HomeMy Public PortalAbout96-065 RESOLUTION NO. 96-065
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CARSON ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR PROJECT
AREA NO. TWO AND THE PROPOSED SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
PROJECT AREA NO. THREE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARSON HEREBY FINDS,
DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . The Carson Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency" ) has prepared a proposed Fifth Amendment (the "Fifth
Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan, As Amended, for Project
Area No. Two ("Project Area No. Two" ) and a proposed Second
Amendment (the "Second Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area No. Three ( "Project Area No. Three" ) of the Agency.
The Agency and the City Council of the City of Carson (the "City
Council") have held a duly noticed joint public hearing on the
proposed Fifth Amendment and the proposed Second Amendment on
June 18, 1996 . Any and all persons having any objections to the
proposed Fifth Amendment or the proposed Second Amendment, or who
deny the existence of blight in the territory proposed to be
added to Project Area No. Two and Project Area No. Three by the
Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment, or the regularity of
any of the prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit
written comments prior to the commencement of or at the joint
public hearing and to give oral testimony at the joint public
hearing and show cause why the proposed Fifth Amendment and
Second Amendment should not be adopted. Written objections,
communications and suggestions were received before or at such
joint public hearing and are attached hereto as Exhibits A-1
through A-9 and incorporated herein. The City Council has heard
and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in
support of and in opposition to the adoption of the Fifth
Amendment and Second Amendment.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 2 of 27
Section 2 . Having reviewed such written objections,
communications and suggestions, the City Council, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Sections 33363 and 33364, hereby adopts
written findings, attached hereto as Exhibits B-1 through B-9 and
incorporated herein, in response to each written objection,
communication and suggestion, which written objections,
communications and suggestions are set forth in Exhibits A-1
through A-9, attached hereto. The City Council has not accepted
specified written objections, communications and suggestions for
the reasons set forth in the attached written findings in
response to such written objections, communications and
suggestions .
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of July ,
1996 .
h
ACTING MAY/ R
ATTEST: /
i 4 4 fTw
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
)(0- l olw
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
STATE OF CAL)FORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF CARSON )
1, Helen S. Kawagoe, City Clerk of the City of Carson, California, do hereby certify
that the whole numt er of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
resolution,being Resolution No. 96-065 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council
of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 2nd day of
July, 1996, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: CCUNCIL MEMBERS: Calas, Olaes, O'Neal and Fajardo
NOES: CCUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor .Mitoma
City Clerk, City of Carson,F alifornia
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 - 2 -
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 3 of 27
Exhibit A
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR PROJECT AREA NO.
TWO AND THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. THREE
960628 =71-00001 sas 1672598 1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 4' of 27
Exhibit B
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARSON IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS PREPARED PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33363 AND
33364 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDMENT
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS AMENDED, FOR PROJECT AREA
NO. TWO AND THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. THREE
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 5 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-1, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Mr. Charles
M. Gale, Cameron, Madden, Pearlson, Gale and Sellars, on behalf
of Niklor Chemical Co. , Inc. , addressed to the City and Agency,
dated May 7, 1996 .
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
The communication was a comment on the 1996 Eminent
Domain Amendment for Project Area No. Three, and related Negative
Declaration, and not a comment on the subject Fifth Amendment or
Second Amendment . To the extent that reference is made to the
Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment, Mr. Gale alleges, that
for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act
( "CEQA") , the 1996 Eminent Domain Amendments and the merger of
Project Area No. Two and Project Area No. Three should be
considered together.
The 1996 Eminent Domain Amendments have already been
adopted. The projects being evaluated in the environmental
impact report prepared in connection with the Fifth Amendment and
the Second Amendment (the "EIR" ) are the proposed Fifth Amendment
and Second Amendment . The 1996 Eminent Domain Amendments are a
separate project from the Fifth Amendment and Second Amendment .
CEQA doesn' t mandate that cities combine separate projects for
the purposes of environmental review. Under CEQA, it is not
inappropriate to do a separate review for two projects where, as
here, the adoption of the first project accomplishes a different
purpose than the second project and the adoption of the first
project does not commit the City in any way to the adoption of
the second project .
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objection
stated by Mr. Gale is hereby overruled.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 8-1-�-
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 6 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-2, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Mr. Charles
M. Gale, Cameron, Madden, Pearlson, Gale and Sellars, on behalf
of Niklor Chemical Co. , Inc . , John and Myra Wilhelm, and Stephen
and Elizabeth Wilhelm, addressed to the City and Agency, dated
June 11, 1996 .
In such communication, Mr. Gale alleges that the
"merger" statute is contrary to Article XVI, Section 16 of the
California Constitution and, therefore, the merger of Project
Area No. Two and Project Area No. Three is unconstitutional .
Mr. Gale alleges that the draft EIR (the "DEIR" )
prepared in connection with the Fifth Amendment and the Second
Amendment does not accurately describe the project' s impact on
traffic and circulation after feasible mitigation measures are
adopted. He states that the DEIR contains an incorrect
assumption on page 2-11 that the project shall contribute its
proportionate share of the costs to certain regional
improvements . He alleges that redevelopment funds must be used
for "redevelopment activity" which means funds must be used in a
way which primarily benefits the project area. Therefore, he
concludes that it is not permissible to use redevelopment funds
to pay a proportionate share of the cost of mitigation measures
T-1 through T-11 and T-13 through T-16 because they are
improvements of community-wide benefit which do not primarily
benefit the redevelopment project . He concludes that without the
use of these funds, these improvements cannot be considered
feasible.
