CC RESOLUTION 5289RESOLUTION NO. 5289
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM (EA-1305) TO THE EL
SEGUNDO SOUTH CAMPUS SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT APPROVED UNDER EA-905 TO ANALYZE THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPORTS FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED
PRACTICE FIELDS WITHIN PHASE II OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND A
NEW STORAGE BUILDING WITHIN PHASE IV OF THE SPECIFIC
PLAN.
The City Council of the city of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council finds;
A. On December 15, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4958, certifying a
Final Environmental Impact Report (EA-905) ("FEIR") for the El Segundo South
Campus Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2012101081).
B. In approving Resolution 4958, the Council found that:
The City completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for
this project and a noticed Public Scoping meeting was conducted on
November 5, 2012 pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
Guidelines §15083. A Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was circulated for
public review from October 29, 2012 to November 28, 2012 pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15082. A Notice of Completion for the DEIR was filed
with the State Office of Planning and Research on July 14, 2014 pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15085. The public comment and review period for
the DEIR was open between July 14, 2014 and August 27, 2014 in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15087.
2. The FEIR was reviewed by the City Council and the information contained
in the FEIR was considered by the City Council before approving the
project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15090.
3. The FEIR was prepared under the City's direction and reflects its
independent judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts and
comments received on the DEIR.
4. The DEIR generally identified, for each potentially significant impact of the
project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a level of insignificance, with the exception of air quality and
noise impacts. The City Council found that nearly all of the potentially
significant impacts identified in the DEIR were mitigated by corresponding
mitigation measures to the extent set forth in the DEIR.
5„ Written findings were considered for each of the significant environmental
effects identified in the DEIR before certifying the FEIR, which included a
rationale of how mitigation measures lessened the significant
environmental effects to a less than significant level for those effects
that were identified as mitigatable. For the four environmental effects that
were identified in the DEIR as not mitigatable to a less than significant
level (Land Use and Planning, Transportation and Traffic, Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the findings provide a rationale on how
proposed mitigation measures have substantially lessened the four
environmental effects
6. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15093, a Statement of
Overriding Consideration ("SOC") was included in the project's record
for City Council consideration that identified specific reasons to support
approval of the project based on information in the FEIR and in the
project's record.
7. The specific issues included in the SOC considered by the City Council
were: a) The project helps foster economic development, business
retention, municipal tax base and job creation in the City; b) The project
provides opportunity for the City's largest employer to grow and expand
operations within the City; c) project approval will trigger one annual
payment of $500,000 and five subsequent annual payments of $700,000
towards the City's General Fund for a total of $4,000,000 that can be
used by the City for any purpose; d) If the Nash Street Extension roadway
improvements are not completed within 10 years of project approval, then
the applicant would pay the City an additional $5,000,000; e) An
additional fee of $.50 per square foot of new development is required to be
paid as development of the project occurs (resulting in $1,000,000 if the
conceptual plan is fully built); f) Roadway improvements consistent with
the General Plan will result from the project; g) Bicycle and Pedestrian
network improvements will be constructed as part of the project; h)
Increased density at the project location is consistent with regional growth
strategies, such as the SCAG Compass Blueprint Growth Vision Program;
and i) The project could result in potential benefits such as access to
additional land for roadway links, potential for the City to accept land for a
new public park and a monetary contribution, up to $375,000, to City sewer
improvements.
C. On October 4, 2021, Lionel Uhry filed applications for Minor Modifications to the El
Segundo South Campus Specific Plan ("ESSCSP") No. 11-01 Revision A, Second
Amendment to Development Agreement ("DA") No. 11-02, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 83507 (SUB21-03), Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 21-01, and Environmental
Assessment ("EX) No. 1305 to adopt an Addendum to the certified FEIR, for
construction of a three-story building with partial basement totaling approximately
143,250 gross square feet and 122,080 square feet of net floor area, athletic
practice fields, and parking in surface lots for a new sports facility for an
organization on a 13.7- acre site in the southeast section of the Raytheon campus
at 2000 E. El Segundo Boulevard (Parcels 7 and 8).
RESOLUTION No. 5289
PAGE 2 of 6
D. On October 4, 2021, Emily Murray, Esq. filed an application for Site Plan Review
(SPR) No. 21-02 for the construction of a one-story storage building totaling 5,865
gross square feet and 5,237 of net floor area for Raytheon's use in the southeast
portion of section of the Raytheon campus at 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard
(Parcel 18). The proposed storage building would replace buildings E-20 and E-21,
which would be demolished in favor of the new storage building.
E® Approval of the proposed project ("Project") is a subsequent discretionary action in
furtherance of the ESSCSP and requires minor amendments thereto.
F, The applications have been reviewed by the City's Development Services
Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan, and conformity with the
El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC") and the ESSCSP.
G. The Development Services Department commissioned Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed modifications
to the ESSCSP FEIR in light of the standards for subsequent environmental review
outlined in Public Resources Code §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162. Based
on Kimley-Horn and Associates' evaluation of the environmental impact of the
proposed modifications to the ESSCSP project, it prepared an Addendum pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15164.
H. On November 18, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the Addendum.
The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information, findings and
conclusions contained in the Addendum to the FEIR, including, without limitation,
the FEIR and supporting documents, together with all comments provided at the
public hearing and all other information in the administrative record. Upon
conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend that the City Council approve the Addendum.
SECTION 2. Approval and Findings in Support. The City Council approves the
Addendum to the FEIR based upon the following;
A. The Addendum to FEIR was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission during a public hearing at its meeting held on November 18, 2021 at
which the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 2902, recommending
City Council adoption of the Addendum to the FEIR.
B, The City is the lead agency for the Project. The Addendum was prepared for the
Project in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines
and is adequate and appropriate for the City's use as the lead agency.
C. Based upon the totality of the evidence in the record and as demonstrated by the
analysis set forth in the Addendum, none of the conditions described in Sections
15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent
or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Specifically:
RESOLUTION No. 5289
PAGE 3 of 6
1, The proposed modifications to the ESSCSP and the related entitlements do
not constitute substantial changes in the project that will require major
revisions to the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects.
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions of the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects.
3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at
the time the previous FEIR was certified, that shows any of the following: (A)
the modifications will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the certified FEIR; (B) significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the certified FEIR; (C) mitigation
measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures
or alternative; or (D) mitigation measures or alternatives which are
considerably different from those analyzed in the certified FEIR would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but
the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
D. The evaluation of the proposed modifications to the ESSCSP project, FEIR, and
Addendum reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis based on
its review of the entire administrative record.
E. The City Council finds and determines that the ESSCSP FEIR, together with the
Addendum, satisfy of all the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as
the required environmental documentation for the Project.
F. All Conditions and Mitigation Measures identified in the FEIR, on file with the State
of California (SCH # 2012101081), remain in full force and effect.
G. Per State CEQA Guidelines section 15164(c), the Addendum is not required to be
circulated for public review but can be attached to the adopted FEIR.
SECTION 3. Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and
determination in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence,
both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings
and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City
Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole.
RESOLUTION No. 5289
PAGE 4 of 6
SECTION 4. Severability. If any part of this Resolution or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will
not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the
provisions of this Resolution are severable.
SECTION 5. Electronic Signatures. This Resolution may be executed with
electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic
signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.
SECTION 6. Signature Authority. The Mayor or presiding officer is hereby
authorized to affix his signature to this Resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council
of the City of El Segundo, and the City Clerk or her duly appointed deputy is directed to
attest thereto.
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution will take effect immediately.
SECTION 8. City Clerk Direction. The City Clerk will certify to the passage and
adoption of this Resolution, enter it in the City's book of original Resolutions, and make a
record of this action in the meeting's minutes.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7t" day of December, 2021.
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. 5289 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of December 2021, and the same was
so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Boyles, Mayor Pro Tern Pimentel, Council Member Pirsztuk, Council
Member Nichol, and Council Member Giroux
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
UW014aa�
Tracy Wea4er, City Clerk
RESOLUTION No. 5289
PAGE 5 of 6
APPROND AS TO FORM:
)o Y ,
Mark 0. Hensley, ity Attorn
RESOLUTION No. 5289
PAGE 6 of 6
Professional
fIYi"' !j � "JY[ Sporits
Headquarters
i � and
fi Rr� Ilrl! irr..V
gundo South Campus Specific Plan Project
ntal Impact Report (SCH No. 2012101081)
November 2021
ADDENDUM TO THE
RAYTHEON EL SEGUNDO SOUTH CAMPUS
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CERTIFIED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012101081)
TRAINING FACILITY PROJECT
Prepared For:
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared By:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
1100 W. Town and Country, Suite 700
Orange, CA 92868
November 2021
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction.................................................................. ........ ..,....., ......... ..................1-1
1.1
Purpose of the Addendum ....................................... ........ ......... .....................................
--- 1-1
1.2
Statutory Authority and Requirements ............... ............
........ ..1-1
1.3
Background and History ........................................... .....,,........,..,....,.,..1-2
1.4
Summary of Analysis and Findings ...................... ......... ......... ......... ........
...1-3
1.5
Incorporation by Reference ................................... ...............
„...... --1-4
2 Proposed Project Description
2.1
Proposed Project Location and Setting .................. ............. ......................................
........... 2-1
2.2
Proposed Project Characteristics ........................... --- ...... ........... ....... ......... ..........
...... .....2--3
2.3
Proposed Project Approvals ................................................. ............... .................................
2-'
3 ESSCSP
FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary ..... ...... ................ .....,....,......... ....,.....,...,.....
-1
4 Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis .......... ......... ........
..,.4-1
4.1
Aesthetics............................................................ ......... ,..,........,....,........... ..,..........,„..,.......
4-1
4.2
Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................... ....... ...,..........,.......,,,..,.,,.....
,......... 4-4
4.3
Air Quality.......................................................... ......... ......... ....... ......,.,....,,..4-6
4.4
Biological Resources ........................................... ........ .........--- .... ..........................4-12
4.5
Cultural Resources ............................................... ...... ....... ...............................................
.4-15
4.6
Geology and Soils................................................................ .... ........ ......... ................4-17
4.7
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change) .........„„...,„ ...... ..........„.......,..,....,,,....,...,........
4-22
4.8
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................ .........--- ..................... ......... ...........
....4-2.7
4.9
Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................... .... ............ ............. ...........„,,...,.....,..4-34
4.10
Land Use and Planning ....................................... ........ ....... .. .........
.....4-3
4.11
Mineral Resources.........................................................
4-42
4.12
Noise.................................................................. ......... ..,.,... .,..,.... ,.
, 4.48
4.13
Population and Housing ....................................... .......................... ......... ....................
......4-46
4.14
Public Services............................................................... ......... ..„..... ..,.....................4.48
4.15
Recreation................................................................................ .. ......,..
4-53
4.16
Transportation................................................... ....... ....,.,., ..„.........,
4-53
4.17
Utilities and Service Systems ...................................... ---- .......... ...........................
......4-58
4.18
Wildfire.............................................................................................................................4-64
4.19
Energy ....................................... .... ..... ......... .................... ...,.,.. ....,...,
., .....4-64
4.20
Tribal Cultural Resources .. ............ ..................... ......... ................. ........„..,, ,
4-66
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
i
Table of Contents
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1: Development Agreement Phases .............................„ .
Exhibit 2-2: Regional Context ...................................................
Exhibit 2-3: Local Context........................................................
Exhibit 2-4: Proposed Project Within the ESSCSP .....................
Exhibit 2-5: Conceptual Site Plan for Corporate Headquarters .
Exhibit 2-6: Corporate Headquarters Elevations .......................
Exhibit 2-7: Conceptual Site Plan for Storage Building ..............
Exhibit 2-8: Revised Land Use Plan ...........................................
Exhibit 2-9: Revised Conceptual Site Plan .................................
Exhibit 2-10: Conceptual Landscape Plan .................................
