 Wardlow Rd.
32,700 0
C1 T
1 ti's' {10
G Y` 01 m
wo° A z
n
too
ZEN
Sepulveda Blvd.
19,800 15,700
W
25,200 25,300
0 it
/—rl�Ty
OF CARSON_N -
'17,000 -012
.400 CITY OF LOS ANGELES 'y".K M �`
c
21,400
� 7 C_ O
2 0- Q Cyo Q
if .%.EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3 CARSON, CA
�C 1iIDIl1��
Figure 16.
l ��t 68 EXISTING + COMMITTED
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 98 of 318
EIR, 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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 99 of 318
Aloodra BlvdWvm� COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Wardlow Rd. 200
C
Figure 17.
ALTERNATIVE 2—
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
INCREASE OVER EXISTING
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 100 of 318
ECT
Figure 18.
71 ALTERNATIVE 3—
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
INCREASE OVER EXISTING
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 101 of 318
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
i 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.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 139 of 318
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, median improvements, curb and gutter,
street lighting.
o Wilmington Avenue. Street reconstruction, raised
medians.
o 220th Street. Capping near Wilmington 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 Dominguez
Channel or south from a proposed new east—west line
south of 223rd Street.
o Sanitary Sewer. Main sewer and lift station to connect
to Wilmington Avenue Trunk Sewer, relief sewer in
Sepulveda Boulevard between Wilmington Avenue and
Alameda, new sewer into new development north of
Sepulveda.
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 102 of 318
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.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 103 of 318
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
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 104 of 318
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day
of June 1984
r�
i Chairman /
ATTEST:
Secretary
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 105 of 318
G. Summary of Meetings and Consultations with Project Area
Residents and Community Organizations
As discussed above, proposed Agency activities are
anticipated 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. i
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.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 106 of 318
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.
r
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 107 of 318
H. 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 108 of 318
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. 31 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
-1-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 109 of 318
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
-2-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 110 of 318
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 aro ram for improvement of air
p g P quality, but does not
demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
r
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 111 of 318
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.
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.
6. Land Use
-4-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 112 of 318
Potentially significant effect: The proposed project may
result in changes in mixed land uses on various sites in the
T
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.
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.
Ma
Resolution No. 84-119/page 113 o
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.
11. 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
met 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 114 of 318
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 115 of 318
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
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 116 of 318
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.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 117 of 318
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 site's. These measures
include surveys of project sites, notification of appropriate
agencies, and the provisions for excavation or preservation.
Section _ The Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of such proposed Redevelopment Plan by the
Agency and by the City Council of the City of Carson.
Sect ---tion 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.,,
Sect 7. Such proposed Redevelopment Plan, with
the change described in Section 61 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 118 of 318
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day
June 1984
Chairman /
ATTEST:
Secretary
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 119 of 318
I. Report Required By Section 21151 of Public Resources Code
(final Environmental Impact Report)
[FINAL EIR ATTACHED)
-41-
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 120 of 318
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1 CITY OF REDEVELOPMENT
: ' ..
CARSON,
+ ♦r}
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
I IL
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 121 of 318
FINAL ENVIRONiMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
REDEVELOPiMENT PROJECT AREA 3
CITY OF CARSON, CALIFORNIA
July 9, 1984
Carson Redevelopment Agency
701 East Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
State Clearinghouse Number: SCHf84032102
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 122 of 318
CONTENTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Introduction . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . v
Additions and Corrections to the Draft EIR . . . . .
. . . . . . vi
I.
Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 1
2.
Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 13
3.
Environmental Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 17
3.1. Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . 20
3.2. Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 24
3.3. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 55
3.12. Housing . . . . . .
. . . . . 59
3.13. Transportation/Circulation . . . . . . . .
3.14. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
. w . . .
3.15. Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 8$
3.16. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 97
3.17. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. 98
3.18. Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
3.19. Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,108
. . . . ,log
3.20. Recreation . . . . . . . . . .
3.21. Archaeological/Historical . . . . . . . . . . .
.110
. . . . .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 . . . . . . .
. . . . .131
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 123 of 318
ii
FIGURES
j
1.
Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
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
6.
Seismic Special Study Zones . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
7.
Traffic Noise as a Function of Traffic Volume and Distance
. 41
8.
Project Traffic Noise 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 . . . . . . . . ..
66
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 Alternative2 . . . . . . .
. . 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
ii
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 124 of 318
—
TABLES
1.
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 to Source/Receptor•Area32
. .
11.
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
17.
. .
Assumed Directional Trip Distribution . . . . . . . . .
b4
. . • 65
18.
.
Intersection Levels of Service . . . .
. . . .
74
19.
.
Fiscal Impacts on Carson Redevelopment Agency . . . . .
.
g0
20.
.
Fiscal Impacts on City of Carson . . . . . . .
. . ,
92
21.
Fiscal Impacts on Taxing Agencies. . . . . . .
.
94
22.
.
Project Water Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
gg
23.
.
Sewer Average Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
24.
.
Sewer Peak Flow
. • . .101
25.
. .
Electric Power Consumption . . . . . . .
. . . .101
26.
Natural Gas Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
. . . .105
27.
.
Solid Waste Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ,105
28.
Park and Recreation Facilities . .
.
. . . .107
39.
Project Alternatives and Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.111
. . . .124
i i i
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 125 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report summarizes the anticipated environmental impacts
which may result from the implementation of Redevelopment
Project Area Number 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 C
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 new resi-
dential development in adjoining areas, and relocation
assistance for all residents and businesses relocated
through public acquisition.
iv r
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 126 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
INTRODUCTION
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 City 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 the 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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 127 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Additions/Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
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-d8 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. However, 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 law."
page 89 paragraph 7 (last paragraph). Delete second sentence which reads
"The Agency's share of total tax increment revenue from tine project
area is set through negotiations with other taxing agencies."
page 89 paragraph 7. Add a new last sentencer "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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 128 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Additions/Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report
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 43 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 43 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. However, 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 81 end of page. Add discussion of rail facilities.
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 law."
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 tie Agency, 20% is required to be spent to benefit low -
and moderate -income housing."
vi
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 129 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
page
90
Replace with
revised Table 19, changing new construction values and
extending analysis to 40 years.
page
91
Replace with
revised Table 19, changing new construction values.
page
92
Change total
one-time revenue from "$2,331,000" to "$1,969,140"
page
93
paragraph 2.
Change "$4.0 million" to "$3.8 million" and "$32.4
million" to
132.9 million" corresponding to changes in Table 19.
page
99
Change table
title from "PROJECT WATER USE" to "PROJECT WATER
CONSUMPTION"
G
vii
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 82 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.9 Natural Resources
Environmental Potential natural resources impacts include increasing
Setting rate of use of any natural resource or substantial
depletion of non-renewable natural resources.
Environmental The project will result in the comfiitment 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.
;4i tigation
Measures None.
53
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 130 of 31R
EIR, 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.
1
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 131 of 318
F �'. nM iu<s MorsM� a ', ' ALTADEHA
-t Yol`rroo' b LENDALE
�.., ,. `—r—^► - ^—w JPASAD NA A
1. / IZ -
f fit..._ 1 Ml.r.. '.. �•....' � � � •
l tot ems.-.._. J NI' <P <` W'^•Y..P _'•s }...: J lf�� •�
�\ � • � -''.i \ •u..._ s.r a SIM Arts -
.Y� �. K 5 7 c... �Y1.--�• �- UTMI • ` : T[r�Kt
I USN r HOUYWOOD, ( \` • �;•r rssaolwt H 6ABRI�t
ALHAMBRA �~
,4S1 a1 Y"00- ,\' h ROICYU
~irart.+a/ 6tYCAll Nlll3� •,•• _ ICI �"rj ti> , : •i
lt. H6.01f n .• • ' nr. `�YVI�M'. / it 0.11
,'M1'� a .• r •a~ MONTEREY u. cu{cl. ;,Z:-
=
F%ARi iq i
esn to [l(1 ' : ..<• .\,� (
3 11 tDi AACfl C59" '� NO i
:Ax TA MONICA", `.'. Y.' VIYFR `)
wilH.rf-; �.,,: � o • . �= Afba
NGELES�t> \K� AWAIT LL
�'.'�''[ \ 1' •j1 l -a _ KUKrXc ON PARS t'. > dCll :Y10 S t= •�
n•... sd R<y • :: •' - r rlOtt.0 dCll et SaADENi _ "'•• r
m n� VErICN $tit i•-1NGLEWOOD - YY Art ...: ` y<���} i� <•"� ^ NLtes
MAY, NO
�.. t i1p'� • . hili :1 SOUTN •° 4. ♦` ,� • ?!
LENNOX , _ UTE 3 �' • KTa ff
DOWNEY.� rR1KSS
El SEW 000 _ rj1• b 2 '.' ..� d ��i i LYxW000 t 7i.,1 t .,:..
.tlU,1.t1 2•
t ••�� NiWar N0 KE:—: OR 1•
UriiDAlE Y rX ANOVKi A '3•=
�. CQMP« I- �NOR.}WALK
LIJNATTAM_ •,� REUFEQr(A..
CAR EKA
eNei r: '-... f _ v . _ uTrsa.al
�lAKE1W00� =I. " �' �1ttf0S `
7'ORRANCE
w o .i
..
m OxDD,BUCH- •M••KI ri 11 • •.• _ ,K • pt r f•I YY:
u�.!•M•,. • c 1
.,.......
at
a -: '
Y.\ :\
;3% �• umt mac,
r+ta AssnLos MANICS
Cr {OIIIMC Rl � •• <rt. ^' P t '•.K+< t. • <�n i t:Lt
"� �« .
4 marts M)' Ts as 1 - 40 1 S •1' C<
...
t.•-4 ►•• ! foes, ..� ... WILMINtt .... snron rti t` 2 . Z.
INKINaa. s s ►.ao- « LONG
;�.. �N.N i ......
- BEACH
'•"'�.0 tf.` Sr •<rCDRO �f{..a.. •• • SEAL IE,ICN •�`�� XY•n.r
AV
AA4'.•,`4` VARIANT {uta
/ 10 MIc.
t ".V% 1 c.
/ / �w41.f YK.••(
a / HUKTENG
/ IZAt I
f/
�ry EIR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3. CARSON, CA
Figure 1.
2 REGIONAL AREA
1
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 132 of 318
-4,2, �, W
-
IL
-----1
��
JI
3�
UL
�
.....
'
u j
pE
fi
s•
-p.Ec
4
REEv�-�
j
l Lr�
l
if(
l I i
ti
'ly
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 132 of 318
-4,2, �, W
-
IL
-----1
��
3 PROJECT LOCATION
AND BOUNDARIES
JI
UL
of
'
ti
3 PROJECT LOCATION
AND BOUNDARIES
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 133 of 318
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.
ki
OWN
SCALE 4
1
E I R F O R R f
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 134 of 318
Figure 3i
PROPOSED LAND USES FORT
5 ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 135 of 318
T A13 Lf
LAND USES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED PROJECTS C
AMENDMENT TO PROJECT AREA I
USE
Units/
.per
--------Existing
Use--------
Alternative
2--------
--N
acre
unit
ac
Units
Total
ac
Units
Total
esid-Single (2-6/ac)
4,0
2,5
2
8 du
20
----_
-----
------
-
Resld-Medium (6-15/ac)
10,0
1,7
12
120 du
people_
204
1
'14
4-
4
du
du
10
10 people
p
Resid-High (15-35/ac)
20,0
1,4
8
160 du
people
224
140
du
238 people
-------------------------------.
people
8
160
du
224 people
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL
22
288 du
--
448 people
-----------------------------
23
304
du
472 people
Shopping Center
Retail/Service
7
2,0
0
0 ksf
0 amps
0
0
ksf
0 amp(
Hotel/Motel
7
17
2,0
1,0
22
0
144 ksf
287 empi
52
340
ksf
680 empi
Office Park
17
4,0
10
0 ksf
174 kst
0 empi
697
0
0
ksf
0 am[
p
Business Park
13
3,0
157
2052 ksf
empi
6155 empi
10
219
174
2862
ksf
ksf
697 empi
8586
Heavy Industry
Storage/Low Intens Coml
17
2,0
232
4042 ksf
8085 empi
330
5750
ksf
empi
11500 empi
Petroleum Proc/Storage
1
1
5,0
5,0
171
44
171 ac
855 empi
65
65
ac
325 empi
Local Park
1
0,2
5
44 ac
220 empi
63
63
ac
515 empi
School/Public
7
3,0
0
5 kst
0
I empi
5
5
ksf
1 empi
Transport/Flood Control
1
0,0
109
ksf
109 ac
0 empi
0 empi
0
109
0
109
ksf
0 empi
Open Space/Golf Course
1
0,1
51
51 ac
5
ac
0 empi
Vacant
1
0,0
164
164 ac
empi
0
51
51
ac
5 empi
--------------------------
empi
60
60
ac
0 empi
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
965
6412 ksf
16305 empi
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 empi
Hotel/Motel
Office Park
17
17
1,0
0 ksf
0 empi
0
ksf
0 empi
Business Park
13
4,0
3,C
30
0 ksf
392 ksf
0 empi
1176 empi
90
0
1176
ksf
ksf
0 empi
3528
Heavy Industry
17
2,0
111
1934 ksf
3868 empi
205
3572
ksf
empi
7144 empi
Storage/Low Intens Coml
Petroleum Proc/Storage
1
1
5,0
5,0
61
51
61 ac
305 empi
30
30
ac
150 empi
Local Park f
1
0,2
51 ac
255 empi
60
60
ac
300 empi
School/Public
7
3,0
0 ksf
0
0 empi
0
ksf
0 empi
Transport/Flood Control
1
0,0
94
ksf
94 ac
0 empi
0 empi
94
0
94
ksf
0 empi
Open Space/Golf Course
1
0,1
22
22 ac
2 empi
22
22
ac
0 empi
2
Vacant
--------------------------------------------------
1
0.0
312
312 ac
0 empi
180
180
ac
ac
empi
0 amp[
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
691
2391 ksf
5737 empi
691
4813
ksf
11255
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 amp
287
1875
ksf
3751 empi
Retail/Service
7
2,0
0 ksf
0 empl
3
20
ksf
39 empl
Hotel Motel
Office Park
17
1,0
0 ksf
0 amp
0
ksf
0 empi
Business Park
17
13
4,0
3,0
127
0 ksf
1660 ksf
0 empi
4979 empi
265
0
3463
ksf
ksf
0 amp[
10389
Heavy Industry
17
2,0
0 ksf
0 empi
16
279
ksf
empi
558 empi
Storage/Low Intens Coml
Petroleum Proc/Storage
1
5,0
55
55 ac
275 empl
0
ac
0 empi
Local Park
1
5,0
0 ac
0 empi
0
ac
0 empi
School/Public
1
7
0,2 _
3,0
14
0 ksf
91
0 empi
0
ksf
0 empi
Transport/Flood Control
_ 1
0,0
71
ksf
71 ac
274 empi
d ;..
76
0
ksf
0 empi ,
Open Course
1
0,1
10
10
emp
I
76
ac
0 empi
Space/Golf
1
0,0
248
ac
248 ac
amp
0
38
38
ac
4. emp1
-----------------
empi
0
ac
0 empi
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
--
7012901
--
ksf
--- --
7829 empi685
5637
-
ksf
--
14740 empi
Abbreviations du: dweIIIno
units;
kst:
thousand
snuare
feet. empi:
employees:
ac:
/\
acres \-
6
Resolution No. 84-119/Page
TABLE 1
I
0
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
LAND USES FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED PROJECFS (CONTINUED)
-----------Change------------
:_ Units Total
--------Alternative 3--------
-
--ac-
-----------------------
ac
Units
Total
ac
Units
Total
-1
2
-4 du
20 du
- 10
34
people
people
--------------
0
0
0 du
0 people
2
8 du
_______
-20 people
0
du0
people
0 du
120 du
0 people eo le
168
-12
-120 du
-204 people
-----------------------------
----6
------------------------
people
-2
-40 du
-56 people
1
16
du
24
people
6
120 du
168 people
---------------
-16
-168 du
-280 people
P P
0
30
0
196
ksf
ksf
0
392
empi
empi
20
131 ksf
261 emp]
20
131 ksf
261 emp!
0
0
ksf
0
empi
52
14
340 ksf
680 empi
30
196 ksf
392 empi
0
0
ksf
0
empi
60
244 ksf
1045 ksf
244 emp!
4182
14
244 ksf
244 empi
62
810
ksf
2431
empi
283
3698 ksf
emp!
11095 empi
50
126
871 ksf
1647 ksf
3485 empi
4940
98
-106
1708
-106
ksf
3415
-530
empi
423
7370 ksf
14741 empi
191
3328 ksf
empi
6656 empt
19
19
ac
ac
95
empi
empl
0
0
0 ac
0
0 empi
-171
-171 ac
-855 empi
0
0
ksf
0
empl
0
ac
0
0 empi
-44
-44 ac
-220 empi
0
0
ksf
0
empi
0
ksf
0
0 emp!
-5
-5 ksf
-1 emp!
0
0
ac
0
empi
109
ksf
109 ac
0 empi
0
0
0 ksf
0 empi
0
ac
0
empi
20
20 ac
empt
2
0
0 ac
0 empi
-104
-104-ac_-----0-empi
0
0
empi
-31
-31 ac
-3 empi
------------
------
-----------------------------
ac
0 empi
-164
-164 ac
0 empt
-?
2714
ksf
5803
empi
981
12828 ksf
31204 empi
------------
16
_ ___
6416 ksf
_ _ __ _
14899 emp! -
-----------------------------
0
0
ksf
0
empi
0 ksf
0 empl
0
0 ksf
0 empl
0
0
ksf
0
empi
20
131 ksf
261 empi
10
65 ksf
131 empi
0
0
ksf
0
empt
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0
ksf
0
empl
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0 ksf
0 emp!
60
784
ksf
2352
emp!
122
1594 ksf
4783 empt
92
1202 ksf
3607 emel
94
1636
ksf
3276
empi
404
7039 ksf
14079 empi
293
5105 ksf
10210 empl
-31
-31
ac
-155
empi
0 ac
0 empl
-61
-61 ac
-305 emp!
9
9
ac
45
empi
51
51 ac
255 emp!
0
0 ac
0 emp!
0
0
ksf
0
empi
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0 ksf
0 empl
0
0
ksf
0
empl
0 ksf
0 empt
0
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0
ac
0
emp!
94
94 ac
0 empi
0
0 ac
0 emp;
0
0
ac
0
empi
0 ac
0 empl
-22
-22 ac
-2 empi
-132---_132-ac------0
-----
---P---
empi
-----------------------------
---0-ac-----^-0
empi
-312
-312 ac
0
2422
ksf
5518
emp!
691
8764 ksf
-------------------
19378 empl
0
6373 ksf
-0-empl-
-
13641 empi
-----------------------------
11
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
empi
287
1875 ksf
3751 enpi
111
725 ksf
1451 empi
3
20
ksf
39
empi
3
20 ksf
39 empi
3
20 ksf
39 empi
0
0
ksf
0
emp!
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0 ksf
0 empi
0
0
ksf
0
empi
0 ksf
0 emp!
0
0 ksf
0 emp!
138
1803
ksf
5410
empi
265
3463 ksf
10389 empi
138
1803 ksf
5410 empl
16
279
ksf
558
empi
16
279 ksf
558 empi
16
279 ksf
558 empi
-55
-55
ac
-275
empi
0 ac
0 empi
-55
-55 ac
-275 empl
0
0
0
0
ac
ksf
0
0
empl
empi
0 ac
0
0 emp!
0
0 ac
0 empi
-14
-91
ksf
-274
empi
ksf
0 ksf
0 empi
0 empi
0
-14
0 ksf
-91 ksf
0 empi
-274 emp!
5
5
ac
0
empl
76
76 ac
0 empi
5
5 ac
0 emp!
28
28
ac
3
empt
38
38 ac
4 empi
28
28 ac
3 emp!
-248
----------------------------
-248
ac
0
empi
-----------------------------
0 ac
0 empi
-248
-248 ac
0 emp!