Mr. Gale alleges that the DEIR does not accurately
compare the Project Alternative with the No Project Alternative .
Mr. Gale further alleges that the DEIR does not disclose that the
traffic mitigation measures are expected to mitigate not only the
traffic impacts from Project Area Nos . Two and Three, but also
from the Sixth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Project
Area No. 1 .
Mr. Gale concludes by indicating that Niklor and the
Wilhelms oppose the proposed Amendments and request the City
Council and the Agency to vote against the Amendments .
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
With respect to the allegation that the merger is
unconstitutional, Mr. Gale has presented the City with no
evidence of any court ruling substantiating this position. The
City Council is not aware of any such ruling, or of any other
evidence in support of this position. It is the belief of the
City Council that merger of redevelopment project areas is not
prohibited by the California Constitution.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-2-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 7 of 27
The remaining comments are comments on the DEIR, not an
objection to the Fifth Amendment and Second Amendment . All
comments on the DEIR which were timely received are addressed in
the Comments and Responses portion of the final EIR (the "FEIR" ) .
Mr. Gale' s letter, attached as Exhibit A-2, was received after
the public comment period on the DEIR was closed; thus, no
response is required to be contained in the FEIR. Accordingly,
no response is required from the City or Agency. Nevertheless,
the City Council responds as follows :
Regarding the comment that the DEIR contains an
incorrect assumption on page 2-11 that the project shall
contribute its proportionate share of the costs to certain
regional improvements, Mr. Gale alleges that redevelopment funds
cannot be used for these mitigation measures. On the contrary,
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33445, redevelopment
funds can be used for public improvements outside the
redevelopment project area, so long as certain findings can be
made. One of the required findings is that the public
improvement be "of benefit" to the project area. Providing a
mitigation measure necessary to permit redevelopment of the
project area benefits the project area. Further, even if
redevelopment funds are not available, City funds can be used for
these improvements .
Regarding the comment that the DEIR does not accurately
compare the Project Alternative with the No Project Alternative,
this comment appears to be based on Mr. Gale' s argument that the
DEIR "exaggerates the benefits of the project alternative" . This
assumption ignores the fact that the no project alternative would
not allow the project area to benefit from several roadway
infrastructure improvements that would be directly funded by the
redevelopment action. See EIR Section 3 . 7 . 1, Public
Improvements . The Project Alternative also provides a systematic
program for the implementation of the mitigation measures.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Mr. Gale are hereby overruled and the suggestion that
the City Council and Agency not adopt the Amendments is not
accepted.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 13-2-2
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page g of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-3, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from
Mr. Charles M. Gale, Cameron, Madden, Pearlson, Gale and Sellars,
on behalf of Niklor Chemical Co. , Inc. , John and Myra Wilhelm,
and Stephen and Elizabeth Wilhelm, addressed to the City and
Agency, dated June 17, 1996 .
In such communication, Mr. Gale alleges that the Report
to City Council on the Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment
(the "Report" ) does not contain information sufficient to support
a finding of blight -- that the facts do not support the
conclusions and that there is no attempt to identify how the
conditions of blight cause a reduction of or lack of proper
utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a
serious physical and economic burden on the community. He
alleges that the survey of physical conditions is defective
because it does not contain a description of the methodology used
to gather the information or a description of the qualifications
of those conducting the survey. Mr. Gale also alleges that the
categories are vague and ill-defined and that it appears that a
building could be classified as dilapidated and deteriorated only
because it needs a coat of paint or that a building which only
lacks landscaping could be classified as suffering from
substandard design.
Mr. Gale alleges that the analysis of depreciated
assessed valuation in the Report is defective because it fails to
differentiate the decline in property values in the area added to
Project Area Nos . Two and Three by the Fifth Amendment and the
Second Amendment (the "Added Area" ) from the general decline in
assessed values in the Southern California region. He indicates
his expectation that the analysis would contain a comparison of
the decline in assessed valuation of property in the Added Area
with the decline in assessed valuation of property in the City
and the region over the past five years. He also asserts that it
is no longer true that valuations can be expected to increase by
2 percent per year and has not been the experience of the older
developed cities in Southern California for the last five years .
Mr. Gale alleges that the data in the Report contained
in the discussion of declining industrial property sales prices
does not support a finding that the Added Area is blighted
because it contains no data on sales occurring in the Added Area
and does not document that sales elsewhere in the City are
indicative of values in the Added Area.
Mr. Gale alleges that the discussion in the Report
regarding business license information is misleading because
figures for a one-year period are not reliable for an area the
size of the Added Area and because the indicated decline was
caused by a decrease of only two licenses .
Mr. Gale alleges that the analysis of crime in the
Report is misleading because the correlation between the
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 9 of 27
reporting areas and the Added Area is not explained (with no
indication of whether the Added Area is a relatively large or
small portion of the reporting areas) . He also alleges that the
reliance on a one-year "snapshot" from 1994-95 is misleading
since the Report actually shows a significant decrease in
criminal activity over a four-year period.
Mr. Gale alleges that the discussion in the Report
regarding building permit activity is invalid because it is based
on City-wide data and no information is presented which allows a
conclusion that City-wide conditions are comparable to the Added
Area. He also alleges that the decline in building permit
activity from 1991 through 1995 is readily explained by the
reduction in real estate development activity in the entire
Southern California region.
