Resolution No. 71111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 7111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF VERNON APPROVING AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY
TAXES FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF VERNON
OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES CURRENTLY WITHIN THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF BELL
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Cortese -Knox
Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985, proceedings have been
initiated by the City of Vernon to annex to the City of Vernon all
territory situated in the City of Bell, as described and depicted
in Attachment "A" to Resolution No. 7110 of the City Council of
the City of Vernon, adopted concurrently herewith; and
WHEREAS, Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) and
related statutes -provide for the adoption of resolutions relating
to tax exchanges upon annexations in which new services are
(provided; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid legislation, cities
may negotiate for a share of the ad valorem property tax; and
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon and the City of Bell have
mutually concluded that the detachment of the subject territory
from the City of Bell and its annexation to the City of Vernon,
and the assumption of the services by the City of Vernon, would
produce efficiencies in service delivery and future improvements
to capital facilities and infrastructure, and therefore is in the
interest of the residents of both the Cities of Vernon and Bell;
and
WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation Commission for the
County of Los Angeles has determined that said annexations cannot
be completed until such time as the annexing city and the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
detaching city have resolved the allocation of property tax
revenues that will result form said annexation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon
hereby finds and determines that the recitals contained
hereinabove are true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City of Vernon, pursuant to Revenue and
Taxation Code Section 99(b), requests that 100 percent of the
municipal share of property tax revenues be retained by the City
of Vernon with regard to this annexation.
SECTION 3: The City of Vernon does not waive its right
to share in property tax in the event legislative acts or court
decisions retroactively create a right in the City to share in the
property tax not contemplated by this resolution.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and
thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August, 1998.
ATTEST• �Y
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
-2-
LEONIS C. MAL,1URG, Mayor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
171
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of
Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being
Resolution No. 7111, was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City Council duly held
on Tuesday, August 4, 1998, and thereafter was duly signed by the
Mayor of the City of Vernon.
BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-3-
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
DEC'702-SS 15,52 FROM-LOS AMCELES LAFCO ID-2138172201
FAX TINSMITTAL
Date:
TO: 1 �-C� V i /� VU� (S+t�• FROM: Sq ✓d -
4 VenyA- LAFCO
FAX#
(Message: I, f V l Al
Loc* AqwW ftm*Wn Camws*n
County of Los Angeles
383 Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 974-1448
FAX: (213) 617-2201
Ye Q'HN rjj#) arms rx
bt 6m YA-ta- `m - Vvy k4K De.- 4. !gam"
# of pages to follow:
tk 7k Mt 1RY! * * fk fk RYt 11t 14 *# * # # *** * **#* # ** ieIe ## * * *#* **### x tp ttRXRRRRR 1t RRRRtR k iklnRi4 41k Ynnktk 7k 1k'k7k Ye ye 7ktkvk aefnk'k ********
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS
ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND
EXEMPTED FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS
NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE
AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA U.S. POSTAL
SERVICE.
Dgr -01-56 1S:S3 FROM:LOS AMCELES LAFCO ID:2136172201
PACE 2/10
symamulloz
Mayor
Jean M. cerventes
Mayor Pro Tern
CoMAm tuber
Leta R Low
CmMe trnernbec
Rosafrw G. Lopez
Rad T. Romero
City Admifturor
Coiimance. CA 9pp4p
PtWa.' 3n* 22.4W6
City of Commerce
November 30, 1998
Mr. Larry J. Calemine, Executive Officer
Los Angeles County
Local.Agency Formation Commission
SW W. Temple Street, Room 383
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: LAFCO File: Reorg. No. 98-1, Parcels 1 and 2 Between the Cries of
Bell and Vernon
Dear Mr. Calemine:
Attached please find the comments of the City of Commerce regarding the
proposed Boundary Reorganization by the City of Bell and the City of Vernon.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (323) 722-
4805, extension 2337.
Sincerely,
l
BobVitt
Cityner
June D. Savala
•
V' CIl --:
w
15
�J7
DEC,01-98 IS-S3 FROM.LOS AMGELES LAFCO ID-2136172202 PAGE 3/10
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF COMMERCE .