-16
2736
ksf
6911
empt
685
5637 ksf
---------------------'------
14740 empl
-16
2736 ksf
6911 emp
7
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 137 of 318
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 promoting
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, sideaalks,
sewers, storm 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 where 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 infrastructure
for development.
Related The Agency is considering another redevelopment project
Projects at the same time Redevelopment Project dumber 3 is
being considered. This project deals with the development
of up to 6.4 million square feet of commercial and indus-
trial development on underutilized land in an Amendment 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 this pro-
ject being proposed by the Carson Redevelopment Agency, a
number of other developments are currently underway near
the project areas and are also considered in anticipating
cumulative impacts in this DEIR. These developments
include the following:
0
C
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 138 of 318
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
Plumber 1 including up to 2.7 million square feet of
commercial and industrial development.
o Development in existing Redevelopment Project Area
Plumber 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 Park 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 implementation: Implementation phasing
and financing of any of these projects will depend on the
nature and phasing of private development in the project
area and the availability of tax increment and other funds
for their construction. None 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.
E
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 140 of 318
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
Carson Redevelopment
Agency
Project/Action
Redevelopment Plan Adoption.
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 changes and
General Plan amendments.
South Coast Air Review of emission permits.
Quality Management
District
11
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 141 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
2. DESCRIPTIOA CF EMVIROdMENTAL 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 8010' developed. The strong growth 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 :vest, 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 Fe Avenue. The
aerial photo on the following page shows 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 air 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 has been developed which would
improve air quality but would not result in compliance with
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by 1987 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 expected
to depend increasingly on external sources of electric
power from coal and nuclear generating stations. Use of
these power sources results in significant risks of 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 environmental system on
13
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 142 of 318
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 systema
The environmental setting of those environmental factors
where potentially significant project impacts are foreseen
is discussed in greater detail in the environmental impact
discussion fol 1 o;wi ng.
14
I(
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 143 of 318
pq
C.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 144 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3. ENVIRONMENTAL h1PACT.
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 water services and potential increases in
population and housing demand in the project's
housing/employment market area.
More detailed discussion of impacts in each of these areas
is found in sections 3.1 through 3.21 following the table.
17
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 14
TABLE 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY
^::SUE
ENV IROMMENTALSETTING
POTENTIAL ENVIROI'NENTAL IFPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES
Earth
No unique geologic or seismic
problems in area. Exposed to
Exposure of people andr e
p
Building codes provide
strong ground shaking.
to earth q
earthquake hazards,
satisfactory level of safety,
Uncompacted fill in old landfill
sites,
Higher costs of site prepa-
Building codes require adequate
ration and foundations.
site preparation and foundations,
Air
Project is located in an area
that does not meet National
Some increase in local
ation measures
Ambient Air Quality Standards,
tant emissions and Concentra-
tions, Minor increase in
tthhrroughlAirtivality Management
g Quality g
regional pollutant levels,
Plan. Local mitigation measures
through required TSM actions
by site users.
Surface and
Ground Water
Area has some drainage deficien-
cies, Area may contribute to
Some reduction in ground water
Adequate site drainage will
ground water recharge. Possible
recharge with coverage by
impervious surfaces, reaion-
be required by City,
hazardous wastes in old fills,
ally insignificant, -
Plant and
Animal Life
Urban plant and animal
Changes in the nature and
None
populations now exist in area,
amount of landscaping will
modify habitat, but no effect
on rare/endangered species,
Noise
Few noise -sensitive uses. Area
some traffic
Reduction in noise-sensitivegenerates
inn lmulti-tffamilyy
noise,
uses. Increases in traffic
new residential
noise levels in adjacent
construction. Noise impact on
areas. Construction noise,
existing units not feasible to
mitigate.
Light and Glare
Project area now has some
building, street
Parking lot, building and
Project review will include C
and parking
lighting,
street lighting will be added
review of lighting to minimize
by new development,
glare and offsite illumination,
Land Use
Project area includes older
industrial, commercial
Significant increase in
",litigation measures for other
uses,
intensity of development,
impacts are intended to mitigate
Reduction of use conflicts,
impacts of land use change,
Natural Resources
Some oil production in project
Some nonrenewable resources
Nona
area,
will be consumed in construc-
tion and operation. Existing
oil wells expected to remain.
Risk of Upset
Refinery uses have sane onsite
hazardous materials
Some additional refinery uses
Regulations by City and other
and require
transportation of these
possible, upgrading of older
refinery uses,
agencies regarding storage and
materials,
use of hazardous materials are
expected to result in acceptable
level of risk,
Population
Project area has no residential
Up to 13,641 additional jobs
Other areas
use, provides an estimated
J
could be provided in project
of city de
potential housing sipe�,mbut
area, Area now an employment
not sufficient for all demand,
surplus area. Indirect and
-induced jobs in region,
Housing
No existing residential use.
Secondary housing impact small
20% of redevelopment tax incre-
percent of market area demand,
rent income required to be spent
to benefit low- and moderate -
income housing,
Transportation/
Circulation
Site has good arterial and free-
Potential to significantly de-
Improvements to arterial inter
way access. Few intersections
now overloaded. Freeway at or
grade level of service at nearby
intersections
-
sections and freeway access,
over capacity at peak hours,
when combined with
Emphasis on transit improvements
other projects. Site access
could
and TSM measures by site tenants,;
cause problems if direct
Site plan review for access and
-
to arterials,
parking,
18
ISSUE
`t -e Protection
Police
Protection
School
Parks and
Recreation
Energy -
Water Supply
Sewer system
Storm Drainage
Power, Gas,
Phone
Solid Waste
Human Health
Aesthetics
Recreation
Archaeological/
Historical
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 146 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY
ENV 1 ROI'VENTAL SETTING
Site now has fire protection
for developed areas only.
Significant police demand with
small facilities and mixed uses
No school population in project
area.
Small recreation demand
in project area. Some recre-
ation facilities near project.
- Project area consumes electric
and gas energy for industrial
processes, lighting, space and
water heating, other uses.
The site now has adequate
water for existing uses only.
Sanitation districts provide
sewer collection and treatment.
Area has some storm drain
deficiencies.
Project area now has utility
services.
Regional management by Sani-
tation Districts of Los Angeles
County. Potential long-term
regional problem.
Potential asbestos -contaminated
site in project area.
Site includes variety of land
uses, some unattractive uses.
Project area provides sane
recreation facilities.
Project area has potential to
disturb unknown archaeological
sites. Some known sites exist
near the project area.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Existing water distribution
system inadequate for proposed
development. Additional fire
manpower and equipment required
based on annual review of city-
wide requirenents.
Improvements may reduce police
demand in existing developed
areas, increase to areas now
vacant.
Possible indirect increase
in demand through housing
impact.
Increase in employment may
bring sane increase in
recreation demand.
Increase in energy colsumption
with increase in intensity of
of development.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Water system improvements re-
quired to provide fire protection
prior to occupancy. Fire Depart-
ment review of development plans.
Internal fire detection and
suppression systems required.
Additional staff needs deter-
mined based on annual review
of citywide needs.
None
Some redevel ment Income
may be used for park improve-
ments.
Building codes require energy
conservation measures.
New water distribution lines Developers required to install
required with new development distribution lines. Sere improve-
ments constructed by City.
Additional sewer collection lines Sanitation districts will deter -
lines and treatment capacity mine if capacity exceeded and
required with new development, will install additional facilities.
Development may change drainage
Patterns and runoff rates, not
significant beyond sites.
Services will be upgraded
as required by utility providers
as development takes place.
Adds to solid waste generation,
insignificant at regional
level.
No unique or unusual health
hazards posed by project.
Undeveloped areas will be
developed, potential for some
mid -rise or high-rise structures.
Minor increase in park and
recreation demand with new
development.
If archaeological sites are
present, they are likely to be
disturbed by construction.
19
Developers required to provide
adequate site drainage fo
storm drain system.
None
None
Mitigation measures for asbes-
tos -contaminated site reviewed
reviewed prior to development.
Design review by City.
Project may involve some
recreation improvements.
Site preservation or excavation
required. Contractors required
to notify City if artifacts found.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 147 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.1 Earth
Environmental 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 fewer construction problems
than the north and east clays, which are expansive.
Portions of the City of Carson have been designated as
special study zones by the California Division of nines and
Geology. The City is located on the western margins of the
Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, a seismically -active area.
The most destructive earthquake in recent times on this
fault system was the Long Beach earthquake in 1933.
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 to the north
and to the south. Some of these sites contain materials
that decompose chemically or biologically and may produce
landfill gases and have problems of differential or
unstable settling. (See, for example, Converse Davis Dixon
soil study for a parcel in the project area, February
17, 1978).
Environmental The project will result in minor grading for preparation
Impact of building sites and excavation for utilities. In some
locations, significant soil movement is anticipated.
The project will resu It in exposure of additional people to
ground shaking from earthquakes in the project area because
the project will result in increased employment in the
project area. This potential ground shaking 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
Measures degree of protection from ground shaking. A landfill gas
control plan will be required for developments which 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.
WO
C
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 148 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 3
21
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. l and 2
II
6.
Gardena Valley No. 4
11
I.
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 �o. (Outside of West City Boundary)
III
17.
Southwest Steel No. 2
111
18.
Compton Reclamation Area
II
19.
Gardena Valley No. 6
11
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 1I sites may have experienced dumping of toxic or
hazardous
substances)
21
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 149 of 318
Alondra Blvd
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
C
tAllb I INN + COMMITTED + ALT. 2
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(includes Redevelopment Areas 1 &3)
Resolution No.
Alondra Blvd��
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CIT OF CARSON t
W ,r
rnp
J
W m a0 n O Q
Z O N N
Q
0 131 600
11150
rtesia Freeway
O O
p O M w N M Victoria St.
M. 28,000 8,300
t»
M o
O
p � M M
OfV Cl) N
University Drive
\ i �
192nd St
30,400 o c \\
1 qj M
O
co
M
BP
M
l
a�
J 11
/15,700 /7300
co 0 O
Q_
p
M
M
%
n
�!
Carson St.
a
—
14600
'
p 29,300
27,800
28,700
0
0 ;
O
t
t�
M
N
`p�
PM
217 300
223rd St.
M
—""690
21,700
21,100
20,40022,500
0 Wardlow Rd.
^�0
35,800
; a
n T
N
N
t
I-n`
O
N
O'
t
r N
M
LpC
z C - V
rr D'
c°
\F
m
N m m
1
Sepulveda Blvd.
22,300
17 400
26,900
27,900
LL
0
CV
M
O ai
N
d>
Y OF CARSON_
_ �mQa
N U i
♦
w Lomita
Blvd.
_ _
-0
13.200 CITY
OF LOS ANGELS
Q
N
♦�\♦
21,800.
17,600
;
c
p
m
M
m 'co
m
rl
o
i
?
a'
EIR FOR
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3 CARSON, CA
M-Ipdmf
t
Figure 20.
73
EXISTING + COMMITTED + ALT. 3
AVERAGE DAILY TFTAFFIC
(includes Redevelopment Areas 1 & 3 )
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 151 of 318
E1R, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 18
INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Alameda & Carson
Alameda & Sepulveda
Wilmington & Carson
Wilmington & 223rd
Wilmington & 4U5 Ramps
Estimated 1984
V/C LOS
.43 A
.6 B
.68 B
.77 C
.87 D
----Alternative 2 ----
Basic Mitigated
V/C LOS V/C LOS
Alternative 1
Estimated Base
V/C LOS
.43 A
.69 B
.68 B
.77 C
.87 U
----Alternative 3 ---
Basic Mitigated
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
D - -
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 152 of 318
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). Wilmington 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
Wilmington Avenue. Volumes on the San Diego Freeway
substantially exceed the assumed capacity of an eight -lane
freeway (even in the existing condition).
.Estimated unconstrained average daily traffic volumes in
the project condition are shown in Figure 20. (The estimate
includes traffic increases generated in the Amendment to
Redevelopment Project Area 1 under the project condition.)
In this condition, Wilmington Avenue is projected to exceed
its assumed capacity between the San Diego Freeway and
223rd Street and north of Carson Street. Sepulveda
- - -- -- Boulevard is projected to exceed its -assumed capacity east
of Wilmington Avenue. Volumes on the San Diego Free. -;ay
substantially exceed the assumed capacity of an eight -lane
freeway (even in the existing condition).
Mitigation To mitigate the identified deficiencies within the project
=9easau es area, improve traffic volumes on the al ready -congested San
Diego, Long Beach and Artesia Freeways, a number of traffic
improvements and transportation system management treasures
are recommended for this project. The recommended
improvements for both Alternative 2 and Alt?rnative 3
are listed first, fol lowed by a listing of those
improvements which are recommended only for Alternative 3.
1. Widen Wilmington and Sepulveda to Raster Plan standards
where they are not fully improved.
2. Upgrade geometrics at street intersections as needed.
3. Require specific, detailed analysis of traffic impacts
and mitigation measures .;hanever-a major new development is
proposed.
4. Limit the number of ingress and egress points at heir
developments which will attract large amounts of traffic.
5. Locate new signals at intersections as traffic signal
warrants are met and signalization is justified.
o. Require major new employers to set up traffic
mitigation programs. Elements of such programs might
include flexible working hours, staggered shifts; financial
incentives for ride -sharing or transit use, preferential
75
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 153 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
parking for carpoolers, and informational programs for
carpool matching and public transportation.
7. Install freeway access guide signs to redirect traffic
from southbound I-405 ramps at Wilmington Avenue to south-
bound I-405 ramps at 'rlardlow Road, utilizing 223rd Street.
Under the project condition, the following improvements are
recommended:
1. Widen and restripe the off -ramp of the northbound San
Diego Freeway at Wilmington Avenue. Reset signal timing at
that intersection to accommodate morning and afternood peak
hour loads.
2. Restripe Wilmington Avenue for one additional through
lane in each direction between the San Diego Freeway
northbound ramps and 223rd Street. Adjust signal timing at
Wilmington/223rd Street and coordinate with signals at the
freeway ramps.
-- --- Parking. -Almost all of the parking needs within the
project area are currently accommodated by off-street
parking. On-site observations and discussions with the
City's traffic engineer revealed no existing problem
locations within the proposed project area.
As traffic demands increase, on -street parking ,gill
create more conflicts ,gith through traffic. Therefore, it
is recommended that all future development provide on-site
parking in accordance with the City Parking Code. The City
should phase out on -street parking on heavily -traveled
arterials.
It is also important that true: maneuvering areas be
provided on-site. Therefore, as new projects are proposed
which will require truck maneuvering, it is recommended
that the City enforce the loading, truck, maneuvering and
driveway requirements of the Parking Code.
Public Transportation. Existing bus routes operated by the
Southern California Rapid Transit District, the Torrance
I'lunicipal Bus Line, and the Gardena Municipal Bus Line, are
shown in Figure 21. Continuous north/south service is
provided along both Alameda Street and Avalon Boulevard,
and several routes serve Cal State Dominguez Hills.
It is noteworthy that there are no continuous east/;rest
routes through the City of Carson at the present time.
The proposed Los Angeles -Long Beach rail line, currently
under study by the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission, is shown in Figure 21 cutting through the
76
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 154 of 318
E1R, 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
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.
77
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 155 of 318
E1R, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Bicycle Faci Iities. Currently, there are no bicycle paths
or lanes within the project area. The 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 Plan.
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.
0
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 156 of 318
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CIT O RSON
JW.VIL.A.-LONG BEACH
RAIL LINE (PROPOSED)
(� Do-*Go•RTD 55
J O `_--__� i ►—Aw RTD 446 I
O m RTD 127
z
c INEMORTD 130
O a RTD 53
J 1119119TORRANCE 3
rtesia reF away GARDENA3
O �
H ----; OOOO PROPOSED (CONCEPTUAL)
Drive
192nd St.
i
De Amo Blvd. s.
000 00 00000 00 000000000000000000000 000000000 000000 0
' p �
1 N
f oq /
/
o ,fig. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 00
if
ingot n.nnu(lnnusisa 0 ,
e = 0 '
c .. o Ilk
b
c ,
l o ' --
223rd St. c
(ca-)o0WA&MD IRM000000
I
0,� o
<, o
AV 01 m
2
61
m
•F O` n,
Sepulveda Blvd.:
. t
, a z
y
\` Y OF CARS
onr– CITY OF LOS ANOGN_L_u `; ♦ ♦ :71a'+jr Yr
/
/
o � t� 4r y \♦ a'
: v •e3 a?m ` FI
w
Q
EI,IR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3 CARSON, CA
Figure 21.
79 TRANSIT SERVICE
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 157 of 318
Alondra Blvd
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CIT OF
CARSON
3
wm
000000 000000000 0
_
2
C
Q
G
010
00
-1
O
Artesia Freewa
py
F
O
U
Victoria St. O
.•
O
•
• ••
0
O
•
O
O
University Drive O
i
i
192nd St.
000000OOOOOOOOOC
00
Del Amo Blvd.
O
sa'O
'
O
O r
O
r
I PPha`
0
0
i
00
0
0
o r
(\
o
c'
0000000000
00 000000000000
0
0
� Carson St.
O,
-000 000
0 00ou%
0
0
71
o
223rd St.
0
O
0
Wardlow Rd.
0
-t
O
\�
i
0 ,p
�% T
0e.1
0
p
O \ Cn
Pc-
nt Z
00 `oc
C
m
r
0
0
\
Sepulveda
Blvd.
O 000000
00 0000
000
r
-
-__--
3'3m
W'VWEXISTING
i
.�
.•••••.COMMITTED
y
Lanita Blvd,
?mQm
Y OF CARSON__ U
r
OOOOPROPOSED
CITY OF LOS ANGELES w ♦`
\♦
c n
m
ru ��m _c
m �
Dm
o
p
>
J 1 \♦`Q
LL
Q
Ir
QyO Q'
IR FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NUMBER 3
CARSON, CA
e1IliKU(T9 tFigure
22.
80
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 158 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project area 3
Pedestrian Facilities. Discussions with city staff reveal
no severe pedestrian problems at the present time. The
lack of sidewalks along some streets in the project area
treats the potential for conflicts between autos.and
pedestrians, though no serious problems have been
encountered to date.
The only recommended action in regard to pedestrian
facilities is that the City require new developments to
provide sidewalks adjacent to the street and gradually
phase in a comprehensive network of sidewalks adjacent to
arterial streets.
Rail Facilities. The project is expected to have no impact
on rail traffic in the project area. However, the rail
lines passing through the project area are expected to
experience significant increases in traffic as a result of
construction of the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility
just east of the project area, Los Angeles and Long Beach
Harbor expansion, and consolidation of freight traffic
along the Alameda Street rail lines. These lines, which
now handle fewer than 20 trains per day, could handle 80 to
100 trains per day as a result of these actions. This
volume of rail traffic would have a significant adverse
impact on safety and traffic flow at at -grade intersections
in the project area, and grade separation of the rail line
would be required.
81
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 159 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.14 Public Services
Fire Protection
Environmental Fire protection for the City of Carson is provided under
Setting contract with the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
There are six stations that serve the City, two of which
are located outside of the city limits. These stations
are:
Station a Address
10 1850 E. Del Amo Boulevard, Carson
35 127 W. 223 Street, Carson
95 137 W. Redondo Beach Boulevard, Gardena
105 18915 S. Santa Fe Avenue, Compton
116 755 E. Victoria Street, Carson
127 2049 E. 223 Street, Carson
The City of Carson has an adequate peak load water supply
to provide sufficent fire flow while maintaining dcmestic
water supply and adequate reserve. The project site is
served by several 8" water mains. Since most of the
project area is zoned for heavy industrial usage, the
water system is strong, with 5000 gpm at 125 psi.
Environmental
The project will require additional -fire hydrants to
Impact
provide fire protection to structures throughout the site.
All major structures would require internal fire
protection systems including heat sensors and sprinkler
systems as approved by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department. The proposed project does not include now
types of structures or uses which would change the type of
equipment, training, etc. used by the Fire Department.
The proposed project, together ;with other develop -sent in
the City, may result in added manpower and equip,ent
needs to serve citywide demands: Such needs are
evaluated annually based on experience of the Fire
Department. Additional fire inspection staff may also
be required.
