Report to Mayor and City Council
Wednesday, February 15, 2023
Special Orders of the Day
SUBJECT:
Title
CARSON 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP/STUDY SESSION (CITY COUNCIL)
Body
I. SUMMARY
This Zoom Workshop/Study Session is intended to present to and receive input on the Carson 2040 General Plan Update by the City Council and the community. The Workshop/Study Session is not intended for City Council to take action on the General Plan. A public hearing has been scheduled for February 21, 2023 for the City Council to consider the Carson 2040 General Plan Update and the associated Final EIR (Exhibit 1). The direction and input obtained during the Workshop/Study Session will be reflected in the February 21, 2023 final resolution.
On January 10, 2023, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the 2040 General Plan update and its associated Final EIR to the City Council. In addition to the written correspondence, during the public hearing several community members provided comments. Additional written comments have been received after the Planning Commission hearing and have been included in this staff report (Exhibit 2).
The staff report summarizes the comments provided to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the City Council regarding these comments. In addition, the staff report includes comments received after the Planning Commission hearing. As a result, staff has included options for the City Council to consider on the main topics that are of interest to the community. These topics include legal non-conforming uses, Business Residential Mixed Use Land Use Designation, the Shell property, Economic Development Strategic Plan, and community outreach. Finally, the latter part of the staff report includes a summary report of the 2040 General Plan Update and the Final EIR.
For City Council’s convince Exhibits 3, Description of Land Use Classifications, and Exhibit 4, Land Use Map (included as a separate attachment) have been included in the staff report.II. RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
TAKE the following actions:
1. OPEN the Public Hearing, TAKE public testimony, and CLOSE the Public Hearing; AND
2. PROVIDE direction to staff regarding the Carson 2040 General Plan Update.
Body
III. ALTERNATIVES
TAKE another action the City Council deems appropriate, consistent with the requirements of the law.
IV. BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Actions and Public Comments During the Hearing
The following provides a summary of the written comments received after the preparation of the Planning Commission Agenda (regular font statements are from the commentors and the bold statements are added by staff):
1. Arnold Ng, Broker. He stated that the General Plan designation for Anelo should remain Light Industrial and should not be changed to Business Residential Mixed Use and residential uses are not appropriate for the area because of proximity to the freeways and power lines.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council did not change the Business Residential Mixed-Use designation.
2. Malcolm Orland, El Cordova Apartments Representative. He was interested in the zoning for the Southbay Pavilion Mall area as well as environmental viability of proposing an 18-acre park on the Shell property.
The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council did not change the land use designation of the SouthBay Pavilion Mall. Once a project is proposed for the Shell site, the CEQA environmental process would identify potential issues, if any, related to using this site as a park. No changes related to this comment are proposed to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan.
3. Bob Dicks, Shell USA, SoCal Facilities Manager. He stated the Shell property is going through a long-term remediation program and land suitable for residential development will not be available by 2040. In addition, existing operations of the site including the Shell Terminal is expected to continue.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of the Shell site. All existing operations on the Shell site will become legal non-conforming uses. Legal non-conforming uses will be addressed with the adoption of the new Zoning Code that will be considered later this year by the Planning Commission and City Council.
4. Anderson Mario, Scottsdale resident. He provided various opinions regarding the General Plan’s pros and cons. Some pros included high density housing, relaxed parking standards, walking citywide network, moving away from heavy industry and trucking. Some cons included the need for safe bike routes, transit connection to the Silver Line and the Blue Line.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the Planning Commission Draft General Plan as a result of this letter. Engineering staff is working on designing safe bike routes throughout the City. In addition, the City’s new bus routes, through Long Beach Transit, provide connections for riders to reach the Blue Line and Silver Line.
5. Virgil Cicoria, property owner. He pointed out a mapping error regarding 19203-19213 South Figueroa-at Anelo which shows the property as Park/Open Space instead of Business Residential Mixed Use. States his opposition to changing the General Plan designation for Anelo area from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use. Residential uses are not appropriate for the area because of proximity to the existing truck traffic, pollution, and lack of sewer.
Staff acknowledged the mapping error for this property. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to change the land use designation of this property from Park/Open Space to Business Residential Mixed Use.
6. Peggie Collin, Esq. representing Charles Walker and Lee Aceves. 18903 Anelo Avenue. She is opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
7. Loren Miles, HEG Trust, Trustee, 18900 South Broadway. He is opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
8. Hanson Bridgett, representing Watson Land Company. Watson Land included the following comments:
a. Certain land use changes proposed by the General Plan will potentially have significant direct and indirect, as well as cumulative, environmental effects that would result from the displacement of logistics, warehousing, and distribution uses outside the City.