REGARDING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY REORGANIZATION
PROPOSED BY
THE CiTY OF BE.L AND THE CITY OF VERNON
IMMODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline specific concerns of the City of Commerce with
regard to the planning and .review process undertaken by the cities of Bell and Vernon for a
boundary reorganization involving approximately 58 acres presently located within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Bell. The proposed action involves the removal of two areas from the
corporate control of the City of Bell and their subsequent annexation by the City of Vernon. The
areas subject to the proposed action include two noncontiguous parcels located In the
northeastern portion of City of Bell. The first parcel, referred to • as the Bandini PameI, is
bounded on the south by Bandini Boulevard, on the north by the Burlington Northam Santa Fe
Railroad right-of-way, and on the west by the 1-710 Freeway. The second area, refemed to as
the Los Angeles River Parcel, includes a segment of the Los Angeles River located east of
Atlantic Boulevard extending eastward approximately 2,000 feet.
The City of Vemon adopted Resolution 7110 calling for the approval and adoption of a
resolution requesting the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFC4) to
initiate prongs for annexation of the aforementioned 58 acres within the corporate
boundaries of the City of Bell. Vernon also adopted Resolution 7111 calling for the City to
approve an exchange of property taxes for the area being annexed. The rationale for the
Proposed annexation is to facilitate the financing and implementation of roadway improvements
and infrastructure. As part of the proposed annexation, the City of Vernon will assume
responsibility for law enforcement services, fire protection services, public works services,
planning, and administration services.
Subsequent sections of this comment letter are arranged according to the following key areas
annexation process, delineation of sphere of influence, confomuty to planning and land use
regulations, prezoning, and environmental review. The individual elements are described in the
discussion section provided under each topic area. Spec Issues or concerns of the City of
Commerce are identified under the comrr*nt sections.
ANNEXAT70N PROCESS
Discussion
The Cortese -Knox Act provides the legal framework within which annexations, incorporations,
consolidations, and the formation of special districts are considered. This law established Local
Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCO) for each County to review, approve, or deny
proposals for boundary changes and incorporations for cities, counties, and special districts.
The .act outlines procedures, which LAFCOs must follow when considering annexation
proposals. The State is responsible for the administration of the law to the exclusion of local
legislation. Therefore, local governments cannot undertake actions, which may be in conflict
with the StaWs annexation procedures. (Ferri v. City of San Luis Obispo (1983) 150
Cal.App.3d 239 and L.l.F.E. v. City of Lodi (1989) 213 CalApp.3d 1139).
The process by which local governments may extend or otherwise alter their corporate
boundaries is referred to as annexation. In its most basic form, the annexation process consists
of five distinct components:
DEC-01-98 IStS3 FROM=LOS AMGELES LAFCO ID-2238172201 PAGE
Gly of Commerce Boundary Roorganization Study
Page 2
1. Prefiring. An application is filed with the LAFCO by resoiuOon from the involved pry. Prior to
filing, the city should meet with the LAFCO executive officer *to establish. the minimum
requirements for processing.
2. Environmental Review. The lead Agency, whether it is the City or the LAFCO, must comply
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
3. Firing and LAFCO Consideration. The LAFCO has thirty days in .which to consider an
annexation application and to determine whether if is complete for processing.
4. Proceedings of the Conducting Authority. The involved city, acting as -the conducting
authority, will conduct public hearings to determine whether the proposed annexation must
be approved without an election, terminated, or whether an election must be called to
determine the proposal's outcome.
5. Final Certification. When the LAFCO executive office is satisfied that ail elements of the Act
have been property addressed, that the annexation approved by the city conforms to the
annexation proposal approved by the LAFCO, and that all conditions have been met'~ the
executive officer will certify that the annexation is complete.
Comments
The City of Commerce will demonstrate herein, that the City of Bell and the City of Vernon have
not followed specific procedures governing annexations. It is our understanding that, before the
Cray of Vernon may formally initiate annexation, the City of Bell must undert ke certain actions
regarding the disposition of the two areas in question. Specific concerns of the City of
Commerce regarding the proposed action include the following:
I. There is nothing in the record indicating the City of Bell has initiated formal procedures to
alter that City's corporate boundaries other than the taxation agreements. No information is
provided concerning boundary changes, amendments to the General Plan, amendments to
the adopted redevelopment plan, etc. The City of Commerce requests information
regarding the public hearings, which were conducted, on the part of the City of Bell to
approve the proposed boundary change.
