DOCSLIB.ORG

I-405/Avalon Boulevard Interchange

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I-405/Avalon Boulevard Interchange I-405/AVALON BOULEVARD INTERCHANGE LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT 7 LA 405 (PM 10.8/11.4) EA 233900 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment Prepared by the City of Carson and the State of California Department of Transportation The environmental review, consultation, and any other action required in accordance with applicable Federal laws for this project is being, or has been, carried out by Caltrans under its assumption of reponsibility pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description/Location I-405/Avalon Boulevard Interchange Project The City of Carson propooses to improve the configuration of the I-405/Avalon Boulevard interchange in the City of Carson, County of Los Angeles. The interchange is located approximately 1.36 miles southeast of the I-405/Main Street interchange and 0.69 miles northwest of the I-405/Carson Street interchange. The proposed improvements would: (1) realign and improve existing ramps in three of the intersection quadrants; (2) add a new ramp in the fourth (i.e. southeast) quadrant, which would link Lenardo Drive and Avalon Boulevard to the freeway at a widened 213th Street bridge; (3) link the interchange to Lenardo Drive on the adjacent Carson Marketplace site with a bridge over the Torrance Lateral flood control channel; and (4) widen Avalon Boulevard in the northbound direction. Determination This proposed Negative Declaration (ND) is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is the Department’s intent to adopt an ND for this project. This does not mean that the Department’s decision regarding the project is final. This ND is subject to modification based on comments received by interested agencies and the public. The Department has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and pending public review, expects to determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: The proposed project would have no effect on Farmlands/Timberlands, Community Impacts- Relocations or Mineral Resources. In addition, the proposed project would have no significant effect on: Land Use, Growth, Community Impacts, Community Impacts – Community Character and Cohesion, Community Character – Environmental Justice, Utilities/Emergency Community Services, Traffic & Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Visual/Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Floodplain, Water Quality and Storm Water Run-off, Geology/Soils/Seismic Topography, Paleontology, Hazardous Waste Materials, Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, Natural Communities, Wetlands and Other Waters, Plant Species, Animal Species, Threatened and Endangered Species, Invasive Species and Cumulative Impacts. Ronald S. Kosinski Date Deputy District Director District 7 California Department of Transportation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 – PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND/OR MITIGATION MEASURES ............................. 21 2.1 Environmental Topics with No Impact ................................................................... 21 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................... 21 2.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 21 2.3 Growth .................................................................................................................. 29 2.4 Community Impacts – Community Character and Cohesion ................................ 33 2.5 Community Impacts – Environmental Justice ....................................................... 34 2.6 Utilities and Emergency/Community Services ...................................................... 38 2.7 Traffic & Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities .................................... 43 2.8 Visual/Aesthetics ................................................................................................... 78 2.9 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 82 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 87 2.10 Hydrology and Floodplain ..................................................................................... 87 2.11 Water Quality and Stormwater Runoff .................................................................. 90 2.12 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography ...................................................................... 94 2.13 Paleontology ....................................................................................................... 100 2.14 Hazardous Waste Materials ................................................................................ 102 2.15 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 106 2.16 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................. 126 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 138 2.17 Natural Communities .......................................................................................... 138 2.18 Wetlands and Other Waters ................................................................................ 141 2.19 Plant Species ...................................................................................................... 143 2.20 Animal Species ................................................................................................... 144 2.21 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................ 147 2.22 Invasive Species ................................................................................................. 149 2.23 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 150 CHAPTER 3 - COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................... 160 CHAPTER 4 - LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................... 161 CHAPTER 5 - DISTRIBUTION LIST ........................................................................................ 