Since this comment was made during the 45-day review period of the DEIR, the FEIR includes the appropriate response. Please refer to page 55 (PDF Page #) of the FEIR for this response. The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to make changes to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan or FEIR.
b. Flex District.
i. Requested to add “but not limited to” before list of uses allowed in the Flex District.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to add “but not limited to”.
ii. Property located on the northwest corner of University and Wilmington should either retain its existing Light Industrial designation or the proposed Flex District be revised to not allow residential uses for this property.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to make changes to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan or FEIR.
However, staff recognizes that proposing residential development on this property would have to be carefully planned to ensure proper buffering is provided between proposed residential uses and existing or proposed non-residential uses.
iii. Truck yards, container yards, container parking, storage yards, and truck terminals are currently prohibited by the General Plan in the Flex District. They should all be permitted.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to allow all the above uses as ancillary to an otherwise permitted primary use. However, staff would like to clarify and recommend that the ancillary uses should only include truck parking (with or without the trailer) and container storage (with or without chassis and only single stack) and shall be screened from public view. Otherwise, truck yards, container yards, container parking, storage yards, and truck terminals are prohibited.
iv. Eliminate “South of Del Amo Boulevard and”.
Eliminating this phrase would allow development of buildings over 30,000 square feet without a Development Agreement for all properties with a Flex District designation. The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to make changes to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan regarding this comment.
c. Light Industrial
i. Truck yards, container yards, container parking, storage yards, and truck terminals are currently prohibited by the General Plan in the Light Industrial district. They should all be permitted.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to allow all the above uses as ancillary to an otherwise permitted primary use. However, staff would like to clarify and recommend that the ancillary uses should only include truck parking (with or without the trailer) and container storage (with or without chassis and only single stack) and shall be screened from public view. Otherwise, truck yards, container yards, container parking, storage yards, and truck terminals are prohibited.
d. Heavy Industrial
i. Deleted “Outdoor storage operations may be permitted ancillary to primary use of site.”
The deletion of this sentence means that outdoor storage would be permitted as primary use of the site. The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to make changes to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan regarding this comment.
ii. Truck yards, container yards, container parking, storage yards, and truck terminals are currently prohibited by the General Plan in the Heavy Industrial district. They should all be permitted.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to allow all the above uses as ancillary to an otherwise permitted primary use. However, staff would like to clarify and recommend that the ancillary uses should only include truck parking (with or without the trailer) and container storage (with or without chassis and only single stack) and shall be screened from public view. Otherwise, truck yards, container yards, container parking, storage yards, and truck terminals are prohibited.
iii. Requested adding “or” before major recycling facilities and requested deletion of “or truck terminals would not be permitted”.
As stated above, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to not allow truck terminals. However, staff would like to clarify and recommend “or” should not be added. Furthermore, staff would like to clarify and recommend that the phrase “would not be permitted” should be deleted as it is a repetition of the phrase in the beginning of the sentence that prohibits the listed uses. In addition, “and should be added before truck terminals.
e. Land Use Guiding Policy LUR-G-14 (redline and strike out proposed by the commentor)
Ensure that future industrial development is in harmony to the extent possible with adjacent residential areas. To this end, new logistics buildings must should ideally have easy access to freeways and the Alameda corridor. When feasible, truck routes should be designed to pre-vent trucks passing on truck routes next to residential areas.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to make the requested revisions above and recommended to add the heavy corridor truck route to Figure 3-9 of the 2040 General Plan.
f. Land Use Guiding Policy LUR-G-15, (redline and strike out proposed by the commentor)
Prioritize uses that provide services to the community, generate sales tax, generate good paying jobs, or provide other benefits to the community. Discourage uses that do not support these objectives, including limiting industrial uses with heavy truck traffic.
The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to make the requested revisions above.
g. Land Use Implementing Policy LUR-P-19(redline and strike out proposed by the commentor)
Provide lands to accommodate a wide range of light industrial uses including research and development, manufacturing, and agricultural processing near transportation corridors in areas where low- to moderate intensity operations would be sufficiently buffered. Logistics and other heavy trucking uses shall be limited to industrial areas that provide direct access to freeways and the Alameda corridor.
A Circulation Element policy (CIR-P-31) requires the City to conduct a comprehensive truck route study to ensure protection of the residential areas as much as possible. The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council to delete the last sentence as requested to be modified to read as follows:
Logistics and other heavy trucking uses are preferred to be located in close proximity to truck routes as established by Figure 3-9 of the 2040 General Plan or truck routes as identified by a future truck route study to be conducted by the City.
h. Land Use Implementing Policy LUR-P-21, (redline and strike out proposed by the commentor)
Where feasible Rrequire outdoor storage associated with use/building/business to be screened from any public view, including from adjacent streets as well as residential and commercial uses. This Policy shall not apply to master-planned uses.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to make changes to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan regarding this comment. Staff would like to clarify and recommend that these provisions apply to new developments.
i. The City is a prime location for warehousing and distribution, and trade-oriented land uses. It is puzzling to see that the City is now attempting to limit new and existing logistics, warehousing, and distribution facilities.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to make changes to the Planning Commission Draft General Plan regarding this comment.
