Resolution No. 2010-107RESOLUTION NO. 2010-107
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
VERNON APPROVING THE EXPANSION OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO INCLUDE
THE CITIES OF AZUSA, BALDWIN PARK, COVINA, CULVER
CITY, EL SEGUNDO, HUNTINGTON PARK, MONROVIA,
SANTA FE SPRINGS, AND WHITTIER
WHEREAS, California Public Resources Code Section 42010
provides for the establishment of the Recycling Market Development
Zone ("RMDZ") program throughout the State to provide incentives to
stimulate development of post -consumer and secondary materials markets
for recyclables; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County RMDZ includes the
unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles and the cities of
Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte, Glendale, Inglewood,
Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, and Vernon; and,
WHEREAS, cities ,and counties must meet a 50 percent
reduction in landfill waste disposal as mandated in the California
Integrated Waste Management Act; and
WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County RMDZ is dedicated to
establishing, sustaining and expanding recycling -based manufacturing
businesses, which is essential for market development and to assist
local jurisdictions to meet the established landfill reduction goals;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Vernon supports making existing and new
recycling -based manufacturing businesses located within the cities of
Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington Park,
Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier eligible for the technical
and financial incentives associated with the RMDZ program; and
WHEREAS, the expansion of the Los Angeles County RMDZ is
necessary to facilitate local and regional planning, coordination and
support of existing recycling -based manufacturing businesses, as well
as to attract private sector recycling business investments to the
region; and
WHEREAS, the current and proposed waste management practices
and conditions are favorable to the development of post -consumer and
secondary waste materials markets; and
WHEREAS, the California Legislature has defined
environmental justice as "the fair treatment of people of all races,
cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations,
and policies" [Government Code section 65040.12(e)], and the
Department,of Resources Recycling and Recovery has determined that it
will conduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially
affect human health or the environment in a manner that ensures the
fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels,
including minority populations and low-income populations of the
State; and
WHEREAS the County of Los,Angeles as Lead Agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act, has prepared, or caused to be
prepared, and adopted a Negative Declaration for this zone expansion
project that finds that the project will not have a significant impact
on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon has reviewed
and considered the information in the Negative Declaration adopted by
the County of Los Angeles that finds that the zone expansion project
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
-2-
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 does
hereby find and determine that the recitals contained hereinabove are
true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
approves the submittal of a Recycling Market Development Zone
expansion application to include the cities of Azusa, Baldwin 'Park,
Covina, Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe
Springs, and Whittier.
SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon agrees to
support Los Angeles County's administration of the RMDZ program in a
manner that seeks to ensure the fair treatment of people of all races,
cultures, and incomes, including but not limited to soliciting public
participation in all communities within the RMDZ.
SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
authorizes the City Administrator, or his designee, to take whatever
actions are deemed necessary or desirable for the purpose of
implementing and carrying out the purposes of this Resolution and the
actions herein approved or authorized.
SECTION 5: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby
directs the City Clerk, or the City Clerk's designee, to send a copy of
this Resolution to:
David Coscia, Zone Administrator
Los Angeles County RMDZ
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
900 South Fremont Avenue, 3rd Floor Annex
Alhambra, California 91803-1331
-3-
SECTION 6: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall
certify to the passage, approval and adoption of this resolution, and
the City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall cause this resolution and
the City Clerk's certification to be entered in the File of Resolutions
of the Council of this City.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 2010.
Name: Hilari0 Gonzales
Title: Mayor
AT,
T ST:
WI f�-�SO'Si
• C m=2WjfViL—ty—Clerk
-
MAU
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Willard G. Yamaguchi, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution
No. 2010-107, was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City Council duly
held on Monday, August 2, 2010, and thereafter was duly signed by the
Mayor or Mayor Pro-Tem of the City of Vernon.
r
Executed this `7 day of August, 2010, at Vernon, California.
Z Z4
. 4ilWi lard G
.YAmaui, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-5-
August 4, 2010
David Coscia, Zone Administrator
Los Angeles County RMDZ
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
900 South Fremont Avenue, 3rd Floor Annex
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Re: Resolution No. 2010-107 — Supporting the Expansion of the Los Angeles RMDZ
Dear Mr. Coscia:
Transmitted herewith is a copy of Resolution No. 2010-107, as referenced above, approved by
City Council on August 2, 2010.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Lewis Pozzebon at (323) 583-
8811 ext. 229.