Mr. Gale alleges that the discussion in the Report
regarding inadequate public infrastructure consists entirely of
conclusory statements unsupported by any facts.
Mr. Gale alleges that the Report mistakenly states that
the Added Area is contiguous to existing project areas because
one parcel (located on Lomita Boulevard approximately midway
between Main Street and Avalon Boulevard) is not contiguous and
does not appear to be described. Therefore, he alleges that it
is impossible to make a finding that all non-contiguous areas are
either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment .
Mr. Gale asserts that the method of relocation
contained in the Report is inadequate and incorrectly attaches
the relocation assistance law instead of the Relocation
Guidelines as purported.
Mr. Gale alleges that the neighborhood impact report
contained in the Report is not sufficiently detailed for project
areas residents to evaluate the impact of the project on their
lives . In addition, he alleges that since the neighborhood
impact report discloses that implementation of the redevelopment
plan could result in the displacement of as many as 189
households, a project area committee should have been formed.
Mr Gale alleges that the Comments and Responses portion
of the FEIR for the Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment does
not include three letters received during the comment period
(letter dated May 7, 1996 from Caltrans; letter dated May 2, 1996
from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department; and letter dated
April 12, 1996 from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Los Angeles Region) .
In conclusion, Mr. Gale requests that the City Council
and Agency vote against the amendments .
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-2
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 10 of 27
With respect to the allegation that the survey of
physical conditions is defective because it does not contain a
description of the methodology used to gather the information or
a description of the qualifications of those conducting the
survey, pages B-3 and B-4 of the Report describe the methodology
used to gather information (a physical survey conducted by the
Agency' s redevelopment consultant, with accompanying photographs,
and research of City records and other data sources) . As for the
qualifications of those conducting the survey, the survey was
conducted by the Agency' s redevelopment consultant, Rosenow
Spevacek Group, Inc. ( "RSG" ) , a qualified, professional and
established redevelopment consulting firm, which has been
providing redevelopment consulting services, including
redevelopment plan adoptions and amendments, for 17 years and
which has assisted governmental entities with over 60 adoptions,
mergers, and amendments. The survey and all plan amendment work
was supervised by Felise Acosta of RSG, the managing principal in
charge of this project . Ms . Acosta has over 20 years of direct
redevelopment experience. Ms . Acosta was assisted on this
project by Ramona Castaneda, Associate and Michelle Loving,
Analyst . For a statement of RSG' s qualifications and resumes of
those individuals who conducted the survey, reference is made to
RSG' s Statement of Qualifications, on file with the Carson
Community Development Department .
Pages B-3 and B-4 of the Report describe the criteria
used to conduct the survey for determining the presence of
blighting conditions. The categories utilized to describe the
conditions of blight are reflective of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code 33000, et sea. ) (the
"Redevelopment Law" ) and are accepted in the professional
community.
With respect to the allegation that the categories are
vague and ill-defined and that it appears that a building could
be classified as dilapidated and deteriorated only because it
needs a coat of paint or that a building which only lacks land-
scaping could be classified as suffering from substandard design,
none of the surveyed parcels that were identified as dilapidated
or deteriorated only need a coat of paint (any parcel designated
as suffering from dilapidation or deterioration was found to be
unfit or unsafe for occupancy) and none of the parcels classified
as suffering from substandard design lack only landscaping. All
of the parcels suffering from substandard design are either too
narrow in physical layout given current market development
demands or are partially vacant and underutilized. The lack of
landscaping is noted as substandard design because, even in
industrial areas, any new development would be required to comply
with design guidelines and have a certain amount of landscaping.
Further the Tables in Section B of the Report provide summaries
of survey results which are further detailed by parcel in
Appendices 1 and 2 of the Report-- allowing for a determination
of the seriousness of the conditions in the Added Area.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-3
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 11 of 27
With respect to the allegation that the identified
blight does not constitute a serious physical and economic burden
on the community, the documentation provided in the Report
provides sufficient data and evidence for the City Council and
Agency to make such a determination. When taken together, all of
the conditions of physical and economic blight documented in the
Report provide sufficient information and data to support the
conclusion that conditions within the Added Area do constitute a
serious physical and economic burden on the community which has
not been alleviated by private enterprise acting alone . The
Report documents that approximately 98 percent of the total land
area in the Added Area suffer from conditions of blight, with
approximately 68 percent of the parcels suffering from blighting
conditions, and that the Added Area suffers from other blighting
conditions which cannot be directly linked to a specific parcel .
These blighting conditions are so substantial and prevalent that
they cause a reduction of, and lack of, proper utilization of the
area to the detriment of the health, safety, and welfare of the
people of Carson.
With respect to the allegation regarding depreciated
assessed valuation, with the exception of fiscal year 1995-96,
the Los Angeles County Assessor has imposed an inflation factor
of 2 percent over the past five years on secured property.
Therefore, the statement that secured assessed valuations are
expected to increase annually up to a maximum of 2 percent is
true and correct . The inflation factor for 1995-96 utilized by
all county assessors statewide was 1 . 19 percent . Additionally,
Table B-4 on page B-10 of the Report was revised to include the
City of Carson' s secured assessed valuations for fiscal years
1992-93 and 1993-94 in order to provide a better comparison
between the Added Area and the City (and shows an increase in
City assessed valuation from fiscal year 1994-95 to fiscal year
1995-96 while the Added Area suffered a decrease) . Unfor-
tunately, the County of Los Angeles is unable or unwilling to
provide this data for the County for these two years. Secured
assessed valuations for the Added Area, City, and County are not
readily available or easily accessible for fiscal year 1991-92 ;
therefore, a four year comparison was made rather than a five
year comparison.