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures will be included in the
Measures
proposed project. These mitigation measures are expected
to reduce potential fire protection system impacts to an
insignificant level.
1. All designs and plans for construction on the project
will be reviewed by the Fire Department prior to
approval by the City.
83
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 160 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
2. All structures to be constructed will be provided with
fire detection and suppression systems as required by
City codes.
3. Any proposed developments will be required to'install
water mains and 'hydrants providing fire flow and
access distances as required by the Fire Department.
4. Any proposed developments will be required to provide
adequate access for fire equipment to all structures
on the project site as required by the Fire Depart-
ment.
.Police Protection
Environmental Police protection for the City of Carson is providad by
Setting the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department located at
2136 South Avalon Boulevard. This station also serves a
portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County near the City
of about the same sig- as Carson.
Environmental The proposed project would be expected to result in some
Impact increases in police cal is to the project site and possible
changes in the types of calls received. ',vlhether or not
the project would require additional police staff depends
on the total require^ents of the City, which are evaluated
regularly.
;Fal t7 gat7 on
Measures ;Ione.
H 12
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 161 of 318
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
demands of the residents except for the Victoria Park
-Impact
Library. Potential
y 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.
Mitigation
Measures None.
99
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 162 of 318
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
p FIRE STATION
■ SCHOOL
�C PARK /
❑ LIBRARY
C
IES
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 163 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
School s
Environmental The Los Angeles Unified School District and the Compton
Setting Unified School District provide elementary, junior and high
school services. There are also several private schools
in the City. All of the public schools have current
enrollments which are less than the capacity of the
schools. Of the eighteen District schools in the City,
fifteen of these are at least ten percent undercapacity,
with half of these utilizing less than 80 per -cent of
capacity.
California State University, Dominguez Hills, is located at
1000 East Victoria Street in Carson. The 346 -acre campus
had an enrollment of 8,322 students at the beginning of
1984. Eight percent of that enrollment comes from the City
of Carson. The university was master planned to accommo-
date 20,000 students. To date, however, enrollments have
not exceeded 10,000.
-- Environmental No housing currently exists in the project area and no
Impact housing will be constructed as part of the project.
Because of this, the project should not affect school
enrollments either positively or negatively and no signifi-
cant impacts on the school system are anticipated.
iiitigati on
Measures ;tone.
87
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 164 of 318
Elk, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.15 Fiscal Impact
Environmental A number of agencies currently receive tax revenue from the
Setting project area. Los Angeles County receives substantial
property tax income as the agency with the highest property
tax rate in the project area. Other property taxing
agencies have much lower property tax rates. The City of
Carson does not impose a property tax. The City receives
revenues in the area from sales tax (45.6% of general fund
revenue in 1982-83), franchise taxes on utilities, business
licenses, motor vehicle in lieu fees, transient occupancy
(hotel/motel) tax and a variety of other sources.
The Carson Redevelopment Agency receives revenue princi-
pally from tax increment income from redevelopment
projects. Under state law, the agency may collect a
portion of the property tax resulting from increases in
value of property in redevelopment project areas following
project adoption. The Agency receives not only that reve-
nue that would otherwise go to the City of Carson (which
does not impose a property tax) but that revenue that would
be received by Los Angeles County and all other taxing
agencies.
The adoption of the redevelopment project amendment may
have fiscal impacts on a number of agencies. During the
period in which the Carson Redevelopment Agency receives
tax increment income from the project, the property tax
income of other agencies may be reduced relative to their,
income if the project area were to develop under, market
forces. however, to the extent that development
in the project area occurs at a higher rate than would
occur without Agency action, these agencies would not have
received this income in any case. Once the project is
complete and the Agency no longer needs tax increment
income to pay tax increment revenue bonds used to finance
project costs, income is then received by these agencies at
the higher rate.
Some agencies may experience higher service costs to the
project area as a result of the redevelopment project.
Others may experience lower costs as a result of
improvement of conditions in the project area through
Redevelopment Agency actions.
Environmental The analysis that follows is intended to provide order -of -
Impact magnitude estimates of cost and revenue impacts of the
adoption of the amendment to Redevelopment Project Number 1
on the City of Carson, the Carson Redevelopment Agency, and
other taxing agencies in the project area.
This impact analysis is based on a number of assumptions
about the rate of development in the project area with and
88
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 165 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
without the redevelopment project, the value of that deve-
lopment, the rate of increase in property values for
existing and new structures in the project area, the
allocation of principal City costs and revenues to various
land uses in'the City, and other factors. Changes to any
of these assumptions may result in different conclusions
about the impacts of the project on a given agency.
Carson Redevelopment Agency. The project will impose a
number of costs on the Carson Redevelopment Agency. Costs
include Agency administration and project -related costs
for public improvements, property acquisition, relocation,
site preparation and other project -related costs.
The Agency receives revenue from tax increment financing.
The tax increment revenue received by the agency depends
on a number of factors including:
- o Speed of development. The faster development takes
place the sooner an increment in taxable value in the
project area, and therefore tax increment revenue, will
be received by the Agency. For the purpose of this
analysis, development was assumed to take place at a
uniform rate over a period of 20 years to full buildout
of the project.
o Property value inflation. If property values increase
rapidly, property exchanges will result in growth of
the tax base without new improvements. For the purpose
of this analysis, property values were assumed to
increase at .4% per year. A lower inflation rate would
reduce the amount available to the Agency for public
works construction and land conversion.
o Rate of property transfers. If property values are
inflating faster than the legal 2% maximum for proper-
ties which do not change hands, then property transfers
will result in growth in the tax base without new
improvements. In general, commercial and industrial
property does not change hands frequently, and the rate
of transfers was assumed to be 5% per year.
o Agency share of tax increment revenue. For purposes of
analysis, the Agency share was assumed to be 100%. Of
the tax increment revenue received by the Agency, 20% is
required to be spent to benefit low- and moderate -income
housing.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 166 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 19
FISCAL IMPACTS ON CARSON
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
REUENUES ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
1985
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Pre-project stock
Beginning Market Ualue 45 $/5q ft
2391 ksf
107595
109661
111766
113912
116099
118328
120600
122916
Less Demolition
2.01
-2152
-2193
-2235
-2278
-2322
-2367
-2412
-2458
Plus Market Ualue Inflation
4.OX
4218
4299
4381
4465
4551
4638
4728
4818
Ending Market Ualue
109661
111766
113912
116099
118328
120600
122916
125276
Assessed Ualue (Hate 1) 43 8/sq ft
2391 ksf
102723
102620
103013
103300
103677
104143
104694
105329
Less Demolition
2.OX
-2054
-2056
-2060
-2066
-2074
-2083
-2094
-2107
Less Transfers at flssessed Ualue
S.OX
-5033
-5038
-5048
-5062
-5080
-5103
-5130
-5161
Plus 2X legal inflation limit
2.OX
1913
1915
1918
1923
1930
1939
1949
1961
Plus Transfers at Market Value
SAX
5272
5373
5477
5582
5689
5798
5909
6023
Ending Assessed Ualue
102820
103013
103300
103677
104143
104694
105329
106046
NET Assessed Ualue Increment
97
Z90
577
954
1420
1971
2606
3323
New Construction
Initial Market Ualue
0
7993
16785
26437
37014
98585
61225
75012
-- — -- - - -- - Plus Market Ualue Inflation
4.OX _
_ _D
320
671
1057
1481
1943
2449
3000
Plus New Construction 6.OX Const cost
excalator
Retail/Service 838.40 /sq ft
3250 sq ft
125
132
140
149
158
167
177
188
Business Park $24.95 /sq ft
60100 sq ft
1499
1589
1685
1786
1893
2007
2127
2255
Office Park $50.75 /sq ft
0 sq ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Industrial 82495 /sq ft
255250 sq ft
6368
6751
7156
7585
8040
8522
9034
9576
Total New Construction
318600 sq ft
7993
8472
8981
9520
10091
10696
11338
12018
TOTRL Ending Market Ualue
7993
16785
26437
37014
48585
61225
75012
90030
Beginning Assessed Ualue
0
7993
16617
25922
35960
46786
58461
71049r
Less Transfers at Rssessed Ualue
5.0Y.
0
-400
-831
-1296
-1798
-2339
-2923
-35521_
Plus 21 legal inflation limit
2.OX
0
152
316
493
683
889
1111
1350
Plus transfers at Market Ualue
S.OX
0
400
839
1322
1851
2429
3061
3751
Plus new construction
7993
0472
8981
9520
10091
10696
11338
12018
NET flssessed Ualue Increment, New Construction
7993
16617
259Z2
35960
46786
58461
71048
84614
TOTAL Assessed Ualue Increment, Existing t New.
8090
16907
26499
36914
48206
60433
73654
87937
Annual tax increment revenue 1.001 of value increment
81
169
265
369
482
604
737
879
Bonding Capacity ($ million) 8.0 x Rnnual Revenue
0.6
1.4
2.1
3.0
3.9
4.8
5.9
7.0
Accumulated Tax Increment Revenue
81
250
515
884
1366
1970
2707
3586
COSTS ($000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3333--
Rdministration 6.OX Inflation
200
260
212
225
238
252
268
ZB4
301
Low/Moderate Income Housing ZOAX x Annual Revenue
16
34
53
74
96
121
147
176
TOTRL PROJECT COSTS
216
246
270
312
349
389
431
477
REVENUES LESS COSTS (Ruailable for public works
-135
-77
-13
57
133
216
306
403
and land conversion)
CUMULBTIUE REUENUES LESS COSTS
-135
-212
-225
-168
-34
181
487
890
Notes: 1. flssessed value from County Auditor, FY 19833-84
Abbreviations= ksf: Thousand square feet
W
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 167 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 19
FISCAL IMPACTS ON CARSON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CONTINUED)
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001-05 2006-10 2011-15 2016-20 2021-25
125276 127681 130133 132631 135178 137773 190418 143114 145862 159717 174888 191501 209691
2506
-2554
-2603
-2653
-2704
-2755
-2808
-2862
-14586
-15972
-17489
-19150
-20969
4911
5005
5101
5199
5299
5401
5504
5610
28441
31143
34101
37340
40887
127681
130133
132631
135178
137773
140418
143114
145864'
159717
174888
191501
209691
229609
106046
106842
107715
108665
109690
110787
111957
113197
114506
118615
I Z5015
133390
143543
-2121
-2137
-2154
-2173
-2194
-2216
-2239
-2264
-11451
-11862
-12502
-133339
-14354
-5196
-5235
-5Z78
-5325
-5375
-5429
-5486
-5547
-28472
-29494
-31085
-33168
-35693
1975
1989
2006
2023
2042.
2063
2085
2108
7763
8041
8475
9043
9731
6139
6256
6376
6499
6624
6751
6880
7013
36269
39714
43487
47617
52140
106842
107715
108665
109690
110787
111957
113197
114,506
118615
125015
133390
143543
155368
4119
4992
5942
6967
8064
9234
10474
11783
15891,
2ZZ92
30667
40820
52695
90030 106371 124129 143408 164317 186973 211500 238031 266707 413315 502860 611807 744356
_3601
__4255
4965
5736
_ 6573
7479
8460
9521
___57783
89546
108946
132550
161267
199
211
223
237
251
266
282
299
1387
5591
6674
576
634
2390
2533
2685
2846
3011
3198
3390
3594
16664
15860
622
745
878
0
a
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
10150
10759
11405
12089
12815
133584
14399
15262
70773
12739
13504
19314
15173
16083
17048
18071
19155
88824
0
0
0
106371
124129
143488
164317
186973
211500
238031
266707
413315
502860
611807
744356
905623
84614
99232
114978
131934
150187
169830
190962
213688
238121
359689
412036
480121
566601
1231
-4962
-5749
-6597
-7509
-8492
-9548
-10684
-59530
-89922
-103009
-120030
-141650
1608
1885
2185
2507
2854
3227
3628
4060
18588
28078
32164
37479
44229
4502
5319
6206
7170
8216
9349
10575
11902
73686
114191
138931
169031
205652
12739
13504
14314
15173
16083
17048
18071
19155
88824
0
0
0
0
99232
114978
131934
150187
169830
190962
213688
238121
359689
412036
480121
566601
674831
103351
119971
137076
157154
177894
200196
224162
299904
375581
434328
510788
607421
727476
1034
1200
1379
1572
1779
2002
2242
2499
156337
20248
23628
27955
33372
8.3
9.6
11.0
12.6
14.2
16.0
17.9
20.0
30.0
34.7
40.9
48.6
58.2
4620
5820
7198
8770
10549
12551
14792
17291
32929
53176
76804
104759
138132
319
207
5Z5
500
1398
338
358
380
402
427
452
479
2864
3833
5129
6864
9185
240
276
314
356
400
448
500
3127
4050
4726
5591
6674
576
634
694
758
827
901
979
5991
7882
9855
12455
15860
622
745
878
1021
1175
1341
1520
96%
12365
13773
15500
17513
2020 2764 3642 4663 5038 7179 8699
18344 30710 44483 59983 77496
91
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 168 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
One-time revenue:
Building Permits
Plan Check Fees
TABLE 20
FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF CARSON
Revenue Impacts (1984 dollars)
0.6% of value
85% of bldg permit
Annual Revenue at buildout:
Sales/Use Tax 1% of sales
Retail/service, sales $100/sq ft, 65,000 sq ft
Business Park, 10% retail at $100/sq ft,
120,200 square feet
Industrial, 10% retail at $100/sq ft,
510,500 square feet
TOTAL Sales/Use Tax
Miscellaneous Revenues (Franchise tax,
business license, permits, etc.)
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUES
Cost Impacts (1984 dollars)
One-time costs
Building permit review and plan check
(cost assumed equivalent to fees)
Annual costs at buildout
Community Safety (5% of 1983-84 budget amount)
Public Works (5% of 1983-84 budget amount)
Administration (5% of 1983-84 budget amount for
Finance and Administration
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
92
$ 1,064,400
904,740
------------
$ 1,969,140
$ 65,000
120,200
510,500
$ 695,700
100,000
$ 795,700
$ 1,969,140
$ 269,000
149,000
97,160
515,160
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 169 of 318
EIR, 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 take place, tax
-- increment flow is increased. At buildout of the proposed
project, after an assumed 20 -year development period, an
estimated $3.8 million per year in tax increment revenue is
available to the agency. A total of $32.9 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 proposed improve-
ments in the project area, as well as to purchase proper-
ties in blighted condition for resale for appropriate
development.
Cash flow estimates beyond 10 years are strongly dependent
on assumptions about interest rates, the rate of inflation
in costs of improvements and property values, the rate of
development in the project area and other factors. Actual
Agency cash flow may be substantially different depending
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 development. Some
City costs, such as for maintenance and code enforcement,
may be reduced as improvements are made in the project
area. The City will receive revenue from plan check and
permit fees at the time of development, and from business
licenses and sales taxes as new business activity takes
place in the project area.
93
0
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 170 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 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 control
Control District improvements to serve project
area.
Los Angeles County Fire Increase with additional deve-
Protection District lopment, decrease with improved
construction, maintenance.
School Districts No increase in costs. Costs
allocated to residential areas
only.
Note: Tax rate based on approximate average for project area. Tax
allocations to districts vary within the project area depending
on the number of districts and district tax rates within each
tax rate area within the project area.
W,
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 171 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
In the 1982-83 Carson budget, general government
expenditures accounted for 33.3% of general fund
expenditures, parks and recreation for 28.7%, community
safety 24.3%, public works 13.3% and health 0.4%.
General fund revenues 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, 4.6% from
fines and forfeitures, 6.2% from licenses and permits, and
1.2% from other revenues. Total estimated General Fund
revenues were $18,867,590.
Table 20 summarizes expected costs and revenues to the City of
Carson from the proposed project. Under the assumptions
of the table, City revenues are expected to somewhat exceed
City expenditures to serve the project area.
One-time revenues from plan check and permit fees are
assumed to balance the one-time costs incurred in reviewing
— -- _ development projects as they come before the City. Sales
tax revenues are estimated based on a typical annual sales
rate of $100.00 per square foot of floor area. Some retail
sales are assumed to take place in business park and
industrial areas as well, but at a much to"Yer rate.
Costs are allocated on the assumption that costs for public
safety, public works, and general administration can be
assigned on a per -unit -area basis to all developed land
areas of the City. The project will result in an increase
of developed area of approximately 5:1V, and therefore 51 of
these costs are assigned to the project as increases
resulting from project development.
In general, whether the City benefits fiscally from
industrial development depends on the amount of retail
sales from the develop^ent.
EE
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 172 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Other Taxing Agencies. A number of taxing agencies
provide services to various parts of 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 new .
development are small, agencies will not suffer by
diversion of tax increment revenue to the Carson
Redevelopment Agency, width 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 of the
total property tax revenue in the project area. Most
county services supported by property tax are related to
residential areas rather than industrial and commercial
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 residential
uses rather than industrial use, and wi11 not incur
additional costs as a result of the proposed project.
Fire Protection Districts may have some additional
expenditures as a result of the overall grovith in this
project area, adjacent project area and other development
in the City. These additional costs may be partially
offset by the improvement of the project area, recycling
of poorly maintained private developments, and improved
fire detection and suppression require,??ants in new
development.
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District may incur
somecsts fordd
aitional i.??provements to protect parts of
the project area. These expenditures would be required in
the long run whether or not the radevel op; ,enc. project 1Vas
adopted.
96
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 173 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.15 Energy
Environmental The importance of energy conservation has been made clear
Setting to the public in recent years as a result of increases in
the price of energy, recognition of the national interest
in reducing dependence on foreign energy sources and
increasing concern with the environmental impact of coal
' and nuclear sources on which the U.S. will depend for
expansion of generating capacity.
Environmental
Because the growth anticipated as a result of the project
Impact
is a small proportion of regional growth and does not
represent a significantly different energy use compared to
growth in other locations in the region, the impact of
this growth increment on regional energy resources is not
expected to be significant. However, all unnecessary
energy use is of concern and mitigation measures should be
considered to reduce energy consumption. (Estimates of
energy usage by the proposed project are discussed under
Section 3.17, Utilities).
mitigation
The following mitigation measures are included in the
Measures
proposed project to reduce energy consumption:
1. Compliance with California Energy Commission Standards
for energy -conserving construction techniques in all
new construction.
2. attention to measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled
and encourage use of high -occupancy vehicles in all
large single -tenant projects as outlined under
circulation mitigation measures.
97
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 174 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.17 Utilities
Slater
Environmental Water to the project area is provided by the Dominguez
Setting dater Corporation. In general, the existing mains to the
project area have large capacities. Water supply and
distribution facilities are adequate in the proposed
project area for the present development.
Environmental The area north of Carson Street and east of Alameda Street
Impart is ful ly developed. Water faci 1 i ties for the area south
of Carson Street and west of Alameda Street are adequate
for any increased development as a result of the proposed
project. There are large areas of undeveloped land south
of 223rd Street and both east and west of Alameda Street.
The development of these areas into industrial uses would
necesitate 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 Dominguez Channel or south from a
proposed new east -west running main south of 223rd Street.
Mitigation Water service to the project will be designed to meet fire
Measures flow requirements as established by the Los Angeles County
Fire Department prior to construction. Water service to
the proposed project area will be constructed by the
private developer for private projects.
This mitigation measure will reduce potential wafer
service -impacts to an insignificant level.