Very ly yours,
WILLARD G. Y U
City Clerk
WGY:dj
Attachment
c: Resolution No. 2010-107
E-cfusivefy Industriaf
{ RECEIVED
{
JUL 2- 0 2010
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
STAFF REPORT
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 19, 2010
T Honorable r
O: Hong ab a Mayo and City Council
FROM: Lewis Pozzebon, Director Health Officer
RE: Request for City Council Adoption of Resolution Supporting the
Expansion of the Los Angeles County Recycling Market Development Zone
,BACKGROUND:
The City of Vernon has been a member city of the Los Angeles County Recycling Market
Development Zone (RMDZ) since 1995. The RMDZ Program was developed by the State of
California Integrated Waste Management Board to increase the diversion of waste from going to
landfills. Although the Waste Management Board has been reorganized as the California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the RMDZ Program is an ongoing effort. The
Los Angeles County RMDZ was set up to promote the recycling industry that transforms post -
consumer waste materials into usable products. By participating in the RMDZ program, recycling
businesses that are located in or construct new facilities in Vernon and other participating jurisdictions
are eligible to receive incentives, including low interest loans, and technical assistance. A number of
Vernon businesses have utilized the program.
Currently the Los Angeles County RMDZ is limited to the unincorporated areas of the County of Los
Angeles and the Cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte, Glendale, Inglewood,
Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, and Vernon. The Cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver
City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier have expressed
interest in joining the RMDZ. An application to expand the RMDZ is being prepared by the County.
Member jurisdictions are being requested to support the expansion. As the lead agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act, the County has prepared a negative declaration for the zone
expansion project (attached). I have reviewed the negative declaration and concur that the project
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact on the City is expected.
F
JUL 1 9 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the goals of the RMDZ to retain and expand existing manufacturing businesses and
improve markets for post -consumer waste materials, I am recommending that the City Council adopt
a resolution in support of the expansion of the Los Angeles County RMDZ. A sample resolution was
forwarded to the City Attorney for review and approval. The adopted resolution will need to be
forwarded to:
David Coscia, Zone Administrator, Los Angeles County RMDZ
Los Angeles County Dept of Public Works
900 South Fremont Ave., 3 d Floor Annex
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, or need further information, please let
me know.
Attachment
Ip/mydoc/sw/RMDZ1memo 2010
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT
DATE: July 19, 2010
TO: onal O'Callaghan, City Administrator
FROM: Lewis Pozzebon, Director !Health Officer
RE: Request for City Council Adoption of Resolution Supporting the
Expansion of the Los Angeles County Recycling Market Development Zone
BACKGROUND:
The City of Vernon has been a member city of the Los Angeles County Recycling Market
Development Zone (RMDZ) since 1995. The RMDZ Program was developed by the State of
California Integrated Waste Management Board to increase the diversion of waste from going to
landfills. Although the Waste Management Board has been reorganized as the California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, the RMDZ Program is an ongoing effort. The
Los Angeles County RMDZ was set up to promote the recycling industry that transforms post -
consumer waste materials into usable products. By participating in the RMDZ program, recycling
businesses that are located in or construct new facilities in Vernon and other participating jurisdictions
are eligible to receive incentives, including low interest loans, and technical assistance. A number of
Vernon businesses have utilized the program.
Currently the Los Angeles County RMDZ is limited to the unincorporated areas of the County of Los
Angeles and the Cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte, Glendale, Inglewood,
Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, and Vernon. The Cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver
City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier have expressed
interest in joining the RMDZ. An application to expand the RMDZ is being prepared by the County.
Member jurisdictions are being requested to support the expansion. As the lead agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act, the County has prepared a negative declaration for the zone
expansion project. I have reviewed the negative declaration and concur that the project will not have
a significant impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact on the City is expected.