With respect to the allegation regarding the data
contained in the Report' s discussion of declining industrial
property sales prices, it is stated in the Report that because
there are only 28 parcels in the Added Area and none have sold
recently, Citywide sales data of industrial properties was
utilized and used as an indicator for the Added Area. Since the
Added Area consists primarily of industrial parcels, it is
reasonable to assume that the Citywide industrial data is
applicable to the Added Area. Given such large decreases in
sales values, shown in Table B-6 of the Report, it is reasonable
to assume that these decreases are attributable to more than the
overall decline of real estate values in the region.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-4
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 12. of 27
With respect to the allegation that the discussion of
business license information in the Report is misleading, it is
true that the Added Area is very small and there was a decrease
of only two licenses from 1994 to 1995 . However, Table B-7 shows
a steady decrease in the Added Area in the number of business
licenses issued from 1992 to 1995 (compared to Citywide increases
or a much smaller decrease [from 1994 to 95] for the same time
period) . It is this three years of decreases, and not just one
year, that is significant and reflective of the overall decline
of the Added Area.
With respect to the allegation that the analysis of
crime is misleading, the correlation between the Added Area and
reporting districts is that the County of Los Angeles Sheriff' s
Department, which provides police services to the City, tabulates
its crime data by reporting districts. The County Sheriff ' s
Department identified and provided data for their reporting
districts which cover the Added Area. The Added Area constitutes
only a small portion (less than 20 percent) of each of the three
districts . Nonetheless, reporting district data was used in the
crime analysis because crime data is not available on a parcel
level . In response to the comment that Table B-8 actually shows
a significant decrease in criminal activity over the four year
period, there was a significant increase from 1994 to 1995 in the
number of crimes committed, which indicates that there is
currently an increasing crime rate.
With respect to the allegation that the discussion of
building permit activity is invalid, Citywide data was used as an
indicator for the Added Area because building permit data is not
currently available for only the Added Area. Because the
majority of the Added Area is comprised of industrial property,
and as shown on Table B-9, the industrial valuation of building
permits issued dropped by over $30 million from 1994 to 1995, it
can be reasonably concluded that Citywide conditions are
comparable to the Added Area. Such a significant decrease of
over $30 million in industrial valuation of building permits
cannot only be attributed to reduced real estate development
activity in the entire Southern California region.
With respect to the allegation that the discussion of
inadequate public infrastructure consists entirely of conclusory
statements, the discussion of inadequate public infrastructure on
page B-14 of the Report is based on previous City studies
conducted in 1994 and the City' s Five Year Capital Improvement
Plan. These studies identify the inadequate infrastructure
cataloged in the Report . RSG subsequently verified with the City
(during the amendment preparation process) that the listed
infrastructure was still considered inadequate.
With respect to the allegation that the Report
mistakenly states that the Added Area is contiguous to existing
project areas because one parcel (located on Lomita Boulevard
approximately midway between Main Street and Avalon Boulevard) is
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-5
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 13 of 27
not contiguous and does not appear to be described, the area in
question is actually comprised of three parcels which are
contiguous to the area being added via a portion of the Lomita
Boulevard right-of-way. Even though Exhibit 1 of the Report does
not clearly show that the area in question is contiguous,
Exhibit A in the Fifth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area No. Two and the full size map sent to the State
Board of Equalization, Los Angeles County Assessor and the other
affected taxing entities shows the area as being contiguous . The
full size map of the Added Area was also on display at the public
information meeting held on April 16, 1996 and at the Joint
Public Hearing held on June 18, 1996 . The conditions of this
area are included as part of the third subarea discussion on page
B-8 of the Report . The Report documents, on pages B-9 through B-
14, that each of the noncontiguous areas suffers from physical
and economic blighting conditions which predominate in each area
and injuriously affect the Added Area.
With respect to the allegation that the method of
relocation is inadequate and incorrectly attaches the relocation
assistance law instead of the Relocation Guidelines, the Agency
has adopted and intends to comply with the State Department of
Housing and Community Development Relocation Guidelines . The
correct documents were properly incorporated by reference and the
clerical error regarding the wrong attachment has been corrected.
In an effort to provide the most meaningful method of relocation
to guide Agency activities, the Agency' s Method of Relocation for
the Carson Merged and Amended Project Area is general in nature
(because the need to relocate households, if such need arises,
will arise from activities years in the future) , yet it provides
for a concise procedure for the Agency to follow to evaluate and
plan for any displacements which may be created by Agency
activities . Prior to commencement of any acquisition activity
which will cause displacement of residents, the Agency will adopt
a specific relocation plan in accordance with the Redevelopment
Law. The Agency' s current acquisition efforts in Project Area
No. Two were initiated by the preparation of a detailed site
specific relocation plan as called for in the Agency' s prior and
current Method of Relocation.