2. The City of Commerce requests a copy of the findings and resolutions for the
aforementioned actions, which were adopted by the City of Bell as part of any submittal
package to LAFCO_
3. The City of Commerce respectfully requests a copy of the initial Study or any other
environmental documents preparod by the City of Bell to analyze the environmental effects
of the proposed action. The City of Commerce would also like to be kept informed of any
related actions, which may be germane to the proposed action, including but not limited to,
relevant actions required by the City of Hell Redevelopment Agency.
As demonstrated in the previous discussion and comment sections, the State mandated
procedures do not appear to Have been adhered to as they relate to the proposed action. For
this reason, should the cities of Bell and Vernon wish to continue with the proposed action, the
City of Commerce respectfully requests that the LAFCO deny the request until such time these
mandates are met. Furthermore, the City of Commerce requests to be identified as a
responsible agency in any further proceeding for the following reasons:
1. The planning area in question shares a common border with Commerce. The City of
Commerce surrounds the Chet! district, which includes the Bandini Parcel, on three skids.
4%10
DEC-01439 IS-S4 FROM=LOS ANGELES LAFCO ID-2238272202 PAGE
Cky of Commerce Boundary Reorganization Study
Page 3
S/1i0
The I-710 Freeway serves as the area's westerly. boundary. Geographically, tfie City of
Commerce surrounds the Cheri district on the north, east, and south. The corporate
boundaries of Vernon east of the 1-710 freeway are limited to a small area located between
Atlantic Boulevard and the Freeway-
2- Any corporate boundary adjustment within the Cher District should be made only after
consultation is made with the City of Commerce. As indicated previously, the City of
Commerce surrounds the Chen District on three sides. The City of heirs connection to the
Cheri District is Crrirted to a 500 foot wide strip located along the westerly right-of-way of the
1-710 Freeway. This strip, approximately one mile in length, connects the Cheri District with
the City of Bell.
3. Future development proposals, arising from the proposed action, or any similar action, may
have profound environmental effects upon the City of Commerce. For this reason, the City
of Commerce should be consulted prior to the LAFCO • taking final action on the proposed
annexation so that the potential environmental impacts are clearly identified and mitigated to
the greatest extent possible -
DELINEATION OF SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
Discussion
Each LAFCO operates independently of the State though, a$ Indicated *previously, they must
adhere to State -mandated procedures and regulations, which promote "planned, well -ordered,
efficient urban development patterns, the preservation of open space lands, and the
discouragement of urban sprawl." The State legislature has established policies to guide
LAFCO$ by providing policies and priorities for the consideration of annexation (Section 56844).
While annexations are a regulatory act, the I AFC0's major responsibility is to establish spheres
of influence for the various governmental bodies within its jurisdiction. As described by Section
56078 of the Government Code, the sphere is to be "a plan for file probable physical boundaries
and service area of a local government or agency." In preparing the written study required to
establish each sphere, a LAFCO must consider and make written determinations with regard to
the following facts (Section 56425): '
1. The present and planned use in the area including agricultural and open space Lands;
2. ' The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area;
3. The present capacity of public facilities and the adequacy *of public services which the
agency provides or is authorized to provide; and
4. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the
Commission determines that they are relevant to the Agency.
The sphere of influence is an important benchmark because it defines the primary area within
which urban development is to be. encouraged. (Section 56377(b) and 56841). in a 1977
opinion, the California Attorney General stated that the sphere of influence should "serve like
general plans, as an essential planning tool to combat urban sprawl and provide well planned
efficient urban development patterns giving appropriate consideration to preserving prime
agricultural and other open space lands." (60 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen- 118). The California
Appellate Court has held that spheres of influence must be adopted before an annexation to tine
affected city or district can be considered. (Resource Defense Fund v. LAFCO (1983) 138 Cal.
App. 3d 987). Section 56650.5 limits the validity of annexation proposals in specific urban areas
unless the request is donsisient with the applicable spheres of influence. Section 67025
DEIC-01-Se 15=S4 FROM.LOS ANGELES LAFCO I1362136172201 PAGE
City of Commerce Boundary Reorganization Study
Page 4
requires LAFCOs to send notices of pending annexation hearings to those atfecied agencies
whose spheres contain territories within the proposal. A LAFCO has sole responsibility for
establishing a city's sphere of influence. Further, the LAFCO is not required W establish a
sphere that is greater than the city's existing boundaries. LAFCO may take joint action to
approve annexation while at the same time, amending the city's sphere of Influence. (City of
Agoura Hills v LAFCO (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 480).