LAND USE
Shopping Center
Retail/Service
Hotel/Motel
Office Park
Business Park
Heavy Industry
Storage/Low Intens Coml
Petroleum Proc/Storage
Local Park
School/Public
Transport/Flood Control
Open Space/Golf Course
Vacant
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
TOTAL
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 175 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 22
PROJECT WATER CONSUMPTION
gal/day
per ------Existing Use----- ----Alternative 3------ -----------Change------
unit Units Total Units Total Units Total
------- ------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
100,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da
100.0 65 ksf 6534 gal/day 131 ksf 13063 gal/da 65 ksf 6534 gal/dr,
150,0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da O ksf 0 gal/da
200.0 0 ksf 0 gal/day 0 ksf 0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da
200.0 392 ksf 78408 gal/day 1594 ksf 318859 gal/da 1202 ksf 240451 gal/da
200.0 1934 ksf 386813 gal/day 7039 ksf 1407859 gal/da 5105 ksf102IO46 gal/da
400.0 61 ac 24400 gal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da -61 ac -24400 gal/da
500.0 51 ac 25500 gal/day 51 ac 25500 gal/da 0 ac 0 gal/da
600.0 0 ac 0 gat/day 0 ac 0 gal/da 0 ac 0 aal/da
200,0 0 ksf O gal/day 0 ksf0 gal/da 0 ksf 0 gal/da
0.0 94 ac 0 gal/day 94 ac 0 gal/da 0 ac 0 gal/da
600.0 22 ac 13200 gal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da -22 ac -13200 gal/da
0.0 312 ac 0 gal/day 0 ac 0 gal/da -312 ac 0 gal/da
•-------------------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
2391 ksf 534855 cal/day 8764 ksf 1755285 nal/da 6373 ksfl230432 gal/da
534855 gal/day 1765286 cal/da 1230432 gal/da
99
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 176 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Sewer
Environmental All sewer service in the project area is provided by the
Setting Los Angeles County Sanitation District Plumber 8. Major
sewer collection lines and sewage treatment are provided
by Sanitation District Plumber 8. Major trunk lines in the
project area run along Wilmington Avenue and portions of
Sepulveda Boulevard.
Sewage generated by the City is carried by the Joint Water
Pollution Outfall system to the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts' Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
located in the southwest corner of Carson. This plant has
a peak capacity of 520 million gallons a day. It is
presently operating at approximately 350-400 million
gallons a day.
Environmental That portion of the proposed project area that is bounded
Impact by Wilmington Avenue and Alameda Street on the west and
east and Carson Street and the Dominguez Charnel on the
north and south, has limited or no sewer at present due
to large areas which are not ful ly developed at the
present time. The project would require increased sewer
development.
The project area which is bounded by Alameda Street,
Carson Street, the eastern cite limits, Sepulveda
Boulevard, and the Dominguez Channel is undeveloped. As
the area is developed, a relief sewer will be required in
Sepulveda Boulevard between Wilmington Avenue and Ai aneda
Street and a new sewer rei11 be needed extending east to
and north into the new developments.
Mitigation Sewerserviceto individual developments will be designed
Measures to meet requirements as established by the Sanitation
District prior to construction. If supplementing of major
trunk lines is required based on experience following
project construction, such supplemental lines will be
constructed by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
County.
This mitigation measure will reduce potential sewer
service impacts to an insignificant level.
100
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 177 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 23
PROJECT AVERAGE SEDER FLOW
gal/day
per ------Existing Use----- Alternative 3------ ------------ Change
USE unit Units Total Units Total Units Total
Shopping Center
100,0
0
ksf
0
gal/day
0
ksf
0
gal/da
0
ksf
0
gal/da
Retail/Service
100,0
65
ksf
6534
gal/day
131
ksf
13068
gal/da
65
ksf
6534
cal/da
Hotel/Motel
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
ksf
0
gal/da
Business Park
200,0
392
ksf
78408
gal/day
1594
ksf
318859
gat/da
1202
ksf
240451
gal/da
Heavy Industry
200,0
1934
ksf
386813
gal/day
7039
ksf
1407859
gal/da
5105
ksf1021046
ksf
gal/da
Storage/Low Intens Coml
400,0
61
ac
24400
gal/day
0
ac
0
gal/da
-61
ac
-24400
gal/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
gal/da
School/Public
200,0
0
ksf
0
gal/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
gal/da
Open Space/Golf Course
500,0
22
ac
11000
gal/day
0
ac
0
gal/da
-22
ac
-11000
gal/da
Vacant
0,0
312
ac
0
gal/day
0
ac
0
gal/da
-312
ac
0
cal/da
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksf 532655 gal/day 8764 ksf 1765286 gal/da 6373 ksfl232632 gal/da
TABLE 24
PROJECT PEAK SE" ER FL01H
101
cfs
per
------Existing
Use-----
----Alternative
3------
-----------Chance------
LAND USE
---------------------------------
unit
Units
-------------------------
Total
Units
Total
Units
Total
Shopping Center
0,00033
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
-----------------------
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
-----------------------
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
Retail/Service
0,00038
65
ksf
0,02
cfs
131
ksf
0,05
cfs
65
ksf
0,02
cfs
Hotel/Motel
0,00056
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
Office Park
0,00075
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
Business Park
0,00075
392
ksf
0.29
cfs
1594
ksf
1,20
cfs
1202
ksf
0,90
cfs
Heavy Industry
0,00075
1934
ksf
1,45
cfs
1039ksf
5,29
cfs
5105
ksf
3.84
cfs
Storage/Lox Intens Coml
0,00150
61
ac
0,09
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
-61
ac
-0,09
cfs
Petroleum Proc/Storage
0,00188
51
ac
0,10
cfs
51
ac
0,10
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
Local Park
0,00188
0
ac
0,00
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
School/Public
0,00075
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
0
ksf
0,00
cfs
Transport/Flood Control
0.00000
94
ac
0,00
cfs
94
ac
0,00
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
Open Space/Golf Course
0,00188
22
ac
0,04
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
-22
ac
-0.04
cfs
Vacant
---------------------------------
0,00000
312
-------------------------
ac
0,00
cfs
0
ac
0,00
cfs
-312
ac
0,00
r_fs
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
2391
ksf
2,00
cfs
-----------------------
8764
ksf
6,63
cfs
-----------------------
6373
L.sf
4,63
cfs
101
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 178 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project area 3
Storm Drainage
Environmental Because of its low elevation, isolated areas of Carson
Setting are subject to flooding during rainstorms. There are a
few flood 'hazards in the City of Carson. In the project
area, there is one area that has been identified as a
storm drain deficiency area. The primary flood hazard
area is the Dominguez Flood Control Channel, which runs
through the project area. The storm drain deficiency area
in the proposed project area floods when 50 -year storms
occur, causing flooding over curbs and congesting traffic.
Ea-ivirorrental The proposed project will result in an increase in storm
Inpact flow from the project area as a result of increased
coverage of the site by impervious surfaces.
Litigation Private developments in the proposed project area will be
Measures required to provide satisfactory drainage to available
storm drains. The storm drain deficiency areas in the
proposed project area are expected to be corrected over
the project lifetime. These two measures will mitigate
storm drain impacts to an insignificant level.
102
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 179 of 318
19T3St.
O 90
T
PP
O
arson St. OO
St.
m
Sepulveda 1Blvd.
Q
e m Lomita Blvc
m
o
\ n° n c
2 1+- �
9 EIR FOR RR
University Drive
16
m
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
103
R
1
1
1 e
1 .
O ' n Wardlow Rd.
=1
1<
C1 O
4 r
<1 O
01
Zle N
e\
I
1
1 � �
U �
N
SOURCE: SAFETY, SEISMIC SAFETY
S AND NOISE ELEMENTS,
E CITY OF CARSON
GENERALPLAN,
REVISED DECEMBER 11, 1981.
BER 3, CARSON, CA
Figure 24.
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Alondra Blvd
CIT OF CARSON.
r
O STORM DRAIN DEFICIENCY EXISTS
�___"_�'"�
<:r< FLOOD HAZARD AREA
w
o
® FLOOD HAZARD BOUNDARY AREAS
w
m
a'
OBTAINED FROM THE FEDERAL
z
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM MAP
a
�
d
N
J
_ C4
rteSla feeWay Y I
19T3St.
O 90
T
PP
O
arson St. OO
St.
m
Sepulveda 1Blvd.
Q
e m Lomita Blvc
m
o
\ n° n c
2 1+- �
9 EIR FOR RR
University Drive
16
m
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
103
R
1
1
1 e
1 .
O ' n Wardlow Rd.
=1
1<
C1 O
4 r
<1 O
01
Zle N
e\
I
1
1 � �
U �
N
SOURCE: SAFETY, SEISMIC SAFETY
S AND NOISE ELEMENTS,
E CITY OF CARSON
GENERALPLAN,
REVISED DECEMBER 11, 1981.
BER 3, CARSON, CA
Figure 24.
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
Resolution No
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
84-119/Page 180 of 318
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.
104
LAND USE
Shopping Center
Retail/Service
to I /Mote I
face Park
iness Park
vy Industry
rage/Low Intens Coml
roleum Proc/Storage
cal Park
School/Public
Transport/Flood Control
Open Space/Golf Course
Vacant'
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 181 of 318
ER, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 25
ELECTRIC POWER CONSUdPTION
mwh
ksf
0
per
------Existing
Use -----
unit
•------
Units
Total
0.034
-------------------------
0 ksf
0 mwh
0.034
65 ksf
2 mwh
0.035
0 ksf
0 mwh
0.049
0 ksf
0 mwh
0.080
392 ksf
31 mwh
0.080
1934 ksf
155 mwh
0.100
61 ac
6 mwh
0.500
51 ac
26 mwh
0.010
0 ac
0 mwh
0.017
0 ksf
0 mwh
0.000
94 ac
0 mwh
0.010
22 ac
0 mwh
0.000
312 ac
0 mwh
----Alternative 3 -------
Units Total
0
ksf
0
mwh
131
ksf
4
mwh
0
ksf
0
mwh
0
ksf
0
m.ah
1594
ksf
128
mwh
7039
ksf
563
mwh
0
ac
0
mwh
51
ac
26
mwh
0
ac
0
mwh
0
ksf
0
mwh
94
ac
0
mwh
0
ac
0
mwh
0
ac
0
mwh
--------Change------
Units Total
0 ksf
65 ksf
0 ksf
0 ksf
1202 ksf
5105 ksf
-61 ac
0 ac
0 ac
0 ksf
0 ac
-22 ac
-312 ac
------------- ----
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL 2391 ksf 220 mwh 8764 ksf 721-mwh---
-6373-ksf
ksf
Abbreviations: mwh: megawatt -hours; ksf: thousand square feet; ac: acres
TABLE 26
NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION
0 mwh
2 mwh
0 myth
0 mwh
96 mwh
408 mwh
-6 mwh
0 mwh
0 mwh
0 mwh
0 mwh
0 mwh
0 mwh
500 mwh
Abbreviations: kcf: thousand cubic feet; ksf: thousand square feet; ac: acres
105
kcf
AND USE
per
unit
------Existing
Units
Use-----
----Alternative
3-------
---Change------
•-------------------------------
Total
Units
Total
Units
Total
.nopping Center
0.10
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
--------------
ksf
0
kcf
Retail/Service
0.10
65
ksf
6
kcf
131
ksf
13
kcf
65
ksf
6
kcf
Hotel/Motel
0.16
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
ksf
0
kcf
Office Park
0.10
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
ksf
0
kcf
Business Park
0.10
392
ksf
37
kcf
1594
ksf
152
kcf
1202
ksf
115
kcf
Heavy Industry
Storage/Low Intens Coml
0.10
0.24
1934
ksf
184
kcf
7039
ksf
670
kcf
5105
ksf
486
kcf
Petroleum Proc/Storage
0.24
61
51
ac
ac
15
12
kcf
kcf
0
ac
0
kcf
-61
ac
-15
kcf
Local Park
0.13
0
ac
0
kcf
51
0
ac
12
kcf
0
ac
0
kcf
School/Public
0.10
0
ksf
0
kcf
0
ac
ksf
0
kcf
0
ac
0
kcf
Transport/Flood Control
0.00
94
ac
0
kcf
94
0
kcf
0
ksf'
0
kcf
Open Space/Golf Course
0.03
22
ac
i
kcf
0
ac
0
kcf
0
ac
0
kcf
Vacant
0.00
312
ac
0
kcf
0
ac
0
kcf
-22
ac
-1
kcf
--------------------------------
-----------------------------
ac
0
kcf
-312
ac
kcf
10TAL NONRESIDENTIAL
2391
ksf
255
kcf
--------------------------
8764
ksf
847
kcf
-----------------------
6373
ksf
592
kcf
Abbreviations: kcf: thousand cubic feet; ksf: thousand square feet; ac: acres
105
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 182 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Solid Waste Disposal
Enviro-mental Solid waste disposal in Los Angeles County is the
Setting responsibility of the 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 which also
accepts refuse from a large area surrounding the City.
Although there are eighteen landfill sites in the City of
Carson, none are currently active. Solid waste from the
transfer facility goes to three landfill sites outside the
City in Puente Hills, 'mast Covina (a privately -owned
facility) and to Chiquita Canyon, north of magic Mountain.
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 landfill facilities and make
_ construction of new landfill sites difficult. This is a
regional problem and not unique to the project under
question.
Mi ti gati on
Measures ;Done.
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 183 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 27
SOLID WASTE GENERATION
107
----------- hange------
Units Total
0 ksf 0 lbs
65 ksf 974 lbs
0 ksf 0 lbs
0 ksf 0 lbs
1202 ksf 35707 lbs
5105 ksf 151625 lbs
-61 ac -4545 lbs
0 ac 0 lbs
0 ac 0 lbs
0 ksf 0 lbs
0 ac 0 lbs
-22 ac -1100 lbs
-312 ac 0 !bs
6373 ksf 152661 lbs
182661 lbs
Ibs
per
------Existing
Use-----
----Alternative
3 ---
LAND USE
unit
Units
Total
Units
Total
Shopping Center
14.9
0
ksf
0
lbs
--------------------
0
ksf
0
lbs
Retail/Service
14.9
65
ksf
974
lbs
131
ksf
1947
lbs
Hotel/Motel
20.9
0
ksf
0
lbs
0
ksf
0
lbs
Office Park
14.9
0
ksf
0
lbs
0
ksf
0
lbs
Business Park
29.7
392
ksf
11644
lbs
1594
ksf
47351
Ibs
Heavy Industry
29.7
1934
ksf
57442
lbs
7039
ksf
209067
lbs
Storage/Low Intens Coni
74.5
61
ac
4545
lbs
0
ac
0
lbs
Petroleum Proc/Storage
148.5
51
ac
7574
lbs
51
ac
7574
lbs
Local Park
100.0
0
ac
0
lbs
0
ac
0
lbs
School/Public
14.9
0
ksf
0
lbs
0
ksf
0
lbs
Transport/Flood Control
0.0
94
ac
0
lbs
94
ac
0
lbs
Open Space/Golf Course
50.0
22
ac
1100
lbs
0
ac
0
lbs
Vacant
---------------------------------
0.0
312
ac
0
lbs
0
ac
0
lbs
TOTAL NONRESIDENTIAL
----------
2391
ksf
--------------
83277
Ibs
-------------------•-
8764
ksf
265938
lbs
TOTAL
83277
lbs
265938
lbs
107
----------- hange------
Units Total
0 ksf 0 lbs
65 ksf 974 lbs
0 ksf 0 lbs
0 ksf 0 lbs
1202 ksf 35707 lbs
5105 ksf 151625 lbs
-61 ac -4545 lbs
0 ac 0 lbs
0 ac 0 lbs
0 ksf 0 lbs
0 ac 0 lbs
-22 ac -1100 lbs
-312 ac 0 !bs
6373 ksf 152661 lbs
182661 lbs
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 184 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.18 Human Health
Environmental 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 Crass 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.
Environmental New construction located on or near the Class II landfill
Impact in the project area that could have been used for
hazardous dumping will be exposed to significant hazards
resulting from the migration of toxic, explosive gases.
The decomposition of organic wastes produces methane as a
by-product. Structural stresses caused by differential
settling of the soil due to the decomposition of the fill
material will also affect buildings located directly on
the landfill. Developments located near the Johns -
Manville site may be exposed to toxic hazards, such as
asbestos.
Mitigation The State Department of Health regulates development on
Peasures and within a 2000 foot radius of any identified 'hazardous
waste site in California. In order to construct resi-
dences within this area, the development must be granted a
variance to the State's requirements by the Department or
Health. These regulations ensure that adequate safeguards
have been taken to protect public health.
Additionally, the City requires that a detailed hazardous
gas control plan be approved prior to building permit
issuance for new construction on Class II landfill sites.
This plan must include detailed engineering drawings
calculations showing how the problem of differential
settlement will be solved through building design.
103
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 185 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.19 Aesthetics
Environmental Aesthetic impacts of projects include the obstruction of
Setting scenic views and vistas and the creation of aesthetically
offensive sites open to public view. The proposed pro-
ject area is predominantly indusrtrial and is characteri-
zed by blight and substandard properties and asbestos
contaminated sites.
Environmental The project will result in the elimination of vacant land
Impact areas and may obstruct views from some adjoining
residences. In general, the project wi11 improve the
aesthetic appeal of the project area by eliminating
blight, particularly numerous unsightly and deteriorated
structures.
Mitigation
Measures
Pone.
109
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 186 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
3.20 Recreation
Environmental There are fourteen existing parks and one proposed park in
Settting the City of Carson. Additionally, the County operates a
161.6 -acre golf course in the City. Excluding the public
golf course, there are 135.5 acres of public parklands in
the City, with an additional 12.1 acres to be provided at
the proposed Moine Tank Farm Park Site. The City's
seventeen public schools also provide recreational
services.
The parks in the City provide a wide range of recreational
opportunities, including baseball diamonds, soccer/foot-
ball fields, basketball courts, children's play areas,
game courts, activity buildings, swimming pools and picnic
areas.
Based on a 1980 population of 81,221, there are
approximately 1.7 acres of park facilities for every 1,000
people in the City of Carson.
The Circulation and Bike Facilities Element of the City's
General Plan discusses planned bicycle routes. Some of
the Class I and Class II routes ,•gill be in the project
area. A Class I route will run through the project along
Alameda Street and a Class II route will run along Carson
Street.
Environmental Available land suitable for recreational purposes is in
Impact short supply in the City. There are currently no parks in
the project area since it is a heavy industrial area.
There is a skeet shooting range on the project site that
will be eliminated by the project.
Mitigation
Measures None.
110
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 187 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 28
PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES
Source: Land Use, Open Space, Public Services & Facilities
and Recreation Element, General Plan, City of Carson,
revised IMay 17, 1982.
111
Approximate
Park Name
Site Address
Acreage
Avalon Park
700 E. Gardena Blvd.
10.8
Walnut Street Park
440 E. Walnut St.
0.7
Stevenson Park
17400 Lysander Dr.
11.7
Victoria Regional Park
& Swimming Pool
419 E. 192 St.
36.0
James Anderson, Jr.
Memorial Park
19101 S. Wilmington Ave.
8.5
Heritage Park
1340 E. Dimondale Dr.
5.1
Del Amo Park
703 E. Del Amo Blvd.
9.5
Dolphin Park
21205 Water St.
11.8
Dominguez Park
21330 Santa Fe Ave.
6.9
John D. Calas, Sr.
` Memorial Park
1000 E. 220 St..
8.7
Carson Park & Swimming
Pool
21411 S. Orrick Ave.
10.9
Friendship Park
Wilmington Ave. & 220 St.
0.3
General Winfield Scott
Park & Swimming Pool
23410 Cats' -ill Ave.
11.2
Carriage Crest Park
2800 S. Figueroa St.
3.4
Source: Land Use, Open Space, Public Services & Facilities
and Recreation Element, General Plan, City of Carson,
revised IMay 17, 1982.
111
Resolution No
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
84-119/Page 188 of 318
3.12 Archaeological/Historical
Environmental Although a total of seven State landmarks have been
Setting recorded in the area surrounding Carson, none are listed
for the City itself. This is due in part to the newness
of the City. Only one site of local historical signifi-
cance is located in the City of Carson; however, it is not
located in the project area. The site is part of a
village which dates back to the 1500's. It has been
extensively damaged and the area containing the site is
currently undergoing development as an industrial park.
Environmental Most of the City was inventoried for cultural resources in
Impact 1977. No cultural resources were identified in the
proposed project area. Although some areas within the
City were excluded from the inventory, these locations
tended to be those areas which had already been exten-
sively altered by grading or landfill operations or by
residential, commercial or industrial development. An
archaeological records search for the proposed project
area was completed in April of 1984. No archaeological
sites are recorede for the proposed project area; how -
since the area has not been completely surveyed, the
existence of sites there cannot be ruled out.