PiT�
JUL I � 2010
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the goals of the RMDZ to retain and expand existing manufacturing businesses and
improve markets for post -consumer waste materials, I am recommending that the City Council adopt
a resolution in support of the expansion of the Los Angeles County RMDZ. The City Attorney is
preparing a resolution for City Council approval. The adopted resolution will need to be forwarded to:
David Coscia, Zone Administrator, Los Angeles County RMbZ
Los Angeles County Dept of Public Works
900 South Fremont Ave., 3nd Floor Annex
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
I request that the attached staff report and related document be forwarded to the City Clerk for the
scheduling of a City Council agenda item to consider approval of the resolution on Monday, August 2,
2010.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, or need further information, please let
me know.
Attachment
Xc: City Attorney
Ip/mydoc/sw/RMDZJtransmittaimemo
k
�z COUNTY OF LOS A GELE S
PUBLIC WORKS D E PA RT E T OF PUBLIC WORKS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR
LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE
Location and Brief Description
The project is the expansion of the Los Angeles County Recycling Market
Development Zone (RMDZ) to include the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina,
Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and
Whittier Currently, the Los Angeles County RMDZ encompasses all the
unincorporated areas of -Los Angeles County-and-the—cities—of-Burb-aok, Carson,
Commerce, Compton, El Monte, Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate,
Torrance, and Vernon.
The RMDZ program is an economic and technical assistance program that
includes a low interest loan, which assists targeted businesses located in the
RMDZ. The businesses must manufacture products using recycled materials as a
feedstock or process difficult to recycle materials, such as construction and
demolition debris.
In June 1994, the Board of Supervisors authorized an application to the California
Integrated Waste Management, Board for the establishment of the Los Angeles
County RMDZ, which encompassed the unincorporated area of Florence-
Firestone- The following ,year, the RMDZ was expanded to include several
member cities and the unincorporated area of Altadena. Expansions have been
authorized several times since to include all the unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County and the current member cities. Since 1994, the RMDZ has
assisted 20 companies and funded loans which totaled more than 12 million
dollars.
Mitigation Measures Included in the Proiect to Avoid Potentially Significant Effects
No significant effects are identified.
III Finding of No Significant Effect
Based on the attached Initial Study and Attachment A — Discussion of
Environmental Factors, it has been determined that -the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
PARMDZ\Expansion 2009-10\CEQA\ND Intro.Doc
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
1. Project Title: Los Angeles County Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works, Environmental Programs Division, 900 South Fremont Avenue,
Alhambra, California 91803-1331
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr Hossein Torabzadeh (626) 458-3564
4. Project Location: The unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County; current
member cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte, Glendale,
Inglewood,_P_almdale,Sou.th_Gate, T_o.r_rance,_and Vernon,_and-pr_oposed_ne_w member _ _—
cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City, El Segundo,
Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works, 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91803-1331
6. General Plan Designation: The Los Angeles County General Plan and the General
Plans of the current member cities and the General Plans of the proposed new
member cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington
Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier
7. Zoning: The project area is zoned for community commercial, commercial
manufacturing, commercial residential, industrial, low density residential, low/medium
density residential, major commercial, medium density residential, public use,
residential parking, and transportation corridor
8. Description of Project: The Project is the expansion of the Los Angeles County
Recycling Market Development Zone as designated by the California Integrated
Waste Management Board The RMDZ program is an economic and technical
assistance program which includes a low interest loan program available to
manufacturers within the RMDZ that make products from recycled materials.