9. Andrew Gage, Broker. Provided the following comments:
a. How will the general plan be implemented? If a warehouse in the flex zone is used for warehousing/distribution currently, will a new tenant with the same use be granted a business license?
Some uses may become legal non-conforming uses depending on the nature of the uses and their location. Legal non-conforming uses will be addressed with the adoption of the new Zoning Code that will be considered later this year by the Planning Commission and City Council.
b. Truck Yards: will there be NO truck yards approved once the update is adopted? Will existing truck yards with term CUPs have difficulty in getting a renewed/new CUP?
No truck yards will be approved as a primary use. Legally approved truck yards will become legal non-conforming uses. Legal non-conforming truck yards uses will be addressed with the adoption of the new Zoning Code that will be considered later this year by the Planning Commission and City Council.
c. Will existing uses/tenants be impacted? Is there a timeline called for to comply with the new General plan update?
Some uses may become legal non-conforming depending on the nature of the uses and their location. Legal non-conforming uses will be addressed with the adoption of the new Zoning Code that will be considered later this year by the Planning Commission and City Council.
d. Is the general plan update only meant to impact future development (meaning no impact on current facilities that are faced with the need to re-tenant)?
Some uses may become legal non-conforming depending on the nature of the uses and their location. Legal non-conforming uses will be addressed with the adoption of the new Zoning Code that will be considered later this year by the Planning Commission and City Council.
e. How is the concern of property value being addressed in the General Plan? Example, on a 1-acre Industrial site, you could sell to an industrial user at around $5,000,000 - $7,000,000. If that same site was zoned mixed use, flex, or residential, the value of that site would be reduced by 50% or more.
The General Plan uses land use principles to establish land uses throughout the City. Therefore, it is not based on economic impacts on land values.
Post Planning Commission Public Comments
The following comments were received after the Planning Commission meeting:
10. Mark Armbruster. Provided the following comments:
a. Interested in the Heavy Industry areas and what will be the allowed primary uses and ancillary uses.
Staff provided link to the General Pan Land Use Designation descriptions. The General Plan typically provides a very broad spectrum of uses allowed for each land use designation. After adoption of the General Plan, the City will have to adopt a Zoning Code that will identify more specific uses that will be allowed in each zone.
b. In the Land Use section, it states “Outdoor storage operations may be permitted ancillary to primary use of the site.” What primary uses will be permitted? It says that Outdoor Storage operations MAY be permitted. Does that mean there would need to be a discretionary approval for an outdoor storage area ancillary to the primary use?
Outdoor storage maybe permitted means that when approving projects for a primary use, if outdoor storage is requested, staff can work with the applicant to ensure outdoor storage is placed where it is safe (i.e. doesn’t block fire lanes, etc.) and also is not placed where required parking is proposed. Screening outdoor storage areas from public view would also be very important. If outdoor storage is not identified as a need when primary use is approved, the business can still request it and will be approved administratively most of the time and the same issues identified above will be considered when approving it.
c. Also, if the GP update is adopted, how will it be implemented?
The General Plan will be implemented by a new zoning code. An interim zoning code will be adopted first. This will allow the City to continue processing development applications that are already submitted to the City or will be submitted to the City shortly after the General Plan is adopted. Shortly after, the City will adopt a brand new Zoning Code.
d. Will existing non-conforming uses be grandfathered and for how long? Will the City adopt a new zoning ordinance for consistency with the GP?
Legal non-conforming uses will be addressed with the adoption of the new Zoning Code that will be considered later this year by the Planning Commission and City Council.
11. Shultz Properties, Inc, Steven Shultz. Property owner for 18421 S Main Street, He is opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use. As it would reduce the property value.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
12. Neil Cummings, Esq. Co-Trust, Carroll Hall Shelby Trust, 19021 S. Figueroa Street. He is opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
13. Christine Gutierrez, She is concerned about the increase in housing density in her neighborhood located in the Low Medium Density Residential Mix Use designation. She is concerned about increased traffic on Figueroa and Sepulveda She stated that most families have 3-4 cars. Increasing the density will only add more cars and ruin our neighborhood.
This change in zoning to Low Medium Mix (LMX) may in additional density or other more robust housing opportunities when certain requirements are met. This change was dictated to the City by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a condition of approval of the City’s Housing Element. The General Plan is now simply being made consistent with the Housing Element.
14. Mary Lea Hopkins Guzman, a Resident of Carson for 66 years. She is concerned about the increase in housing density in her neighborhood located in the Low Medium Density Residential Mix Use designation. She is concerned about increased traffic on Figueroa and Sepulveda. She stated that most families have 3-4 cars. Increasing the density will only add more cars and ruin our neighborhood.
This change in zoning to Low Medium Mix (LMX) may in additional density or other more robust housing opportunities when certain requirements are met. This change was dictated to the City by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a condition of approval of the City’s Housing Element. The General Plan is now simply being made consistent with the Housing Element.