Comment
The City of Commerce is not dear as to whether the proposed action conforms to requirements
outlined by the California Appellate Court which has held that spheres of influence must be
adopted before an annexation to the affected city or district can be considered. For example,
have the parcels in question been removed from the corporate control of the City of Bell and a
final determination as to the appropriate sphere of influence been made (refer to Resource
Defense Fund v. LAFCO (1983) 138 Cal. App. 3d 987)? Should the City of BeIrs corporate
boundaries be adjusted to exclude or deannex the Bandini Parcel, the City of Commerce would
further propose that the entire Cheri District be deannexed and placed within the sphere of
Influence of the City of Commerce.
The City of Commerce strongly objects to the proposed action for the following reasons:
1. The removal of two, non-contiguous, small parcels from the City of Bell's corporate controi
and their subsequent annexation by the City of Vernon does not represent a comprehensive
or systematic approach to planning, but rather a piecemeal and short-term solution to
finance and facilitate a future, near -term development
2. The easternmost corporate boundaries of the City of Vernon are largely defined by the 1:710
Freeway, with the exception of a small portion located between Atlantic Boulevard and the
Freeway right-of-way. A key challenge to long-range comprehensive planning In the
Southern California region is directly related to the balkanization and gerrymandering of
corporate boundaries.
3. The proposed action will lead to other actions (new development, infrastructure, eta) which
will have a profound effect on the City of Commerce. Should a new freeway ramp be
constructed within the Bandini Parcel, the greatest degree of environmental effects, in terms
of traffic, noise, air quality, noise, risk of upset, will be experienced in the City of Commence.
Virtually no traffic -related impacts will effect the City of Bell, while the segments of Bandird
Boulevard, Eastern Avenue, and Atlantic Boulevard in the City of Commerce are likely to
experience the greatest level of impact.
Should the City of Bell desire to continue with the deannexation of selected parcels within the
City's northeast Industrial area, the City of Commerce recommends the LAFCO deny the
request for deannexing what is referred to as the Los Angeles River Parcel and the Bandin i
Parcel. Should deannexatron occur, the entire Cher district should be placed within the
designated sphere of influence of the City of Commerce (which surrounds the area on three
sides). The City of Commerce will then undertake the necessary planning studies that will lead
to pt ezoning.
CONFORMiTYTO PLANNING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS
Discussion
Local governments have the primary responsibility for the planning and regulation of land uses
under theie jurisdiction. State law requires that each city and county prepare and adopt a
8/10
DEC-01-98 15=55 FROM-LOS ANGELES LAFCO I13=2136172201 PAGE 7/10
City of Commerce Boundary ReoTanization Study
Page 5
general plan to guide physical development within the community. The general plan must cover
all incorporated territory and should go beyond the city limits to include uany land outside its
boundaries which bears relation to its planning.' (Section 65300 of the Government Code). A
general plan may include adjacent: territory, which the city ultimately expects to annex or to
serve, as well as that which is of particular interest to the city.
The sphere of influence, which is defined by the LAFCO, desaibes a ciiys probable physical
boundaries and service area. The sphere of influence is then used as a guide to define the
minimum extent of the planning area Through legislation and through case law, the general
plan has assumed the status of the "constitution for all future developmenC. As a result, most
local land use decision making. now requires consistency with the general plan and State Law
requires that the LAFCO consider "consistency of any actions with the local affected general
plans (Section 56841(g) "
The statues contain numerous references that attempt to link local land use and open -space
polices to the annexation process (Sections 56300,56375,56425, and 56841) and indicate the
LAFCO should attempt to hamonize local planning polices with the intent of the State
legislation. Where there is a dear conflict; such as inootbpat�briity between city and county
general plans, the State polices regarding land use and development should prevail.
Comment
There are a number of factors that the LAFCO must consider in reviewing annexation proposals
(Section 5684.1) including the following:
1. Population, population density, land area and use per capita assessed valuation,
topography, natural boundaries, drainage basins, proximity to populated areas, and the
GkeCrhood of signb7cant growth during the next ten yaars_ As indicated previously, should the
City of Sell proceed with deannexation, the entire Cher, District should be considered given
the above factors.