LIST OF TABLES
.,...„..„...... ................. 2-11
....................................... 2-13
....................... 2-15
............. 2-17
.................................... 2-19
........................................... 2-21
...„...................................... 2-23
........,.. .............. 2-25
,.,....,..., ........... 2-27
......................................................... 2-29
Table 2-1: Existing Raytheon Campus Uses............................................................„,...,.....,...,,„.,..........., 2.2
Table 2-2: Existing Conceptual Development Scenario ............................................. ....„............,........ 2-3
Table 2-3: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Development Scenarios...............„.....,...,....,..,...,.,,....2-4
Table 2-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Tract Maps ........................ ....... .,.....,................. ........ 2-7
Table 4-1: Proposed Project Operational Emissions .................................... ....... ....... --- ............. .....4-10
Table 4-2: Proposed Project Business As Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions.... —. . -- —......... .............. .4-24
Table 4-3: Proposed Project Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................. ...................4-25
Table 4-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Employment Forecast........„..............„....,..................4-47
Table 4-5: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Trip Generation ................ ,..,, ,,..,........,..,,,..., 4-55
Table 4-6: Proposed Project Potable Water Demand......................................................„...,..,,,....,.....4-61
Table 4-7: Proposed Project Wastewater Generation .................................. .......,.,............. ......,,...,....4--62
Table 4-8: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation ........................... ................................ ,......,,...... 4-63
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. ESSCSP Phase I Development Tracking Table
B. Inventory of Applicable Mitigation Measures
C. Trip Generation Assessment
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
1i
olull
RIOW "I
LIP
nP Syr
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
aft,
0/
1A
1. Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Addendum
This Addendum to the certified Raytheon El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan Project Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse #No. 2012101081) (RBF Consulting,
January 2015) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §§21000 et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] §§15000 et seq.); and the rules, regulations, and procedures
for implementing CEQA as set forth by the City of El Segundo (City).
This Addendum has been prepared to address minor changes to the El Segundo South Campus Specific
Plan (ESSCSP) (Specific Plan No. 11-01), as described below, resulting from the proposed Professional
Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project (Proposed Project).
1.2 Statutory Authority and Requirements
The City is the Lead Agency under CEQA. When only some changes or additions to a previously certified
EIR are necessary and none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines §15162 are met, CEQA
allows the lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR (State CEQA Guidelines
§15164(a)).
State CEQA Guidelines §15164 state the following concerning an Addendum to an EIR:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if
some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in §15162 calling
for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the
final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative
declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision notto prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to §15162 should be
included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the
record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a) specifies that when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration
adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the
following:
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
1-1
1. Introduction
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Additionally, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15162(b), if changes to a project or its circumstances
occur or new information becomes available after adoption of [an EIR or] a negative declaration, the lead
agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under State CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a). Otherwise,
the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or
no further documentation.
New State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds do not constitute "new information" requiring
additional environmental review.' State CEQA Guidelines §15164(a) states that "a lead agency or
responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions
are necessary but none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR
have occurred." Refer also to Section 1.4: Summary of Analysis and Findings below for findings
concerning the Proposed Project.
1.3 Background and History
In 1978, a Precise Plan was approved forth approximately 142.28 gross acre Raytheon Company's Space
and Airborne Systems (SAS) facility Campus site (Raytheon Campus or Campus) in the City's southeast
portion to construct a total of 2,575,000 square feet (SF) of improvements for a floor area ratio (FAR) of
0.42. In 1987, the City Council approved the last modification of the Precise Plan. Under the existing
1 Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301.
..................................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
1-2
1. Introduction
approvals at that time, the Campus was built close to the maximum FAR allowed, which caused the
Raytheon Company (Raytheon) to utilize property in other areas outside the Campus. To make efficient
use of the Campus, Raytheon proposed the ESSCSP in December 2011 to allow development of the
Specific Plan area in several phases. The ESSCSP established a maximum allowable development intensity
within the 142-acre Specific Plan area of 3,718,889 net SF' (4,231,547 gross SF)3 with any combination of
allowed uses, provided that the FAR does not exceed a specified development square footage (at a
maximum FAR of 0.60 within the ESSCSP area) and the specified peak hour trip ceiling on new
development (26,585 daily trips, 3,042 AM peak hour trips, and 3,120 PM peak hour trips). It is noted,
concerning Lots 7, 8, and 18 (in part) where the Proposed Project would be located, the ESSCSP anticipated
development of approximately 327,680 net SF (367,002 gross SF) as discussed in detail in Section 2.1.3:
Existing General Plan and Zoning, below. For purposes of this analysis, the entitled/assumed
development of Lots 7, 8, and 18 (in part) hereinafter, is referred to as the "Approved Project."
As of October 21, 2021 (i.e., inclusive of Phase I entitled development), approximately 1,866,750 net SF
(approximately 2,095,950 gross SF) of entitled floor area remains within the ESSCSP; see Appendix A:
ESSCSP Phase I Development Tracking Table.
An EIR was prepared to analyze the potential environmental impacts resulting from ESSCSP
implementation. On December 15, 2015, the City adopted Resolution No. 4958, certifying the FEIR
(Environmental Assessment No. EA-905), State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2012101081, in compliance with
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. On January 19, 2016, the City adopted Ordinance No. 1516
approving the ESSCSP. Among others, the approvals included Subdivision No. SUB 11-02 (Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 71551) and Development Agreement No. DA 11-02. Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 71551, which divided the ESSCSP area into 26 individual lots, was recorded November 27, 2019
(Instrument No. 20191313306); see Exhibit 2-1: Development Agreement Phases. Development
Agreement No. DA 11-02 between the City and Raytheon Company, which specified the standards and
conditions that would govern the property's development and detailed the Applicant's and City's
obligations, was recorded on December 13, 2016. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement,
which was recorded on November 13, 2019, established four development phases for the ESSCSP area;
see Exhibit 2-1.
On October 4, 2021, the City received applications for the Proposed Project.
1.4 Summary of Analysis and Findings
Based upon the analysis of potential environmental consequences anticipated to occur from
implementation of the Proposed Project (see Section 4.0: Proposed Project Environmental Impact
Analysis), the Proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts that were not
disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated for in the FEIR. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the Proposed
Project's potential impacts would either be the same or less than those anticipated for the Approved
Project in the FEIR. In addition, there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the
z Net square footage is the usable area of a specified space and excludes unusable space (e.g., common areas, hallways, and
mechanical rooms).
3 Gross square footage contains all areas of a building, including maintenance areas, walkways, balconies, attics, common areas,
and any walkable areas of the building. Parking lots are not included in gross square footage.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
1-3
1. Introduction
Proposed Project would be undertaken that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts
than previously addressed in the FEIR, nor has any new information regarding the potential for new or
more severe significant environmental impacts been identified. Therefore, in accordance with State CEQA
Guidelines §15164, this Addendum to the previously certified FEIR is the appropriate environmental
documentation for the Proposed Project. In taking action on any of the approvals, the decision -making
body must consider the whole of the data presented in the FEIR, as augmented by this Addendum.
1.5 Incorporation by Reference
State CEQA Guidelines §15150 encourages environmental documents to incorporate by reference other
documents that provide relevant data and analysis. The documents outlined below, which were utilized
during preparation of this Addendum to the FEIR, are a matter of public record and are hereby
incorporated by reference. These documents are available for review at the City of El Segundo
Development Services Department, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245.
• El Segundo General Plan
• El Segundo General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
• El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 11-01) (RBF Consulting, October 2015)
• Raytheon El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan Project Final Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse #No. 2012101081) (RBF Consulting, January 2015)
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
1-4
lJ/� poi pill/,
go,
qN 10* �
Ilk
.. r�rrZIlO
2. Proposed Project Description
2 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Proposed Project Location and Setting
2.1.1 Proposed Project Location
The approximately 142-acre ESSCSP area is in the County of Los Angeles, approximately 19 miles
southwest of Downtown Los Angeles; see Exhibit 2-2: Regional Context and Exhibit 2-3: Local Context.
The Proposed Project involves 63.13 acres within the ESSCP area when accounting for all lots where
modifications are proposed; see Exhibit 2-4: Proposed Project Within the ESSCSP for the Proposed
Project's location within the ESSCSP area.
2.1.2 Proposed Project Setting (Existing Conditions)
The ESSCSP area is in the City's southeast quadrant, in a predominantly light industrial area. The ESSCSP
area is bounded by El Segundo Boulevard to the north, the elevated Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro) C (Green) Line and an older industrial subdivision on Coral Circle to the
east, a Union Pacific Railroad spur and the El Segundo sump to the south, and a Southern California Edison
high voltage transmission easement to the west.
The existing Raytheon Campus, inclusive of the demolition, includes approximately 1,788,889 net SF of
mixed development within the 142-acre ESSCSP area. As indicated in Table 2-1: Existing Raytheon
Campus Uses, there are 11 buildings on the Campus, including a recreation facility.
The Proposed Project site is on generally level terrain and is fully built out and improved. Within Lots 7
and 8, the Proposed Project site is developed with various Raytheon uses/facilities, including
approximately 13,196 SF of floor space in three buildings (E-20, which consists of two buildings, and E-21)
used for storage and ancillary uses, various shade and other structures, an asphalt -paved surface parking
lot, and ornamental landscaping. Within Lot 18, where the new storage building would be constructed,
the Proposed Project site is developed with an unused wastewater treatment facility and an asphalt -paved
surface parking lot, both Raytheon facilities. The following uses surround the Proposed Project site:
• North: Raytheon Campus and associated surface parking lot;
• South: Vacant lot and Union Pacific Railroad spur;
• East: Metro C (Green) Line light rail and commercial offices; and
• West: Vacant lot and the Edward C. Little Water Recycling Facility.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-1
2. Proposed Project Description
Table 2-1: Existing Raytheon Campus Uses
Building
E-1
Use
....... ...
Office, Lab/R&D, Warehouse
Net Square Footage
_ ......._
996,871
E-2
_._........ .............. .._
Office, Lab/R&D, Warehouse
..._._.
39,082
........
E-3
.............
Office, Lab/R&D, Warehouse
._
28,383
E-4
Office, Lab/ R&D, Warehouse
670,619
E-5 _
Office, Lab/R&D, Warehouse
_ 1,705
E-6
Office
2, 263
.......................
E-7
._.......
Office, Lab/R&D, Warehouse
......... ......... .........
49,966
E-201•2
........ _ ......................................
Warehouse
9,245
E 211,Z
Office, Warehouse
3,951
E-232
Warehouse
428
E-242,3
Recreation
0
—
... .._..................
Subtotal
1,802,5134
WW
E-20, E-211
SP and FEIR Assumed as Demolished
-13,624
E-23, E-242
Total Existing Campus Uses After Demolition
1,788,889
Notes:
1. On the Proposed Project site.
2. Buildings E-20 (9,245 SF), E-21 (3,951 SF), E-23 (428), and E-24 (0 SF) were
assumed as demolished and thus were previously excluded from the Existing
Campus Uses calculation; see ESSCSP Table III-1, Land Use Summary, and FEIR
Table 3-4, Land Use Summary.
3. Building E-24 includes locker rooms, restroom and shower rooms which are non -
assignable areas for purposes of net square footage.
4. See FEIR Table 3-1, Existing Development.
Source. ESSCSP Table 1-1, Existing Uses.
2.1.3 Existing General Plan and Zoning
The El Segundo General Plan (ESGP) Land Use Map depicts the City's land use designations and indicates
the Proposed Project site is designated "El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan." The ESGP Land Use
Element further describes the ESSCSP, as follows:
"Permits a mix of office, commercial, retail, research and development, industrial, and
related recreational uses. The maximum overall FAR in the Specific Plan is 0.60, based on
the gross square foot size of the Specific Plan project area. (Reso 4958, GPA 11-01,
9/1109). "
The El Segundo Zoning Map depicts the location and boundaries of the City's various zones and indicates
the Proposed Project site is zoned "ESSCSP — El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan," which allows for
commercial/office mixed -use, office/industrial mixed -use, and recreation/open space uses. The ESSCSP is
a comprehensive policy and regulatory guidance document for the development of all properties within
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-2
2. Proposed Project Description
the ESSCSP area. By providing the necessary regulatory and design guidance, the ESSCSP ensures that
future development implements the ESGP goals and policies.