Because of the absence of sites in the proposed project
area and the severe alteration that most of the proposed
project area has already undergone, the potential for
damaging possible archaeological and/or historical sites
within the proposed project area is small, according to'
the Cultural Resources Survey of 1977. However, site
alteration does not necessarily destroy archaeological
resources
Mitigation A number of mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate
Measures the potentially significant impact of loss of historic,
archaeological and paleontological sites. These
mitigation measures can be incorporated into a disposition
and development agreement between the Carson Redevelopment
Agency and the private developer.
I. A cultural resources survey should be conducted in
each area for which grading or other development is
proposed. This cultural resources survey should include a
survey of local documented archaeological and historic
sites and a field survey to determine the curent quality
of the sites, confirm documented sites and identify new
sites. The survey should indicate the value of the sites
and recommend a method of mitigating potential development
impacts.
2. The results of the cultural resources survey should be
112
IN
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 189 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
transmitted to local universities, museums and government
agencies directly concerned with archaeology of the
region. These agencies should be informed of the
potential for development of the identified sites and the
intended phasing of development, and invited to document
the site.
3. Agencies expressing interest in the site should be
permitted access to the property for conducting legitimate
archaeological research in accordance with recommendations
of the cultural resources survey.
4. Identified archaeological sites of significant value
which cannot be excavated prior to development should be
protected in the specific plan through one of the
following techniques:
Preservation of the area in open space use without
disruption of the site and with some means of protection
from intrusion.
Burying of the site in a manner that preserves the site
- — - and maintains its accessibility for possible future
excavation.
Phasing of development to avoid disruption of the site
—until excavation can take place.
5. Specific plans will provide for excavation and
documentation of archaeological and paleontological sites
of significant value.
113
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 190 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
The following is a summary of environmental effects identi-
fied in the main text of the DEIR which cannot be avoided
if either alternative 3 or 4 is implemented.
1. Modification of Physical Appearance of Undeveloped
Areas. Development of currently undeveloped areas will
signiificantly change the appearance of these areas. This
impact cannot be avoided without preventing development in
the project area. This impact is not considered of signi-
ficant public concern. However, the alteration of the
physical appearance of the land may be considered signifi-
cant by some individuals. The area is generally regarded
as blighted and no significant plant life exists in the
project area.
2. Reduced Air Quality. Increases in traffic, electri-
city, and gas usage wi11 reduce air quality relative to the
case in which no development were to occur. Increased
local emissions swill increase local and regional pollutant
concentrations. Regional air quality will be reduced to a
similar extent by similar development nearly anywhere in
the South Coast Air Basin, but local effects will be unique
to the project.
3. Increases in Noise Levels. Increases in traffic and
construction acdi vi ty ,vi 1 1 result in increased noise
Levels. No feasible mitigation Treasures to reduce noise
impact in existing residences in the vicinity of the
project are available. Noise increases are small, and this
adverse impact should not be considered significant.
4. Modification of Land Use. The purpose of the proposed
project is the intensification of development in the pro-
ject and the elimination of underutilized land uses. This
impact cannot be prevented without preventing development
in the proposed project area.
5. Additional Traffic on Local Arterials and Freeways.
Intensification of devalopient Oil bring additional
employees to the proposed project area, increasing
traffic on local arterials and the regional circulation
system in the vicinity of the proposed project. This
increased traffic will increase levels of congestion and
reduce level of service on arterial streets to the extent
traffic system improvements are not made to compensate
for this increase. Some such measures are included in
the proposed project and in the City's regular program of
transportaiton system management and street system
improvements, but some adverse impacts will result from
the proposed project.
115
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 191 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
&. Indirect Housing Market Impacts. Additional employment
in the proposed project area will result in indirect
impacts on housing costs and housing availability in the
proposed project's housing/employment market area.-
Because
rea:Because of the small increment in employment relative to
total housing and employment in the proposed project's
market area, such effects are expected to be small.
7. Increases in Regional Eneroy Consumption. The
project will r sultTin i'-ncreased energy consumption in the
region relative to the case in which no development were to
occur. This additional energy consumption is similar to
that which would occur if the development were to take
place at any location within the region or without the
intervention of the Carson Redevelopment Agency.
8. Temporary Disruption of Traffic and Business Activity
During Construction. Construction or structures, streets
and utilities will result in temporary disruption of traf-
fic and business activity during the aeration of construc-
tion. These impacts are considered normal during construc-
tion activity, and no construction of unusual duration or
physical extent is anticipated.
116
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 192 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
5. CU•ULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include effects of related projects
producing impacts related to those of the proposed project,
and impacts of different types which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable.
Cumulative effects are discussed throughout the DEIR where
they are considered potentially significant. Related
projects or anticipated developments for which cumulative
effects are considered in the DEIR include the following:
1. General growth of population and employment in the
region in accordance with regional forecasts, the SCAG-
82 Growth Forecast Policy and the Carson General Plan.
2. Development of existing Redevelopment Project Area 1
adjacent to the proposed project amendment, including up
to 2.7 million square feet of commercial and industrial
--- development.
3. Development in existing Redevelopment Project Area 2 in
the southeastern section of the City, including up to
2.5 million square feet of industrial development.
4. Development of proposed Redevelopment Project Area 3 in
the southeastern section of the City.
5. Development of the Los Angeles Intermodal Container
Transfer Facility.
o. Long Beach -Los Angeles Rail Transit Project.
7. Watson's Business and Industrial Park Development.
The above projects, if all are able to develop within the
20 -year project time frame assumed in the DEIR, are
expected to result in direct employment of between 40,000
and 45,000 jobs in the project's primary housing/employment
market area. This employment is nearly half the projected
growth in employment between the years 1930 and 2000
projected for the Long Beach and Palos Verdes statistical
areas by the SCAG-82 Growth Forecast Policy. Because the
project area includes a substantial portion of the
industrial area within this statistical area, this
projection is considered consistent with the SCAG-82 growth
forecast policy.
Cumulative effects of these projects on the regional
circulation system are the principal cumulative effects of
concern. The San Diego Freeway in the project area
currently operates at capacity during rush hour.
Mitigation measures discussed in the circulation section of
117
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 193 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
the DEIR are intended to deal with impacts of both the
proposed project and other projects considered. However,
actions to reduce demand and increase capacity in this
corridor are outside the jurisdiction of the Carson
Redevelopment Agency and the City of Carson. This corridor
is the subject of ongoing regional studies to determine
solutions based on anticipated regional growth.
Impacts of the proposed project on regional systems of
water, sewer, solid waste disposal and others are similar
to the impacts that would exist if the project were to be
developed at any other location in the region. If
Industrial development demand were not met in Carson
through the proposed project, it is likely much of the
development proposed would occur at another location in the
region.
Mitigation Cumulative impacts on regional systems of transportation,
Measures water, sewer, solid waste disposal and others can be
- mitigated by adoption of a project of reduced intensity of
development or reduced speed of implementation. However,
the proposed project is intended to eliminate conditions of
blight in the project area, and a project of significantly
lesser intensity or slower implementation would not meet
local needs for improvement of the project area.
Mitigation measures involving reduction of regional auto
trips and increasing the capacity of major transportation
corridors are outside the jurisdiction of the Carson
Redevelopment Agency and the City of Carson. Mitigation.
measures included in the proposed project to reduce
tripmaking are expected to be consistent with regional
Policies. The City is codperating with regional agencies
in studies and actions to increase the capacity of the San
Diego Freeway Corridor.
118
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 194 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
6. MITIGATIG?1 YEAS;d.RES
The follo,•aing is a summary of mitigation measures as iden-
tified in the main body of the DEIR which are proposed to
minimize the significant effects of the proposed project.
1. Mitigation of Traffic Impacts. Mitigation measures
included in the proposed project to reduce impacts on the
circulation system include requirements for new develoments
to provide adequate parking and access in accordance with
the City's development regulations.
2. Mitigation of Fire Protection Impacts. All projects
will be reviewed by the fire department to insure adequate
access, water supply and internal fire detection and sup-
pression systems.
3. Mitigation of Energy Impacts. Measures to reduce
energy consumption include compliance with California
Energy Commisison standards for energy -conserving construc-
tion techniques in all new construction and attention to
measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled and encourage use
of high -occupancy vehicles in all large single -tenant
projects as outlined under circulation mitigaiton measures.
4. Mitigation of Demands of Public Facilities. Public
faci 1 i ti es needs W? 1 be At thxough a requirement that al 1
i necessary public facilities be available or on an approved
schedule of availability at the time development is occu-
pied in order to insure that no undue strain on public
facilities or services exist.
5. Mitigation of Municipal Fiscal Impacts. Potentially
adverse municipol f fiscal iiTlpacts of new development will be
mitigated through allocation of tax increment income to pay
public costs in support of neva development and phasing of
development to insure that municipal costs do not exceed
municipal revenues.
119
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 195 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following section summarizes alternatives to the pro-
posed action. Each alternative is briefly described and
its environmental impacts summarized.
Three alternatives were analyzed throughout the EIR.
Alternative 1. No New Development in the Project Area.
This alternative is considered primarily as a basis for
comparison with other alternatives. Under this alter-
native, existing uses would be maintained throughout the
proposed project area. No redevelopment project would 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 alternative would require drastic
controls by the City and probable condemnation of many
areas in the proposed project area to prevent their
development.
Alternative 2. No Project. This alternative considers
projected development in the proposed project area based
on current land use regulations and development trends,
but without the adoption of the Redeveloment project.
Under this alternative, development would continue in the
proposed project area by private property owners, and
some improvements would take place as required by the
City of these developers. However, significant areas o
blight including incompatible land uses and lack of
adequate public facilities and infrastructure would
continue to exist in the proposed project area. Develop-
ment would be expected to take place at a slower rate in
the proposed project area than would be the case with the
adoption of the redevelopment project.
In comparison with alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative
would have less impact on urban systems including traffic,
water, sewer, solid waste disposal and other utilities.
However, because redevelopment tax increment financing
would not be available to pay for public improvements in
the project area, this alternative would place a heavier
burden on the City for support of the land uses in the
proposed project area.
Under this alternative older, obsolete and :unattractive
industrial facilities would be expected to continue to
exist in the project area, maintaining an undesirable envi-
ronment for the development of new businesses and delaying
121
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 196 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
the improvement of the area.
Alternative 3. Full Development. This alternativ.e
involves the full buildout of the project area at a maximum
feasible intensity under current land use regulations and
anticipated market conditions. This alternative is
described throughout the EIR. Under this alternative, an
estimated 6.4 million square feet of new industrial
development could be accommodated in the project area, more
than double the current estimated 2.4 million square feet
of commercial and industrial floor space. This new
development would require significant expansion of the
urban infrastructure of streets and utilities serving the
project area, and wouid bring an estimated 13,541 new
employees to the project area.
This alternative would result in greater impact on
circulation and other urban systems than other alternatives
considered. However, because tax increment financing would
- - — be available for development of supporting infrastructure,
public improvements to mitigate these impacts could be
constructed, allowing the area to develop to its highest
and best use.
Alternative 4. This alternative represents less
development than Alternative 3 under the same land use
plan. This project is consistent with the current General
Plan and zoning in the proposed project area. This
alternative would involve less extensive infrastructure
improvements than Alternative 3, but would include agency
action to eliminate blight through conversion of incom-
patible land uses.
Under this alternative, traffic impacts would be limited to
insure that all intersections were capable of performing at
level of service D or better. Although some congestion
would exist at peak hours, level of service D is generally
considered an acceptable urban level of service.
Under this alternative, an estimated 4.2 million square
feet of new development could be accommodated in the
project area.
Alternative 5. Residential Emphasis. This alternative
involves the use of -part -of the project area for develop-
ment of new residential uses including single family and
multi family units. If 150 acres, or approximately 25% of
the project area, were designated for residential use,
approximately 1000 to 2500 dwelling units could be pro-
vided, depending on the density and mix of residential
units provided.
122
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 197 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
This alternative would help offset some of the housing
demand generated by'industrial development in the remainder
of the proposed project area and in other projects in the
City. However, the proposed project area is, in general,
not suitable for residential development because of in-
compatibility with the existing industrial uses in the
project area. No suitable sites which can be adequately
isolated from adjacent industrial uses rail lines and
high traffic areas are available.
If this alternative were adopted, a General Plan amendment
and zoning amendments would be required -to provide for
residential development.
Alternative 6. Office Emphasis. Emphasis on office
devel opment ��ioul d permit higher i ntensi ty in the project
area under current land use regulations. Under this
alternative, as much as 10 million square feet or more of
additional development could be supported in the project
area. However, current market demand supports industrial
development in the Carson area, and the project area is
surrounded by industrial uses. Office development would
require a major investment in infrastructure improvements
to support tine higher level of development and would
require removal of existing industrial uses to provide an
environment suitable for significant office development.
Because of the high employment generation of this
alternative, in, oa.cts on regional circulation elements inclu-
ding the Harbor Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Artesia Freeway
and Long Beach Freeway would be severe. This alternative
is probably not feasible within the limits of these
regional circulation elements and would require a substan-
tial emphasis on transit to providle emiployee access.
123
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 198 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 29
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
Impact Factor Alternative l Alternative 2
Physical Negligible impact Some development on
possible hazardous
fill sites
Biological Negligible immpact Negligible impact
Housing No housing in area. No housing in area.
No new units or Some secondary housing
secondary demand. demand resulting from
employment.
Employment
No additional
Less dislocation frcm
employment oppor-
existing facilities
tunities provided
than 3t.Approx 5500
new jcJ s.
Infrastructure
Least require,rent for
Sale impact on
additional facilities,
infrastructure;
minimal stress on
cost borne by
existing system.
City, developers
Circulation
Least require -rent for
t>?any improve,, 2nts
additional facilities,
required in project
some improvements
area, cost borne
needed now.
by Ci ty.
Market/
Underutilization of
Underutilization of
Economics
land; no increased
land; minimal increase
housing or employ-
in housing or employ-
ment opportunities
ment opportunities
124
Alternative 3
Possible hazardous
fill sites developed.
High air quality
impact.
Negligible impact
No housing in area.
Secondary housing
demand, but snail
percent of market area
stock. Tax increment
for low-, i-.ioderate-
income housing.
Approx 13,600 nese
jobs.
High impact on
sys t&n, tax incre-
ment
ncr2ment financing
high i:rp.act on
circulation system;
tax i ncrament
financing
;;'lost responsive
to demand.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 199 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
TABLE 29
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS (CONTINUED)
Alternative4
Some development on
possible hazardous
fill sites. Somewhat
less air quality
impact than Altn 3.
Negligible impact
No housing in area.
Some secondary demand.
Some tax increment
for low-, moderate -
income housing.
Somewhat fewer new
jobs than Altn 3.
Somewhat less impact
than Altn 3, less
tax increment income
Major impact on
circulation system;
some peak hour
congestion
Increased utilization
of land but not
developed to its full
potential
Alternative 5
Development on
possible hazardous
fill sites. High
air quality impact.
Negligible impact
Provision of
between 1000 and
2500 dwelling
units in area. Tax
increment for low- and
moderate -income
housing
Approximately same
as Alternative 4
High impact on
systems, tax increment
financing.
Major impact on
system; tax increment
financing.
Offset in demand for
housing demand created
by industrial develop-
ment
125
Alternative 6
Development on
possible hazardous
fill sites.
Highest air quality
and noise impact.
Negligible impact
No housing in area.
Highest tax increment
for low-, moderate -
income housing.
Greatest increase
15-20,000 direct
jobs created
Highest impact
on system; highest
tax increment.
Highest local and
regional impact,
Major new construc-
tion and transit.
Most intense use,
requires major City
effort to market for
office uses.
__esolution No. 84-119/Page 200 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
a. THE RELATIONSHIP BETNEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAIVS EINVIRO MEHT AND THE MAINTENA3CE AND ENHANCENENT
OF LONG -TERN PRODUCTIVITY
The proposed project does not compromise long-term produc-
tivity for short-term gain. The proposed project has the
potential to improve the long-term potential of the
proposed project area.
The area is expected to have long-term potential for indus-
trial and business park use because of its strong commit-
ment to this use and good regional access.
The proposed project is considered justified now rather
than reserving options for future alternatives because
it is considered unlikely that substantially different
alternatives would be selected in the future. The pro-
posed project is intended to support the long-term via-
bility of uses in the proposed project area and its
immediate vicinity.
126
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 201 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
9. SIGNIEICAdT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
This section discusses significant environmental changes
which would be involved in the proposed project should it
be implemented. Of particular concern are uses of non-
renewable 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-
stantial quantities of building materials and fuel will be
utilized in this construction. These resources will be
irretrievably committed to similar uses in the same loca-
tion for the indefinite future.
These resources would be consumed to provide for similar
development in any location, and no unusual characteristics
of Carson make it a less desirable location than others for
this development.
These commitments of resources are considered justified now
because of the strong market demand for industrial and
public facilities and the need to revitalize the project
area. This market demand results from a combination of the
desires of individuals and firms to locate in Carson
because of its accessibility and other factors. Not
meeting this market demand at the desired location means in
general that that demand would be met in a less efficient
way at another location. Permitting the real estate market
to operate, absent a substantial market inequity or public
interest to the contrary, is considered to result in an
efficient allocation of resources.
127
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 202 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
10. GROUTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
This section considers the ways development in accordance
with the proposed project could encourage economic or popu-
lation growth, either directly or indirectly, in the sur-
rounding environment. Considerations include the potential
for removing obstacles to nearby growth or development that
may place demands on existing community services.
The project is specifically intended to provide for the
orderly growth of Carson. Capital improvements proposed
are intended to insure that adequate facilities are avail-
able to serve this developm=ent. Mitigation measures are
provided in the City's development ordinances to insure
that development occurs in the method and at the time that
it can be accommodated.
Carson is part of a large urbanized region. The proposed
project's role in promoting growth in this region is
relatively small in a regional context.
Business development proposed in Carson is to a great
extent a response to regional demands for business space.
Regional growth may be expected to be marginally greater
than if -tile opportunity to meet this demand were not pro-
vided in Carson.
A total of 13,541 direct jobs are expected to be provided C
in Carson in a variety of job categories as a result of the
proposed project. An estimated 17,310 indirect and induced
jobs will be provided in the Southern California region as
a result of the proposed project, for a total of 30,951
jobs.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 203 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
11. RERSO.IS AND ORGANIZATIONS CO?ISULTED
The following organizations were consulted in preparation
of this Environmental Impact Report.
City Departments
Recreation Superintendent: Eric Forsberg
Community Safety Director: Nathan Manske
Civil Engineering Assistant: Earl Moods
Planning and Redevelopment: Louis Lusero
Dennis Patterson
Public Works: Sal Spitz
Other Agencies:
California Division of mines and Geology, Venice Huffman,
Regional Administrative Officer
California State Department of Fish and Game, Earl
Lauppe, Associate 'Hildlife Biologist
California State University at Dominguez Hills, Robert
Jones, Executive Dean, University Relations
Carson Chamber of Commerce, Paul Schneider, Executive
Vice President
Dominguez !dater Corporation, Frank Forsberg, Construction
Manager
LosLos Angeles County Engineer's Office, Carl Sjoberg
Los Angeles County Fire Department, Jim Paradiso, Engineer
Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Dan Cross
Los Angeles County Library, Joyce S!7bi, Regional
Administration Librarian
Los Angeles Unified School District, Gane Aguirre,
Boundary Coordinator
Southern California ;dater Company, Thomas Burns, Utility
Coordinator
Wes -tern Waste Company, Kenneth {avarian
Consultant to the Carson Redevelop,-ient Agency fo•r
Preparation of the DEIR:
The Arroyo Group
40 East Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91103
(213) 795-9771
Project Manager: P. Patric: Mann, AIC"r, Principal
Project Planner: Peri Muretta, Associate
129
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 204 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
12. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Two comments have been received in response to the Draft EIR. Some responses
to the Agency's Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR were received after
the release of the Draft EIR. These comments are responded to as if they
were comments on the Draft EIR. Each agency's comments are listed
together, followed by a.response to each comment. Following this summary of
comments and responses are copies of correpondence received. Comments to the
Notice of Preparation which were received prior to publication of the Draft
EIR are addressed in the body of the Draft EIR. Copies of this correspondence
are on file at the Carson Redevelopment Agency and are available for public
review.