15. Richard Morallo, Carson resident, He is concerned about the increase in housing density in his neighborhood located in the Low Medium Density Residential Mix Use designation. He further inquired whether gated communities are exempt from the plan’s proposal to change the density from low- to low-medium?
This change in zoning to Low Medium Mix (LMX) may in additional density or other more robust housing opportunities when certain requirements are met. This change was dictated to the City by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as a condition of approval of the City’s Housing Element. The General Plan is now simply being made consistent with the Housing Element.
16. Jason Newton. He lives outside of the City in the 90502 zip code. He states that higher density development through predatory pricing software would drive the rents higher for everyone.
N/A
17. Unknown. I do not agree with changing the very edge of Carson to be changed to medium density housing. We have great neighborhoods and do not need to change.
It is not clear which neighborhood the writer is referring to.
18. Thomas Donaldson, Property owner, 18925 Anelo Avenue. He is opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
19. Loren Miles, HEG Trust, Trustee, 18900 South Broadway. He is opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use.
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
20. Cicoria, Virgil Orlando (19203 S Figueroa), Hendricks Commercial Properties (19105 S Figueroa, no signature on the petition), Cummings Neil, Carroll Shelby (190202 Annalee) C and K Walker LLC (18903 Anello), Brown Michael, Brown Family Trust (19019 Anelo, no signature on the petition) Donaldson Thomas, Donaldson Family trust (18925 Anelo), They all signed a petition and are opposed to changing the General Plan designation from Light Industrial to Business Residential Mixed Use (some of these property owners had submitted separate letters that were discussed above).
The Planning Commission did not recommend the City Council to change the land use designation of this site from Business Residential Mixed Use to Light Industrial.
Options for Main Areas of Interest to the Community
The following provides a summary of major issues identified by the community and commenters. For each issue staff has provided some options for the City Council to consider:
Legal Non-conforming uses. Legal non-conforming uses were established when the zoning code allowed the uses but have since become prohibited or more restrictive due to change in zoning and zoning standards. Legal non-conforming uses are discussed in detail in the City’s current zoning code and will also be part of the upcoming Zoning Code update. Significant concerns have been raised by property and business owners on how legal non-conforming uses will be addressed. One property owner pointed that that the General Plan should provide flexibility to property owners to change the use of their property as market conditions and development patterns change. The mixed-use districts and the Flex District allow flexibility of uses for the property owners even though they may be more restrictive than the current General Plan Land Use Designations allow. However, the property/business owners are concerned about the status of the businesses currently occupying the buildings once the new land use regulation go into effect. In addition, if a legal non-conforming tenant moves out, will a similar new tenant be allowed to move into the same space?
The General Plan recommend by the Planning Commission does not contain policies on non-conforming uses. Since non-conforming uses are addressed in the Zoning Code, the City Council could consider providing direction to staff on how to address legal non-conforming uses in the upcoming Zoning Code update. Additional public input will be solicitated during the preparation of the Zoning Code which will be considered by the Planning Commission and ultimately by the City Council. The Council could provide direction based on the following:
a. Allow legal non-conforming uses to continue to operate for eternity and expand as needed; OR
b. Allow legal non-conforming uses to continue to operate until an amortization period is reached. The amortization period will be established by the Zoning Code.
c. Both provisions above (a and b) could include language that if a use moves out a similar use could move into the space if it is done in a certain period of time. The current zoning code terminates all non-conforming privileges if a building stays vacant for one year.
Business Residential Mixed Use. This designation allows non-nuisance light industrial uses, commercial uses, as well as residential uses. This General Plan Land Use Designation is used for 3 areas in the City:
a. An area bounded by Victoria Street along the north edge, Main Street along the east edge, and the I-405 and I-110 along the west and south edge and currently designated as Light Industrial (LI) and Heavy Industrial (HI).
b. An area bounded by Francisco, Main, and Figueroa currently designated as Mixed-Use Business Park, are proposed to be changed from Light Industrial (LI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) to Business Residential Mixed Use.
c. The Shell property which will be discussed separately below.
Several property owners in area a. have expressed concern about this change which they state, among other reasons, will significantly impact their property values. In addition, they have stated residential uses should not be allowed in this area as some properties are contaminated.
The following provides some options for City Council to consider:
a. Keep the designation Business Residential Mixed Use as recommended by the Planning Commission.
b. Keep the designation Business Residential Mixed Use as recommended by the Planning Commission; however, eliminate residential as a permitted use.
c. Keep the designations as they currently exist as LI and HI and adopt the following policies in the General Plan to protect the residential areas on the east side of Main Street:
1. Prohibit vehicular access to Main Street for properties that also have access to Broadway.
2. Use site design techniques such as placement of buildings along Main Street, or large setbacks, (or similar techniques and measures) to reduce the noise impacts to the residential areas on the east side of Main Street.