The ESSCSP includes a land use plan, among other components. The ESSCSP Land Use Plan establishes the
maximum allowable development within the ESSCSP area boundaries. As stated in the ESSCSP, the
maximum development potential within the 142.28-acre Campus is based upon a FAR of 0.60, resulting
in a maximum development intensity of 3,718,889 net SF (4,231,547 gross SF). ESSCSP Table III-1, Land
Use Summary, anticipates that the allowed new development would total 1,930,000 net SF, or 2,161,600
gross SF.4 To allow for maximum flexibility within the Specific Plan area, the ESSCSP utilizes a mixed -use
concept, with regulatory mechanisms to allow for transfers between land use types and planning areas,
subject to various requirements concerning FAR, allowable land uses, and AM, PM, and daily trip
generation ceilings.
ESSCSP Exhibit 5, Land Use Plan, depicts the ESSCSP's land use plan and indicates the Proposed Project
site is designated Office/Industrial Mixed Use (0/1 MU) and Recreation/Open Space (REC/OS). The
Office/Industrial Mixed Use (0/1 MU) land use category includes a full range of commercial, office,
warehousing, and light industrial land uses, allowing for new light industrial/R&D, office, and commercial
uses. The Recreation/Open Space category includes the ESSCSP's private recreation facility. The ESSCSP's
conceptual site plan is shown in ESSCSP Exhibit 6, Conceptual Site Plan. ESSCSP Table III-2, Land Use —
Project Development Scenario, shows a potential implementation of the ESSCSP's land uses and standards
based upon Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 71551 and the Conceptual Site Plan depicted in ESSCSP
Exhibit 6. Table 2-2: Existing Conceptual Development Scenario provides the existing conceptual
development capacity specifically concerning Lots 7, 8, and 18 (in part), based on ESSCSP Table III-2.
Table 2-2: Existing Conceptual Development Scenario
Building Building Assumed
Lot Use Acres Area (Net) Area
FAR
(SF) (Gross) (SF)
7 Office 4.75 163,840 _ 183,500.8 0.79
.... .......... ............... —
8 Office 5.81 163,840 J 183,500.8 0.65
18 (in part)' Not applicable
Total 10.56 327,680 367,002
Note:
1. For Lot 18, the Specific Plan assumed 670,619 net SF (783,689 gross SF) of Existing
Campus Uses - no new development was assumed.
Source: ESSCSP Table III-2, Land Use — Project Development Scenario.
2.2 Proposed Project Characteristics
The Applicant seeks approval of the Proposed Project for development of a corporate office headquarters
on Lots 7 and 8 (ESSCSP Phase II area) and a pre-engineered manufactured storage building on Lot 18
(ESSCSP Phase IV area), at the ESSCSP area's southeast corner. Table 2-3: Comparison of Existing and
4 City of El Segundo. (2015). El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan. Retrieved from
https://www.elsegundo.org/home/showpublisheddocument/351/637110579836730000 (accessed August27,2021).
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project
2-3
November 2021
2. Proposed Project Description
Proposed Development Scenarios, compares the Proposed Project's development capacity to the
Approved Project's development capacity.
Table 2-3: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Development Scenarios
Building Area I Building Area
Description =Use (Net) (SF) (Gross) (SF)
Existing Conceptual Development Scenario
._.
Lots 7 & 8 Office 327,680 367,002
_. ..............
Proposed Conceptual Development Scenario
Lots 7 & 8 BuildingmE-20 Demoliti on' Warehouse -9,245 -9,245
Lots 7 & 8 Building E-21 Demolition' Warehouse -3,951 -3 951
_... ......
Subtotal Demolition 13,196-13,196
.
Lots 7 & 8 New Construction Office 126,448 148,050
.......... ...... . .......... _.
Lot 18 (in part) Warehouse 5,237 5,865
Totalz 131,685 153,915
........... ....
Change (number) 195,995-213,087
Change (percent) -60% -58%
._. _._� ......_ ................
Notes:
1. Buildings E-20 (9,245 SF) and E-21 (3,951 SF) were assumed as demolished and
thus were previously excluded from the Existing Campus Uses calculation; see
ESSCSP Table III -land FEIR Table 3-4.
1 No credit taken for demolished Buildings E-20 and E-21 given these were
previously excluded from Existing Campus Uses calculation; see Note No. 1 above.
To accommodate the proposed development, the Proposed Project involves the following entitlements:
SPR No. 21-01 for Site Plan Review of the Phase II area and SPR 21-02 for Site Plan Review of the Phase IV
area; Minor Modifications to the ESSCSP (Specific Plan No. 11-01); Subdivision No. SUB 21-03 for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 83507; and Amendment No. 2 to Development Agreement No. DA 11-02.
2.2.1 Site Plan Review
The Proposed Project involves four key components:
(1) The first component is the construction of a three-story corporate headquarters building totaling
approximately 122,080 net SF (approximately 143,250 gross SF); see Exhibit 2-5: Conceptual Site
Plan for Corporate Headquarters and Exhibit 2-6: Corporate Headquarters Elevations. The
headquarters building would include dining areas, an auditorium, conference rooms, locker
rooms, training rooms, a weight room, office space, storage rooms, a service area, and mechanical
and electrical rooms. The headquarters building would have a maximum height of approximately
50 feet above ground surface (54 feet to top of parapet at elevator overrun); see Exhibit 2-5 and
Exhibit 2-6.
The headquarters building would house operations and business operations staff with typical
business hours from 6:30 AM to 5:30 PM. A total of approximately 270 personnel would be
employed at the corporate headquarters on a typical workday.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-4
2. Proposed Project Description
(2) The second component is the construction of two single -story groundskeeping and maintenance
buildings totaling approximately 4,368 net SF (approximately 4,800 gross SF) at the Proposed
Project site's northeastern corner.
(3) The third component is the construction of three full-size natural grass fields with a 29 feet and 4
inch to 30-foot wide artificial turf perimeter are proposed at the site's eastern portion. The three
natural grass fields with the artificial turf perimeter would be 362 feet wide by 546 feet long.
To serve Proposed Project components 1 through 3, 348 at -grade parking spaces would be
provided in two surface parking lots (i.e., southern and eastern). Of the 348 parking spaces, 24
spaces would be electric vehicle (EV)-capable. A security booth would be located at the corporate
headquarters' southern parking lot.
Six types of perimeter fencing are proposed on the corporate headquarters site to buffer views of
the proposed uses from adjacent areas, and specifically to prevent visibility into the corporate
headquarters building and grass fields.
Type 1 and Type 2 Fencing: 8-foot high black metal vertical picket security fence around the
perimeter of the fields. The fencing would be located to the north of the field adjacent to
South Hughes Way and to the east and south of the fields adjacent to the maintenance
building and parking lot. Additional colored panels for banners located at the entrance to the
fields in proximity to the maintenance access drive are proposed.
• Type 3 Fencing: 32-foot high tall netting to block views from the elevated Metro C (Green)
Line to the Proposed Project site.
* Type 4 Fencing: 8.0-foot high black chain link fencing along the Proposed Project site's
southern boundary adjacent to the southern surface parking lot.
m Type 5 Fencing: Existing 8-foot high silver chain link fencing to the west of the Type 4 fencing
along the Proposed Project site's southern boundary to the south of the western surface
parking lot.
• Type 6 Fencing: 3.5-foot high black fencing located along the western parking lot's northern
boundary.
(4) The fourth component is the construction of a pre-engineered manufactured storage building
totaling approximately 5,237 net SF (5,865 gross SF); see Exhibit 2-7: Conceptual Site Plan for
Storage Building. The storage building would be used for Raytheon's business activities and does
not include any employee -occupiable space. The building would be one-story and would be
approximately 21feet and 2 inches high. The building would be located on an existing foundation.
Existing landscaping along South Hughes Way would remain. A 6-foot high chain link fence would
be provided around the building's perimeter, with two chain link gates and two chain link rolling
gates.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-5
2. Proposed Project Description
2.2.2 Minor Modifications to the ESSCSP (Specific Plan No. 11-01)
The ESSCSP includes a land use plan (ESSCSP Exhibit 5) to establish the land use plan categories within the
ESSCSP area boundaries. Exhibit 2-8: Revised Land Use Plan depicts the existing and proposed ESSCSP
land use plans. Exhibit 2-9: Revised Conceptual Site Plan depicts the existing and proposed ESSCSP
conceptual site plan. To implement these proposed changes, the following Minor Modifications to the
ESSCSP are proposed:
• Exhibits. Modifications to various ESSCSP exhibits are proposed, including the Land Use Plan
(ESSCSP Exhibit 5), Conceptual Site Plan (ESSCSP Exhibit 6), Vesting Tentative Map #71551(ESSCSP
Exhibit 7), Utilities (ESSCSP Exhibits 8 through 12), and Infrastructure (Exhibits 13 through 16).
• Nash Street Extension. The proposed modifications include realigning the Nash Street extension.
The modifications to the Nash Street extension require minor utility relocations, as depicted in
proposed ESSCSP Exhibits 8 through 16.
• Recreational Facilities. The proposed modifications would decrease the land available for the
ESSCSP Raytheon employee private outdoor recreational facilities (from approximately 7.54 acres
on Lot 11 to approximately 7.34 acres on Lots 10 and 11).
• Coral Circle Connection. The proposed modifications would realign/relocate the Coral Circle
connection to the Nash Street extension through Lots 20 and 22. The proposed modified
circulation pattern would continue to provide for possible future connection from the Nash Street
extension to Coral Circle (an easement through Lots 20 and 22) and capacity for additional parking
for the Coral Circle businesses (Lots 20 and 22).
Various ESSCSP text revisions are also proposed to account for the modifications described above.
2.2.3 Subdivision No. Sub 21-03 (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 83507)
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 83507 would be required to finalize the proposed Nash Street
extension and accommodate lots needed to implement the Proposed Project. VTTM No. 83507 proposes
a new one phase subdivision of the property into 26 separate parcels, including parcels forfuture streets.
Table 2-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Tract Maps details the VTTM modifications to implement
the Proposed Project:
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-6
2. Proposed Project Description
Table 2-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Tract Maps
Existing
Proposed
Lot #
._.........
VTTM
Lot
VTTM
Lot
No. 71551'
No. 835072
Size
Size
Lot Number
Lot Number
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
-
312,543
............
5
.
190,853
6
195,471
.............
6
198,958
7
206,967
7
248,588
g
................
253,088
8
_.
351,412
.................
9
73,235
9
121,690
10
-
65,052 _
10
150,961
11
... _.
328,296
96
.................
11
168,966
12
......__
12
-
13
13
14
14
_ ....
..
------------
15
15
-
16
16
..............
.............
17
17
—
18
...........
799,640
.... ..._
1
m
801,916
19
363,159
.........
2
342,894
20
15,941
3
28,004
21
99,992
4
100,387
22
14,458
12
18,233
................
23
........
21,944
__....
13
_.
_._._._.
26,904
.............. _
24
........
24
.........-,
25
25
Notes:
1. The
existing lot numbers
are provided
under "Land Use
Plan
(Existing)"
in Exhibit
2-8: Revised Land
Use Plan.
2. The
proposed lot numbers
are provided
under "Land
Use Plan
(Proposed)"
in Exhibit
2-8: Revised
Land Use Plan.
2.2.4 Lighting and Signage
Various types of lighting would be provided across the Proposed Project site. The corporate headquarters'
southern and western parking lots would include lighting fixtures above the parking spaces and along the
parking lot perimeters. Additionally, similar lighting fixtures would be provided adjacent to the
maintenance building east of the grass fields (as described in the Site Plan Review subsection above). For
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-7
2. Proposed Project Description
the corporate headquarters building, ceiling slot lighting would be fixed to the fagade along the building's
western frontage. Floodlights with glare control and mounted lights behind fagade screens would be
provided on the headquarters building southern frontage. Pedestrian pole lights would be provided by
the headquarters building lobby. Ten approximately 70-feet high mounted poles with high performance
low -spill LED shielded fixtures approximately 70 feet high would be provided around the natural grass
fields. The fixtures would provide an average of 150 footcandles at the playing surface, with a maximum
of 8 footcandles of spill light at the Proposed Project site boundary. While there is potential for nighttime
use of the fields, the Proposed Project would comply with ESSCSP Chapter V, Design Guidelines, which
states that all lighting would prevent direct glare onto adjacent properties.