Comments are listed in chronological order by date of correspondence.
Following written correspondence is a summary of comments and responses at the
Planning Commission and Environmental Commission.
— County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, M� 1, 1984 (Response to
Notice of Preparation received after end of Notice of Preparation period)
Comment:. The Districts have no objection to the proposed project.
Response: Informational comment, no response.
Los Angeles County Flood Control District, May 2, 1984. (Response to Notice of
Preparation received after end of Notice of Preparation period)
Comment: Permits will be required for any construction affecting the
District's right of way or facilities.
Response: Permits will be requested at the time such construction is proposed.
Comment: An increase in paved surface area will increase the amount of runoff
produced by the project area. The adequacy of the storm drainage
facilities should be investigated.
Response: The increase in paved surface area as a result of the proposed
project will not be significant except for individual projects.
Drainage for projects will be reviewed at the time of project
approval, and mitigation measures will be included in projects.
Comment: During periods of construction, provisions should be made to
minimize debris flows from building sites (eroded soil, building
materials, etc.) as this will adversely affect the operation and
maintenance of drainage facilities.
r
Response: The City requires control of erosion during all construction as a
condition of permit approval.
131
Resolution No
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
84-119/Page 205 of 318
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, May 3,
1984. (Response to Notice of Preparation received after end of Notice of
Preparation response period)
Comment: DEIR should discussion of measures to minimize water quality impacts
resulting from soil erosion during construction.
Response: Because the sites are relatively flat, no significant erosion
hazards are anticipated during construction, and normal construction
practice will be adequate to reduce water quality impacts from soil
erosion to an insignificant level.
Comment: Quantities of wastewaters contributed to the sanitary sewer system
and treatment plant 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. Cumulative impacts should be considered. - -
Response: Sewer average and peak flows are identified in the DEIR on pages 100
and 101. The project is expected to require some increases in sewer
capacity in the project area. Specific project improvements will be
identified at the time of development of individual development
parcels. Treatment plant capacity will be added in accordance with
standard programmed improvements by the Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles County. The projected sewer generation of 1.1 million
gallons per day is approximately 0.5% of the available capacity of
the Sanitation District's sewer treatment plant.
Comment: Discharges other than to the sanitary sewer system should be
identified.
Response: No discharges other than to the sanitary sewer system are
anticipated.
California Department of Water Resources, May 8, 1984. (Notice of Preparation
response received after close of Notice of Preparation period.)
Comment: (The Department of Water Resources attached a detailed list of water
conservation measures that may be applicable to all projects where
appropriate)
Response: The detailed recommendations of the Department of Water Resources
are referred to the City Building Department for use in project
review and considerationforlocal regulation.
California Department of Transportation, District 7, May 22, 1984 (Notice of
Preparation response received after close of Notice of Preparation period.)
Comment: Encroachment onto CALTRANS right-of-way will require a permit.
Response: Such permits will be obtained if and when required.
132
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 206 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Comment: The project may create impacts to State transportation facilities. ,
The DEIR should include an evaluation of the potential impacts to
facilities, as well as possible mitigation measures.
Response: The potential impacts of the project on State transportation
facilities and mitigation measures for these impacts are discussed
in the Draft EIR, pages 60-77.
Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report
Port of Los Angeles, June 21, 1984
Comment: The Harbor Department owns considerable acreage adjoining the
proposed Redevelopment Project'Area, and requests to be placed on
the official mailing list for future notifications of actions.
Response: The Harbor Department will be placed on the Agency's mailing list
for the project.
Comment: It is difficult to determine the anticipated time frame for
- development.
Response: The time frame for development of the project and for public
improvements is unknown at the present time. Current development
rates in the City are consistent with buildout of Redevelopment
Project Areas l and 3 over the next 20 years. Uniform buildout over
a 20 -year time frame was assumed in fiscal impact analysis.
Comment: The project description is general with regard to land uses. A land
use plan should be included.
Response: The specific developments that may make up the project are not known
at this time. Development is assumed to be consistent with the
General Plan land use categories outlined on the project land use
map, Figure 5. Uses are expected to be similar to those developed
in other new industrial projects in Carson.
Comment: Landfill sites should be listed by name and number. Is the
statement that "some class II landfill sites may have experienced
dumping of toxic or hazardous substances" speculation or are there
known occurrences?
Response: Landfill sites have now been identified by number on Figure 5, page
22. Because many landfill sites are old, it is considered possible
that hazardous wastes may have been dumped in Class II sites,
although no such instances are known on the sites in the project
area. This possibility should be considered in construction and
adequate mitigation measures included in project development.
Comment: Are air pollutant emissions based on Alternative 3?
Response: Air pollutant emission calculations are based on Alternative 3.
133
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 207 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Comment: Nesting sites ,for the least tern should be identified by location
and last occurrence of nesting activity.
Response: Information available from the California Department of Fish and
Game indicates that various sites in the lower reaches of the
Dominguez Channel may be used by the Least Tern for nesting, but
that no sites are known to have been used in the past two years.
Comment: Noise levels are likely to be increased by more than 1 dB with the
addition of 30,000 vehicles per day to the project area. Are noise
sources other than traffic likely in the project area?
Response: Although significant traffic is generated by the project, this
traffic is generated over a wide project area that is served by 6
arterial streets and 3 freeways. The fact that this traffic is
distributed over a large number of streets means that the traffic
impact on any one arterial is only a small part of the total 30,000
per day. The arterials having the greatest traffic impact are in
industrial areas.
Other noise sources in the project area may include some industrial
noise sources, which are expected to be controlled adequately by the
City's noise ordinance and zoning ordinance, and rail noise.
Although rail noise may increase significantly in the area as a
result of the construction of the Los Angeles Intermodal Container
Transfer Facility, the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor expansions
and the consolidated freight line, this impact is not as a result of
the proposed project.
Comment: Figure 9 shows existing land uses; a proposed land use figure is
suggested.
Response: Proposed land use for the project area is illustrated on Figure 3,
page 5.
Comment: Page 62 states that traffic from committed developments and projects
were included in the analysis. Was the vehicular traffic generated
by the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility included in the
traffic calculations? Was truck traffic included?
Response: Trips resulting from the Los Angeles Intermodal Container Transfer
Facility were included in the background traffic for the no project
case and the proposed project. All traffic modes including trucks
were included in trip generation figures.
Comment: What is the location of the Class II dump site in the project area
mentioned on page 108? Is there a history of specific information
concerning this site?
Response: The dump site in the project area is illustrated onfFigure 5 on page
22. The history of use of this site is not known.
134
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 208 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
California Office of Noise Control ,
Comment: Use of HUD guidelines may be 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
for 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 where such noise
would have an adverse impact on residential areas.
Comment: Sound insulation costs from the 1970 aircraft noise study are based
on noise from all directions, and overestimate traffic noise
mitigation costs. Sound insulation and barriers should not be
rejected as noise mitigation methods on this basis.
Response: Additional information has been provided on potential sound
insulation from highway traffic. Sound insulation for existing
residences is considered an infeasible mitigation measure
considering the small noise increases resulting from the project,
the variety of insulation problems that may be encountered, and the
cost of administering and implementing an insulation program for the
small number -of units affected.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, June 29,
1984. —
Comment: The Board has no objection to the plan, provided the sanitary sewer
system will be able to adequately accommodate the proposed
development projects.
Response: Discharge permits and fees require individual projects to have
adequate sewer service prior to project occupancy.
Comment: The discharge of wastewater other than to the sanitary sewer system
may be subject to waste discharge requirements of the Board.
Response: Individual developments will be required to obtain such permits from
the Board.
Comment: Permits must be acquired prior to installation of underground
storage tanks.
Response: Individual developments will be required to obtain such permits from
appropriate agencies prior to installation.
f
135
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 209 of 318
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 Way, Berkeley, CA 94704, April 27, 1984.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Telephone comments from Taira
Yoshimura, April 20, 1984.
Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District, 7439 East Florence
Avenue, Downey, CA 90240, April 6, 1984.
City of Gardena, March 20, 1984.
Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, 11268 South Garfield
Avenue, Downey, CA 90242, April 4, 1984.
Los Angeles County, Department of County Engineer- Facilities, 550 South
Vermont, Los Angeles, CA 90020, April 18, 1984.
Los Angeles County Fire Department, P.O. Box 3009, Terminal Annex, Los
Angeles, CA 90051, April 26, 1984.
Los Angeles County Flood Control District, April 2, 1984.
County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services, 313 North Figueroa
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, March 28, 1984.
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 1955 Workman Mill Road,
Whittier, CA 90607, April 2, 1984.
Southern California Association of Governments, April 24, 1984.
Southern California Water Company, 3625 W. 6th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90020,
April 5, 1984.
Southern California Gas Company, 700 North Long Beach Boulevard, Compton, CA
90224, March 26, 1984.
Southern California Rapid Transit District, 425 South Main Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90013, April 11, 1984.
r
136
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 210 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Comments at Environmental Quality Commission, June 6, 1984.
Comment: The city should consider land for residential development.
Response: Residential development was 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 development, and
the City should encourage such a use in an appropriate location to
serve the commercial areas of the project.
Comments at Planning Commission, June 12, 1984.
_Comment: The EIR should address the cumulative impact of traffic from the
Intermodal Container Transfer Facility.
Response: Traffic from the Intermodal Container Transfer Facility was
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 traffic
will not be significant. According to the Environmental Impact
Report for the facility, truck traffic using the facility is expec-
ted to be approximately 2500 trucks per day in all directions. This
traffic does not represent a significant increase on any individual
street segment or intersection in the project area. At the inter-
section of Alameda and Sepulveda, for example, an estimated 90
trucks per hour will use the intersection in the peak hour.
Train traffic from the project is estimated at 7 trains per day
inbound and 7 outbound for a total of 14 trains. This level of
train traffic is sufficient to cause adverse impact on immediately
adjacent residential areas. No significant train traffic impact is
expected as a result of the proposed project.
137
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 211 of 318
EIR, Redevelopment Project Area 3
Comments at Planning Commission Meeting, June 26, 1984
l
Comment: A number of projects that will increase train traffic in the project
area are not discussed in the EIR. These include the Intermodal
Container Transfer 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
identifying rail impacts of 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 line throughout the project
area to insure adequate circulation.
138
1 /
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 212 of 318
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
0
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 213 of 318
RECEIVED
fe7�
r, CEDEVELOPMENT
(;ITY<f GARDEII(A
MAY Y. DO[, City Clerk
GEORGE KOBAYASHI, City Treasurer
MARTIN H. REAGAN, City Manager
MICHAEL J. KARGER, City Attorney
DONALD L. DEAR Mayor
JAMES W. CRAGIN, Mayor Pro Tem
GWEN DUFFY, Councilwoman
:NAS FUKAI, Councilman
PAUL Y. TSUKAHARA, Councilman
1700 West 162nd STREET / GARDENA. CALIFORNIA 90247 ' 1213/327-0220
Mr. Adorfo Reyes
Carson Redevelopment Agency
701 East Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
March 20, 1984
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.
/RMB,/vn
Very truly yours,
HAYWARD FONG, P.E.
Community Development Director
`Roy Kato
City Planner
141
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 214 of 318
GEORGE DEUKMEAAN. Go•�•�o•
.TATE :'• CALIFORNIAN --HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY._ --.._---
OFF( E OF STATEWIDE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
�,.
IW0 iTH STREET
A.MEWO. CALIFORNIA 9581A
1
916) 445-1.945
March 23, 1984
REC►VrED
Ms. Patricia Nemeth NiAn 14'4
County Development Director
Carson Redevelopment Agency COMMUNITY C'-V71O?MENT
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 agency 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.
HL:lh
Y
Enclosures
Sin rely,
Home o Lomas
Set�iior Project Officer
/ertificate of Need Section
142
C.
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 215 of 318
a
IVF
907 5
Rea Redevelopment Plan for Project Noal and 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
Service 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, rias 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 Planning Supervisor
DS:bmh
143
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 216 of 318
of LOS 4N
•: y
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
('110'"°N°
Cl �DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES
3401 1310 HONOO AVENUE. FL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731/TEL 12131 572-5720 -
P -O. BOX 5493, EL MONTE. CALIFORNIA 91731
March 27, 1984
144
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 vour
letter dated March 15, 1984, (Notice
Environmental Report).
of Intent to Prepare an
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
the Department's plans
not affected by this project. Further,
do not call for an office
the foreseeable future
in the area in
Very truly yours,
JO N PAL BICKI, WELFARE ADMINISTRATOR
SPACE SERVICES SECTION
JJP:SF:sd
,
RECEWL
ED
LiF�r� ;; 1984
:•C�;�1.'�hJNITY C�'Lc!.Qp1�EPyT
C`EPART1,,1�PJ T
144
_esolution No. 84-119/Page 217 of 318
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
- . 0-1- 313 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 • (213) 974 -
PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS
DOUGLAS R. STEELE March 28, 1984
- DEPVTY DIRECTOR RECEIVED � � � I � � D
MARTIN D. FINN, M.D., M.P.H.
MEDICAL DIRECTOR
APR 0 1984
f.s. Patricia N --.Teti
,)i -;muni t,;/ -eve;- Director
�ars_n E- _ el ,.anent Alencv
_. 1 _
__ .. _ c
Carson; California 90745
Dear Ms. Nemeth:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
SU3 J ECT : NOTICE OF PREPr'.RAT I ON OF DRAFT E JV I RONViENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 3
The staff of Environmental Management reviewed the subject report
and submit the following comments for your consideration:
f4OI SE
Our department is interested in the effect the proposed project
drill have on the ambient noise levels. The follot.ving information
is necessary to access community noise exposure:
a. What is the exact nature of the project? Include all noise generating
X
acilities, other type of operations to he conducted on the site, and anticipated
traffic.
b. An assessment of the noise impacts from the proposed project should be
included. Inforraation should be provided on noise levels experienced at
a":_jc�;;s U1 iiiis Lypa uIicau'y i" Uperatiorl.
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 roust be provided.
d. What is the existing and proposed land -use adjoining the subject property?
Is it compatible with the sullject property?
e. Where are the Clearest residential properties located?
145
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 218 of 318
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 Element 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 be 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,
i
Norman J. Michiels
Acting Environmental Management Deputy
KS:MB:Is
ME
resolution No. 84-119/Page 219 of 318
Int, ANGELES COU141Y FLOOD CONIROL U[SIRICT JAS
— a:.,v)Sh,N r,Eixnrr
rr�rrrrrr =_ _ -
ilU.:, i:A/,ARD REPORT .
�i Nile No. 2-15.311 2-15.313 1.21
Review of a[ti= /SFA No. 73
Map or Transmittal Letter Date
3II slt�n
Assignment No. 16 -51- C7
_ 1.
Ibis area is ,,:t s,•>.
1,..:, .n„4 ries of the Flood Control District and not unxlar its jurisdiction.
_ I.
Tn rick,: C—t: :.
,,.• n.u: ,o requirements for this subdivisioryapplicatim.
�— 3.
'Dn
i:• ,. a,;nnhly free of flood hazard from major d.anmels and streams, hot my be subject
to It ,al flr.•t !a it�,:
t. c••fer to to report of the City/County Engineer concerning local drainage.
a.
for[ions of ;., -
,.,s: ../site lying in and adjacent to I ) steep hillsides, ( ) natural vatemxtrsen,
1 f
aro subject to flood hazard because of
( ) ti4�IN:w�•-.¢cti:
a. f 1 rrvcrt lrs,, ) eros m, I ) MIJLI + and/or depositim of debris. IUfar to the
roi,ort of U.• city/:.-..;,,ty
E,rlireer concerning local drainage requirements.
this pru;.ect ..r11 it,
::ig:,ifi,:ancly affect the environment as tar as the District's interests vm concerned, -
�_ 6.
Plan• a nr.•t,• ., ; i .,l
r.:u.,rd un the final mtp/grent of waiver and summit engineering doeu entatlon to support
Uxx:.• limits.
_- 7,
)rior to rv�• m.,u• :I
r•1 tr., : iael asp/grant of waiver, adequate engineering donmentatim must be sutmltted
.atx..:ra that l.;i b:vy
aids .uv available and are free of flood hazard.
_
•` ,h •,t
•,
••. pt v,r to approval of the tentative map, infomation boat be autmlttM
to en.e nistric; si.,.i,.t
At,
cedSlIfficient
tt..• eaten[ of the drainage preOlae and prq,orvxi solution. -
soluti
__— 9.
Provide ings -:•,•vats
'„ eliminate the flood hazard. Improvements may include ( ) storm drains and/or
channels, ( 1 �-':a e:
- ...r,i facilities, (. ) vehicular access to structures, ( )
10.
Dedicate fe,: t:t:,•:.•:,
.,•:-.,,t/suture eaa,mnt to the District/County of 6A./City of
providiN aaol�.,t^ ...
.. -. '.ey for
A permit via: i.. j-,.-
" tar any cvnatruetim affecting the District s right o way orae .t es•
_ 12.
Approval of t:,e
Ss remrrm S•J s.-
_-� w�ti tt i-nk noted hetsm or -lean m the returned map.
13.
The r•:oma,t ::.., ,q •
_, . ,. p vtll not unreasonably interfere vitt the free and complete exercise of the
edsenvnc M,IA :/ rn•
h3.rict.
11.
The
Note the re.,d.-"st.
is unsativactory.
i ,,,ren or shown on returned map. }l
IS.
The su[aivis ir,,: vo
.:. .,, zo,v: _ based On to (FIRM) National Flood Insurance )tate Maps.
,'onments:
Ari i 5 t¢tcY� q�� wPt�ti.Y�E�
c .; . '�ve10Es� gK 'f►{E $di�T'
tlS% '--'�
MALL MI .. c r,r•••C)VtSSU+�S Si•kkIVD
' ��'�`�� �•-aW5 i='ROM PjCl1LQI^tC.:-Sl
SbILf S ;tl7t� -- 1• z- CE5 1F3Z0R�7
W11
ESV C.t Cc. DRN NA&Ei 'F/•�•Ll L 1Tt 1-75
RECEIVED
-�.Ajat:rt;;at QQ— re
Engineering lnv_sr. .;,,c•.
Approved by
2753 (U !lei .. .,
APR 0 51984
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 220 of 318
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
` ^ FIRE DEPARTMENT
POST OFFICE BOX 3009. TERMINAL ANNEX
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90051
267-2431
CLYHE A. BRAGDON. JR.
FIRE CHIEF
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
April 2, 1934 RECEIVED
I; DO Q - 19A4
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 #3
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,
JOIiN W. ENGLUND
ACTING FIRR7E CHIEF
T
By
JOSEPH FERRARA
SENIOR DEPUTY FORESTER
FORESTRY DIVISION
JF:grj
Enclosures
n
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF
AGOURA HILLS
BRAD8URY
GLENDORA
LAKEWOOD
NORWALK
ROSEMEAO
ARTESIA
CARSON
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA MIRADA
PALMDALE
SAN DIMAS
AZUSA
CERRITOS
HIDDEN HILLS
LANCASTER
PARAMOUNT
SIGNAL HILL
SALDWIN PARK
CLAREMONT
HUNTINGTON PARK 148
LA PUENTE
PICO RIVERA
SOUTH EL MONTE
BELL
COMMERCE
INDUSTRY -
LAWNDALE
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SOUTH GATE
BELLFLOWER
CUDAHY
IRWINDALE
LOMITA
ROLLING HILLS
TEMPLE CITY
BELL GARDFNS
DI IAATF
I A fANADA FI INTRIf1f.F
MAYWVno n
Rni i Wf. H11 I R FSTATFS
WAI NI IT
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
WHITTIER
r
_esolution No. $4-119/Page 221 of 318
March 26, 1984
SUBJECT: CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA #3
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 it 3
Engine 10 3 " 4 it 4
Truck 127 1.5 3 4
R/S 36 4 5 2
Haz.Mat.Sq. 105 3 " 4 5
Deluge 105 3 " 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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 222 of 318
March 23, 1984
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 223 of 318
Carson Kedevelopmc::t
1ellflower• 701 E. Carson St.