Shell Property. Separate from the written correspondence staff received from Shell, representatives from Shell stated during a Carson Chamber of Commerce meeting that the Shell property is under on-going remediation process which is expected to last beyond 2040. Shell also expressed concerns over allowing residential and park on the site as those uses may never materialize because of the contamination of the site. It should be noted that the current General Plan designation for the Shell site is a combination of Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Business Park. Staff has provided the following options for the Council to consider:
a. Keep the designation Business Residential Mixed Use as recommended by the Planning Commission which allows a mixture of uses including residential and park. The General Plan requires approval of a Specific Plan and the associated CEQA analysis prior to any development on the site. The CEQA document will address the contaminated nature of the site and appropriate Responsible Agencies such as DTSC and the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be consulted during the CEQA process. At that time a determination will be made whether residential or the park uses, if proposed, could be approved for the site and identify the required mitigation measures necessary to allow these uses in a safe manner.
b. Keep the designation Business Residential Mixed Use; however, prohibit residential.
c. Keep the designation Business Residential Mixed Use; however, prohibit the park.
d. Keep the designation Business Residential Mixed Use; however, prohibit residential and the park.
Economic Development Strategy Plan (EDSP). During a Carson Chamber of Commerce meeting some participants expressed concerns regarding approval of the General Plan prior to approval of the Economic Development Strategy Plan. The General Plan includes an Economic Development Element. During drafting of the General Plan, the City’s EDSP consultant reviewed the General Plan’s Economic Development Element and provided comments. The following is the General Plan’s Guiding Principles that are consistent with the efforts included in the EDSP:
ED-G-1. Promote a diversified economic base to foster economic resiliency and vibrancy, as well as a vibrant mix of employment opportunities to support and expand opportunities for the local workforce.
ED-G-2. Attract new industries that create high-value jobs, and promote training, education, and labor support programs that enhance the quality of the City’s workforce. Become a model city for worker and student education, training, and job placement.
ED-G-3. Strengthen the City’s identity as an industrial and manufacturing powerhouse while strengthening resiliency to changing economic conditions
ED-G-4. Foster a culture of entrepreneurship that supports development of new businesses, innovation, and creativity.
ED-G-5. Cultivate a city image that presents Carson as a livable and business-friendly community that strengthens the identity of a “full service” city with services and commercial and retail amenities for residents, workers, and visitors
ED-G-6. Create an identifiable Core centered at Carson Street/Avalon Boulevard, with a supportive mix of civic, office, retail, entertainment, and residential uses. Promote vibrancy, authenticity, and cultural diversity and a variety of events in the Core.
ED-G-7. Establish land use priorities based on economic criteria and sound fiscal planning; reserve sites for designated uses rather than accepting any development.
Staff believes the General Plan provides enough flexibility in all the elements including the Land Use Element to allow the implementation of the EDSP. However, if there is a need to update the adopted General Plan, that is certainly possible. There are other benefits for the adoption for the General Plan without waiting for the adoption of the EDSP including but not limited to getting started on the preparation and adoption of the Zoning Code which is needed for final certification of the Housing Element by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Staff has provided the following options for the Council to consider:
a. Consider adoption of the Carson 2040 General Plan Update at the February 21, 2023 City Council hearing. Furthermore, pursue the completion and adoption of the EDSP after consideration of the General Plan.
b. Delay considering the adoption of the Carson 2040 General Plan Update at the February 21, 2023 City Council hearing to after the completion and adoption of the EDSP.
Community Outreach Summary. During a Carson Chamber meeting some members expressed concerns regarding a lack of recent community outreach. The following provides a summary of community outreach for the General Plan and EIR.
General Plan
The following provides a summary of public outreach for the General Plan:
• General Plan Stakeholder Interviews, Sep. 2017
• General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) Meetings, Sep. 2017-June 2018
• Online Surveys: Visioning, April 2018 and Alternatives, May 2019
• Community Workshops: Visioning, Nov. 2017 and Alternatives, May 2019
• Housing Element Stakeholder Outreach, June 2021
• Environmental Justice Outreach, Sep. 2021
• Public participation period for the Preferred Plan from September 2, 2020 to October 25, 2020. Outreach included direct mail postcards to each Carson commercial and residential address, weekly email blasts to over 3,000 Carson stakeholders, a hotline available in English, Spanish and Tagalog languages, a dedicated email inbox and website, and social media posts to encourage stakeholders to share their comments. Stakeholders were also encouraged to write hard copy letters and place telephone calls to the Planning Division to share their comments.
• During public hearings, on December 1, 2020 and January 21, 2021, staff presented the key findings and community input on the Preferred Plan. The City Council approved the Preferred Plan as presented. Dyett & Bhatia and ESA, City’s CEQA consultant, based the 2040 General Plan Update and its associated Environmental Impact Report on the Preferred Plan as approved by the City Council.