Signage will consist of internally illuminated wall signs, illuminated freestanding letters and surface
applied architectural wall graphics with team and/or sponsor -related branding. Signage would be
provided on all four elevations of the headquarters building. A monument sign, approximately 16.5 feet
wide by 5 feet tall made of concrete and aluminum, is proposed at the western corner of the Proposed
Project site by South Hughes Way. The monument sign would include illuminated graphics.
2.2.5 Access
Regional access to the Proposed Project site would continue to be provided via 1-105 to the north, with
an exit at North Nash Street, and via 1-405 to the east, with an exit at West El Segundo Boulevard.
Local access to the Proposed Project would be provided via South Hughes Way, which is a six -lane divided
roadway trending in an east -west direction. This entrance would provide right -in and right -out onlytraffic.
Secondary access would be provided via the proposed North Nash Street extension, which would be a
four -lane undivided roadway trending in a north -south orientation. This entrance would allow both left
and right turns for ingress and egress traffic. Both streets would provide bicycle and pedestrian access to
the Proposed Project site.
Headquarters employees and visitors would enter the headquarters building from the south via a secured
gated area. Visitors, media, or other staff would enter the building through the west via the main entry
lobby.
2.2.6 Parking
The Proposed Project would provide 348 at -grade parking spaces at two surface parking lots (i.e., southern
and western). Of the 348 spaces, 24 would be EV-capable. Parking for staff and visitors would be provided
at the western portion of the Proposed Project site to the west of the headquarters building. All 158
spaces for staff and visitor parking would be standard (9'x19') stalls. On the southern portion of the
Proposed Project site, 187 spaces would be provided for employee parking. An additional three spaces
would be provided east of the grass fields for the maintenance building. Bus parking would be provided
along the headquarters building. Parking would be provided through controlled access that incorporates
gates and security cameras.
A truck dock and loading/staging area is proposed at the headquarters building southwest corner,
adjacent to the building's main equipment storage area. In total, 20 bicycle parking stalls would be
provided south of the headquarters building.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-8
2. Proposed Project Description
....................
2.2.7 Landscaping
The Proposed Project's landscaping is depicted in Exhibit 2-10: Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Proposed
Project would include approximately 325,458 SF of landscaped area. Planted areas (40,814 SF) would be
provided around the headquarters building perimeter and as buffers to the south and east of the
Proposed Project site. Hardscape (approximately 30,030 SF) would include a paved plaza to the west of
building and a paved paseo and maintenance access to the north of the building. The sports fields would
be natural grass (approximately 197,652 SF), while the fields' edges would be artificial turf (approximately
56,692 SF). There are 58 trees existing on -site, none of which would be retained. The Nash Street frontage
would provide approximately 47 street trees. In the parking area, the Proposed Project would provide 32
trees, with the other 32 trees substituted by overhead photovoltaic (PV) panels. The ESSCSP requires that
landscaped areas must cover five percent of the vehicular use area, and that each parking space must be
located within 30 feet of a tree. Of this requirement, the Proposed Project would substitute 22 trees with
the overhead PV panels.
2.2.8 Site Excavation and Grading
Proposed Project development would require approximately 45,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 61,000 cy
of fill, resulting in a net of 16,000 cy of fill import.
2.2.9 Construction Schedule
Construction would occur in one phase for a total of 25 months. Construction would take place Monday
through Saturday from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Demolition and site grading would start in April 2022 and last
until September 2022. Approximately 13,196 SF of existing building space in Lots 7 and 8 would be
demolished and the wastewater treatment facility in Lot 18 would be removed. Building and site
construction is anticipated to begin September 2022 and is anticipated to end May 2024. The Proposed
Project is estimated to be operational in May 2024.
2.3 Proposed Project Approvals
The City is the Lead Agency as set forth in Public Resources Code §21067 and is responsible for reviewing
and approving this Addendum to the FEIR. In addition to the Addendum, the City will consider the
following discretionary approvals for the Proposed Project:
• Environmental Assessment No. EA-1305;
• Site Plan Review No. 21-01 for Sports Facility;
0 Site Plan Review No. 21-02 for Storage Facility;
• Minor Modifications to Specific Plan No. 11-01;
• A new Subdivision Map No. 21-03; and
0 A Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA 11-02.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-9
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-10
Source: Amended Development Agreement 2019 Exhibit F
EXHIBIT 2-1: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PHASES Kimley> rn
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project Addendum EIR
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-12
2. Proposed Project Descri
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-14
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
............................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-16
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
..............................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-18
CENTERLINE OF S HIIDHES WAY ,,,..`"",,j�. ,.�• //1/����
w
IL
e „ l
a
I
a �
1n
y'4 p
n
1
Ewa. 1A '1`. .rv•
y { Ah
SDCAL MMW IRIIPY YARD „
EXHIBIT 2- CONCEPTUAL WE PLAN FOR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
Prnfessionaj Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project Addendum EIR
Kmley)
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-20
��..w .... ,,,, ... ......... ..�
,.� .
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank,.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-22
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-24
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-26
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-28
2. Proposed Project Description
This page intentionally left blank
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
2-30
E 44
odo 519 d
'4110 ,
Of
a.
r la Mc
pow
.. .... . . .
oll
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summa
3 ESSCSP FEIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The ESSCSP FEIR's environmental impacts are summarized below:
Significant Less Than
and Significant Less Than No
With` Significant
Unavoidable
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation ..Impact Impact
Impact
Issues Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
El
1:1
El
Z
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
E]
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing 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?
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 ESSCSP project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
i
F1
Z
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 non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
El
F1
Williamson Act contract?
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 section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-1
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
Significant Less Than
Significant Less Than No
and
With Significant
Unavoidable Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation Impact
Impact
Issues Incorporated
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest
0
land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
3. 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 ESSCSP project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of theEl 1:1
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
Z
F1
7
El
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
Z
El
D
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non -attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
❑Z"
0
❑
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
El
E]
Z
number of people?
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or Q
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?
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-2
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summa
Significant Less Than
Significant Less Than No
and
With Significant
Unavoidable Impact '
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation Impact
Impact
Issues Incorporated
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ El
wetlands as defined by Section 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?
d) Interfere substantially 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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
❑
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
❑
E]
❑
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
El
D
Q,
of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
Elof
an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
E
❑
z
El
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
El
R
®
❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
1) 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
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-3
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
Significant Less Than
Significant Less Than
and No
With Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Unavoidabl e Mitigation `:Impact Impact
Impact
Issues Incorporated
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking?
3) Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
4) Landslides?
El
El
E
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
El
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
El
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the California Building Code (2001), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
El
of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal
of waste water?
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation
El
El
[9
El
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-4
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
Significant Less Than
Significant Less Than,
and No
With Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Unavoidable Mitigation 'impact Impact
Issues Impact Incorporated
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the El 19 L....i ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
®
El
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
El
0hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
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?
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?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
®
El
F1
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
El
❑
El
11271
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargeEl 11
requirements?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
El
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 (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop
to a level which would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-5
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
Significant Less Than
Significant Less Than No
and
With Significant
Unavoidable Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation Impact
Issues - Impact Incorporated
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
F]
❑
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
❑
0
El
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of 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?
e) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the
❑
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
®
❑
❑
❑
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard as
❑
❑
0
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures,
❑
El
❑
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) 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?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow??
❑
❑
❑'
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
F-1
❑
E
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local costal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating and
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan
❑
El
E
or natural community conservation plan?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-6
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
Significant Less Than
and Significant Less Than No
With Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Unavoidable Mitigation ;Impact Impact
Issues Impact Incorporated
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
El
El
V\J
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
12. NOISE. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
1:1
El
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within the vicinity of a private
El
E
El
airstrip or 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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
El
El
Z
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
El
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-7
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summa
Significant Less Than
and Significant Less Than No
With Significant
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Unavoidable Mitigation Impact Impact
Issues Impact Incorporated
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
❑
❑
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
❑
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the ESSCSP project:
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:
1) Fire protection?
�❑
❑
I
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
❑
❑
El
4) Parks?
❑
❑
®
EI
5) Other public facilities?
El
❑
El
El
15. RECREATION. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
❑❑
❑El
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
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?
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
❑
establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into
account all modes of transportation including mass
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-8
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
_ Less Than
Significant Significant Less Than
No
and
With Significant
Unavoidable Impact
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Mitigation Impact
Issues Impact Incorporated
transit and non -motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass
transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management
❑
El
❑
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?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
❑
❑
❑
0
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
❑
❑
F]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
®
❑
El
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
❑
®
❑
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ESSCSP project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ® ❑
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
El
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
®
El
El
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
❑
®
❑
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-9
3. ESSCSP FEIR Environmental Impact Analysis Summary
w i ificar t Less Than
Significant Less Than
as 1110
with ilip fi6n
Unavoidable irnpact,
i'�'�fiFkUhifWif�T`,Af. IMPACTSmitaAitioct impact
Issues impact incorporated
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatments
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?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
i
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
3-10
YOU . .....
War
/ii J
IN- - - ---------
�7//
vaomy
m
e,
4's ll
j
0000pr-
PI,
lvto),,
% k
171
Mi
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4 PROPOSED PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The scope of the City's review of the Proposed Project is set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines. As stated
in Section 1.2: Statutory Authority and Requirements, this review is limited to evaluating the Proposed
Project's environmental effects when compared to the Approved Project, as evaluated in the FEIR. This
Addendum also considers new information, if any, of substantial importance that was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable due diligence at the time the FOR was
certified.
As stated in Section 1.4: Summary of Analysis and Findings, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15162,
since the City has determined that Proposed Project implementation does not propose substantial
changes to the Approved Project, no substantial changes in circumstances would occur which would
require major revisions to the FEIR, and no new information of substantial importance has been revealed
since the certification of FEIR that would result in either new significant effects or an increase in the
severity of previously analyzed significant effects.
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was developed to monitor the FEIR's
recommended mitigation measures. The MMRP was adopted as a part of the FEIR to avoid or mitigate the
ESSCSP's significant environmental impacts. The previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to
the Proposed Project will be imposed as conditions of approval for the Proposed Project, as applicable.
The mitigation measures applicable to the Approved Project are contained in Appendix B: Inventory of
Applicable Mitigation Measures.
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1a Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.1-1)
The FEIR concluded the ESSCSP would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because none
are present within the ESSCSP area. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no scenic vistas present within the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would have no impact on scenic vistas, and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe
impact concerning scenic vistas would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.1b Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-1
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact A
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.1-1)
The FEIR concluded there are no State scenic highways located adjacent to the ESSCSP area. Therefore,
the ESSCSP would not substantially damage scenic resources within State scenic highway.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no State scenic highways in the Proposed Project site's vicinity.' Therefore, the
Proposed Project would have no impact on scenic resources within a State scenic highway, and no
mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning scenic resources within a State Scenic
Highway would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEiR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.1c If in a non -urbanized area, would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual characteror
quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, pp. 4.1-1— 4-1.4)
Concerning visual character, the FEIR noted the ESSCSP area is dominated by the existing Raytheon SAS
facility located primarily in the ESSCSP's central portion. Other uses that contribute to the ESSCSP area's
visual character are the Metro C (Green) Line El Segundo Station and elevated railway, as well as the
recreational areas located at the ESSCSP's northwest corner. The ESSCSP area is surrounded by
urban/developed land, with no defining or cohesive architectural theme. While ESSCSP implementation
would significantly alterthe area's visual character, it would not substantially degrade the visual character
or quality of the ESSCSP area or its surroundings. Furthermore, all future development within the ESSCSP
would be subject to compliance with ESSCSP provisions concerning permitted uses, development
standards, and FAR limitations, which would ensure they would not degrade the visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings. Moreover, the ESSCSP includes design guidelines that address criteria
concerning buildings, landscaping, and signage, and are intended to promote the quality of design planned
for the ESSCSP area. Therefore, adherence to the specified ESSCSP regulations and consideration to the
specified guidelines, which the City would verify through the Site Plan Review process, would ensure that
any future development would avoid conflicts with the character of the surrounding development. The
ESSCSP would result in a less than significant impact concerning effects to visual character or quality.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project site, which is in an urbanized area, is developed with
various Raytheon uses/facilities, including three buildings used for storage and ancillary uses, various
shade and other structures, various storage containers, an asphalt -paved surface parking lot, a
s State of California, Department of Transportation Website, California Scenic Highway Mapping System,
Officially Designated State and County Scenic Highways, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwy.htm,
Accessed September 21, 2021.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-2
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
wastewater treatment facility, and ornamental landscaping. On the Proposed Project site's northern
portion, existing uses would be replaced by a one-story butler building. On the Proposed Project site's
southern portion, existing uses would be replaced by a three-story corporate headquarters building, two
single -story groundskeeping and maintenance buildings, a sports practice facility (i.e., three full-size
natural grass fields with an artificial turf perimeter), and a surface parking lot. The proposed uses would
be visually compatible with the other land uses within the ESSCSP and in its vicinity. Through the Site Plan
Review process, the City would verify the Proposed Project's consistency with the in ESSCSP's zoning and
other regulations that govern visual and scenic quality, which are found in ESSCSP Section V: Design
Guidelines, and ESSCSP Section VI: Development Standards. Therefore, following compliance with ESSCSP
and City standards, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning
regulations governing scenic quality and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact
concerning scenic quality would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.1d Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, pp. 4.1-4 — 4.1-5)
The FEIR noted that no light-sensitive land uses are located within or adjacent to the ESSCSP area.