2. Need for organized community services, present cost and adequacy of govemment services
and controls, probable future needs, probable effect of the annexation and of attemative
courses of action on the cast and adequacy of services and controls in the area and VWnity.
This review has not been undertaken_ The Initial Study prepared by the City of Vernon does
not address these issues.
3. The effect of the proposed annexation and of altemative actions on adjacent area, on
mutual social and economic interest and on the local govemment structure of the county.
The City of Commerce comprises the "adjacent areas" and needs to fully understand the
implications of the proposed action prior to its approval. As indicated previously and will be
discussed in greater detail later, the environmental analysis fails to evaluate the proposed
action's environmental effect on the `adjacent areas."
4. Conformity of the proposal and its effect with LAFCO porices prowdOg planned, ordeffy,
efficient pattems of urban development and with state polices and priorities related to the
conversion of open -space lands to other uses. Clearly, the consideration of two small and
non-contiguous parcels does not meet this criteria.
5. Clarity of the boundaries of the territory must be emphasized as opposed to the
nonconformance of proposed boundaries 'with fines of assessment or ownership, the
creation of island corridors or unincorporated teaffory. Again, the consideration of two small
and non-contiguous parcels does not meet this criteria. In fact, the proposed action will
D$;-01-68 15=55 FROM.LOS ANGELES LAFCO I13.2136172201 PACE
City of Commove Boundary Reorganization Study
Page 6
result in exactly what the LAFCO is mandated to prevent.
6. Consistencaies with appropriate c dy or county general and spec plans. The proposed
action is not consistent with either the City of Vernon General Plan or the City of Bell
General Plan.
7. The sphere of lntiuence of any agency which may be appricable to the proposal being
reviewed. As demonstrated previously, the area should it be deannexed by the City of Bell
should be more appropriately placed within the sphere of influence of the City of Commerce.
PREZONING
Discussion
A city chooses to prezone unincorporated territory that it expects to annex in the future though
the proposed zones must be consistent with the general plan and a public hearing must be held
similar to that done for any rezoning proposal. The LAFCO may require that the city prezone
the area within a proposed annexation though it is not permitted to dictate the specific zoning to
be applied by the city.
There are a number of advantages to prezoning. First, the city will have zoning effect
immediately upon annexation and local residents will have prior knowledge of the land use
regulations that would affect them should annexation occur. Secondly, prezonhV acts to serve
notice to the LAFCO of the city's intentions regarding its adjacent area. In circumstances where
development purposes are not made known to the LAFCO at the time of the annexation
proposal, the LAFCO will review -the request on the basis of the adopted plans and policies.
Comment
In order to be effective, the pmzoning must be consistent with the general plan. In at least one
instance, the Appellate Court has upheld a LAF,CO's authority to deny an annexation where a
city had prezoned a site for a specific land use, though the ultimate Intended use was something
different (City of Santa Clara v. LAFCO (1983)139 CaL App_3d 923.)
The City of Bell General Plan designation for the BandiN Parcel is industrial. The initial Study
prepared for -the proposed action Indicated the proposed action would not require a general plan
amendment or zone change. However, the rationale for the proposed action is to faaTitate the
financing and construction of an interchange at that location. There Is a clear Inconsistency
between the adopted General Plan designation for the area and its intended use following
annexation. Neither the City of Sell, nor the City, of Vernon through prezoning, has indicated the
planning area`s ultimate intended lance use following annexation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Discussion
Both case law and the CEQA guidelines support the applicability of CEQA to annexations and to
relate sphere of influence amendments. The environmental document should be prepared early
in the process and should address all aspects of the project not merely the annexation. In
1975, the California Supreme Court held in a Ventura County case that annexations are to be
considered projects under CEQA and subject to environmental analysis. Where the LAFCO
had `proceeded as if CEQA did not exist its decision was enjoined until an iJR could be
prepared_ The Supreme Court drew similarities between the purposes of CEQA and the
annexation laws then in effect, requiring that the LAFCO harmonize these purposes through the
8/10
DEC-01-'88 IS -SS FROM=LOS ANGELES LAFCO I13=2136172201 PAGE
City of Commence Boundary Reorganization Study
Page 7
9/10
preparation of an EIR (Bozung v.LAFCO (1975)13 Cal.3d 283).