Currently, the Los Angeles County RMDZ encompasses the unincorporated areas of
Los Angeles County and the cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton,
El Monte, Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, and Vernon. The
RMDZ seeks to expand the zone by including the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park,
Covina, Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and
Whittier
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
A. Project Site — The project is located within the Los Angeles County'RMDZ,
which will encompasses all the unincorporated areas of the County and the
cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte, Glendale,
Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, Vernon, Azusa, Baldwin Park,
Covina, Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs,
and Whittier For the most part, the area consists of single family residences,
multi -family dwelling units, businesses, and commercial and industrial
establishments. Some undeveloped land exists in the northern portions of the
County in the areas known as the Antelope Valley and the Santa Clarita Valley
B. Surrounding Properties — Los Angeles County RMDZ is surrounded by the
Counties of Kern, Orange, San Bernardino, and Ventura_ Within the boundaries
of the County of Los Angeles, separate RMDZs are administered by the cities of
Long Beach, Los Angeles, and Santa Clarita.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (and permits needed):
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery; Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors fie cities of -Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Com on�IMonte,
Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, Vernon, Azusa, Baldwin
- Park, Covina, Culver City, El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs,
and Whittier.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics — Agriculture Resources _ Air Quality
Biological Resources _ Cultural Resources _ Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions _ Hazards & Hazardous _ Hydrology/Water
Materials Quality
Land Use/Planning _ Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing _ —Public-Services---Recreation---
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant
unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect a) has been adequately analyzed
in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal. standards, and b) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects'that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
!1
Signature-✓ Date
County of Los Angeles
Hossein Torabzadeh Department of Public Works
Printed Name For
PAPdpub\EP&A\EU\Projects\RMDZ ExpansionlND\1b Initial Study.Doc
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A brief explanation is required for all answers, except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone) A "No Impact" answer
should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a
project -specific screening analysis)-
2 All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as
on -site, cumulative as well•as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as
---well as operational -impacts. --- - - -- -
3 "Potential Significant Impact" is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially
significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance_ If
there are one or more "Potential Significant Impact" entries when the determination is
made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
4 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potential Significant Impact" to a "Less
Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a -less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced)
5 Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR or other
California Environmental Quality Act process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are
discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6 Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references, information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans and zoning ordinances). See the
sample question below A source list should be attached and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion
P:\pdpub\EP&A\EWPrgects\RMDZ Expansion\ND\Evaluation of env Impt.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT ZONE
The expansion of the Los Angeles County RMDZ will have no significant impact on the
environment. This finding includes no significant impact on the air quality, traffic conditions,
and land use impacts in the RMDZ program area The RMDZ program is an incentive
program, which offers the possibility of financial, technical, and marketing assistance to
businesses that undertake projects that will add market value to waste materials that would
otherwise be disposed of in a landfill Businesses which operate in the Los Angeles, County
RMDZ must still meet the same zoning standards and obtain the same environmental permits
and clearance as businesses_ that are not in the Los Angeles County RMDZ The Los
Angeles County RMDZ is not relaxing any permitting or environmental regulations Projects
that may qualify for the RMDZ program are activities or projects that would be permitted,
regardless of the RMDZ program The adoption of this Negative Declaration does not
alleviate the need to perform necessary CEQA review on future projects that receive RMDZ
program assistance
The Los Angeles County RMDZ has been in operation since July of 1994 without a significant
negative environmental impact and in fact may have possible positive impacts on the
environment. One of the primary goals of the program is to assist businesses that are
increasing the amount of waste diverted from area landfills To this end, the program is
actually creating a positive environmental impact by diverting waste that would normally be
disposed of in a landfill and instead utilizing it for a beneficial use
The expansion of the Los Angeles County RMDZ will not have significant land use impacts
The RMDZ program does not supersede any current land use policies or regulations
Therefore, it will be consistent with existing zoning, plans, and other applicable land use
controls. Projects that apply for assistance through the RMDZ are required to be in
compliance with all land use policies and regulations in order to qualify for assistance.
r
G CCS� G C U
U.. rU"' OF U... 2
U
U1 C R N'C N O; N G N
o.mEa�mE j0E o
av�_ �<n_ z
AESTHETICS e Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Scenic vistas may generally be characterized as a view that provides visual access to a
large geographic area or provides visual access to a particular object, scene setting or
feature of interest. The proposed project consists of expanding the Los Angeles County
Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ). The RMDZ is an economic and technical
assistance program which assists manufacturers and processors within the RMDZ. The
expanded Los Angeles County RMDZ will encompass the unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County and the cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte,
Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, Vernon, Azusa, Baldwin Park,
Covina, Culver 'City. El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and
Whittier. The proposed project is not within proximity of any scenic vistas and is
consistent with the existing land use Therefore, the proposed project would not have a
1 of 17
C C g C C C U
E
�_i 1iinE z°
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. There will be no impact.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates roadways that provide
scenic views as official Scenic Highways or Corridors. The project is not located near a
designated State scenic highway, nor is it adjacent to local freeways or roadways that are
designated or eligible scenic roadways. The proposed project would not damage scenic
resources. No construction or development is proposed. Therefore, there will be no
impact.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its [�
- -surroundings-? -- - -
The proposed project would not degrade nor change the visual quality throughout the Los
Angeles County RMDZ. No construction or development is proposed, and any construction
or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review.