Additionally, future ESSCSP development would have similar light sources as existing development within
and surrounding the area. Future ESSCSP land uses would develop as in -fill property that is surrounded by
other commercial and industrial developments. Furthermore, the ESSCSP includes standards that are
intended to ensure that exterior lighting is designed and located to avoid intrusive effects on adjacent
properties. Future development within the ESSCSP would be reviewed by the City through the Site Plan
Review process to verify compliance with ESSCSP exterior lighting standards. Therefore, a less than
significant impact would occur concerning light and glare.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: There are no light-sensitive land uses located on or near the Proposed
Project site. The Proposed Project involves development of a corporate headquarters office building that
would create new sources of light, including light emanating from building interiors passing through
windows, and light from exterior sources (i.e., building illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting,
and landscape lighting). However, these light sources would be similar to those that exist within and
surrounding the ESSCSP area. The southern and western parking lots would include lighting fixtures
throughout the parking lot and along the parking lot perimeters. Additionally, mounted pole lighting
would be provided around the natural grass fields, which could be utilized during nighttime hours. The
fixtures would provide an average of 150 footcandles at the playing surface, with a maximum of 8
footcandles of spill light at the Proposed Project site boundary. While there is potential for nighttime use
of the natural fields, the Proposed Project would comply with ESSCSP ChapterV, Design Guidelines, which
states that all lighting would prevent direct glare onto adjacent properties.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-3
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Although the Proposed Project would create new light sources, no light-sensitive land uses would be
adversely affected by the Proposed Project, since none are located on or near the Proposed Project site.
Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with ESSCSP standards found in Sections V and VI
that are intended to ensure that the exterior lighting is designed and located to avoid intrusive effects on
adjacent properties. Namely, the lighting design standards require that the type and location of parking
area and building lighting prevent direct glare on to adjacent properties. To avoid adverse lighting effects,
the City would verify the Proposed Project's compliance with the relevant ESSCSP standards through the
Site Plan Review process. Therefore, following compliance with ESSCSP and City standards, the Proposed
Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning light and glare and no mitigation is
required. No new or more severe impact concerning light and glare would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
4.2a Would the Project 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 non-agricultural use?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.2-1)
The FEIR identified that the ESSCSP is not designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Important within
ESSCSP boundaries. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on agricultural resources and
no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning agricultural resources would occur
as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.2b Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.2-2)
No agricultural zoning exists and no agricultural uses are permitted within the ESSCSP. Additionally, the
ESSCSP is not part of a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There is no existing zoning for agricultural uses within or near the Proposed Project site.
Further, the Proposed Project area is not part of Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and no mitigation
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-4
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Ana
is required. No new or more severe impact concerning agricultural resources would occur as a result of
the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.2c Would the Project 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 section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.2-2)
The FEIR concluded there are no existing forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned areas within the
ESSCSP. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no existing forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned areas within or near the
Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning forestry
resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.2d Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.2-2)
The FEIR concluded there is no existing forestland within or near the ESSCSP. Therefore, the FEIR
concluded no conversion of forest land to non -forest use would occur.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There is no existing forestland within or near the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not result in loss of forest land or its conversion to non -forest use and no
mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning forestry resources would occur as a
result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.2e Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non forest use?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-5
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.2-2)
The FEIR concluded no Farmland or forest land exist within or near the ESSCSP area. Therefore, the FEIR
concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: No Farmland or forest lands exist within or near the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not involve changes in the existing environment which, could result in conversion
of Farmland or forest land and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning
agricultural or forestry resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
No mitigation required.
4.3 Air Quality
4.3a Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.3-22 — 5.3-25)
The FEIR analyzed the ESSCSP's potential to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the South Coast
Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). ESSCSP
construction emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation
Measures (MM) AQ-1 through AQ-4. ESSCSP operational emissions, however, would exceed the SCAQMD
operational thresholds. Therefore, the ESSCSP could cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality
standards. While the ESSCSP would be consistent with the AQMP's goals and policies related to land use
and growth, it would result in significant and unavoidable operational emissions due to exceedance of
reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrous oxide (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) thresholds. Thus, the ESSCSP
would conflict with the 2012 AQMP resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: As detailed in Table 2-3: Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Development Scenarios, the Proposed Project would develop approximately 58 percent less floor area
(approximately 213,087 gross less SF) than the Approved Project. Additionally, as addressed in Threshold
4.16b Analysis of Proposed Project below, the Proposed Project would result in approximately 55 percent
fewer daily vehicle trips than the Approved Project. As indicated in Table 4-1: Proposed Project
Operational Emissions below, the Proposed Project's operational emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD operational thresholds. Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant. No new or more
severe impact concerning conflicts with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitieation Measures
AQ-1 Before the City issues a Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and Director of
Planning and Building Safety must approve Grading Plan, Building Plans, and
specifications that comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions must
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-6
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, and Rule 402, which
requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from
creating a nuisance off -site as specified in the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations.
Implementation ofthe following measures would reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts
on nearby sensitive receptors:
e All active portions of the construction site must be watered every three hours during
daily construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the Project site to
prevent excessive amounts of dust.
s Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site
construction activity including resolution of issues related to particulate matter
generation.
Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non-
toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More
frequent watering must occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site
disturbance.
■ Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material must be enclosed, covered,
watered twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied.
All grading and excavation operations must be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25
miles per hour.
a Disturbed areas must be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after
construction is completed in the affected area.
■ Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12
feet wide per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) are required to reduce
mud/dirt trackout from unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively a wheel washer must be
used at truck exit routes.
a On -site vehicle speed must be limited to 15 miles per hour.
All material transported off -site must be either sufficiently watered or securely covered
to prevent excessive amounts of dust before departing the job site.
0 Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
AQ-2 During construction, all trucks hauling excavated or graded material on -site must comply
with Vehicle Code § 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways) regulating the manner for
preventing material spilling onto public streets and roads. Before the City issues Grading
Permits, the Project Applicant must demonstrate to the Director of Public Works how
operations comply with Vehicle Code § 23114 during hauling activities, as applicable.
AQ-3 Thefollowing measures must be implemented bythe contractorto reduce ROG emissions
resulting from application of architectural coatings:
Use high -pressure -low -volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer
efficiency of at least 50 percent;
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-7
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
■ Use pre -painted construction materials; and
10 VOC content of architectural coatings cannot exceed 35 grams per liter.
AQ-4 Before the City issues a Grading Permit, the construction contractor must provide
evidence to the Public Works Director that the following measures are implemented
during construction. See also MM GHG-1.
Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction
to maintain smooth traffic flow.
Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on -
and off -site.
Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and
equipment will be properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers'
specifications.
■ Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline
power generators.
Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and
soil import/export) and if the Director determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel
trucks cannot be obtained then trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions
requirements may be used.
During Project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment
operating on the project site must meet EPA -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or
higher according to the following:
o Project start, to December 31, 2014: All off -road diesel -powered construction
equipment greater than 50 horsepower must meet Tier 3 off -road emissions
standards. In addition, all construction equipment must be outfitted with BACT
devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor must
achieve emissions reductions that are not less than what could be achieved by a
Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by
CARB regulations.
o Post -January 1, 2015: All off -road diesel -powered construction equipment greater
than 50 horsepower must meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In
addition, all construction equipment must be outfitted with BACT devices certified
by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor must achieve
emissions reductions that are not less than what could be achieved by a Level 3
diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB
regulations.
o A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or
SCAQMD operating permit must be provided at the time of mobilization of each
applicable unit of equipment.
See also MM GHG-1 under Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change), below.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-8
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.3b Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.3-11— 5.3-19)
Construction Emissions
As stated in the FEIR, ESSCSP construction would result in short-term grading and building construction
and exhaust emissions from construction equipment and construction crew motor vehicles. Maximum
particulate matter emissions would occur during the initial stages of construction (e.g., grading activities).
The unmitigated particulate matter levels would be below the SCAQMD thresholds without
implementation of specific dust reduction measures. Notwithstanding, the ESSCSP would implement MM
AQ-1 and AQ-2 to ensure that impacts are minimized. Regarding gaseous and particulate emissions, the
application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are ozone (Os) precursors. The
ESSCSP would implement MM AQ-3 to ensure that ROG emissions would be less than significant.
Regarding exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks, the ESSCSP would require
implementation of MM AQ-4 to ensure that construction utilizes diesel construction equipment that
complies with at least Tier 3-level emission standards during all construction phases, which would reduce
construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions to below SCAQMD thresholds and result
in less than significant impacts. With implementation of MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, construction -related
impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
As stated in the FEIR, ESSCSP operational emissions would result from stationary and mobile sources
during normal daily activities. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by consumption of
natural gas for space and water heating devices, operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and use
of consumer products. Stationary energy emissions would be generated by energy consumption
associated with the ESSCSP. Mobile source emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling
to and from the ESSCSP area. While the ESSCSP is located within 0.25 mile of the Metro C (Green) Line
light rail station and new development would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-16 to provide
facilities that encourage multimodal transportation as alternatives to single occupant motor vehicle trips,
operational emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Despite implementation of MM GHG-1,
reductions from the site's proximity to transit, and compliance with the ESMC, ESSCSP operational
emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOx, and CO, thus, would remain significant and
unavoidable. Operational impacts related to SOx and particulate matter emissions would be below the
SCAQMD thresholds and would be less than significant.
Cumulative Emissions
As concluded in the FEIR, the ESSCSP would result in less than significant construction impacts with
implementation of MM AQ-1 through AQ-4. Thus, when combined with other projects in the area,
cumulative construction -related impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation
measures. Regarding operations, given the South Coast Air Basin's nonattainment status for Oa, PM4.5, and
PM1o, additional emissions from the related projects would result in ROG, NOx, PM4.5, and PM10 emissions
that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. The ESSCSP would result in significant and unavoidable
operational emissions for regional ROG, NOx, and CO, despite implementation of MM GHG-1. Thus, when
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-9
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
combined with other related projects, cumulative operational impacts would be significant and
unavoidable, and no other feasible mitigation measures would be available.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated:
Construction
As previously stated, the Proposed Project involves development of 153,915 gross SF, or approximately
213,087 less gross SF (58 percent less floor area) than the Approved Project. Given the Proposed Project
would require less construction than the Approved Project, construction -related emissions for the
Proposed Project would also be proportionately less than the Approved Project. With implementation of
MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, the Proposed Project's construction -related impacts would be reduced to less
than significant.