• Citywide notices (about 47,000 notices) for the January 10, 2023 Planning Commission hearing.
• Citywide notices (about 47,000 notices) for the February 15, 2023 City Council Zoom Study Session and February 21, 2023 City Council Hearing.
Environmental Impact Report
The following provides a summary of public outreach for the EIR:
• Notice of Preparation informed the public that an EIR was being prepared for the General Plan Update and invited input from the public on the environmental topics to be addressed.
o First NOP - 39-day review period ended December 15, 2017.
o Recirculated NOP - 30-day review period ended April 16, 2021.
o Scoping meetings held on December 7, 2017 and April 14, 2021.
• Notice of Availability informed the public that Draft EIR was available and requested comments on the content of the document.
o Public meeting to take comment on the Draft EIR held on September 29, 2022.
o The 45-day review period for the DEIR ended on October 17, 2022.
Staff has provided the following options for the Council to consider regarding community participation:
a. Consider adoption of the Carson 2040 General Plan Update at the February 21, 2023 City Council hearing without further community outreach.
b. Delay considering the adoption of the Carson 2040 General Plan Update at the February 21, 2023 City Council hearing until further community outreach is completed.
It should also be noted that the General Plan is a living document and will be amended or updated as needed as proposed either by the City or by property owners.
History
The effort to update the 2004 General Plan began in the Fall of 2017. This update, Carson 2040, includes six phases. The Carson 2040 General Plan (General Plan) covers the Sphere of Influence of the City, which includes the City limits and some unincorporated areas to the northwest (north of Alondra) and east of the City (north of Del Amo and east of Wilmington). Three phases have been completed and the fourth phase will be completed with City Council’s consideration of this item. In the first phase, the consultant team produced an Existing Conditions Report that offered a detailed assessment of existing conditions, trends, and opportunities in the City. The report was developed using inputs from stakeholder interviews including City Council members, the community, and City Staff. On February 13, 2018 the consultant team shared the Existing Conditions Report at a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting.
In the second phase of the update process the consultant team assisted in developing the City’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. This effort was completed through extensive community outreach. Input was collected through an online survey, community workshops, stakeholder interviews, and General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) meetings. Decision-makers also provided input during a joint City Council and Planning Commission study session.
During the third phase, the consultant team produced three land-use alternatives and an Alternatives Report based on the previously established Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. To develop the three alternatives, potential “opportunity sites”-sites with greatest potential for land use change or intensification over the next 20 years-were identified within the Planning Area. This was accomplished by mapping vacant and underutilized parcels using Los Angeles County Assessor’s data, local knowledge, input from City staff and the community, and focused windshield surveys. The three land-use alternatives were then developed using the mapped opportunity sites along with input from stakeholders, decision makers and the GPAC. The three alternatives were also shared with the stakeholders who provided further input on them. Staff and the City’s General Plan consultant, Dyett & Bhatia, have incorporated the comments received from the community, stakeholders and decision makers and combined the three alternatives into one Preferred Plan.
During the public participation process for the Preferred Plan, the City of Carson’s Planning Division provided a comment period to the community from September 2, 2020 to October 25, 2020. Outreach included direct mail postcards to each Carson commercial and residential address, weekly email blasts to over 3,000 Carson stakeholders, a hotline available in English, Spanish and Tagalog languages, a dedicated email inbox and website, and social media posts to encourage stakeholders to share their comments. Stakeholders were also encouraged to write hard copy letters and place telephone calls to the Planning Division to share their comments.
On January 21, 2021, staff presented the key findings and community input on the Preferred Plan. The City Council approved the Preferred Plan as presented. Dyett & Bhatia and ESA, City’s CEQA consultant, based the 2040 General Plan Update and its associated Environmental Impact Report on the Preferred Plan as approved by the City Council.
General Plan
The 2040 General Plan update is a comprehensive update with 9 elements. It is designed to tailor the current 2004 General Plan to the needs of today’s Carson and anticipated futures needs of Carson. It introduces a greater mix of land uses to reflect new and changing priorities. It encourages sustainability through transit-oriented, mixed-use, infill development and greater opportunity and equity. It promotes development in the core area and provides greater diversity of non-residential uses. It includes a New Environmental Justice Element. The preparation of the General Plan ran parallel with Housing Element Update for 6th Cycle (2021-2029) which has already been approved by the City Council.
Vision Statement and Guiding Principles
A vision is an aspirational description of what the community would like to be in the future. It is a summary of the shared goals to be achieved by the Carson General Plan and, along with the guiding principles, sets policy direction. Guiding Principles guide the goals and policies listed in each element. The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles are based on input from the community, developed through stakeholder interviews, a community workshop and pop-up outreach, GPAC meetings, City Council and Planning Commission workshops, and an online community survey. Through the process of creating a vision as part of preparing the General Plan, community members provided their perceptions of future challenges, opportunities, and possibilities.