163 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 166 INTIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I-405/Avalon Boulevard Interchange July 2008 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) APPENDICES Appendix A: CEQA Checklist Appendix B: Resources Evaluated Relative to the Requirements of Section 4 (f) Appendix C: Title VI Policy Statement LIST OF TECHNICAL STUDIES Air Quality Technical Report Geologic - Seismic Foundation Report Hazardous Materials - Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report Historic Property Survey Report: Cultural Resources Study of I-405/Avalon Boulevard Interchange Improvement Natural Environment Study/ Biological Resources Technical Report Noise Technical Report Storm Water Data Report Traffic Technical Report INTIALSTUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT I-405/Avalon Boulevard Interchange July 2008 Page ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2 2 Current Interchange Configuration .................................................................................. 3 3 Proposed Project Improvements ...................................................................................... 9 4 Schematic Ramp Configurations ................................................................................... 11 5 Project Features – Photos 1-4 ....................................................................................... 12 6 Project Features – Photos 5-10 ..................................................................................... 13 7 Conceptual Design for the Lenardo Drive Bridge........................................................... 14 8 Construction Staging ...................................................................................................... 17 9 General Plan Land Use Map .......................................................................................... 23 10 Project Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................... 24 11 Affected Block Groups ................................................................................................... 36 12 Community Facilities and Services ................................................................................ 40 13 Traffic Analysis Study Area and Facilities ...................................................................... 45 14 Existing (2006) Traffic Volumes at Study Intersections .................................................. 46 15 Existing Freeway Traffic Volumes on Freeway Mainline and Ramps ............................ 47 16 Opening Year (2010) - Traffic Projections at Study Intersections - Build Alternative ..... 56 17 Opening Year (2010) - Build Alternative Traffic Projections on Freeway Mainline and Ramps ....................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Bay Arterial System Detection Project
    South Bay Arterial System Detection Project Infrastructure Working Group Meeting September 9, 2020 South Bay Arterial System Detection Project Topics Covered • Jurisdictions in the Project area • Project Background • Project Scope • Preliminary Design • Design Phase I • Design Phase II • Anticipated Construction Schedule • Map and List of Intersections Jurisdictions • Unincorporated Los Angeles County • Carson • El Segundo • Gardena • Hawthorne • Hermosa Beach • Lawndale • Manhattan Beach • Redondo Beach • Torrance Project Background • Conceptual Design Plan identified and recommended improvements in the South Bay Region, including: • Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras • Communication Upgrades (Fiber) • Arterial System Detection • These enhancements improve traffic flows and reduce traffic congestion. • This project centers on the arterial performance Example CCTV camera measurement as part of the following south bay regional programs: 1. Los Angeles County Public Works South Bay Signal Synchronization and Bus Speed Improvements Plan 2. South Bay Cities Council of Governments South Bay Highway Program Strategic Transportation Element Project Scope Identify and install arterial system detectors at select locations within South Bay Cities to support traffic signal operations and network performance measures • Types of detector technologies studied and available: • Split advance loops, Bluetooth readers, Wi-fi readers, Radar, and Video detection • These devices can provide the following benefits • Enable traffic responsive signal operations
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Element Designates the General Distribution and Location Patterns of Such Uses As Housing, Business, Industry, and Open Space
    CIRCULATION ELEMENT CITY OF HAWTHORNE GENERAL PLAN Adopted April, 1990 Prepared by: Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. 1028 North Lake Avenue, Suite 107 Pasadena, California 91104 Revision Table Date Case # Resolution # 07/23/2001 2001GP01 6675 06/28/2005 2005GP03 & 04 6967 12/09/2008 2008GP03 7221 06/26/2012 2012GP01 7466 12/04/2015 2015GP02 7751 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. Introduction to the Circulation Element 1 Purpose of this Element 1 Relation to Other General Plan Elements 1 II. Existing Conditions 2 Freeways 2 Local Vehicular Circulation and Street Classification 3 Transit Systems 4 Para-transit Systems 6 Transportation System Management 6 TSM Strategies 7 Non-motorized Circulation 7 Other Circulation Related Topics 8 III. Issues and Opportunities 10 IV. Circulation Element Goals and Policies 11 V. Crenshaw Station Active Transportation Plan 23 Circulation Element March 1989 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure1: Street Classification 17 Figure 2: Traffic Volume Map 18 Figure 3: Roadway Standards 19 Figure 4: Truck Routes 20 Figure 5: Level of Service 21 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Definitions of Level-of-Service 22 Circulation Element March 1989 SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT Circulation and transportation systems are one of the most important of all urban systems in determining the overall structure and form of the areas they service. The basic purpose of a transportation network within the City of Hawthorne is the provision of an efficient, safe, and serviceable framework which enables people to move among various sections of the city in order to work, shop, or spend leisure hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Transportation