With respect to the allegation that the Neighborhood
Impact Report is not sufficiently detailed and that a project
area committee should have been formed, the Neighborhood Impact
Report provides a reasonable amount of detail given that the
Agency' s implementation plan for the Added Area only calls for
the improvement of infrastructure . The Neighborhood Impact
Report provides a best and worst case scenario of revitalization
of the Added Area by setting forth the maximum number of housing
units that could be affected over time (the Amended and Restated
Redevelopment Plan does not present a specific plan for the
redevelopment of any area, but instead, establishes a process and
framework for implementation over the duration of the
Redevelopment Plan). A project area committee was not
established because, as presented in the Report, there is
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-6
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 14 of 27
currently only 1 residential dwelling unit in the Added Area.
The other 188 dwelling units identified in the Neighborhood
Impact Report are planned units and will not be completed for
some time, if ever.
With respect to the allegation that the Comments and
Responses portion of the FEIR does not include three letters
received during the comment period, all three referenced letters
relate to the EIR for the Sixth Amendment to Project Area No. 1
(not to the subject EIR for the Fifth and Second Amendment) , and
are addressed in the Comments and Responses to that EIR.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Mr. Gale are hereby overruled and the suggestion that
the City Council and Agency not adopt the Amendments is not
accepted.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-3-7
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 15 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-4, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Ms . Kaye E.
Tucker, Tucker and Baum, on behalf of Robert Stein, Ronald Stein
and William Levine and TST, Inc . , addressed to the Mr. Adolfo
Reyes, dated May 15, 1996, and a written communication from
Ms . Kaye E. Tucker, on behalf of Alpert & Alpert Iron & Metal
Company I, Alpert & Alpert Iron & Metal, Inc . d/b/a Alpert &
Alpert, Inc . , and Clean Steel, Inc. , addressed to Mr. Adolfo
Reyes, dated May 16, 1996 .
In such communications, Ms . Tucker alleges that the
merger of Project Area No. Two and Project Area No. Three could
jeopardize the tax status of the existing debt for Project Area
No. Two (assuming that the merger results in the cancellation of
projects and/or programs in Project Area No. Two for which the
1992 and 1993 bonds were floated and the money earmarked in order
to use the money in Project Area No. Three and/or provide money
to a single owner in Project Area No. Three) .
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such written communication:
The Agency and the City Council, with advice from
Agency counsel, bond counsel, staff and consultants, is aware of
the limitations on the use of tax-exempt bond proceeds and the
Agency has no intention of using tax exempt bond proceeds in a
manner that would jeopardize such bonds' tax-exempt status . The
Agency intends to comply with all of its covenants with respect
to any outstanding bonds for Project Area No. Two or Project Area
No. Three, including any covenants regarding the maintenance of
the tax-exempt status of the bonds .
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Ms . Tucker are hereby overruled.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-4-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 16 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-5, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Ms . Kaye E.
Tucker, Tucker and Baum, on behalf of Robert Stein, Ronald Stein
and William Levine and TST, Inc. , addressed to Mr. Adolfo Reyes,
dated June 18, 1996 .
In such communication, Ms . Tucker repeats the concern
that the merger could jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the
existing debt . In addition, Ms . Tucker alleges that news of the
proposed merger will bring about more publicity and will continue
to lessen sales and rental activity, curtail maintenance of land
and buildings and forestall new development in the area. She
asserts that because the Agency does not have the funds necessary
to implement the Redevelopment Plan, the "stigma" damages TST is
likely to suffer in the future will increase by virtue of the
proposed merger.
Ms . Tucker also asserts (based on the Implementation
Plan dated December 21, 1994) that TST does not believe that
there will be any significant public benefit as a result of the
proposed merger because the Agency will not be able to acquire
the properties in Project Area No. Three necessary to carry out
the goals of the Plan.
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
With respect to the concern regarding the tax-exempt
status of outstanding bonds, that concern has been addressed in
Exhibit B-4 .
With respect to the concern that news of the merger
will lessen sales and rental activity, curtail maintenance of
land and buildings and forestall new development in the area, the
City Council and Agency anticipates that the merger will provide
the Agency with the needed flexibility and resources to address
blight within Project Area No. Two, Project Area No. Three and
the Added Area, thereby stimulating interest and investment in
the areas and encouraging property owners to maintain their
properties . The City Council anticipates that such effects will
be positive in that it is the goal of the City Council and the
Agency to improve and enhance the conditions in Project Area No.
Two, Project Area No. Three and the Added Area by undertaking
appropriate redevelopment projects pursuant to the Redevelopment
Law. Implementation of the redevelopment plan for the merged
project area will improve the economic and physical conditions in
the project areas and promote the health, safety and welfare of
the residents and taxpayers of the area.
With respect to the allegation that the Agency does not
have the funds necessary to implement the redevelopment plan and
acquire property in Project Area No. Three, the Agency' s
inability to finance redevelopment activities in Project Area No.
Three is one of the primary reasons for consideration of the
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-5-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 17 of 27
merger. Because Project Area No. Two and Project Area No. Three
are adjacent to one another, the blighting conditions found in
one area adversely effect the revitalization of the other area.
The merger will allow the Agency to pursue and fund
revitalization of both areas in a coordinated manner, thereby
creating the greatest benefit with the least amount of funds
expended. Under the Redevelopment Law, tax increment
attributable to each constituent project area may be allocated to
the entire merged project area to finance the merged
redevelopment project (except that tax increment will first be
used to pay indebtedness to the extent that prior to the merger,
the Agency incurred indebtedness on behalf of a constituent
project area) . The City Council disagrees with the allegation
that what is in the Five Year Plan with regard to projects and
revenues is not feasible. The Report in Section E provides
detailed financial estimates of revenues and expenditures for the
merged project area and provides updates to the five-year cash
flow and makes findings showing the merger is feasible .