Therefore, the proposed project has no impact on visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would ,adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
The proposed project would not create any new sources of light or glare. No construction
or development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. This will not provide a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely, affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Therefore, there will be no impact.
AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the
California Department of'Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest
land; including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment
project- and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
The project location is not used for agricultural purposes or as a farmland Therefore, the
project will have no impact on farmland.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
The proposed project will not conflict with any zoning for agricultural use and will have no
impact on a Williamson Act contract. The only Williamson Act parcels in Los Angeles
County are, on Santa Catalina Island. There will be no impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for. or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
2of17
L_
C CCSC N C U
.0 c co .->(J m� o � a
'6. E Jfn -OE Z
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
The proposed project will not conflict with existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land,
timber land or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The proposed project consists of
expanding the Los Angeles County RMDZ. The RMDZ is an economic and technical
assistance program which assists manufacturers and processors within the RMDZ
Therefore, the project will not have an impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? ❑
The proposed project will not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest
--- land -to -non forest use--T-he-r-e-will-bend-impact. --
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, EJ El El N
could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non -forest use?
No construction or change in use is proposed and the proposed project would not involve
any changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to
nonagricultural use. There will be no impact.
Ill. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the
jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The South
Coast Air Basin is classified as an area of non -attainment for Particulate Matter (PM10 and
PM2.5), and Ozone. The governing air quality management plan is the 2007 Air Quality
Management Plan. Public Works currently complies with emission reduction measures
enforced by the SCAQMD. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the .applicable air quality plan No construction or development is
proposed, and any construction or development would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no impact.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
The proposed, project would not violate any air quality standards or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation No construction or development is proposed, and
any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. No construction or development is proposed. Any construction or
development would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State'ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for zone precursors)?
The proposed project would not 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. There will be no impact.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
3 of 17
s _
C CLS C,CpC FJ
d i JU)=MJ co Z
The proposed project consists of expanding the Los Angeles County RMDZ. The RMDZ
is an economic and technical assistance program which assists manufacturers and
processors within the RMDZ. The proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutant concentrations. Therefore, there will be no impact.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? El El El N
The proposed project would not create objectionable odors. Any RMDZ activity that may
create objectionable odors would be subject to environmental review. There will be no
impact.
IV BBIOL-OGICAL RESOL ROBS - Would -the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications. on any ❑
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service. No construction or
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service?
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural 'community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Los Angeles County RMDZ substantially consists of densely developed urban areas. No
construction or development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting
from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review There will be no impact.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 0
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on any. Federally protected
wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No
construction or development is proposed, and any construction.or development resulting
from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species; or D El El IVS]
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors; or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
The proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No construction or
development is proposed, and any 'construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
4of17
C CC�C@C U
�p l0 Nl0 OL N W
Nc o: rgc�y Co. E
6_ d rn o
am ,M _inE z
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources. No construction or development is proposed, and any construction
or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Community
Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other applicable local,
--regional, or -state -habitat conservation-planNo_constr_uction or-develop-nemLis_p_roposed, __ __
and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
V CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064 5?
The proposed project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource. No physical demolition, destruction. relocation, or alteration of any
historical resource or its immediate surroundings is proposed. There will be no impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the, significance of an archaeological resource [�
pursuant to §15064 5?
The proposed project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource, directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature, or disturb any human remains No construction or
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic [�
feature?
See V. b) above.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
See V. b) above.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury. or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake ❑
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse
effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No construction or
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
5of17
L
C C CS C M G V
C =
Q, C nN�Qp;y C Q C
o'63 �E 3inE z
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse
effects involving strong seismic ground shaking, No construction or development is
proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would
be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
iii)'- Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? El El ❑
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse
effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. No
construction or development is proposed, a rfy construction or development
resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review. There will
be no impact.
iv) Landslides?