    Los Angeles Harbor Department Section 3.3 Ground Transportation 1 Section 3.3 2 Ground Transportation 3 SECTION SUMMARY 4 Section 3.3, Ground Transportation, provides the following: 5 • A review of the ground transportation mitigation measures of the 2008 EIS/EIR; 6 • A description of observed existing ground transportation conditions in the study area, and the 7 differences from the 2008 EIS/EIR; 8 • A discussion of the methodology used to determine whether the Revised Project would result 9 in a new or substantially more severe significant impact on ground transportation; 10 • A summary of the ground transportation impacts of the Revised Project; and 11 • A description of revised, feasible mitigation measures proposed to reduce significant adverse 12 impacts, as applicable. 13 Key Points of Section 3.3: 14 Four of the mitigation measures imposed in the 2008 EIS/EIR (MM TRANS-2, -3, -4, and -6, see Section 15 3.3.1) to mitigate potential impacts at study intersections are not included in the Revised Project; this 16 SEIR evaluates future conditions without those measures and determines whether their removal would 17 have new or more serious significant impacts relative to the findings of the 2008 EIR/EIR. Roadway 18 circumstances have changed since the certification of the 2008 EIS/EIR and new information is available 19 concerning traffic conditions at study area intersections that calls into question the need for those 20 measures. Ten of the 17 study area intersections analyzed in the 2008 EIS/EIR have undergone physical 21 changes, including those where mitigation measures were proposed in the 2008 EIS/EIR.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 72 January 1950 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 11.PPACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CALIFORNIA TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1948 Prepared by San Francisco District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director WASHINGTON, D. C. Free on application to the Director, Geological Survey, Washington 26, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 11.PPACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CALIFORNIA TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1948 EXPLANATION The index lists the stream-flow ana reservoir stations in the Pacific Slope Basins in California for which records have been or are to be pub­ lished for periods prior to September 30, 1948. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Paren­ theses around part of a station name indicate that the enclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures published or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Some drainage areas not published by the Geological Survey are listed with an appropriate footnote stating the published source of the figure of drainage area. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1948.
    [Show full text]
  • Dominguez Channel and Machado Lake Watersheds
    LA SUSTAINABLE WATER PROJECT: DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL AND MACHADO LAKE WATERSHEDS This report is a product of the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, UCLA Sustainable LA Grand Challenge, and Colorado School of Mines. AUTHORS Kathryn Mika, Terri Hogue, Stephanie Pincetl, Elizabeth Gallo, Mark Gold AFFILIATIONS UCLA Grand Challenges, Sustainable LA 2248 Murphy Hall Los Angeles, CA 90005-1405 UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability La Kretz Hall, Suite 300 Box 951496 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1496 Colorado School of Mines 1500 Illinois Street Golden, CO 80401 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation (LASAN). Many thanks to LASAN for providing ideas and direction, facilitating meetings and data requests, as well as sharing the many previous and current research efforts that provided us with invaluable infor- mation on which to build. Further, LASAN provided edits which helped to deepen and improve this report. Any findings, opinions, or conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of LASAN. We would further like to acknowledge the many organizations which facilitated this research through providing data, conversations, and insights into the integrated water management world in the Los Angeles region: LADWP, LACDPW, LARWQCB, LACFCD, WRD, WBMWD, MWD, SCCWRP, the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, and many others. 1 | LA Sustainable Water Project; Dominguez Channel & Machado Lake Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Transportation and Infrastructure Element
    CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT CHAPTER 4 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE GUIDING PRINCIPLE The City of Carson is committed to providing a safe and efficient circulation system that improves the flow of traffic while enhancing pedestrian safety, promoting commerce, and providing for alternative modes of transportation. The City is committed to maintaining and improving all forms of infrastructure including water, sewer and storm drainage facilities, as well as communication and other technological facilities to provide a sustainable system. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Element is to document the methods and results of the analysis of the existing and projected future circulation conditions in the City of Carson. As part of the General Plan, this document outlines Transportation and Infrastructure System policies and describes the future circulation system needed to support the Land Use Element. In addition, the Element addresses public utilities and infrastructure. 2.0 STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS The pertinent Government Code sections relating to the Transportation and Infrastructure Element are as follows: “Government Code Section 65302(b): (The general plan shall include) a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and Carson General Plan TI-1 Chapter 4 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan. Government Code Section 95303: The general plan may . address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city.” 3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1 EXISTING CIRCULATION SYSTEM The City of Carson is served by the existing network of roadways shown in Exhibit TI-1, Existing Road Network.