3radbury Carson, CA 90745
-arson
Compton Dear Sir:
Cudahy
:1 Monte We have reviewed the redevelopment -plan for Project Area No. 13
tawaiian 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
'idden Hills department at all.
untington Park*
ndustry We would be happy to help in any way we can with the final
n ale draft of this proposals or if you have any questions that you
ewood feel we can be of help with,
Can.ida Flintridge
a Habra Heights If you have any questions I can be reached at 922-8874.
=nca rater
Puente Very truly yours,
.hattan Beach*
--rood Brian H, Be r, Director
)dale
`iling Hills Est,
�scc,ersd, r�
.n:fernando George r, Baca, Chief Deputy Director
'ignal Hill
south E1 MonteGFB:sp
alnut
estlake Village
a ial City
I
151
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 224 of 318
STATE Of CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Govern,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIORECEIVED
DISTRICT 7, P.O. BOX 2304, LOS ANGELES 90051
(213) 620-5335 APR 0 5 1°84
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENJitle: 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 (NOP) 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 Caltransfacilities:
number of daily vehicle tris 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. Ifjou require additional
information contact Richard Simon at (213) 620_4038.
Very truly yours,
W. Be BALLANTINE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
162
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 225 of 318
Carson, CA 907V
Dear Ms. Nemeth:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Preparation tot.
the Environmentai Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for Project
Area No. i in the City of Carson.
In response to your request regarding thu scope and content of needed
environmental data, SCRTD requires sufficient data in a project EIR to
allow the project's impact on regional transit to be evaluated. Much Q
the data needed to evaluate a project's impact on regional transit is
contained in the general setting, project description, listing of pro ect.
impacts and mitigation measures contained in any EIR prepared under the
California Environmental. Quality Act. Specific transit related data
should, at a minimum, include a description of existing service and the
impact of the development on the existing service. Transit improvements
such as bus shelters, signing or more elaborate measures should be included
in project mitigation measures in proportion to project impacts.
The SCRTD presently operates one bus conte to the proposed project site,
Line 55, The line currently has substantial on -board space available ir.
the vicinity of the proposed Projent.
Possible traffic, noise and air poi0tio n impacts of the proposed yoj=
could be mitigated V some extent by diverting auto drivers to the
forthcoming Long Beach -Los Angeies Light Rail System. The prnvision" t
prominent project area signing directing auto drivers to the taco Lic,hr_ Rali.
Station Park and Ride lots scheduled to be located approximately one mile
east of the project site on Willow and ktardlow Roads could help accomplio
such auto diversion. Any project area Light Rail signing should be
coordinated with the Los Anaeies County Transportation Commission
Under the terms of its Proposition A funding Memorandim, of Understanding_
with the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, the District is
unable to expand the current level of service. The City of Carson may wish
i
153
Southern California Rapid Transit District 09 So,dh KID .,Uri! i.o: Angews Caidorn.a 9uP! 97%6000
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 226 of 318
n';. Patricia 'Nom -t-1)
nr i
Attadmients
154
esolution No. 84-119/Page 227 of 318
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES +:
DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY ENGINEER -FACILITIES
STEPHEN J. KOONCE ........ '
COUNTY ENGINEER 550 SOUTH VERMONT, LOS ANGELES, CA 90020
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
(213)738.2011 RECEIVED HtAM BARMACK � PETER F. SCHABARUM
CHIEF DEPUTY KENNETH HAHN
(;•C_} EDMUND D. EDELMAN
DEANE DANA
April 18, 1984 RFDEVELppMZt,iMICHAEL D ANTONOVICH
Carson Redevelopment Agency
701 East Carson Street
Carson, California 90745
- _ �` 4V N� 3 also
Gentlemen: �
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 the soils
of the area and their engineering properties. The soils in
the vicinity of the Dominguez Channel could have poor founda-
tion and fill bearing capacity. Any existing trash or land
Ah 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 service 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.
i
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 228 of 318
Carson Redevelopment Plan
Amendment to Project Area No. 1
April 18, 1984
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
I. 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 impact(s) 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 project 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).
SJK:RK
lmd 44
Very truly yours,
STEPHEN J. KOONCE
City Engineer
Ray Khojasteh
Supervising Civil Engineer
Subdivision Section
Survey and Land Development
156
II
Division
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
+,IR RESOURCES BOARD
-1102 O STREET
P.O. sox 2815
SACRAMENTO, CA 95812
April 20, 1984
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 229 of 318
GEORGE OEUKMEilAN, Go.e r
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�th:w
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 230 of 318
RECEIVED
APR 2 6 1984
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Issue Date: May 4, 1983
Revised: June 10, 1983
Revised: March 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
158
C
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 231 of 318
n
159
Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessments:
General Development and Transportation Projects
Table of Contents
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION
1
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1
III.
IMPACT OF PROJECT PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
2
A.
Short -Term Enissions
2
B.
Long -Term Emissions
2
C.
Local ScaleAnalysis
3
D.
Corridor Analysis
3
E.aFf
zardous�ol to ant Analysis
3 .
F.
Cumulative In pact Ana ysis
4
IV.
CONFORMITY WITH AIR QUALITY PLAN
4
V.
MITIGATION MEASURES
5
A.
General Transportation Iteasures
5
Q.
Employer -Sponsored ransportation Measures
6
C.
Residential Project Measures
6
D.
Land Usc Uevelopnent 4eaF sures
6
Figure
I - California and National Air Quality Standards
7
Figure
2 - Cumulative Percentage of Hydrocarbon Emissions -
7 Mile Trip
9
REFERENCES
10
n
159
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 232 of 318
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
Regional Programs Division r
'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 oh 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 151 N: 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
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.
TSD 3/84
160
Resolution No
- at the closest monitoring station
countywide
basinwide
84-119/Page 233 of 318
E. Potential effects of existing air pollutants on sensitive
receptors such as:
1. Schools (children)
2. Hospitals (patients)
3. Convalescent homes (elderly)
4. Agricultural areas (crop productivity)
III. IMPACT OF PROJECT PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES
(Section . State CEQA Guidelines)
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 (ppm). 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 ga's'oline and diesel powered vehicles. Emission factor
data for emissions generated during construction activities can be
found in EPA AP -42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions
Factors, Third Edition see re erence item Once t e
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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 234 of 318
4. Percent cold -hot start
5. Types of trips and average speed
6. Vehicle miles traveled per day
Models are available from ARES for doing this assessment. They are
UROEMIS #1 and URBEMIS ql, 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 CALINE 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 ner istic health impacts
2. Degree of risk to t e community
See State of California Administrative Code Title 17, Ch. 1, Part III.
-3-
TSD 3/04
162
_esolution No. 84-119/Page 235 of 318
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 is results rom 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. CONFORMITY 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:
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 AQ11Ps 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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 236 of 318
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 (TCtls) 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 TCNs
are an increasingly important source of emission reductions
and need to be analyzed in the EIR.
V. MITIGATION MEASURES
(Section 15127TT' 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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 237 of 318
8. Em toyer -S onsored Trans ortation Measures (for job sites)
enera Measures este a ove an
- 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 listed 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 suOservice uses
- Major open space and recreational facilities within
residential projects
- Vehicle pools for high density developments
D. Land Use Develo ment Measures
Genera Measures fisted above 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
-6-
165
TSD 3/84
11111111c
Poll,
OKI(
-Oi
Carbon
Nitroge
Sulfur
Susi
Part
M
Su
t
HS
Vinyl
1Chla
Vi
He
PC
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 238 of 318
Figure 1
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
----
- -- - --
-- California Standards'
National 5tanosror
toot
Averaging Time
-
Secondary?' Method'
Primary'.•
Concentration'
Method"
0.10 porn
Ultraviolet
ant'. - --_
--- 1 hour
f200 ug/m'1
Photometry
Same as Primary
Ethylene
-----
—
O 12 DDm
,no
1 hour
-
_
(235 ug/m')
Standard
Chemiluminescence
-_ -
donoxrde
9 0 ppm
Non -Dispersive
10 mg/m'
Pa mans
Primary
Non -Dispersive
infrared
8 hour
>
(10 mg/m)
Infrared
19 DPnil
Standards
spectroscopy
Spectroscopy
___._.._.
(N01R1
(NDIR)
-------------20
ppm
(NOIR)
40 mg/m3
1 hour
(23 mg/m')
f35 From)
------
- - --- --
100 ug/m'
Gas Phase
-------
r Dioxide
Annual Average
_
Gas Phase
(0 05 ppml
some as Primary
Chamdumrnescence
-
-- ------' -
"--" -- —
Chemdumr-
Standard
I hour
0 25 pp m
nascence
(470 ug/ml)
_
80 ug/m'
-
------
Dioxide.
Annual Av6l age
10 03 poml
24 hour
ultraviolet
Pararosanihne
0 05 pori+
1131 ug/m'1'
365 ug, m'
(0.14 ppml
-
Fluorescence
_ _
1300 ug/ma
(0.5 ppm)
-
-
I hour --
-- 0 5 ppm
11310 ug/ml)
--
---------
-- - ---
ondrid
Annual Geometric
60 ugJm'--
--- '-
75 ug/m'
60 uq/m'
culale
Mean
._
._
High Volume
._ _, _. _._ _
.._ __ _ _
HVolume
Sampling
rifer
100
Sampling
260 ug/m3
150 ug/m'
24 hour
ug/m'
- --25
Jurbidimetnc
fates
24 hour -
ug/m'
-
-
Barium
Sulfate_—
Red ... -
—30 day _. _
— 1 5 ug/m,
Atomic
-
-
-
Average
Absorption
—1
-
5 ugrm'
Same as Pri-
Atom -c
Calendar
-
mary Standard
Quarter
_Absorption .
-
rogen
I hour
003 porn
Cadmium Hydrax-
-
Hide
(42 ug/m')
rde STRactan
Chloride
24 hour
D__
eethene)
126 ug/m')
hrometogrephv
RMlity
t observation
In sufficient amount
to
reduce the prevailing
visibility'
Iucing
lirlex
to less than 10
miles when the
relative humidity
is less than 70%
_
APPLICABLE ONLY IN THE LAKt IAHvt sem DHai[N;
Carbon Monoxide 8 h
Visihrbiy _ - i obser
Reducing
Partldea
our 6 DDm NOIR -- -
_17_mo/m'1 _._—
vation In sufficient amount to
reduce the prevailing visibrhty' -- to leas than 30 miles when the
relxbve humidity is less than 70%
1FOOTNOTES ON REVt1I, E SIDE)
_7_
166
Tqn 3/84
1FOOTNOTES ON REVt1I, E SIDE)
_7_
166
Tqn 3/84
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 239 of 318
r
NOTES:
1. California standards, other than carbon monoxide, are
values that are not to be equaled or exceeded. The
carbon monoxide standards are not to be exceeded.
2. National standards, other than ozone and those based
on annual averages or annual geometric means, are not
to be exceeded morethan once a year. The ozone
standard is attained when the expected number of days
a calendar year with a maximum hourly average -
concentration above the standard is equal to or less
than one.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was
promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses
are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and
a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All meas-
urements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference
temperature of 250C and a reference pressure of
760 mm of Hg (1.013.2 millibar); ppm in this table
refers to p9m by volume, or micromoles of pollutant
per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent procedure which can be. shown to the
satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equi-
valeni results at or near the level of the air quality
4/ standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality
I
ARB Fact Sheet 38 (Revised 11831 _g
167
necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to
protect the public health. Each state must attain the
primary standards no later than .three years after that
state's implementation plan is approved by the En
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA).
6. National Secondary Standards: The!evels of air quality
necessary to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Each state must attain the secondary standards within
a "reasonable time" after the implementation plan is
approved by the EPA.
7. Reference method as described by the EPA, An "equi
valent method" of measurement nay be used but mist
have a "consistent relationship to the reference method"
and must be approved by the EPA.
S. Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest visibility
which is attained or surpassed around at least half of
the horizon circle, but not necessarily in continuous
sectors.
9. At locations where the stile standaids for oxrdstil
and/or suspended particulate Mattel are violawd
National standards apply elsewhere.
10. Measured as ozone.
TSD 3/84
100
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 240 of 318
Figure 2
1a1.rEDR(a1CA:1---1SGN ER
-- ---- FIOT SOAK CYC -LI_
G �j0 17% OF EMISSIONS
EMISSIONS
Ln
80-
1tl
!0_
0
°. 60
d
U
0 50
v
L A0
O
30
rn
o�
[ 20
d
c�
10
C1.
0 {--r
0 1
1985 AUTO WITH
CATALYTIC CONVERTER
Speed. 25 mph
Temperature_ 50'F
COLD Si ART CYCLE -
6ox OF EMISSIONS IN
LL -SS THEN 1 MILE
2 3 4 !; 5
Miles from Origin
• This curve is derived from exhaust Sampi— taken during the running
of the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP). Although originally derived from
early model catalyst and non -catalyst equipped vehicles, it is representa-
tive of newer model catalyst equipped vehicles..
Source: Percent of hydrocarbon etniSSionc� derivrrd from ARB FMFAC6C
emis%iou iactor..
9.
168
TSU 3/84
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 241 of 318
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.
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, EHFAC6C Emission Factors; California
Statewide Mix of Vehicles, 19 - (October 1981. To be revised,
1983).
Contains current composite mobile emission factors based on EMFAC6C. 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
Parl—,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).
URDEMIS #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
Resolution No. 84-119/Page 242 of 318
5. California Department of Transportation, CALINE 3 - A Versatile
Dispersion Model for Predictin 'Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and
Arterial 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 #6).
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 TCII mitigation measures
7. California Air Resources Board, A Proposed Program for Reducing Emissions
of Toxic Air Contaminants in a litornia, ay
This report reviews past ARB 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 Res➢urces 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
C
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 243 of 318
10. Urban Consortium Transportation Task Force, SMD 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
Transportation Control Measures in Achieving Air Quality Goa s
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of August f981)
This publication provides an assessment of the costs and effectiveness of
a variety of transportation control measures. Many 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 Information Document
(Washington, D.C.: Office of Transportation and Lan se o icy,
Environmental Protection Agency, September 1979)
This publication provides a good overview of bicycling with comparisons
to other TCMs. 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 Im rovement Measures for Air Quality
Draft3-83)
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-
TSD 3/84
171
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 244 of 318
V ��
JOUTHERn CALIFORnin
AJIOCIATIOn OF GOVERnmEny
600 Jouth Commonwealth Avenue - Juite 1000 - Lor Rn9eler - California - 90005 •213/385-1000
DATE: April 24, 1984 RECEIVED
TO: Carson Redevelopment Agency
701 East Carson Street
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
APP, 2 t 1984
�'-OM',AUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
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.
Si ncerel y,
WENDY A.dMURPHY
Clearinghouse Official
WM:wp 12a
172
r
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page
COUNTY OF T,00- ANGELES
PIH!
Carson, CSN 907`=5.
Dear Ms. Nemeth:
SUBJECT: CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA #3
This subject has been reviewed by our pepartmenL and the enciused
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
I
7�u
By
JOSEPH FERRARA
SENIOR DEPUTY FORESTER
FORESTRY DIVISIO14
JF:grj
Enclosures
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND
THE CITIES OF
AGOURA HILLS
BRADBLRI
GLENOORA
LAKEV:JOL'
NORWALK
ROSEMEAD WESTLAKE VILLAGE
ARTESIA
:ARSON
HAWA:u'. GAR'F%-
'J MIRADA
PALMDALE
SAN DIMAS WHITTIER
AZ'JSA
CEPRI*OS
HIDDEN - LL_
_ANCAS'E'
P4PAMOUN'
SIGNAL HILL
BALDWIN PART
p_APEMONT
HUNNNGTON PARK
. A PUENTE 173
PI -U PIVERA
SOUTH EL MONTE
BELL
COMMERCE
INDUS'Rv -
�AW,NDALE
RANCHO PA:.OS VERDE$
SOUTH GATE
BELLFLOWER
CLDAHv
RWNOALE
._U'.+ITA
RU'LJMG HILLS
TEMPLE CITv
vP i 1,1-11.11
'l: '....P`
:. (". :.'-'lA [ -. .
f.'J r.l,n r.
ani r,� , u„ c FIT.ITrc
WAI NI ••
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 246 of 318
'1rirch 2() , 1984
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
,..,_ ..
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
It
4
3
Engine
10
3
If
4
4
Truck
127
1.5
3
''
4
R/S
36
4
"
5
"
2
Haz.Mat.Sq.
105
3
4
5
Deluge
105
3
"
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.
J N M. BILLINGS
DIVISION CHIEF
FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING
ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAU
174
C
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 247 of 318
sire depa _ _. u: 01 L ,.
fire flow, access, anO .1rc, 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 Lire
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.
By
ROBERT P. BLACKBURN
BATTALION FIRE CHIEF
FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING
PREVENTION & CONSERVATION BTJREAU
175
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 248 of 318
SU If Of CALIFORNIA—#1fALT11 AND WfIfARE AGENCY RGE DEUKMf1IAN, iiovenwr
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
2151 GERKEIEY WAYr{`
T n t
OERKtIEY, CA 94704
415/540-2665
April 27, 1984 RECEIVED
APR 11 0 1984
COMMUNITY 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
Perome S. Lukas, h.D.
Senior Psychoacoustician
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
1 Enclosure
cc: Environmental Health Division
State Clearinghouse
176
0
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 249 of 318
Guidelines 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.
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 250 of 318
Suggested Contents of a C
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.
Ili. 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 Lem L,,
L10, L50, 1,90, and identification of typical noise levels emitted by existing sources. If
day and night measurements are made, report the Ld„ also. Ld„ 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 Ld„ = 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:
I. Average daily level of activity (traffic volume, [lights per day. hours on per
dity, 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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 251 of 318
-2-
r
4. Frequency spectrum of sources (1/3 octave band data are preferable).
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., FI[WA-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, Lip, 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 the
of 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
f.
ONC 5/82
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 252 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 253 of 318
WGSiF WIIE. '
PfGlAMG110N------------
_ w�7``
H,•1lIE,N...11.1.:; 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 r. 1
Telephone: (213) 699-741 1 / From Los Angeles (21 3) 685-5217 Chief Engineer and General Manager
RECEIVED
684 May 1, 1984
0PMegr 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.
MH:ait
181
Very truly yours,
Marvin Holmes
Project Engineer
Planning Section
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 254 of 318
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD_
LOS ANGELES REGION
107 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 4027 ,
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012-4596
!2131 6204460
May 3, 1984
Carson Redevelopment Agency
701 East Carson Street
Carson, California 90745
Attn: Patricia Nemeth
GEORGE - ✓..'.•EXAN, Goveu-
0
RECEIVED
MAY a. 1984
OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
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.
27 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.
call Taira Yoshimura at the above number.
V ry tru yourSs
L
re_s(_�� INAZI, Ph.D.
Environmental s cialis v
If you have4any questions, please
182
CC: Office of Planning and Research, ATTN: Chris Goggin
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 255 of 318
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
P.O. Box 6598
�- LOS ANGELES
90055 '
a,: a 1994
Carson Redevelopment Agency
701 East Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745
Attention: Ms. Patricia Nemeth
RECEIVED
MAY 7984
gOMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
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
Stage Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
183
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 256 of 318
I%LULI V LU
Department of Water Resources Recommendations MAY 1984
for Water. Conservation and Water Reclamation
COMIAUpNEITY DEVELOPME.—
To reduce water demand, the following water conservation measures should bPe RTMENT
implemented:
Required by law:
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.
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
41
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 257 of 318
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.
-2-
185
0
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 258 of 318
Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention
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.
5. 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
sediment transport durin&.construction.