Comments
The CEQA Guidelines defines a project as the whole of an action, not the separate
governmental actions that may be necessary to complete It Ideally, a single environmental
document wits be prepared to address the annexation as well as all related general plan
amendment, preaoning, sphere of influence, or other proposals. The document should address.
among other concerns, the policy issues raised in Sections 56301,56375, and 56841 of the
Government Code. if an EIR has been prepared and the annexation is approved, the IAFCO
and the city will be responsible for making findings pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
CEQA Guidelines justifying their actions.
The major shortcomings of the environmental review undertaken for the proposed action were
identified in a letter from the City of Commerce to the City of Vernon, dated April 14, 1998. The
City of Commerce would also We to go on record to indicate, the City of Vemon's responses to
the comments submitted were not sufficiently addressed or answered.
Major concerns regarding the environmental analysis include the following:
1. The proposed aeon (or project) was not considered in its entirety. The Initial Study and
subsequent i_ead Agency responses acknowledged that the proposed annexation was a
critical fast step in the ultimate construction of a freeway interchange. A preliminary design
of this interchange was included in the information submitted to the LAFCO. CEQA requires
the complete and comprehensive evaluation of an action or projed in its entirety (refer to
Section 15165 and 15378 of the Guidelines).
2. As pointed out in the City of Commerce's letter dated April 14, 1998, commenting on the
Negative Declaration the technical analysis is inadequate, and in some instances, is totally
lacking. For. example, the proposed action will lead to the construction of a freeway
interchange connecting with Bandini Boulevard. it is likely that a substantial portion of this
traffic, if not the majority, will continue traveling on Into, the City of Commerce. The traffic
impacts and the attendant environmental effects (noise, air quality, risk of upset, etc.) have
not been addressed or even considered. The environmental review must be revisited to
ensure these and other environmental impacts are identified along with any requisite
mitigation measures.
3. The Initial Study defers environmental analysis and mitigation to some future date, which is
a dear violation of CEQA, which is also underscored by a number of recent court cases. A
number of references in the initial Study indicate the environmental effects will be analyzed
when the PS&R study has been completed, underscoring this limitation. Applicable court
cases are too numerous to list here though perhaps the most notable case (Sundsh m v.
the County of Wndicino (1' Dist 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296) indicated that Mitigated
Negative Declarations could not be approved based on the presumed success of mitigation
in the absence of analysis.
4. The environmental analysis fails to mention potential growth -inducing impacts associated
with the proposed action though these potential impacts are acknowledged in numerous
documents (taxing agreements, which make reference to property tax and occupancy takes,
references to gaming uses, site plans, etc). The environmental analysis must identify how
land uses or development may otherwise be affected; intensified, or encouraged by the
proposed interchange at that location.
DFC-01--9@ 15.56 FROM.LOS ANGELES LAFCO ID-2136272202 PAGE 10/10 I
O,ty of Commerce Boundary Reorganization Study
Page 8
CONCLUSIONS
The City would appreciate the LAFCO set aside any approvals of the proposed boundary
adjustment unto such time the environmental affects of the proposed action are fully
documented (as required under state law). As a first step, the City of Commerce respectfully
requests the LAFCO to require the preparation of an environmental impact report to fully
analyze the proposed action and any related actions (freeway interchange, etc). The City of
Commerce would also appreciate to be kept appraised of any further developments.
P. 01
TRANSACTION REPORT
DEC-01-1998 TUE 04:00 PM
RECEIVE
DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP
DEC-01 03:56 PM 2136172201 4'08" 10 RECEIVE OK
k
� Az
November 17, 1998
TO: Bruce V. Malkenhorst, City Administrator
FROM: Samuel "Kevin" Wilson, Director of Community
Services & Water
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION
I spoke with Greg Spiker regarding our LAFCO Application for
Reorganization. He stated that the application is currently
being processed and is in the County Assessors office for review.
The application must go to the County Assessor, County Auditor,
Chief Administrative Officer and then back to LAFCO.
As soon as LAFCO receives it they will put together a Staff
Report and put it on the next agenda. The whole process takes
approximately four months. Mr. Spiker thinks he may be able to
shave one month off of the process. Commerce has requested a
copy of all written correspondence. Mr. Spiker has spoken to
some of the LAFCO members and so far none of them have expressed
any concerns.