    [Show full text]
  • C. Traffic, Circulation and Parking
    IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND PARKING 1. INTRODUCTION This section is based on the technical report, Traffic Impact Study for the Carson Marketplace, prepared by Kaku Associates, October 2005. This Study has been reviewed and approved by the City’s traffic engineer. The traffic study presented in Appendix D of this Draft EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the Project on the surrounding street and freeway system, including the Project’s driveway access points, public transportation, access during construction, and parking. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING a. Regional Network The San Diego (I-405) and the Harbor Freeway (I-110) provide the primary regional access to the Project site via interchanges located at I-405/Avalon Boulevard, I-405/Main Street, I-110/Figueroa Street, and I-110/Hamilton Avenue. The I-405 Freeway/Avalon Boulevard interchange is located near the southeast corner of the Project site. The I-405 Freeway/Main Street interchange is located approximately 0.4 miles north of the Project site’s Main Street/Del Amo Boulevard intersection. The I-110/Hamilton Avenue interchange (southbound) and the I- 110/Figueroa Street interchange (northbound) are located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site’s Main Street/Del Amo Boulevard intersection. b. Local Street Network The existing street system serving the Project site includes Avalon Boulevard, Main Street, Vermont Avenue, Hamilton Avenue, and Figueroa Street in the north-south direction and Del Amo Boulevard, Carson Street, Torrance Boulevard, 213th Street, and 190th Street in the east-west direction. Del Amo Boulevard via Stamps Drive, Main Street via Lenardo Drive, Avalon Boulevard and the I-405 southbound ramps via Lenardo Drive provide direct access to the Project site.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX D SCIG Cultural and Paleontological Reports
    APPENDIX D SCIG Cultural and Paleontological Reports Southern California International Gateway Draft EIR September 2011 Historical, Paleontological, and Archaeological Assessment of the Southern California International Gateway Project Area Phase II – Northern Section of Southern California International Gateway Project Area ADP #041027-199 Prepared for: Los Angeles Harbor Department 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, CA 90733-0151 Contact: Dennis Hagner 310/732-3949 Prepared by: 811 West 7th Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Contact: David Greenwood 213/627-5376 September 2008 Table of Contents Project Overview ................................................................................................................1 Previous Surveys ..........................................................................................................1 Summary of Findings – Phase I ...................................................................................5 Phase II Technical Report .................................................................................................8 Addendum: Northern Portion of California Cartage Warehouse .................................8 Project Description ............................................................................................................8 Historic Setting - Review .............................................................................................9 Site Context ................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Survey Report
    F.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT FOR THE SAN PEDRO WATERFRONT PROJECT LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Los Angeles Harbor Department Environmental Management Division 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, California 90733 Prepared by: ICF Jones & Stokes 811 West 7th Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90017 213/627-5376 August 2008 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2 II. REGULATORY SETTING ................................................................................ 3 FEDERAL REGULATIONS ................................................................................ 3 STATE REGULATIONS ...................................................................................... 4 LOCAL REGULATIONS ..................................................................................... 6 III. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 7 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 7 PREHISTORIC CULTURAL SETTING .............................................................. 7 ETHNOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 9 HISTORIC BACKGROUND .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Attachment a 303(D) List for Bodies of Water from RWQCB Basin Plans in Southern California
    Attachment A 303(d) List for Bodies of Water from RWQCB Basin Plans in Southern California Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc Attachment A-1 Lahontan RWQCB Basin Plan 303(d) List Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS REQUIRING TMDLS LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD USEPA APPROVAL DATE: JUNE 28, 2007 CALWATER POTENTIAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL REGION TYPE NAME WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR SOURCES SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION 6 R Big Meadow Creek 63410011 Pathogens 1.4 Miles 2019 Range Grazing-Riparian and/or Upland Natural Sources Recreational and Tourism Activities (non-boating) 6 R Blackwood Creek 63420021 Iron 5.9 Miles 2015 Erosion/Siltation Natural Sources Nonpoint Source Nitrogen 5.9 Miles 2008 Nitrogen loading from creek to be addressed during development of Lake Tahoe TMDL, but a more specific TMDL may be needed for Blackwood Creek. Silviculture Resource Extraction Hydromodification Streambank Modification/Destabilization Erosion/Siltation Atmospheric Deposition Natural Sources Nonpoint Source Phosphorus 5.9 Miles 2008 Phosphorus loading from creek to be addressed during development of Lake Tahoe TMDL, but a more specific TMDL for creek may be needed. Grazing-Related Sources Silviculture Resource Extraction Hydromodification Streambank Modification/Destabilization Erosion/Siltation Natural Sources Nonpoint Source Page 1 of 26 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS REQUIRING TMDLS LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD USEPA APPROVAL DATE: JUNE 28, 2007 CALWATER POTENTIAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL REGION TYPE NAME WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR SOURCES SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION Sedimentation/Siltation 5.9 Miles 2008 Creek affected by past gravel quarry operations and other watershed disturbance including grazing and timber harvest.