❑
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential adverse
effects involving landslides. No construction or development is proposed, and any
construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The proposed project would not result in soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No construction or
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. or that would become unstable as a
0 El El M
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
r
The proposed project would not result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse due to soil instability. No construction or
-
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
The proposed project would not create risks to life or property due to expansive soil: No
construction or development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting
from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
0
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The proposed project would not generate waste water or involve the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems. No construction or development is proposed,
and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
6of17
C C Cj� C C U
t
E
^_�arn_m`0e..m.mmn
a fn � _J J U) — Z
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project:
a) 'Generate greenhouse gas emissions. either directly or indirectly, that may have a F1 ❑
significant impact on the environment?
On September 27. 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, was enacted by the State of California in order to address global
climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) limits
California's Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels
and directs California Air Resources Board to develop significance thresholds. Gases
known to contribute to the Greenhouse Effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4).
ozone: nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor. hydrofluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, and
-- sulfur hexafluoride. According to the report "California's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990 to 2004", the principal greenhouse gas in California is carbon dioxide
accounting for over 80 percent of the GHG emissions.
The proposed project consists of expanding the Los Angeles County RMDZ. No
construction or development is proposed. The RMDZ is an incentive program, which offers
the possibility of financial, technical and marketing assistance to businesses that
undertake projects that will add market value. to waste materials that would otherwise be
disposed of in a landfill. Any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities
would be subject to environmental review. The proposed project would not introduce new
sources of greenhouse gas emitters, nor would the proposed project create a new use that
would attract vehicle trips that otherwise would not occur. The proposed project will not
generate greenhouse gas emission that may have a significant impact on the environment.
Therefore, there is no impact.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plans, polices or regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No construction
or development is proposed. Any construction or development would be subject to
environmental review. Therefore,- the proposed project will have no impact.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, ❑
use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. Any RMDZ projects which require the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to environmental review. There will be
no impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable ❑
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment or emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
materials, substances or wastes within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Any RMDZ project that may release hazardous materials or emit hazardous emissions or
7of17
L C C� C ry C U
�U«YU..:9R
U U U E
'C N N'C O:
o. N p,4:. N J, G.
a -(A 00) E J(n � J (n � Z
handle hazardous materials, substances or wastes within one quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
. substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
See VIII b) above.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled 1:1 0
El 12�1_11
pursuant to Government Code, Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The proposed project would not be located on a site which was indiuded a list of
hazardous-materials-shites-complied-pursuant-to--Government Code, -Section-6596-2,51n
addition, the proposed ptoject woul not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. No construction or development is proposed, and any construction or
development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or. where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Los Angeles County RMDZ currently encompasses all the unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County as well as the cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte,
Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, and Vernon. The proposed
expanded RMDZ will also include the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City,
El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier. Several small
public airports and several large commercial airports are in and near these areas. The
RMDZ would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area. No construction or development is proposed. Any construction or development
would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip. would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Los Angeles County RMDZ currently encompasses all the unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County as well as the cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte,
Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate„ Torrance, and Vernon The proposed
expanded RMDZ will also include the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City.
El Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier. Several small
private airports and several large commercial airports are in and near these areas. No
construction or development is proposed Any construction or development would be
subject to environmental review. The RMDZ would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area. There will be no impact.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The expansion of the Los Angeles County RMDZ would not impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan. No construction or development is proposed. Any construction or development
would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant nsk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, []
including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildiands?
8of17
CU V'�'UUiO~wU �
C N O
a° iU 'J § i, n E z
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury. or death involving wildland fires. No construction or development is proposed, and
any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY = Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ❑
The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements. No construction or development is proposed and any RMDZ projects would
be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater El El C]
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a
level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
The proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level, since the project would not involve the use of
any substantial amounts of water. Any. RMDZ projects that would require water in
substantial amounts would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of ❑
the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
The proposed project would not result in erosion or siltation on- or off -site since the project
would not include activities that would change existing drainage patterns. Any RMDZ
project that required construction or development would be subject to environmental
review. There will be no impact.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
The proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern or increase the rate of
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site on any property. Any
RMDZ project that would require construction or development would be subject "to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned El El El 'Fil
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water. which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff No construction or development is proposed, and any
RMDZ project that may impact stormwater or runoff would be subject to environmental
review. There will be no impact.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ El ❑ M
The proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality. No construction or
development is proposed, and any RMDZ project that may degrade water quality would be
subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
9of17
X.