Given the above time frame the application will go to the
LAFCO Board for consideration in February or March.
SKW:ps
cc: City Attorney
a an? cot waL
L C.t
MALBURG
mayor
1110MAS A. YBARRA
Mayor Pwaem
Wnn. "BILL"' DAVIS
GAuncilnum
W. MLCHAEL McCORMICK
Cmuwilman
V. MALKENHORST
C ky for/C1ty Clerk
FAX (213) 581-M4
CITY HALL
r DAViD & BREARLEY
FAX (818) 330-5818
p , � KEVIN MASON
V"r
edru of C*nVMndtYSc vas & Whter
FAX PIM 588-2761
KE IVI�N ETH J DeDARIO
Direr of ugM do Pewit
FAX (213) 583-19M
DAVE TELFORD
' Fie Chief
FAX MV 581--tM
4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058
TELEPHONE (M) 583-8811
August 4, 1998
Honorable City Council
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
Gentlemen:
s
A _C�
The following are responses to the comments sent on behalf
of the City of Commerce on April 14, 1998 regarding the Initial
Study for the City of Vernon Annexation Project. These responses
are provided with the objective of clarifying the project
description of the Annexation Project and the approach to the
associated environmental analysis.
LAND USE PLANNING:
a. Comments noted. The proposed project is intended to
annex the land for roadway improvements only, which
primarily include the Atlantic Boulevard Bridge and the
Interstate 710 Interchange. This will not have a
negative effect on any reasonable foreseeable projects
in the vicinity. As stated in the Initial Study, page
2-4, the primary reason the proposed project is being
pursued is because the Cities of Vernon and Bell:
1) concur that certain significant roadway improvements
within the subject territory are required; 2) recognize
that the City of Bell lacks the capacity to fund the
improvements and the City of Vernon does not; and
3) agree the proposed territory reorganization would
enable the City of Vernon to fund the street
improvements. Placing the Atlantic Boulevard Bridge
under one jurisdiction for purposes of maintenance and
improvements is a separate and independent
justification for the annexation. The Bridge serves as
an important point of entry in the City of Vernon, and
the annexation will enable Vernon to expend funds to
Honorable City Council -2-
August 4, 1998
maintain and improve a critical arterial roadway. Based on
the nature of the project, the Initial Study does not address
cumulative impacts.
b. As stated in the Initial Study, there are no proposed
changes to the City of Vernon General Plan; the:tefore
no additional land use impacts would result that have
not been previously assessed in the environmental
document for the subject plan. In addition, this
analysis would also apply to the City of Bell General
Plan.
AIR QUALITY:
c.,d.,e. The potential environmental impacts as a result of the
construction of the proposed roadway improvements will
be addressed separately in a complete environmental
document to be prepared by the City of Vernon. The
Cities of Bell and Commerce will be provided the
opportunity to review the associated analysis regarding
the subject during the public review period for that
document.
TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION:
f. See Air Quality Comments c.,d.,e.
NOISE
g.,h. See Air Quality Comments c.,d.,e.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
i-,J- See Air Quality Comments c.,d.,e.
UTILITIES:
k. See Air Quality Comments c.,d.,e..
OTHER:
1. As stated in the Initial Study, page 2-4, the primary
reason the proposed project is being pursued is because
the Cities of Vernon and Bell: 1) concur that certain
significant roadway improvements within the subject
territory are required; 2) recognize that the City of
Bell lacks the capacity to fund the improvements and
the City of Vernon does not; and 3) agree the proposed
territory reorganization would enable the City of
Honorable City council -3- August 4, 1998
Vernon to fund the subject improvements. Based on the
current condition of the Atlantic boulevard bridge over the Los
Angeles River, the bridge is required to be improved for safety
purposes. In addition, the current configuration of the
Atlantic/Bandini/710 Interchange has considerable circulation
problems at peak travel times. The climbing grade and lehgth of
the northbound on -ramp from Atlantic boulevard to the 710 Freeway
is inadequate for Caltrans safety standards and requires
redesign. The Project Study Report prepared for the interchange
defined alternatives to the configuration. The selected
alternative requires the annexation of one of the subject parcels
to build the new on -ramp.