Operations
The Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similar to those permitted under the ESSCSP, but
with approximately 58 percent less gross floor area as compared to the Approved Project, resulting in
approximately 55 percent fewer daily vehicle trips. As stated in Table 4-1: Proposed Project Operational
Emissions, the total Proposed Project -related operational unmitigated emissions would not exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds. The Proposed Project's operational -related impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4-1: Proposed Project Operational Emissions
Pollutant (pounds/day)
Emissions Sources ---� �
ROG NOx CO sox PMlo PMa.s
__ ............
Proposed Unmitigated Net Emissions
Area' 3.99 0 0.02 0 0 0
._. ..... ... ......._.
Energyz 0.04 0.40 0.34 < 1 0.03 0.03
........
Mobile 4.93 11.95 50.90 0.17 11.86 3.32
_. .............. ......... _ _... ....... _
Total Proposed Unmitigated 11.89 3.35
8.96 14.35 51.26 0.17
Emissions4
_....... . ......... _..
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
.mmExceeded?
....ITIT _ .. ............
SCAQMD Threshold Exceeded. No No No No No No ..
Notes: _ ol-,mm
1. Based on FEIR Table 5.3-6: Long -Term Operational Air Emissions.
2. The Proposed Project operational area and energy source emissions were calculated proportionately based
on the Proposed Project's floor area (140,719 gross SF) comprising approximately 7.1 percent of the ESSCSP
total entitled additional development (2,161,600 gross SF), as evaluated in the FEIR.
3. The Proposed Project operational mobile source emissions were calculated proportionately based on the
Proposed Project's forecast new trips (1,808 daily trips) comprising approximately 6.8 percent of the ESSCSP
total daily trips (26,585 daily trips), as evaluated in the FEIR.
4. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-10
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Cumulative
The Proposed Project would be constructed in the South Coast Air Basin, which is nonattainment for 03,
PM2,5, and PM1o, and additional emissions from the related projects would continue to result in ROG, NOx,
PM25, and PM10 emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, with implementation of MM
GHG-1, cumulative operational -related impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as concluded
in the FEIR. It is noted that although the Proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable
impact concerning cumulative operational emissions, this significant and unavoidable impact was
previously identified in the FEIR. No new or more severe impact concerning a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant would occur, as a result of the Proposed Project. As described above,
the Proposed Project would result in proportionately less operational emissions as compared to the
Approved Project's operational emissions. Therefore, an additional finding concerning this significant
impact is not required, since such a finding was already made in adopting the original FEIR, and this
Addendum is the proper CEQA document per State CEQA Guidelines §§15162 and 15164 because no new
significant environmental impacts have been identified.
FEIR Miti ation. Measures
See MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, above, and MM GHG-1, below.
4.3c Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.3-20 — 5.3-22)
The sensitive receptors nearest the ESSCSP area are the institutional uses located approximately 82 feet
to the east. With implementation of MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, ESSCSP mitigated on -site construction
emissions would not exceed the Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) and localized significance impacts
for ESSCSP construction would be less than significant.
During ESSCSP operations, area source emissions would be negligible and would not exceed the LSTs, thus
operational impacts would be less than significant. As stated in the FEIR, there would be no CO hotspots
at any of the intersections studied in the FEIR. Therefore, impacts regarding CO hotspots would be less
than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: As previously stated, the Proposed Project would develop approximately 58
percent less gross floor area than the Approved Project. Given the Proposed Project would require less
construction on the Proposed Project site than the Approved Project, construction -related emissions for
the Proposed Project would also be proportionately less than that of the Approved Project. With
implementation of MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, the Proposed Project's construction -related impacts would
be reduced to less than significant.
Concerning operations, the Proposed Project would develop a corporate headquarters building, natural
grass fields, and a warehouse. As the uses determined in the ESSCSP would result in negligible operational
area source emissions and would not exceed the LSTs, and the Proposed Project involves 58 percent less
gross floor area than the Approved Project, the Proposed Project's operational area source emissions
would also be less than significant. No new or more severe impact concerning exposing sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-11
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
FEIR Mitigation Measures
See MM AQ-1 through AQ-4, above.
4.3d Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.3-2)
The FEIR concluded that construction -related odors would be intermittent, short-term in nature, and
would cease upon project completion. Concerning long-term operations, the FEIR determined that the
ESSCSP's proposed development would not include land uses identified by the SCAQMD as being
associated with odors. Therefore, the FEIR found that impacts related to odors would be less than
significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project's construction -related odors would be intermittent,
short-term in nature, and would cease upon Proposed Project completion. The Proposed Project involves
development of a corporate headquarter building, natural grass fields, and a warehouse land uses, which
are not identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
result in a less than significant impact concerning odors. No new or more severe impact concerning odors
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4a Would the Project 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?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, pp. 4.4-1— 4.4-2)
The FEIR noted that the ESSCSP consists of, and is surrounded by urban/developed land that has been
permanently altered due to construction of aboveground improvements. Future development occurring
within the ESSCSP area would not impact, either directly or through habitat modification, 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. Therefore,
the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, present on the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-12
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
these species and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning these species
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.4b Would the Project have a substantial 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.4-2)
The FEIR noted that the ESSCSP consists of and is surrounded by urban/developed land that has been
permanently altered due to the construction of aboveground improvements. Future development
occurring within the ESSCSP area would not have a substantial 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the FEIR concluded
no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service present on the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no
impact on these resources and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Meaisuires
No mitigation required.
4.4c Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.4-2)
The FEIR noted that the ESSCSP consists of and is surrounded by urban/developed land that has been
permanently altered due to the construction of aboveground improvements. Since there are no State or
federally protected wetlands on -site, future development occurring within the ESSCSP area would not
have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no state or federally protected wetlands present on the Proposed Project site.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on wetlands and no mitigation is required. No new
or more severe impact concerning wetlands would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-13
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Ana
FOR Mitigation Measures_
No mitigation required.
4.4d Would the Project interfere substantially 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?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.4-2)
The FEIR noted that the ESSCSP consists of and is surrounded by urban/developed land that has been
permanently altered due to the construction of aboveground improvements. Future development
occurring within the ESSCSP area would not interfere substantially 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. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in
this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites present on the Proposed Project site.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts on those resources and no mitigation is required.
No new or more severe impact concerning those species, corridors, or nursery sites would occur as a result
of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.4e Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances related to protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.4-2)
The FEIR identified that there are no local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance that are relevant to the ESSCSP. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no
impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance that are relevant to the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and no
mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning those policies or ordinances would occur
as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Miti ation Measures
No mitigation required.
..............................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-14
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.4f Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.4-2)
The FEIR identified that the ESSCSP is not within thejurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site is not within the jurisdiction of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan; therefore, the Proposed Project would result in no impact and no mitigation is
required. No new or more severe impact concerning those policies or ordinances would occur as a result
of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5a Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant Section 15064.5?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.5-1)
The ESSCSP is currently developed with the Raytheon Company's SAS facility. The FEIR determined that
none of the 11 existing buildings within the ESSCSP area would qualify as a historical resource as defined
in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. ESMC Chapter 15-14, Historic Preservation, provides for the
identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of historic buildings and structures within
the City that reflect special elements of the City's historical heritage. The El Segundo Department of
Community, Economic, and Development Services maintains a designated cultural resources list, and
none of the existing buildings or structures are listed as a designated cultural resource. The FEIR identified
that the ESSCSP would not cause a change in the significance of a historical resource. Therefore, the FEIR
concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no historical resources present within the ESSCSP, and therefore, the Proposed
Project site. No historical resource would be demolished or materially altered. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact would
occur in this regard and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning historical
resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-15
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.5b Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.5-1)
The FOR determined that there are no known designated cultural (i.e., archaeological) resources present
within the ESSCSP area. The ESSCSP area has already been subject to extensive disruption and may contain
artificial fill materials. Given the highly disturbed condition of the ESSCSP area, the potential for ground -
disturbing activities to impact an as yet unidentified archaeological resource is considered remote.
Therefore, the FEIR concluded a less than significant impact concerning archaeological resources.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project site has already been subject to extensive disruption
and may contain artificial fill materials. There are no known designated cultural (i.e., archaeological)
resources present on the Proposed Project site. Additionally, the Proposed Project site consists of, and is
surrounded by, urban/developed land that has been permanently altered due to the construction of
below and aboveground improvements (i.e., buildings, parking lots, roads, hardscapes, and utilities).
Given the Proposed Project site's highly disturbed condition, the potential for ground -disturbing activities
to impact an as yet unidentified archeological resource is considered remote. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would not cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. No impact
would occur in this regard and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning
archaeological resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Miti ation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.5c Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
While the FEIR addressed the ESSCSP's potential impacts on paleontological resources under Cultural
Resources, due to the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G update which organized these issues under
Geology and Soils, the discussion on paleontological resources and unique geologic features is now
addressed under Threshold 4.6f below.
4.5d Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.5-2)
The FEIR determined that the ESSCSP area is already highly disturbed, and the potential to disturb any
human remains is remote. Additionally, no conditions exist that suggest human remains are likely to be
found during ESSCSP construction activities. Nevertheless, if human remains were found, the remains
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-16
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws, including Public Resources Code
§§5097, etseq., and Health and Safety Code §§7050.5-7055. The requirements and procedures set forth
in Public Resources Code § 5097.98 would be implemented if human remains are discovered, including
notification of the County Coroner, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission and
consultation with the individual identified by the Native American Heritage Commission to be the "most
likely descendant." If human remains are found during excavation, excavation must stop in the vicinity of
the find and any area that is reasonably suspected to overlay adjacent remains until the County coroner
investigates and the remains have been investigated and appropriate recommendations have been made
for the treatment and disposition of the remains. Therefore, with compliance with applicable law
regarding human remains, the FEIR concluded a less than significant impact concerning human remains.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: Given the Proposed Project site's highly disturbed condition, the potential
for the Proposed Project to disturb any human remains is remote. If human remains were found, these
would require proper treatment in accordance with applicable laws pertaining to proper treatment,
discovery, and notification, as detailed in the FEIR. Therefore, the Proposed Project's potential impacts
concerning disturbance of human remains, would be less than significant, following compliance with the
established regulatory framework. No new or more severe impact concerning human remains would
occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6a Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk 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 known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, pp. 4.6-1— 4.6-2)
The FEIR concluded that the ESSCSP would not be affected by an Alquist Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone,
as none is present within the ESSCSP area. Therefore, the ESSCSP would not expose people or structures
to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. The FEIR concluded
no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site is not affected by an AP Earthquake Fault Zone since there is none
within the Proposed Project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause potential substantial
adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur in this regard and
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-17
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning rupture of a known earthquake fault
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.6a Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk loss, injury, or death involving:
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.6-17 — 5.6-18)
The FEIR concluded the ESSCSP is within a seismically active Southern California region that could
experience strong seismic ground shaking. The ESSCSP would be subject to compliance with the City's
regulatory controls (i.e., California Building Code and ESMC Chapter 13-1), as well as ESSCSP-specific mitigation
measures, which would reduce potential seismic and geologic impacts, including the. All structures developed
within the ESSCSP area would be designed to withstand "design -level" earthquakes as set forth in the latest
edition of the California Building Code. With compliance with the applicable regulations, potential adverse
impacts to new structures due to strong, seismically -induced, vibratory ground motion would be sufficiently
mitigated through proper seismic design. The FEIR concluded that, with compliance with the California Building
Code, ESMC, and MM GEO-1, impacts regarding the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project site is within the ESSCSP area
and, thus, would be exposed to potential hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking, as
described above. The Proposed Project would be subject to the City's regulatory framework (i.e.,
California Building Code and ESMC Chapter 13-1), as well as MM GEC-1, which requires a lot -specific
Geotechnical/Soils Investigation, to reduce the potentially significant impacts involving strong seismic
ground shaking to a less than significant level. Therefore, no new or more severe impact concerning strong
seismic ground shaking would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Before the City issues a Grading Permit or Building Permit, a lot -specific
Geotechnical/Soils Investigation must be conducted, to a satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Building Safety. The Geotechnical/Soils Investigation must:
0 Be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code by a
civil engineer registered in this State;
a Comply with the recommendations specified in the Geology, Soils, Seismicity Report in
Support of Raytheon El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan (D. Scott Magorien, C.E.G.,
March 6, 2013); and
a Recommend the appropriate corrective action, which is likely to prevent structural
damage to each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where
geotechnical/soils problems exist.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-18
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.6a Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk loss, injury, or death involving:
(iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR p. 5.6-18)
The FEIR concluded that the geologic materials that underlie the ESSCSP area include a late Pleistocene
age dune sand and undocumented artificial fill soils more than 18 feet deep, which would have sufficient
soil engineering strengths to provide foundation support for proposed structures. However, the
undocumented artificial fill soils that are present in the southeast corner of the ESSCSP area are
considered compressible and subject to consolidation due to the lack of adequate documentation when
they were placed. The susceptibility of the loose and undocumented fill soils would result in potentially
significant impacts concerning liquefaction. The FEIR recommended that the undocumented fill soils and
loose soil deposits be removed and replaced as properly engineered fill, in order to mitigate seismically -
induced ground failure. The City regulates developments underthe requirements of the California Building
Code, ESMC, and ESSCSP-specific mitigation measures to reduce potential geologic and soils impacts.
Implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce impacts related to seismically -induced ground failure (i.e.,
liquefaction) to less than significant levels.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project site is in the southeast portion
of the ESSCSP area (i.e., Lots 7, 8, and 18 (in part)), where the FEIR reported undocumented artificial fill
soils were more than 18 feet thick and that would be compressible and subject to consolidation, resulting
in potentially significant impacts concerning liquefaction. The Proposed Project would be subject to
compliance with the California Building Code and ESMC, as well as MM GEO-1, to reduce potentially
significant impacts involving seismic -related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction) to a less than significant
level. Therefore, no new or more severe impact concerning liquefaction would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, above.
4.6a Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk loss, injury, or death involving:
(iv) Landslides?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.6-2)
The FEIR noted that the ESSCSP and its surroundings are generally level, with elevations ranging from
approximately 100 feet above mean sea level (amsl) on the eastern portion of the ESSCSP to
approximately 120 feet amsl at the northwest corner. Given the ESSCSP area's topography, there is no
potential for seismically -induced landslides. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
..........................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-19
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site and its surroundings are relatively level. Given the Proposed Project
site's topography, there is no potential for seismically -induced landslides. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not cause adverse effects involving landslides and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe
impact concerning landslides would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.6b Would the Project result in substantial erosion or loss of topsoil?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR p. 5.6-19)
The FEIR concluded that the ESSCSP area is essentially flat and does not possess site conditions necessarily
conducive to soil erosion. During construction, the ESSCSP would be subject to compliance with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process and ESMC Chapter 5-4-9,
which specifies that each person applying to the City for a Grading or Building Permit for projects for which
compliance with regulations governing State construction activity stormwater permits must submit
satisfactory proof to the Cityfor compliance. Following compliance with all applicable regulations, impacts
regarding erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project site is level and does not possess site conditions
necessarily conducive to soil erosion. Although the Proposed Project would result in ground -disrupting
activities that would result in short-term soil erosion, the Proposed Project would be subject to
compliance with the NPDES permitting process and ESMC Chapter 5-4-9. Following compliance with
applicable regulations, impacts regarding erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No
new or more severe impact concerning erosion or loss of topsoil would occur as a result of the Proposed
Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.6c Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.6-19 — 5.6-20)
The FEIR concluded that construction activities, including excavations associated with remedial
grading/ground stabilization and underground utilities, may encounter poorly unconsolidated/
noncohesive artificial fill, which would be subject to sloughing and caving. The grading plans for the
ESSCSP noted that the fill and cut slopes in the southeastern portion of the ESSCSP area may be prone to
instability, and impacts concerning unstable soils would be potentially significant. The ESSCSP would be
subject to compliance with the California Building Code, ESMC Chapter 14-1-9, and ESSCSP-specific
recommendations (see MM GEO-1) related to removal of undocumented fill soils and replacement as
...........................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-20
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
properly engineered fill to reduce impacts related to unstable soils, which would reduce impacts to a less
than significant level.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project site would be located in the
southeast portion of the ESSCSP area (i.e., Lots 7, 8, and 18 (in part)), where the FEIR reported
undocumented artificial fill soils that would be subject to sloughing and caving. The Proposed Project
would be subject to compliance with the California Building Code, ESMC, and MM GEC-1, which would
reduce the potentially significant impacts involving unstable soils to a less than significant level. Therefore,
no new or more severe impact concerning unstable soils would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
See MM GEC-1, above.
4.6d Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR p. 5.6-20)
The FEIR concluded that the native and undocumented clay soils present in the ESSCSP exhibit a high
expansion potential. Therefore, the potential for expansive soils to impact new development is high and
potentially significant. The ESSCSP's Geology and Soils Report (FEIR Appendix 10-06) recommended that
all moderately to high expansive clay soils that are encountered should not be reused as engineered fill,
but rather be disposed of off -site. The ESSCSP would be subject to compliance with the California Building
Code, ESMC Chapter 14-1-9, and ESSCSP-specific recommendations (see MM GEC-1) related to removal
of all moderately to highly expansive clay soils and avoidance of clayey soils in compacted fill to reduce
impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project site could contain native and
undocumented clay soils that may exhibit a high expansion potential, creating substantial risk to life or
property. However, the Proposed Project would be subject to compliance with the California Building
Code, ESMC, and MM GEO-1 to reduce the potentially significant impacts involving expansive soils to a
less than significant level. Therefore, no new or more severe impact concerning expansive soils would
occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
See MM GEO-1, above.
4.6e Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewer are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-21
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.6-3)
The FEIR identified that sewers would be available for disposal of wastewater generated by the ESSCSP
and septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be permitted. Therefore, the FEIR
concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: Sewers are available for disposal of the Proposed Project's wastewater, and no septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be used. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have
no impact concerning use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems for disposal of
wastewater and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Miti ation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.6f Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.5-2)
The FEIR determined that the ESSCSP area has already been subject to extensive disruption and may
contain artificial fill materials. Additionally, there are no unique geologic features present within the
ESSCSP area. Therefore, the FEIR concluded a less than significant impact concerning paleontological
resources or site or unique geologic feature.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project site has already been subject to extensive disruption
and may contain artificial fill materials. Additionally, according to the FEIR, there are no unique geologic
features present within the Proposed Project site. Given the Proposed Project site's highly disturbed
condition, the Proposed Project's potential to impact an as yet unidentified paleontological resource is
considered remote. Therefore, Proposed Project implementation would result in a less than significant
impact involving the potential destruction of a paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
No new or more severe impact concerning paleontological resources or site or unique geologic features
would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Climate Change)
4.7a Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-22
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.4-13 — 5.4-17)
The FEIR concluded that construction would generate GHG emissions through on -site use of heavy-duty
construction equipment and off -site vehicle trips made by construction workers as well as haul/delivery
trucks that would travel to and from the ESSCSP area. Mobile source GHG emissions would result from
the use of construction equipment, including, but not limited to, graders, scrapers, bulldozers, wheeled
loaders, and cranes.
ESSCSP operations would result in GHG emissions related to natural gas usage, automobile emissions,
energy consumption, solid waste generation, and water demand. All future development within the
ESSCSP area would be required to comply with ESMC Chapters 10-2, Water Conservation in Landscaping,
and 10-5, Water Conservation, to promote water conservation in landscaping and to utilize drought water
conservation programs. Future development would also be subject to compliance with ESMC Chapter
15-16, Developer Transportation Demand Management, which,would provide facilities to encourage and
accommodate the use of ridesharing, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle commuting as alternatives to single
occupant motor vehicle trips. Further compliance with ESMC Chapter 15-16-4, Monitoring, would ensure
that physical facilities be verified through the City's existing development review process. Following
compliance with ESMC requirements and implementation of MM GHG-1, the ESSCSP would result in
reduced GHG emissions from water conservation and efficiency, energy efficiency, solid waste reduction,
and land use efficiency measures. Despite compliance with the ESMC and implementation of MM GHG-1,
the ESSCSP's GHG emissions would exceed the per capita per year project -level GHG threshold of
4.8 Metric Tons of CO2 equivalent per year (MTCO2eq/year), and impacts would be significant and
unavoidable.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The FEIR concluded that despite compliance with the
ESMC and implementation of MM GHG-1, the ESSCSP would exceed the per capita per year project -level
GHG threshold of 4.8 MTCO2eq/year. As stated in Table 4-2: Proposed Project Business As Usual
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the total Proposed Project -related unmitigated GHG emissions would be
2,635.00 MTCO2eq/year, or 6.99 MTCO2eq/year based on the Proposed Project's service population of
377 employees. Therefore, the Proposed Project's unmitigated GHG emissions would exceed the
4.8 MTCO2eq per capita per year project -level GHG threshold, and impacts would be potentially
significant.
With implementation of MM GHG-1, as stated in Table 4-3: Proposed Project Mitigated Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the total Proposed Project -related mitigated GHG emissions would be 433.81 MTCO2eq/year,
or 1.15 MTCO2eq/year, based on the Proposed Project's service population of 377 employees. Therefore,
the Proposed Project would not exceed the 4.8 MTCO2eq per capita per year project -level GHG threshold,
with implementation of MM GHG-1. Proposed Project impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation incorporated. No new or more severe impact concerning generated GHG emissions would
occur, as a result of the Proposed Project.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-23
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 4-2: Proposed Project Business As Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
_ CO2 CHQ _ ............
_
N20
Source' Metric Metric MTCO2 Metric MTCO2 Total
Tons/year Tons/year eq Tons/year eq MTCO2eg2
Direct Emissions
............ ....
Construction Phase 1(amortized over
2.51 0.0 <1 0.0 0.0 2.51
30 years)'
_..... _._ _.... ....--- ..........
Construction Phase 2 (amortized over 9.76 <1 0.02 0.0 0.0 9.78
30 years) 3
..-..... .......
Area Source 0.004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.004
_. ....... _.
Mobile Source' 1,655.12 0.06 1.17 0.0 0.0 1,656.35
Total Unmitigated Direct Emissions' 1,667.40 0.06 1.19 0.0 0.0 1,668.64
...._......�... ._..... ......_..__.Indirect Emissions_ .._
Energy' 714.78 0.03 0.65 0.01 2.33 717.79
_. ............_ ._.� ............._. ................
Solid Waste 29.82 1.76 37.01 0.0 0.0 68.59
Water Demand3 153.64 0.88 18.57 0.02 6.85 179.97
_. .............. ..........
Total Unmitigated Indirect Emissions' 898.24 2.68 56.22 0.03 9.18 966.35
_.............
Total Net Proposed Project -Related 2,635.00 MTCO2eq/year
Emissions2
Unmitigated Per Capita Emissions5 6.99 MTCO2eq/year
..._ ............................ _._.
Per Capita Threshold 4.8 MTCOZeq/year
........ ................. .... ..........
Unmitigated GHG Emissions Exceed Yes
Per Capita Threshold?
.. ....................................
Notes: _
1. Based on FOR Table 5.4-1: Business As Usual Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
3. The Proposed Project construction and operational emissions from area source, energy, solid waste, and
water demand were calculated proportionately based on the Proposed Project's proposed floor area
(153,915 gross SF) comprising approximately 7.1 percent of the ESSCSP total entitled additional
development (2,161,600 gross SF), as evaluated in the FEIR.
4. The Proposed Project mobile source operational emissions were calculated proportionately based on the
Proposed Project's forecast new trips (1,808 daily trips) comprising approximately 6.8 percent of the ESSCSP
total daily trips (26,585 daily trips), as evaluated in the FEIR.
5. Per capita emissions are based on a service population of 377 employees; see Section 4.13: Population and
Housing.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-24
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 4-3: Proposed Project Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O
Source' Metric Metric C
MTOZ Metric MTCOZ Total
Tons/year Tons/year Pceq Tons/year eq MTCO2eg2
Direct Emissions
_.
Construction Phase 1(amortized over
30 years )3 2.51 0.0 <1 0.0 0.0 2.51
........ _ ...........
Construction Phase 2 (amortized over 9.76 <1 0.02 0.0 0.0 9.78
30 years) 3
Area Source 0.004 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.004
_............ _ _.