Consistent with established Agency policies, the Agency
will move forward with the revitalization of Project Area No.
Three by prudently using its financial resources . It will select
only those projects that have the highest opportunity to succeed
and have the greatest impact on Project Area No. Three, Project
Area No. Two and the City at large . Further, the Agency will not
proceed with a specific revitalization project without first
studying estimated project costs . The examination of project
costs would include, if applicable, property acquisition costs,
relocation assistance costs, and compensable loss of goodwill
costs . Only after reviewing such costs and determining that it
has the financial resources available would the Agency consider
pursing such a project . The Agency will continue its practice of
encouraging owner participation in redevelopment activities in
both Project Area No. Two and Project Area No. Three, as well as
assisting or providing needed infrastructure to support its
redevelopment activities .
The Agency' s Five Year Implementation Plan sets forth
the Agency' s desired projects and programs to meet the Five Year
Plan' s goals and objectives. The Five Year Plan additionally
estimates the costs of these potential projects and programs, as
well as estimate anticipated revenues . The Five Year Plan was
amended in February of 1995 to provide for the redevelopment of
the Cormier Chevrolet site in Project Area No. Three. The Report
also provides an updated look at the extent of expenditures and
receipt of revenues since the Five Year Plan' s adoption in
December of 1994 . The Agency' s desire to merge Project Area No.
Two and Project Area No. Three reflects the Agency' s desire to
deal with the continuing blight in both areas, as well as the
need to better utilize Agency resources to implement its
revitalization efforts. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Law, the
Agency will hold a public hearing some time before December of
1996 to review its progress . As part of the Five Year Plan' s
review hearing, actual program expenditures and revenues will be
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-5-2
City Council Resolution N0. 96-065
Page 18 of 27
presented to the Agency including an update on the needs and
conditions within the project areas . The Agency may determine
that it is necessary to amend the Five Year Plan to address
specific concerns or may reallocate resources to programs and
projects according to need.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Ms . Tucker are hereby overruled.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-5-3
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 19 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-6, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Ms . Gretchen
B. Farrell and Ms . Kay Cummings, Carson Courtyard Cafe, addressed
to the Mayor and City Council, dated June 11, 1996 .
In such communication, Ms. Farrell and Ms. Cummings
express concern that two of the parcels they own (Parcel No.
7406-025-029 -- developed with a restaurant and Parcel No. 7406-
025-023 -- a corner vacant lot) are included in the Added Area,
but that a third parcel they own (Parcel No. 7406-025-028) is
not . They state their belief that it would be more beneficial if
all three parcels were treated alike and fear they may not be
able to develop all three parcels as a single parcel or to sell
the three parcels as a single parcel . They also fear that
putting the two parcels in a project area will produce even more
city restrictions which will make it difficult to develop the
properties and find tenants . They also express their disturbance
at being subject to eminent domain and having a cloud on their
title.
They also allege that Parcel No. 7406-025-029 is not
blighted and that Parcel No. 7406-025-023 is too small to
develop, except in conjunction with the other contiguous parcels .
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
The City Council' s and Agency' s purpose of adding area
to Project Area No. Two was to identify and include only those
parcels which were found to be blighted or necessary for
effective redevelopment . Only two of the three parcels referred
to in the letter qualified to be in a redevelopment project area.
At the time of conducting the survey which documented the
conditions existing in the Added Area, the parcel developed with
the restaurant was in need of redevelopment . The corner parcel
was and still is of substandard size and vacant and, therefore,
in need of redevelopment . Although the restaurant has been
refurbished, this parcel is necessary for effective redevelopment
because of its proximity to the small vacant corner parcel .
City staff and the Agency' s redevelopment consultant
have explained in detail procedures for applying for a
Certificate of Conformance . When an application for a
Certificate of Conformance is submitted, the Agency will review
the application and grant or deny the Certificate of Conformance.
If a Certificate of Conformance is granted, the Agency waives its
right of eminent domain with respect to the property pursuant to
certain conditions being met . Agency staff has advised the
owners that there is a strong possibility that the restaurant
parcel will qualify for a Certificate of Conformance. In any
event, the Agency intends to accomplish all redevelopment with as
little displacement as possible and will make every effort to
accomplish redevelopment without the use of eminent domain. A
goal of the Agency and City Council is to accomplish the
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-6-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 20 of 27
retention and expansion of as many existing businesses as
possible by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities
and by encouraging and assisting the cooperation and
participation of owners and businesses. There are no current
plans to condemn the owners' property.
Inclusion of two of the three parcels in a
redevelopment project area will not diminish the owners' control
of the two parcels and will not hinder the ability of the small
corner parcel from borrowing parking from the adjacent larger
parcel, especially when the parcels in question are owned by the
same persons . Similarly, the owners will not be precluded from
reconfiguring existing buildings, landscaping, and parking as
long as the reconfiguration meets City standards (reconfiguration
must meet City standards regardless of whether or not the parcels
are in a redevelopment project area) . Inclusion of the two
parcels in a redevelopment project area will not pose a threat to
the owners' ability to carry out a common architectural theme .