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic / Circulation / Parking
    IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS C. TRAFFIC / CIRCULATION / PARKING This section addresses the potential impacts of the proposed pipeline for both Phases 1 and 2 of the Project with regard to traffic on the surrounding street system during construction and on-going operations, including on- and off-street parking, access to transit service as well as pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The information and analysis in this section (except where footnoted otherwise) is based on the Transportation Report, (the “Traffic Report”), dated June, 2007, prepared for the proposed pipeline by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. This section is a summary of that report and includes an evaluation of the traffic conditions on the existing street network surrounding the proposed pipeline. The Traffic Report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, is included as Appendix E to this Draft EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed pipeline is approximately 24 miles in length and would begin at the Vopak Inland Terminal, a tank farm and storage facility in the Wilmington area of the City of Los Angeles. In Phase 1 of the Project, leaving Vopak the pipeline would travel north along Alameda Street to the Watson Pump Station in the City of Carson, passing LAXFUEL’s off-airport storage facility at the Kinder Morgan Carson and Shell Carson terminals. In Phase 2, from the Watson Pump Station, the pipeline would then continue north along Wilmington Avenue passing through the communities of Carson, unincorporated Los Angeles County, Compton, additional areas within the City of Los Angeles as well as the cities of Gardena and Hawthorne before entering the LAX property, traversing twenty (20) separate roadways.
    [Show full text]
  • All Shootings - Incident Summary Count - 2010 to Present
    All Shootings - Incident Summary Count - 2010 to Present INCIDENT NUMBER SHOOTING TYPE 1002033 2 1001929 2 1001872 1 1001786 2 1002012 2 1002009 1 1001627 2 1002018 2 1002008 1 1001666 2 Page 1 of 828 09/29/2021 All Shootings - Incident Summary Count - 2010 to Present INCIDENT DATE INCIDENT YEAR 11/15/2020 02:23:00 AM 2020 12/01/2016 12:00:00 AM 2016 10/30/2019 07:04:00 AM 2019 10/20/2019 11:14:00 AM 2019 09/24/2020 05:35:00 PM 2020 08/31/2020 03:16:00 PM 2020 11/25/2018 04:03:00 PM 2018 10/17/2020 12:00:00 AM 2020 08/22/2020 09:52:00 PM 2020 05/12/2019 12:00:00 AM 2019 Page 2 of 828 09/29/2021 All Shootings - Incident Summary Count - 2010 to Present INCIDENT LOCATION CITY STATE CA 6513 SAN LUIS STREET CA 3049 kaylyn street CA 5126 Santa Ana Street, Cudahy CA 5635 Washington Blvd. Commerce CA 90040 CA 1221 West 109th Place CA Los Angeles, CA 90044 44100 48TH STREET WEST LANCATER CA 123 West Pillsbury Street, Lancaster CA Bristow park CA 1466 south McDonnell avenue, commerce 1600 E. Tucker street CA Page 3 of 828 09/29/2021 All Shootings - Incident Summary Count - 2010 to Present ZIP REPORTING DISTRICT 1363 1137 0263 0244 0375 93536 1127 1132 0241 2825 Page 4 of 828 09/29/2021 All Shootings - Incident Summary Count - 2010 to Present GEO LOCATION HANDLING UNIT ID CA ELA (37.211164, -119.662127) 6513 SAN LUIS STREET, CA LKD (33.897111, -118.183453) 3049 kaylyn street, CA (34.668483, -118.075007) 5126 Santa Ana Street, Cudahy, CA ELA (34.055399, -117.540032) 5635 Washington Blvd.
    [Show full text]