Vision
Earlier in the General Pan process the vision for the 2040 General Plan was established by the stakeholders. Carson in 2040 is a vibrant, diverse, and energetic place that embraces technology, creativity, and innovation. Residents have access to quality jobs, housing, education, services and a fiscally-sound government. Businesses have access to infrastructure, investment, workforce training, and a collaborative environment. The community is filled with thriving neighborhoods and strategically located new development with inviting spaces for working, living, learning, dining, gathering, and recreation.
Guiding Principals
1. Embrace development and technology that fosters an adaptable, modern city.
2. Promote vibrant, safe, and walkable mixed-use districts and neighborhoods, and revitalized corridors.
3. Provide a diverse array of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the community.
4. Support a diversified economy with a range of employment opportunities for all residents, a fiscally-sound local government, and investment in infrastructure.
5. Encourage development of regional-scale destinations, as well as neighborhood-serving retail and amenities.
6. Foster harmony between industrial and residential land uses.
7. Improve public health and sustainability.
8. Promote development of a cohesive open space system.
9. Enhance the public realm and promote quality design.
Emphasize a diversity of transportation modes and choices.
General Plan Elements
The General Plan includes the following elements:
• Land Use and Revitalization
• Circulation
• Community Character and Design
• Recreation and Active Lifestyle
• Community Health and Environmental Justice
• Community Services, Education, and Safety
• Open Space and Environmental Conservation
• Noise
• Economic Development
• Housing Element (published and approved separately)
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element includes new mixed-use and overlay Districts to allow for more flexibility in future development of the City. The following includes the new mixed Districts:
• Mixed Use Districts
o Downtown Mixed Use
o Corridor Mixed Use
o Flex District
o Business Residential Mixed Use
• Overlay Districts
o Mobile Home Park
o Commercial Automotive
Land Use Key Strategies
The General plan identifies the following key strategies:
1. Walkable, transit-accessible, mixed-use infill in Downtown Core
2. Range of uses to remediate industrial land in Flex District
3. Residential and light-industrial uses in Business Residential Mixed Use
4. Retaining and enhancing density and character of most existing neighborhoods
5. Re-envisioning the former Shell site
6. Designated Commercial Automotive District
7. Compatible uses and neighborhood centers in Flex District
8. Pedestrian, cyclist, and transit-friendly green streets along Greenway Corridors
Circulation Element
The following provides the main goals of the Circulation Element:
• Enhancing connection and access through multi-modal mobility such as citywide bike lanes and working with Metro, Caltrans, and SCAG.
• Utilizing Complete Streets concept to create safe roadways for all users including pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders.
• Meet local and regional transportation goals to benefit the community, businesses, and the environment
Community Character & Design Element
This element provides for community design goals for the Downtown Core, Neighborhood Villages, employment centers, and Greenway Corridors. This is proposed to be accomplished by neighborhood, community, and social connectedness as well as promoting attractive, safe, and walkable neighborhoods. The element strives to enhance the city’s visual identity and build sense of place and pride in Carson.
Recreation & Active Lifestyle Element
This element strives for maintaining and creating new recreational opportunities for the community. At General Plan buildout, the city will need approximately 85 new acres of parks including greenway corridors and community spaces at rate of 1.9 acres per 1,000 people. The following provides some examples of where these open spaces will be:
• Redevelopment of the Shell site
• Carriage Crest Park expansion
• Passive and active park system with greater connectivity and access for underserved areas
Community Health & Environmental Justice Element
SB 1000 requires cities with disadvantaged communities to include environmental justice in their general plans. CalEPA identifies disadvantage communities as low-income areas that are disproportionately affected by and/or vulnerable to pollution and other environmental hazards that negatively impact human health, most commonly among communities of color.
State law states the following regarding Environmental Justice:
“The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”
The following includes Environmental Justice objectives:
1. Reduce pollution exposure (including air quality)
2. Reduce unique/compounded health risks
3. Promote public facilities (public improvements, public services, and community amenities)
4. Promote physical activity
5. Promote food access
6. Promote safe and sanitary homes
7. Promote civic engagement
8. Prioritize needs of disadvantaged communities
The following includes a list of Environmental Justice issues and policies in Carson:
• Reduce exposure to pollution and environmental hazards
• In 2018, CARB selected Wilmington-Carson-West Long Beach (WCWLB) under AB 617 to develop air monitoring and emissions reduction plans to improve community health. It targets the main pollution sources including industrial land uses and goods movement such as from the Ports of LA and Long Beach
• Strategies to improve community health and advancing equitable distribution of resources and opportunities could include identifying the “grocery gap” and creating opportunities for expanded food access - farmers’ markets, community gardens, urban agriculture and promoting health through education and awareness with the County and other partners
• Improving mobility and connectivity to existing resources for greater access could be encouraged by promoting physical activity through parks and recreation centers, greenways/trails, walkable streets.