On the contrary, the Agency encourages adjacent buildings to have
one common architectural theme for design continuity. Because
the three parcels are owned by your family, the property can be
viewed as one large corner piece for purposes of selling them.
Inclusion of the two parcels in a redevelopment project
area will not necessarily produce more City restrictions . The
redevelopment plan provides for uses that are consistent with the
City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Ms . Farrell and Ms . Cummings are hereby overruled and
the suggestion to delete their property from the Added Area is
not accepted.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-6-2
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 21 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-7, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from
Mr. Gerald C. Weeks, Vice President, Watson Land Company,
addressed to the City, dated June 17, 1996 .
In such communication, Mr. Weeks requests further
clarification of two issues prior to certification of the FEIR
for the Fifth Amendment and the Second Amendment, as follows :
1 . The DEIR assumes a potential buildout of
approximately 1 . 5 million square feet of new development in the
Watson Corporate Center, but Watson Land Company provided the
City with a development concept with 2 .2 million square feet of
new development at the Watson Corporate Center. Mr. Weeks
requests clarification that the amount of build-out potential
listed in the EIR for the Watson Corporate Center is not intended
to be, and will not be construed in the future, as a finite
limitation of future development, but is merely intended to be an
indication of a range of the level of development that may occur
in the future for purposes of analyzing the overall potential
environmental impacts from development within the project area.
2 . Mr. Weeks requests clarification in the FEIR that
all future development projects within the Project Area will be
required to participate in a fair-share funding program to
provide needed improvements at intersections for acceptable
levels of service.
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such written communication:
The comment is a comment on the EIR, not an objection
to the Redevelopment Plan. All comments on the EIR timely
received are addressed in the Comments and Responses portion of
the Final EIR. Comment A-7 was received after the public comment
period on the EIR was closed; thus, no response is required to be
contained in the EIR. Accordingly, no response is required from
the City or Agency. Nevertheless, the City Council responds as
follows :
Regarding the first comment, the amount of build-out
potential listed in the EIR for the Watson Corporate Center is
not intended to be a finite limitation of future development . A
project specific EIR will be prepared for the Watson Corporate
Center; the contract with a consultant to prepare that EIR has
already been executed.
Regarding the second comment, the formula for a fair-
share funding program has not yet been established. The funding
mechanism for these improvements will be established at the
appropriate time; this program EIR is not the appropriate vehicle
for that purpose.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-7-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 22 of 27
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Mr. Weeks are hereby overruled.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-7-2
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 23 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-8, " which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Mr. David
Yamahara, Assistant Deputy Director, Planning Division, County of
Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, addressed to Mr. James
Campbell, City of Carson, dated May 21, 1996 .
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
The comment is a comment on the EIR, not an objection
to the Amendments. All comments on the EIR timely received are
addressed in the Comments and Responses portion of the Final EIR.
Comment A-8 was received after the public comment period on the
EIR was closed; thus, no response is required to be contained in
the EIR. Accordingly, no response is required from the City or
Agency. Nevertheless, the City Council responds as follows :
Drainage Planning
The commentator states that there are several unmet
storm drainage needs in the proposed project area, and that these
should be addressed. Mitigation Measure W-1 specifies that
individual projects should be reviewed by the City and that their
drainage characteristics accommodated with proper design.
As a separate but related matter, the Carson Street
storm drain between Wilmington and Alameda would be improved as
part of the public improvement program. Please see Section 3 . 7 . 1
of the Project Description.
Environmental Programs
The commentator discusses particulars of the California
Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 . The EIR
discusses the City' s compliance efforts with this and AB 939 in
Section 5 . 10, Utilities and Services. The EIR provides the
mitigation measures to mitigate cumulative impacts. Please see
measures US-7 (a) , (b) , and (c) . The commentator' s suggestion to
provide standards for "waste storage areas" is noted, and will be
considered by the decision-makers .
The commentator discusses information provided in the
EIR regarding the shortage of Los Angeles County landfill space,
and the impact of demolition activity on the solid waste stream.
See preceding response, and proposed mitigation measure US-7 (b) ,
which encourages use of recycled materials in new construction.
The EIR includes a discussion of hazardous materials in
Section 5 . 7, Hazards . The issue of household hazardous waste is
noted. All proposed new development would be required to comply
with federal, state, regional, and local law and ordinances
related to the disposal of such materials .
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-8-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 24 of 27
Hydraulic/Water Conservation
In response to this information, page 5 .4-1 of the EIR
will be modified as follows :
Historically, flooding problems have occurred in
low lying areas and in areas where slopes are very flat and
peak storm flows are unable to be quickly conveyed into the
stormwater collection system. The City is divided by the
Dominguez Channel, a regional flood control system operated
and maintained by the County of Los Angeles Department of
; ji' ;i;; g Flows in the City are
conveyed by several networks of large drainage facilities to
Dominguez Channel . Areas of the City that do not convey
flows to the Dominguez Channel include the very southwest
portion of the City and two smaller areas to the northeast .
The EIR incorporates the City of Carson Master Plan of
Drainage (1987) by reference. Page 6 if that document states
that the level of protection assumed is 10- , 25- year events .
Facilities that are served by sumps or natural water courses are
assumed to provide 25-year event protection. Street flow and
storm drains are assumed to handle 10-year events .
The commentator reminds the City of Carson that, for
storm drainage systems that would be transferred to the County of
Los Angeles, county standards must be met .