186
1�
I/
Wa51f wn1fP
1fGll\M.iION
1
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 259 of 318
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
1955 Workman Mill Road / Whittier, California
Mailing Address: / P. O. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607
Telephone: (213) 699-741 1 / From Los Angeles (2 13) 685-5217
Mr. Adolfo Reyes
Acting Redevelopment Project Manager
City of Carson
701 East Carson Street
P. 0. Box 6234
Carson, CA 90749
OF L S ANGELES COUNTY
4 � CHARLES W. CARRY
Chief Engineer and General Manager
May 1�1984
File: 8-00.04-010/84
Dear Mr. Reyes:
Redevelopment Project No. 1
ANT
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
Marvin Holmes
Project Engineer
Planning Section
MH:ait
187
ROANO OF NANIl0l1 COMMISSIONERS
(213) 331-1339
MRS. GENE KAPLAN
wwf {.IOf.NT
JOSEPH J. ZANINOVICH
vice .....P[«r
JUN MORI
e0«w{{IP«ew
FREDERIC A. HEIM -
coN..I{{ro«c.
THE REV. ARTHUR R. RARTLETT
ce....l{He«ew
CHARLES T. GIRSON
cccwecwwY
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 260 of 318
PORT OF LOS ANGELES
�OI yOS�Ic
t�o`,I1y ''�Fept}i4
. 'W�IY-✓Jul
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
TOM BRADLEY
MAYOR
June 21, 1984
�f''�I.NJ~ ✓ �. ,
�J�.J�� � LL♦l •cVT1OY"V1. 1111Y
�{425 S. PALOS V, ROes 51.
P.O. BO{ 151
'J `ML jjjif 5.«PTowo,CA 90733-0151
1�
T 18-238]
/ POLAOLA SPRO
213) 519-3400
RECE{VED
stn!
1984
Carson Redevelopment Agency RFDEVEL0pMENT
City of Carson
701 E. Carson St.
Carson, CA 90745
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 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(EGUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
t
C
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 261 of 318
Page 2 of 3
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIROMMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Redevelopment Project Arca 3
D. Page 21 lists landf ill 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 calculat-ions.
ti
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 262 of 318
Page 3 of 3
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRON14ENTAL 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.
ABG: nb
#2096
(E. L✓. GORMAN
Chief harbor Engineer
190
C
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 263 of 318
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR / 1� GEORGE OFUKMEIIAN Govenror J
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET y_.c�{��:
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 .'.aM
June 22, 1984 J
(916/445-0613) RECEIVED
Ms. Patricia Nemeth JU,L 2 1984
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 its.
This letter certifies only that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Envirormental Quality Act (EIR Guidelines. Section 15205). Where
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 from state agencies with permit
authority or jurisdiction by law. If sor the state agencies will have to use
the envirorinental 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,
7�la /
John B. Ghanian v
Chief Deputy Director
KEW
JUN 2.81984
OFFICE OF PLANNING
191 & RESEARCH
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 264 of 318
State of California Department of Health Services
Memorandum
To Terry Roberts Date ° June 14, 1984
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 subject: Redevelopment Plan
for Project Area
;1 and r3
SCH '784050205 and
SCH #84032102
am '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 insulat.ion 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.
�ir.4:��
�� ary yE F. Co lQh Chief
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVIS ^
L
JUN 15 iH4
OFFICE OF PLAl4r ;;'.', _7
JUNza i98� D
OFFICE OF Algr�Nlrr�,
& RESEARCH 192
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 265 of 318
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR I yQ'�.i�V GEORGE DEUNMEJIAN. Co ,;;6�
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
�- SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
June 22, 1984
RECEIVED
Ms. Patricia Nemeth
Carson Redevelopment Agency J U L 2 1984
701 East Carson Street
Carson, CA 90745 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Subject. SCH# 84050205, Ammendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1
Dear Ms. Nemeth:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental 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 recommendations, please contact the staff from the appropriate
agency(ies).
When preparing the final EIR, you must include all camTents and responses (CBQA
Guidelines, Section 15132). The certified EIR must be oonsidered in the decision-
making process for the project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the
camanting 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 (CBQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093).
If the project requires discretionary approval from 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 environmental review process.
Sin
John B. Mwuan
Chief Deputy Director
cc: Resources Agency
attachment
193
E C Er- �� F r`
JUN2,81984
OFFICE Of PLANNI"4S
3 RESEARCH
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 266 of 318
STATE OF CALIFORNIA / 1t1.&£15RGE DEUKMEJIAN Gol�loor
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUA
LOS ANGELES REGION LITY CONTROL BOARD-
107 SOUTH BROADWAY, SUITE 4027
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012-4596
(2131620 4460 L
June 29, 1984 RECEIVED
Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
JUL 2 1984
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Dr. Gordon Snow
Assistant Secretary for Resources
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Development
Project Area 3, City of Carson, SCH #84032102
Gentlemen:
L9e have reviewed the subject document concerning the proposed redevelopment
plan for a 700 -acre area in Carson.
We do not object to this plan, provided the sanitary se,,,er system will be
able to adequately accommodate the proposed develoFx7ent projects.
The discharge of wastewater other than to the sanitary sewer system may be
subject to waste discharge requirements prescribed by this Regional Board. '
Sufficient information should be provided at least 130 •,ays prior to the
discharge so that we may determine the need for requirements.
Appropriate permits must be obtained from the local permitting agencies
prior to the installation of all underground storage tan 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 Mr. Taira Yoshimura at (213) 620-5625.
Very 1 yours,
IE4IS A. SCHINAZI, Ph.D.
Fnvironmental Specialist IV-
TY:pag
cc: State Clearinghouse, A'I'M: Chris Goggin
.1ty Of Carson, ATi'N: Patricia Nemeth
194
C
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 267 of 318
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-
moi' t� 01 10711
C
yOJ w
• ,FOR%,%' '
ARK H. BLOODGOOD
NUDrtoRCONTROLLER
OMAS J. KOZLOMKI
DANIEL O. IKEMOTO
ASSISTANT AUORORCOMTROLLERS
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 268 of 318
RECEIVED
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES / AUDITOR -CONTROLLER PEOEVELOPAiENf
TAX DIVISION
153 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION, LOS ANGELES, CA. 90012
(213)974-8361
June 14, 1984
Mr. Adolfo Reyes --
Redevelopment Project Manager
701 East Carson Street
P.O. Box 6234
Carson, California 90749
Dear Mr. Reyes:
MICHAEL L. GALINDO, CHMF
TAX OMS10N
Re: Carson Redevelopment Project, Area #3
The attached schedules are transmitted to Your agency `
with Section 33328 ar 33328.3 -of the Health and Safety Code.
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,
t -%W, H. BLOODGOOD
AUDITOR-<)0NZR0LJZR
MLG:JAG:vs
Enclosures
cc: Sharon Yonashiro
Michael L. Galindo
Division Chief
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 269 of 318
AUDI219R- 0CMMi 7M , TAX DIVISION
CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROS, y3
SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Fiscal Year. 1983-84
Secured Valuations
Locally Assessed
Land
Improverents
Personal Property
Gross Total
Less: Exertions
Total Locally Assessed
Public Utility
Land
TnProvements
Personal Property
Total - Public Utility
Total Secured Valuations
Unsecured Valuations
Land
Improvements
Personal Property
Gross Total
Less: Exemptions
tal - Unsecured
GRAND 2oTAL
$ 1,390,038
7,801,223
2, 838
$ 81,565,099
242,602
$ 3,809,710
3_,285,710
671,020
$ 7,679,234
5,95- 5—
13,634,344
-0-
$ 81,322,497
7_ 76� 6440
$ 89,088,937
13,634`344
V
$ 102,723,281
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 270 of 318
AUDITM-CW'iMLLER, TAX DIViSIC1
CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROS, # 3
SCHEDULE OF ASSESSED VALUATIONS
Fiscal Year 1982-83
. Secured Valuations
Locally Assessed
Land
Irprovements -
Personal Property
Gross Total
Less: Exengtions
Total - Locally Assessed
Public Utility
Land
Improvements
Personal Property
Total - Public Utility
Total Secured Valuations
Unsecured Valuations
Land
7nProvements
Personal Property
Gross Total
Less: Exemptions
Total - Unsecured
$ 281433,344
,
47'07' �i
$ 8098622379
194,909
-0-
$ 6,1942069
5,291,428
$ 11,485,497
-0-
$80,667,470
N/A
$80,667,470
11,485,497
LIN
IGRAND TOTAL $ 92,152,967
Acct. No.
1.42
30.50
30.55
30.60
325.60
805.50
887.03
887.50
1.00
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 271 of 318
AUDITOR -CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION
CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3
SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - SECURED
FISCAL YEAR 1983-84
A Inc
Hospital Facilities No. 2 D.S.
L.A. Co. Fl. Con.Storm Dr. DS #2 '58
L.A. Co. Fl. Con.Storm Dr. DS #3 164
L.A. Co. Fl. Con.Storm Dr. DS #4
Remainder -West Basin MVD -1111999
L.A. City Comm. Coll. Debt S.
Los Angeles Unified School Dist.
Los Angeles Debt Service
Total Debt Service
General Tax Levy
Grand Total
A. V.
89,088,937
86,286,681
86,286,681
8612.86,681
89,088,937
89,088,937
89,088,937
89,088,937
Rate ldvenue
.000649
578.19
.004327
3733.62
.005592
��25-.15
.007365
4355.01
.023760
2q,; 4.08
.001709
1522.53
.007749
443.50
.022815
2:f)?5.64
6557.72
89,088,937 1.000000 692 89.37'
$95,47. 09
Acct. No.
1.42
30.45
30.50
30.55
30.60
325.30
325.60
805.50
887.03
887.50
1.00
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 272 of 318
AUDITOR -CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION
CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3
SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - UNSECURED
FISCAL YEAR 1983-84
Agency
Hospital Facilities No. 2 D.S.
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr. D.S. #1 152
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr. D.S. #2 158
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr. D.S #3 164
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr. D.S. #4
Dominguez -West Basin MWD -1111004
Remainder -West Basin MWD -1111999
L.A. City Comm. Coll. Debt S
L. A. Unif. School Dist.
L. A. Unif. Debt Service
Total D.S.
General Tax Levy
Grand Total
A.V. Rate
13,634,344 .000604
7,679,234 .002401♦
79679,234 .004834
7,679,234 .007104
7,679.234 .009179
12,002027 .020100
1,6329017 .o16600
13,634,344 .001846
13,634,344 .007718
13,634,344 .028816
13,634,344 1.O00000
Revenue
$ 82.35
184.61
371.21
545.53
704.88
2,412.47
270.91
251.69
1,052.30
3,928.87
S 9,804.82
_?.3343.44
$146048.26
s
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 273 of 318
AUDITOR -CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION
CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3
SCHEDULE_ OF AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE - l
\ FISCAL YEAR 1983-84
cct No. Agency Name Revenue
("Jet 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 1,9419199.56
19.56 Co. Lighting Maint. Dist. No. 1697 65,573.65
23.42 Co. Lighting Maint. Dist. No. 10042 144,532.16
30.10 L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Dr. Imp. Dist. Maint. 10,071.01
30.70 L.A. Co. Flood Control Maint. 5,6921444.95
61.80 Southeast Mosquito Abate Dist. 321220,155.59
66.30 Co. Sanitation Dist. No. 8 Operat. 125,156.43
350.90 Central W. Basin Water Rep. Dist. 812,455.49
400.15 County School Services 137,129.59
400.21 Children's Inst'l Tuition Fund 3,055,548.08
805.04 L.A. City Comm. Coll. Dist. 6,062,209.70
805.20 L.A. Comm. Coll. Children's Ctr. Fd, 36,201 „67.27
!� 887.03 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. 374,509.16
387.06 Co. Sch. Serr. Fd, - Los Angeles 2,18 2149,659,o,11
887.07 Dev. Ctr. Hdcpd. Minor - L.A. Unif. 2,144.27
`387.20 Los Angeles Childrens Center Fd. 1,230,409.27
3,579,593,46
Total 1% Revenue (Secured & Unsecured
$11422,912 523.76
'Section 3332.8 Subdivision "D"
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 274 of 318
AUDITOR -CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION
CARSON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 3
SCHEDULE OF AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE
- DEBT SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 1983-84
Acct.No.
Agency Name
Adj. Rate Net
Rate
Revenue
SECURED
1.42
30.52
Hospital Facilities No. 2 DS
St264,333.8,
L.A. Co. F1, Conorm Dr. DS 158
191+,812,605,302
.000649
; 1,
30.55
. 92_
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr. DS #3 '64
192,6589061,191-
.001+327
8,336,311+.31
30.60
L.A. Co. F1. Con Storm Dr. DS #4
192,658,061,191
.005592
10, 773,438.7£
325.60
Remainder -West Basin MWD -1111999
192 658 061 1 1
' 9
.007365
14,189,266.21
805.50
L.A. City Comm, Col] Debt S.
21 ,397,051,859
.023700
5,071,101.2°(:
887.03
Los Angeles Unif. School Dist.
109,043,725,644
.001709
1,863,557.2;
887.50
Los Angeles Unif. Debt Service
90,122,869,718
.027749
6,983,621,11
901122 2869,718
.022815
20,561,532.7�
Total Debt Service - Secured (A)
569,a43,165.57
UNSECURED
1.42
30.45
Hospital Facilities No. 2 DS
L.A. Co. F1. Con. Storm Dr. 'S2
13'47,036,819
.000604
S
30.50
D.S. ,#1
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr. D.S. R2 � 58
5,£386,526,308
.002404
12. 1
41 512.01
141,5T2,0�
30.55
30.60
n2
L.A. Co. F1. Con. Storm Dr. D.S. #3 '64
5,886,526,308
5,886,52.6,30$
.004834
284,554.6E
325.30
L.A. Co. Fl. Con. Storm Dr,D.S.Ds #4
Dominguez -West Basin MWD
5,885,526,308
.0071C4
.009179
418,178.8;
540,324.25
r 325.60
-1111004
Remainder -West: Basin MWD -1111004
60,950
.0201x0
7,125.6;
i� 305.5o
L.A. cit
042 8
l,o4z,869,2t3
.o166oa
173,116.2c
887.03
Los Angeles Unif. School Dist.
$,698,375,31++
.001845
160 ,572.01
887.50
Los AngelesUnif. Debt Service
7,692,395,463
.007718
593,699.1E
71692,395,463
.028816
2,216,640.6E
Total Debt Service - Unsecured (8)
$4,699,963.61.
Grand Total (A) + (B)
S73,743,129.23
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 275 of 318
K. Report of Fiscal Review Committee.
The report of the fiscal review committee shall be added t,
this report upon receipt.
-43-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 276 of 318
L. 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 T
l
of this Report, contains information on the
potential impacts upon residents of the Project
Area and the surrounding area, in terms of traffic
circulation, environmental quality, availabi'ity of
community facilities and services, and other
matters affecting the physical and social quality
of the neighborhood. Part B of this Report, "A
Description of Physical, Social and Economic
Conditions Existing in the Area," also contains
pertinent information concerning the above-named
impacts to residents and adjoining neighborhoods.
C. School Population and Quality of Education
-44-
d.
2.
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 277 of 318
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 needs
are known.
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.
Relocation and Low and Modereat Income Housing
-45-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 278 of 318
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 with
the implementation of the Redevelopmet Plan
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 occur.
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 requireu tD
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 279 of 318
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 City.
If the Agency acquires property, enters .into•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, rules and regulations. Although it is
unlikely 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-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 280 of 318
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
WE
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 281 of 318
supply of low and moderate income housing in
the City.
In 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 paid 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.
i
-49-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 282 of 318
M. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer and Summary of
T
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 283 of 318
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-
esolution No. 84-119/ Page 284 of 318
1983-1983 fiscal year to 1983-1984 fiscal.year by
$10,570,314.
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-
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 285 of 318
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-
u 3
_ *��__��
RF.' UN6X^,�
May 14, 1984
Resolution No
84-119/ Page 286 of 318
CITY OF CARSON
E
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
Agency and a preliminary report regarding such Redevelopment Pian. 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,
ADOLFO REYr S.
REDEVELOPM NT PROJE MANAGER
AR/cf
kms_
PATRICIA NEMETH, AICP, COhiMUNIlY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 287 of 318
GPgSON, c
O p
�RE UNLIM�
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 288 of 318
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 3
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 289 of 318
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
. 7
Section
4.03.
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ page 290 of 318
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
f
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .18
Section
8.03.
Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .18
Section
8.04.
Dwelling Units . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .19
Section
8.05.
Public Property. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .19
■ L_
■
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 291 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 292 of 318
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.
__esolution No. 84-119/ Page 293 of 318
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 al•tera
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 294 of 318
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,
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 295 of 318
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.
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 296 of 318
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
Section 3.06
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 297 of 318
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.
N.
eso u
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.
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 299 of 318
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.
8
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 300 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 301 of 318
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
(1.75 miles)
Item
Clear & Grub
Conc. Removal
3" AC Paving
10
uantit
10.7 AC
11,420 CY
88,600 SF
Alameda Street
(Within the Los
Angeles City Limits)
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 302 of 318
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
Item
Quantity
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 303 of 318
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
(Needed Parking
Improvements)
Item Quantity
Land Acquisition 33,000 SF
4" AC Paving 33,000 SF
Aggregate Base 1,190 T
Striping 840 LF
Lights 4 EA
12
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 304 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 305 of 318
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
Quantity
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 Quantity
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.
E
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 306 of 318
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.
15
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 307 of 318
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.
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
1�
L
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 308 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 309 of 318
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.
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 310 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 311 of 318
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
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 312 of 318
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.
21
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 313 of 318
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
-_esolution No. 84-119/ Page 314 of 318
Diagrom 10.01. Open space
L If
Lj
Ki
E7 / -
�� t
.....
If
O �
O \
! '4
C
4
f
r
REDEVELOPMENT j
ROJECT AREA NO. 3 i
NOTE :
CURRENTLYTHERE IS ON SPACE
IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREANo. 3
23
LEGEND:
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT 80UNDARV
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 315 of 318
i3iagrom 10 02. Street Layout.
:ill fi6.•.,,�L__ L_-,
J,
i�i/•j� ��--y,,---„----ter—�
•"• �� Ili■ifYli■fi■u'u ri]]J]i]i�Yiiai�i�i—n.•
,� ".,.,. L�-
..�_
2
�_�- .... 20 TR •; 1:
ST
.,.- �lliiii Uili111 !!!T f i✓ ego,-- •
• -••-: moii-
223�RD ST 11 11
•(
...
AN
.......
\
c ^
A L
AN
Nor
t
NOT TO ][.11
O
`
4
LEGEND:
f
Nor
+ FREEWAY
v
f*1 ii!1111!! STREET
ft
REDEVELOPMENT — — — REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
ROJECT AREA NO. 3
-
�i
N _
24 I
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 316 of 318
Diagram 10. 03_ Buildings
17 11
77)
�i
-- ....
,= .r
J �L'_
—=� l Jnr
M /H
MH
REDEVELOPMENT
OJECT AREA NO- 3
NOTE
THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS THE
TYPE, SIZE, HEIGHT, S NUMBER OF BUILDINGS
IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 3
C G - D ��1�c
--� �i L -z-•—• ---- )��(J�
MH
1 MH-ORL =
NOT i0 SC -LE
o � i
! 4
LEGEND:
REDEVELOPMENT
r PROJECT BOUNDARY
/ ML—MANUFACTURING LIGHT
MH—MANUFACTURING HEAVY
u D _ DESIGN OVERLAY
D IS Tp'CT
I ORL-ORGANIC RE
FUSE LAND
�MH FILL OVERLAY DISTRICTI
CG" COMMERCIAL, GENERAL
25
Resolution No. 84-119/ Page 317 of 318
Diagram !0.04. Dwelling Units
r -7
'dj
_L7
=I Ll 7
I/Ir
77'
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA NO. 3
TE
ITS
THERE ARE NO DWELLING UNIN
ITS
TE
PROJECT AREA
NO. 3
26
LEGEND:
-- - - REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT BOUNDARY
Diagram 10.05. Public Property
REDEVELOPMENT
?OJECT AREA NO. 3
E .
PROPERTY DEVOTED TO PUBLIC
S INCLUDES PUBLIC STREETS AND
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
esolution No. 84-119/ Page 318 of 318