M. See above. In
page 2-7 that
of Vernon will
and operation
SKW:ps
cc: City Attorney
addition, the Initial Study states on
as a result of this annexation, the City
not issue a permit for the construction
of gaming facilities in the subject area.
Respec ull submitted,
Kevin Wilson, P.E.
Director of Community Services & Water
i
• f l
J. ARMOLOO BELTRAN
ti. FRANCISCO LEAL
AGUST M MEDINA. JR.
46666 M. JAUREGUI
DAVID J. OLIVAS
OOMALD P. JOHNSON
ARTY" N. F1ERRO
MARIO A. PICHAROO
VVETTE M. ABICH
ST11Mi61" M. FISCHER
JAVIER O. L6PEZ
CARMEN S. LOPEZ
BELTRAN LEAL & MEDINA LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
221 NORTH FIGUEROA STREET
SUITE 1000
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90012
April 14, 1998 .
Via Facsimile 1213) 688-2761
Samuel Kevin Wilson, P.E.
Director of Community Services & Water
City of Vernon
4305 Santa Fe Avenue
Vernon, CA 90058
AREA CODE 213
TELEPHONE SS0.7900
FAX SSO-005S
RECEIVED
'APR 15 199
Community Services
RE: Comments re Initial Study of City of Vernon Annexation Project
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This office represents the City of Commerce as its City Attorneys. The City of
Commerce requested that we review and submit comments to the Initial Study
pertaining to the proposed detachment of approximately 58 acres from the City of
Bell and the annexation of the same to the City of Vernon. Below are the
following comments:
LAND USE & PLANNING:
a) The Initial Study does not address the cumulative effects or
impacts of reasonably anticipated future products in the vicinity
known to the Agency.
b) The Initial Study does not address whether the annexation
would be violative of the City of Bell and the City of Vemon's
General Plan.
AIR QUALITY:
c) The Initial Study does not address the type and duration of
emissions and objectionable odors resulting from the street
improvement work.
1
d) The Initial Study does not state how long the street
improvement work will take place. Without this factual
information, the Air Quality and Hazard analyses are deficient.
e) The Initial Study does not address the environmental effects of
the street improvement work on tenants/owners and employees
of the nearby industrial properties.
TRAFFIC & CIRCULATION:
f) The Initial Study does not adequately address the effects the
proposed street improvement work will have on traffic and
congestion, especially the major thoroughfares on Atlantic
Boulevard and Bandini Boulevard. The Initial Study also does
not describe the exact "traffic management controls" which will
mitigate the congestion during street improvement work.
NOISE:
g) The Initial Study does not discuss the reasons why the
proposed project would not expose people to severe noise
levels.
h) The Initial Study does not address what the noise impacts will
be taking into consideration the combination of existing
industrial noise, existing vehicular noise and construction -
related noise.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
i) The initial Study does not adequately address the type of
impacts the proposed annexation will have on fire, police,
public facilities and governmental services. The non-contiguous
nature of the proposed annexation poses logistical problems.
j) The 58 acres are currently vacant which makes the site
susceptible to vandalism. The Initial Study does not address to
what extent police presence will include the proposed site and
the effect additional patrol of the proposed site will have on
police department services, budget, and resources.
UTILITIES:
k) The Initial Study does not address what impact the proposed
project will have on the City's resources when the City assumes
all light and power distribution for the annexed area.
2
OTHER:
l) The Initial Study does not address the reasons for the street
improvements along Atlantic Boulevard. Are the proposed
improvements being made in anticipation of a future
development or project within or adjoined to the subject 58
acres. If so, the Agency would be "splitting" the project by
addressing one aspect of the project and disregarding the ,
environmental impacts of other aspects of the project
m) It appears that the proposed project is adjacent and in dose
proximity to the proposed casino project contemplated by the
City of Bell. It is assumed that the casino project has no
connection with the instant project, but this point is not clear in
the initial Study.
If you have any questions regarding the aforementioned, please feel free
to contact me.
Very truly yours,
BELTRAN LEAL & M
- ),-A
Y ette M. Abich
cc: H. Francisco Leal, City Attorney
David J. Oiivas, Asst City Attorney
Justin McCarthy, Dir. of Community Dev.
City of Commerce
Ray C. Ramirez, Asst. Dir. of Community Dev.
City of Commerce
3