The information that the Master Plan of Drainage states
that a reasonable level of flood protection is provided and that
two locations are susceptible to flooding hazards is not
necessarily inconsistent . The Master Plan recommends follow-up
study, prioritization of improvements, and pursuit of new funding
mechanisms for areas which experience flooding problems .
The commentator recommends that the City consider on-
site detention basins as an alternative to the production of
storm drainage systems . He outlines several benefits of this
approach to flood control, which are duly noted. It should be
noted that the proposed project is a highly urbanized
environment, and that the flood control system is largely in
place . In some cases, larger redevelopment projects may have an
opportunity to incorporate on-site retention or retardation
systems, and such an approach would be desirable.
Materials Engineering
The commentator reiterates information provided in the
EIR. Please see Section 5 .3 , Geologic Problems .
Traffic and Lighting
Measures to mitigate project impacts area outlined in
the Draft EIR. The ICU calculation sheets provided in the
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 13-8-2
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 25 of 27
Technical Appendix indicate that these measures will adequately
mitigate the project impacts to a level of insignificance. The
technical evaluations applied in the traffic analysis are
consistent with those outlined in the County' s Traffic/Access
Guidelines .
Due to the relatively large size of the project area, a
list of study intersections was developed in consultation with
City staff and the City' s Consulting Traffic Engineer to provide
representative data regarding the potential impacts assuming
maximum allowable development data of all parcels in the project
area. As plans are submitted for development of individual
parcels, a more focused review will be applied by the City of the
roadway system that will be the most immediately impacted and any
related improvements will be conditioned to these projects .
Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance
In response to the comment, Section 5 . 10, Utilities and
Services, will be modified as follows :
The City of Carson contracts with the County
Sanitation Districts (CSD) of Los Angeles County to maintain
the sewer lines within the City limits . The project area is
within County Sanitation District #8 . CSD is—pai-t of—the
Les Aiageles GeuntyDepartment of Publie Werks and is located
in Whittier.
The EIR, a program level document analyzing a
redevelopment plan, cannot analyze site specific projects with a
reasonable degree of accuracy at this time. Instead, the program
EIR addresses site development-specific impacts through
mitigation measure US-3, which requires individualized sewer
studies which could be used by both City and County to understand
case-by-case impacts on lines.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Mr. Yamahara are hereby overruled and the suggestions
made by Mr. Yamahara are not accepted, except as otherwise
indicated herein.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-8-3
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 26 of 27
The preceding Exhibit "A-9, which is incorporated
herein by reference, is a written communication from Mr. Bill
Piazza, Environmental Health and Safety Branch, Los Angeles
Unified School District, addressed to Ms. Joan Friedman, dated
June 17, 1996 .
In such communication, Mr. Piazza responds to the
City' s response to the District' s concerns regarding air quality
impacts associated with projects involving heavy construction and
related earthmoving activities. He alleges that it appears that
the City discounts regulatory guidance and the appropriate
methodology to assess air quality impacts and does not provide
for a reasonable disclosure of the project' s potential to degrade
local air quality. He further alleges that the City' s reliance
on Section 15145 of CEQA is not valid for failure to conduct a
"thorough investigation. " He also alleges that the City further
discounted the need to prepare an appropriate analysis by noting
that CEQA Section 15146 (b) does not require a detailed analysis
for construction projects prepared under the auspices of an
"amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general
plan, " but that this Section does not preclude the City form
preparing an analysis with enough detail to determine project
significance . He alleges that the City' s claim of no impact
appears speculative and that the City provides no quantification
or related documentation to validate the viability of their claim
that the mitigation measures will be effective nor do they
dispute the District' s analysis and conclusion of potential
significance; and that the determination of impact presented by
the District remains unmitigated. The District requests that the
FEIR contain the following:
"The City of Carson and the Los Angeles Unified School
District (LAUSD) shall develop a mutually acceptable
methodology for a detailed analysis of construction
related emissions . The methodology shall involve
coordination with LAUSD staff to develop an approach,
mitigation measures, control efficiencies to be applied
to site-specific activities, as well as appropriate
mitigation measures beyond standard regulatory require-
ments where on-site control measures are not effective
in reducing impacts to a level of significance . "
The following are the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
The comment is a comment on the EIR, not an objection
to the Amendments . All comments on the EIR timely received are
addressed in the Comments and Responses portion of the Final EIR.
Comment A-9 was received after the public comment period on the
EIR was closed; thus, no response is required to be contained in
the EIR. Accordingly, no response is required from the City or
Agency. Nevertheless, the City Council responds as follows :
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B_9-1
City Council Resolution No. 96-065
Page 27 of 27
The comment consists of an objection to the response
offered to the May 14, 1996 letter from Joan Friedman of the
District, contained in the Comments and Responses section of the
FEIR. The City stands by the previous responses . As part of the
previous response, a modified form of the requested new
mitigation measure was added to Section 5 . 9 (Public Services) of
the EIR. See page 9-32 of Comments and Responses portion of
FEIR.
Regarding the comment that the City did not undertake a
thorough analysis of air quality impacts, the comment ignores the
fact that this is a program EIR, prepared for a redevelopment
plan. As such, the City does not know at this time the precise
location of each specific development project authorized by the
redevelopment plan. If appropriate, additional site specific air
quality analysis will be prepared for specific development
projects .
The City Council finds that on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific response, the objections
stated by Mr. Piazza are hereby overruled.
960628 C1371-00001 sas 1672598 1 B-9-2