C CCSC �C
U -
U..+ U-8L U.J
4_.UNF:rU
O_
E
rn - m E
. E�in���vi
z°
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
The proposed project does not involve any construction or placement of any housing
within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact would occur.
h) -Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
The proposed project does not involve any construction or placement of structures that
would impede or redirect flood flows. No construction or development is proposed, and
any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review There will be no impact.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury. or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
The proposed project would not include activities that could expose�people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury. or death involving flooding. No construction or
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. Therevill be no impact.
Would the project cause or expose people and structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
The proposed project would not include activities that could expose people or structures to
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow No construction or development is proposed,
and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No
construction or development is proposed, and any construction or development. resulting
from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy. or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No
construction or change in use is proposed, and any RMDZ project would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural .community conservation plan. No construction or change in use is proposed, and
any RMDZ project would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact
10 of 17
® IN
U
�U.. LU77r 0�U
fiZ.g�� in E z
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability, of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the El 0 F X
region and the residents of the State?
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the state. No construction
or development is proposed. Any construction or development would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site M
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
e proposed project wou d not resu t in he loss of avai a i tty of a locally —important
ly important — — _-
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan No construction or development is proposed. Any construction or
development would be subject to environmental review There will be no impact.
XII. NOISE - Would the project result in;
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in El D El NJ
the local general plan or ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?
The proposed project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of
standards established in the County general plan, the County noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies. No construction or change in use is proposed,
and any RMDZ project that may expose persons to or generation of such noise levels
would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne []
VMJ
noise levels?
The proposed project would not expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels. No construction or change in use is proposed, and
any RMDZ project that may expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne
vibration would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
The proposed project would not result in permanent increaseinambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Any RMDZ project that may lead
to increase in the ambient noise levels would be subject to environmental review. There
will be no impact.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
The proposed project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Any
RMDZ project that may lead to increase in the ambient noise levels would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
11 of 17
c c o
Cw U��CU�yFU a
�i°a,.-°.' ran
(LW J(n ft3' � Z
Los Angeles County RMDZ currently encompasses the unincorporated areas of the
County along with the cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte,
Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate, Torrance, and Vernon. The proposed
expanded zone will also include the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City, El
Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier. There are several
public and commercial airports in the area. Any RMDZ project that may expose people to
excessive noise levels would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Los Angeles County RMDZ currently encompasses the unincorporated areas of the
County_ along with the cities of Burbank, Carson, Commerce, Compton, El Monte,
Glendale, Inglewood, Palmdale, South Gate. Torrance, and Vernon The proposed
expanded zone will also include the cities of Azusa, Baldwin Park, Covina, Culver City, El
Segundo, Huntington Park, Monrovia, Santa Fe Springs, and Whittier. There are private
airstrips in the area. Any RMDZ project that may expose people to excessive noise levels
would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
Xlli. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g . by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth, either directly or
indirectly. No construction or development is proposed and any construction or
development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no impact.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of El El El V"Zil
replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would not displace existing housing No construction or
development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement El [l F M
housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people. No construction
or development is proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ
activities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
XIV PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the public services.
i) Fire protection? El ❑
12of17
L_
C C CS C C U
O dd N�N �1-
ainEmeinEg�u E z°
The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for any new or
physically altered fire protection facilities. No construction or change in use is
proposed, and any RMDZ project which may require additional public facilities would
be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
ii) Police protection?
The proposed project would not result. in the provision of or need for any new or
physically altered police protection or other public facilities. No construction or
change in use is proposed, and any RMDZ project which may require additional
public facilities would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
iii)Schools? -----
The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for any new or
physically altered school facilities. No construction or change in use is proposed,
and any RMDZ project which may require additional public facilities would be subject
to environmental review. There will be no impact.
iv) Parks?