Community Services, Education, & Safety Element
• Maintaining and obtaining high-quality educational, community, and public safety services are expected to be met. Partnerships with school districts, CSUDH, and the County could provide greater opportunities for learning and community engagement through programs and services will further this goal.
• The City should proactively identify, plan for, and reduce risks through multijurisdictional coordination to protect the public from geologic events, floods, and exposure to hazardous materials.
Open Space & Environmental Conservation Element
• This element encourages the protection of open space, biological, mineral, and cultural resources through connecting open space with recreation, and leveraging remediation opportunities. This will create biodiversity and ecological quality.
• Coordination with the County and other service providers will ensure continued safe, reliable, and sustainable utilities, solid waste and recycling services.
• The City will strive to protect the community health from air pollution by industrial and transportation sources by implementing the Climate Action Plan to reduce GHG emissions and building climate resiliency in the face of climate challenges like urban heat and drought.
Noise Element
This element encourages the City to maintain healthy sound environments and protect noise-sensitive uses. This is accomplished by land use considerations to locate and design noise-generators to minimize noise/vibration impacts to sensitive uses.
Economic Development Element
• The City is currently in the process of preparing an Economic Development Strategic Plan. This Plan
• The City is currently an industrial and manufacturing center. The City should explore ways to add diversity and strengthen its resiliency to changing economic conditions by exploring industry clusters, employment centers, redevelopment of existing older buildings. These industrial new industry clusters diversify will create a mix of alternative employment opportunities and support local the workforce
• This element also encourages creating a livable, business-friendly community with services and commercial amenities for residents, workers, and visitors including fostering a vibrant downtown Core with mix of civic, office, retail, entertainment, and residential uses.
Draft Environmental Impact Report
The Draft EIR analyzed the following topics:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
The following topics were found not to be significant in the Draft EIR:
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Geology and Soils (use of septic tanks)
• Mineral Resources
• Wildfire
The following impacts were found to be less than significant impacts with mitigations incorporated:
• Biological Resources
o Impact BIO-1 (Special-status Species)
o Impact BIO-2 (Riparian Habitat)
o Impact BIO-4 (Movement of Migratory Wildlife Species)
• Cultural Resources
o Impact CUL-2 (Archeological Resources)
The following impacts were found to be Significant and Unavoidable Impacts:
• Impact AQ-2, The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
• Impact AQ-3, The Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
• Impact AQ-4, The Project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people.
• Impact CUL-1, The Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
• Impact TR-2, he Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b).
The following impacts were found to be less than significant impacts:
• Aesthetics
• Biological Resources
o State or federally protected wetlands
o Local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources
o Conservation plans
• Cultural Resources
o Human Remains
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Transportation
• Conflict with transportation plans
• Design features
• Emergency access
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
Project Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIR
The DEIR considered but rejected 2 Alternatives:
• The Core Alternative was rejected since it did not meet the basic project objective; and
• The Centers Alternative was rejected since it was infeasible due to existing land use limitations.
The DEIR evaluated 2 Project Alternatives:
• Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative
• Alternative 2 - Corridors Alternative
o The Corridors Alternative clusters new development around major thoroughfares throughout the city, with an increased focus on corridors with the greatest development opportunities.
o Mixed-use development would occur along major streets, with supporting retail, housing, office, and employment uses around the periphery of the mixed-use areas.
o Other large sites throughout the city would be redeveloped to support surrounding neighborhoods.
§ The Shell site would be redeveloped as a new, state-of-the-art R&D campus, bringing more jobs to Carson. R&D and industrial flex uses would be increased along Broadway in the northern portion of the Planning Area.
§ The Victoria Golf Course would be redeveloped as a recreational/open space area and South Bay Pavilion would provide a location for additional housing.
o The Corridors Alternative is projected to result in approximately 34,106 more residents, 9,880 new housing units, and 19,222 new jobs in Carson by 2040.
o Environmentally Superior Alternative
Final Environmental Impact Report
The FEIR reflects “independent judgment” of decision-making body, includes the following components, and must be “certified” before the General Plan is approved:
• Responses to comments received on the DEIR
• Revisions to the Draft EIR if needed
• Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program
• Includes the DEIR
The City received comment letters on the Draft EIR from the following agencies and organizations:
• California Department of Transportation
• Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
• South Coast Air Quality Management District
• Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
• Hanson Bridgett, LLP (on behalf of Watson Land Company)
On December 27, 2022, via email, the above agencies and organizations were notified of the availability of the responses to their comments on the Carson 2040 General Plan Update website.
V. FISCAL IMPACT
None.VI. EXHIBITS
1. Carson 2040 General Plan and EIR: www.carson2040.com <http://www.carson2040.com> (pg. 28)
2. Public Comment letters and emails (pgs. 29-63)
3. Description of Land Use Classifications (pgs. 64-69)
4. Land Use Map (provided under separate cover) (pg. 70)
Prepared by: Saied Naaseh, Director of Community Development