The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for any new or
physically altered park facilities. No construction or change in use is proposed, and
any RMDZ project which may require additional public facilities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
v) Other public facilities?
The proposed project would not result in the provision of or need for any new or
physically altered public facilities. No construction or change in use is proposed, and
any RMDZ project which may require additional public facilities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
XV RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other M
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
The proposed project would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational
facilities. No construction or development is proposed. Any construction or development
would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of any recreational facilities. There will be no impact.
XVI TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of El 0 El M
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes
of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components
13 of 17
E U
mU�..YU....�—U..., a
E
0 Nip y 6/4
a-&5 E _3 _IjCn E z
of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections. Any
RMDZ project that may result in increased traffic loads would be subject to environmental
review. There will be no impact.
b) , Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to. [�
level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by
the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
The proposed project would not exceed, either individually or, cumulatively, a level of
--service--,,tandard—established—by the—CountyCongestion—Management—Agency—for
designated roads or highways. The County's Congestion Management Program (CMP)
applies to projects that have the potential to generate a minimum of 50 vehicle trips
through a CMP intersection. The proposed project does not have the potential to generate
50 or more trips through a CMP intersection No construction or development is proposed,
and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. No construction or
development is proposed. Any construction or development would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) El 0 El 0
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or
incompatible uses. Any construction or development resulting from an RMDZ project that
may result in such hazards would be subject to environmental review. There will be no
impact.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access since no changes
in emergency access would occur as a result of the project. Any construction or
development resulting from an RMDZ project that may result in inadequate emergency
access would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or El 1:1 El 1VM1
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities. No construction or development is proposed Any
construction or development would be subject to environmental review. There will be no
impact.
XVII,. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of then applicable Regional Water Quality Control 0
Board?
14of17
m coo mI'S o L m ro
E
o ° F aJv�_2Lm_ o_ (D o
av�_. �z
The proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board since the project would not result in
contamination of; or increase in, discharge of wastewater. No construction or
development is proposed, and any RMDZ project that may exceed wastewater treatment
requirements would be subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Any RMDZ project that
may cause increased water usage or discharge of wastewater wouldbe subject —to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The proposed project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The proposed project would not increase any
storm water runoff that would affect existing or planned storm water drainage systems. No
construction or development is proposed, and any RMDZ project that may require the
construction or expansion of existing facilities would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no impact.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The proposed project would not necessitate any water supplies to serve the project from
any existing entitlements and resources, nor necessitate any new or expanded
entitlements. No construction or development is proposed, and any construction or
development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no. impact.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
The proposed project would not result in any capacity determinations made by any
wastewater treatment provider since the project would not increase any waste water
discharges. Any RMDZ project that may cause increased demand would be subject to
environmental review. There will be no impact.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
The proposed project would be served by landfills with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. No construction or development is
proposed, and any construction or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be
subject to environmental review. There will be no impact.
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project would comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. No construction or development is proposed, and any construction
or development resulting from RMDZ activities would be subject to environmental review.
There will be no impact.
15 of 17
XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
s
f0 10 lU
C� U��Ul6~ UU 4
a U) J(n E; J E Z
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community: reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
_____reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
The proposed project would not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The proposed project would not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No construction is
proposed, and any RMDZ project that could potentially have substantial adverse effects
would be subject to environmental review,
16 of 17
XVIII. DISCUSSION OF WAYS TO MITIGATE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
Section 15041 (a) of the State CEQA guidelines states that a lead agency for a project has authority to require changes in
any or all activities involved in the project in order to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. No significant
effects have been identified. However, the following standard best management practices will be in place for construction -
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should
be explained -where itis based on-project=specific-factors aswell as --general standards; the project -will -not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis)
2) All answers must take account of the whole action Involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as
well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational Impacts.
3) "Potential Significant Impact' is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead
agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potential Significant
Impact' entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.
4) "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potential Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR or other California Environmental
Quality Act process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration
Section 15063(c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e g., general plans, zoning ordinances) See the sample question below A source list should be
attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion
P:IPDPUBIEP&AIEUIPROJECTSIRMDZ EXPANSIOMNDICHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION.DOCX
17 of 17