Mobile Source 11024.71 0.74 0.0 0.0 1,025.49
Total Miti ated Direct Emissions21,036.98�.00...0044.
0.77 0.0 0.0 1 037g.78
.. Indirect Emissions
_.
_..... _..... ......... __
Energy' 29.59 0.03 0.61 0.01 2.17 32.40
..... _. .............-
Solid Waste' 14.91 0.88 18.51 0.0 0.0 34.30
.......... - ...._ ................
-
Water Demand3 129.13 0.71 14/86 0.02 5.49 150.21
......-....... .
Total Mitigated Indirect Emissions2 173.63 1.62 33.97 0.02 7.66 216.90
_. . _..
Total Net Proposed Project -Related 433.81 MTCO2eq/year
Emissions'
Mitigated Per Capita Emission55 1.15 MTCOZeq/year
...._ . .........
Per Capita Threshold 4.8 MTCO2eq/year
.......
.................. _
Mitigated GHG Emissions Exceed Per No
Capita Threshold?
_._............ ... .............. _______ . .
Notes:
1. Based on FEIR Table 5.4-2: Mitigated Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.
3. The Proposed Project construction and operational emissions from area source, energy, solid waste, and
water demand were calculated proportionately based on the Proposed Project's proposed floor area
(153,915 gross SF) comprising approximately 7.1 percent of the ESSCSP total entitled additional
development (2,161,600 gross SF), as evaluated in the FEIR.
4. The Proposed Project mobile source operational emissions were calculated proportionately based on the
Proposed Project's forecast new trips (1,808 daily trips) comprising approximately 6.8 percent of the ESSCSP
total daily trips (26,585 daily trips), as evaluated in the FEIR.
5. Per capita emissions are based on a service population of 377 employees; see Section 4.13: Population and
Housing.
FEIR Mltieation Measures
GHG-1 The Project must incorporate the improvements listed below to ensure consistency with
applicable law. The Project Applicant must demonstrate compliance with this measure to
the satisfaction of the Building and Planning Safety Director before the City issues building
permits or certificates of occupancy.
Energy Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient, 15 percent above Title 24 requirements (building
permit).
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-25
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
■ Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements, and strategically placed shade
trees (building permit).
• Install high efficiency lighting, and energy efficient heating and cooling systems (building
permit).
■ Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting (building permit).
Water Conservation and Efficiency
0 Install water -efficient fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, showers) (Building Permit).
Solid Waste
• Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard) (Building Permit).
• Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and adequate recycling
containers located in public areas (Occupancy Permit).
4.7b Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.4-17 — 5.4-18)
The FEIR concluded that the City does not have an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions. However, the City's Environmental Committee would review current
City environment practices, identify new environmental goals and objectives, and develop a framework
for protecting the City's quality of life while moderating the growth demands upon the City's natural
resources and the impacts that consumption has upon the environment. The ESSCSP would be subject to
all applicable regulatory requirements, which would reduce the ESSCSP's generated GHG emissions. The
ESSCSP proposed mixed -uses that would inherently reduce vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and
related GHG emissions. Therefore, the ESSCSP would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or
regulations adopted forthe purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the FEIR concluded a less than
significant impact concerning conflicting with applicable GHG reduction plan, policy, or regulation.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the applicable
plans, policies, and regulations adopted forthe purpose of reducing GHG emissions, as discuss above and
in the FEIR. The Proposed Project would include related uses that would reduce vehicle trips through
internal trip capture, VMT, and related GHG emissions. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would include
energy efficient lighting and electric vehicle (EV) parking, which would reduce operational GHG emissions.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable GHG reduction plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and a less than significant impact would
occur in this regard. No new or more severe impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-26
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.8a Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
4.8b Would the Project 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?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.7-16 — 5.7-25)
The FEIR identified that the ESSCSP area is listed on the GeoTracker database (maintained by the State
Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB]) and is reported as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
cleanup site. The LUST case is reported to be closed as of July 22, 1996; therefore, it is not anticipated that
an environmental condition exists in the ESSCSP area, as a result of the former LUST. Notwithstanding,
the FEIR concluded that site disturbance and demolition activities could encounter a variety of potentially
hazardous materials, which could expose workers and the environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions. Potential petroleum -based fuel spills from construction equipment would
not be considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials
utilized during construction. Implementation of MM HAZ-1through HAZ-5 would reduce potential impacts
from construction activities that would result in accidental conditions within the ESSCSP area. Also, if
unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction which may involve hazardous
wastes/materials, the contractor would be required to comply with MM HAZ-6 to immediately stop work
in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, remove workers and the public, secure the areas, and notify
the El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD). Use of standard construction controls and safety procedures, and
implementation of MM HAZ-1 through HAZ-5, would avoid and lessen the potential for accidental release
of such substances into the environment in the event of a spill. Following compliance with applicable
federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, and with implementation of MM HAZ-1 through HAZ-6,
the potentially significant impacts during construction related to creating a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be
reduced to less than significant levels.
Future ESSCSP development would consist of office, warehouse, light industrial, and commercial uses.
Hazardous materials would be routinely used, stored, and/or handled onsite during operations. All
hazardous materials or chemicals used by the onsite uses would be filed on record with the ESFD, the
designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City, and would be routinely inspected to
ensure that all materials are being stored, handled, and used in affordance with all applicable federal,
State, and local standards and regulations to reduce the potential for a hazardous materials incident. As
the California Highway Patrol and the Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan have
identified transportation routes and corridors in and near the City as suitable for transporting hazardous
materials and wastes, transportation of all hazardous materials onsite and to/from the ESSCSP area would
adhere to all applicable Caltrans protocols and the General Plan Public Safety Element's goal to
periodically review and reevaluate the City's Emergency Operations Plans. Any facilities containing
hazardous materials for transport, storage, or use would comply with all City, Los Angeles County
(County), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requirements. Based on the
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-27
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact
moderate potential for contaminated groundwater underlying the ESSCSP area, vapor intrusion into
proposed structures as a result of the contamination plumes could occur. Implementation of MM HAZ-5
would require a qualified site characterization specialist to conduct updated site characterization at the
ESSCSP before issuance of any Building Permits. Furthermore, as required by MM HAZ-7, before the City
issues any building permit, vapor intrusion investigations would be required to be conducted by a qualified
Environmental Professional, in consultation with the ESFD. With implementation of MM HAZ-5 and HAZ-
E, and with compliance with all applicable regulations, impacts during operation would be reduced to less
than significant levels.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) EnviroStor data management system for hazardous waste facilities and sites shows that
there are no active cases on or within a 4,000 foot radius of the Proposed Project site.' Additionally, the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database confirmed the LUST closure and that
no other LUST cleanup sites exist on the Proposed Project site.' Notwithstanding, site disturbance,
demolition, and/or construction associated with the Proposed Project could disturb existing hazardous
materials associated with structures and contaminated soil and groundwater. A former hazardous waste
storage area (designated as SWMU-1 in the FEIR) would be demolished in the location where the Proposed
Project would construct the southern parking lot. A former wastewater pretreatment system (designated
as SWMU-2 in the FEIR) would be demolished where the Proposed Project would construct a warehouse.
Therefore, Proposed Project construction could release hazardous materials into the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. The Proposed Project would implement
MM HAZ-1 through HAZ-5 to reduce potential construction -related impacts that may result from
accidental conditions at the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project contractor would also be
required to comply with MM HAZ-6 if unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during
construction.
Other means by which accidental spills could occur during Proposed Project construction involve use of
construction equipment that may result in petroleum -based fuel spills; however, the level of risk
associated with this type of spill is not considered significant due to the small volume and low
concentration of hazardous materials utilized during construction. Standard construction practices would
be observed to appropriately contain and remediate any materials released pursuant to local, State, and
Federal regulations. The Proposed Project contractor would be required to comply with the established
regulatory framework to avoid and minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into
the environment in the event of a spill. Proposed Project impacts in this regard would be less than
significant.
Proposed Project operations would include a corporate office headquarters, natural grass fields, and a
warehouse. The warehouse building would store waste and other maintenance equipment required for
the Project. These land uses are not expected to require the use of substantial quantities of hazardous
materials or to generate significant quantities of hazardous waste that would require routine transport
6 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor Search for 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard, El Segundo, CA
90245 with 4,000 feet search radius, ti4tIvy. 'uvuare,g virosto .dts .a.;gov �surl V2 9• Accessed October 25, 2021.
7 State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker database Search for 2000 East El Segundo Boulevard, El Segundo, CA,
htt s: ec tray r.wateriaoards,ra, ov r Ftle r gq? Iobal id T; , 7 29 8. Accessed October 25, 2021.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-28
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
offsite for disposal. Typical commercial land uses generally require routine use of small quantities of
flammable, hazardous, and/or toxic materials for operation and maintenance purposes. Continued
maintenance of the natural grass fields would require use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fuel for
machinery and mechanical equipment. Such substances would also be used for landscape maintenance.
While the Proposed Project would involve use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, it would
be similar to that which occurs under existing conditions and elsewhere within the ESSCSP. Due to the
nature of the proposed land uses, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to involve facilities or activities
that would produce or use substantial quantities of hazardous materials or require the routine transport
of hazardous materials to and from the site that may adversely affect the public or the environment.
Proposed Project operations would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local
standards and regulations concerning the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Regarding vapor intrusion, based on the moderate potential for contaminated groundwater underlying
the Proposed Project site, vapor intrusion into proposed structures as a result of contamination plumes
could occur. The Proposed Project would implement MM HAZ-5 and HAZ-7 to ensure that vapor intrusion
investigations are conducted prior to issuance of any building permits. Therefore, following compliance
with all applicable standards and regulations, and with implementation of MM HAZ-1 through HAZ-7, the
Proposed Project's potential impacts concerning the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the
environment would be reduced to less than significant levels. No new or more severe impact would occur
as a result of the Proposed Project.
EEIR Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 Before a Grading Permit is issued, the actual location of onsite oil/gas wells must be
verified with DOGGR. All onsite wells present must be properly plugged and abandoned
per current DOGGR, DTSC, and RWQCB requirements. Further, an environmental
consultant with Phase II/site characterization experience must verify through soil
sampling that no residual contamination has resulted from historic oil/gas production
activities onsite.
HAZ-2 Before a Grading Permit is issued, soil sampling must be conducted within the portions of
the Project site that have historically been utilized for agricultural purposes and may
contain pesticide residues in the soil, as determined by a qualified Phase II/site
characterization specialist. The sampling, conducted in consultation with the El Segundo
Fire Department, must determine if pesticide concentrations exceed established
regulatory requirements and identify further site characterization and remedial activities,
if necessary. Should further site characterization/remedial activities be required, these
activities shall be conducted per the applicable regulatory agency requirements, as
directed by the El Segundo Fire Department.
HAZ-3 Before a Grading Permit is issued, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site
characterization experience must determine, based on the Current Conditions Report
(CCR), RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan (RFI Work Plan), and sampling and analysis
conducted in accordance with the RFI Work Plan, whether subsurface release of
hazardous materials/waste to the soil/groundwater associated with the existing storage
facilities has occurred. If subsurface release of hazardous materials/waste to the
soil/groundwater has occurred, the environmental consultant must determine if
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-29
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
contaminant concentrations exceed established regulatory requirements and identify
further site characterization and remedial activities, if necessary. Should further site
characterization/remedial activities be required, these activities must be conducted per
the applicable regulatory agency requirements.
HAZ-4 Before a Grading Permit is issued, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site
characterization experience must prepare a Worker Safety Plan to ensure construction
worker safety during grading/excavation activities, based on their review the following
documents:
■ Current Conditions Report (CCR);
RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan (RFI Work Plan);
• Findings of the RFI Work Plan's Sampling and Analysis; and
Existing Hazardous Materials Conditions Assessment.
HAZ-5 An environmental professional with Phase II/site characterization experience must
conduct an inspection of existing onsite structures before building renovation/demolition
activities. The inspection must determine whether or not testing is required to confirm
the presence or absence of hazardous substances in building materials (e.g., sinks, drains,
piping, flooring, walls, ceiling tiles). Should testing be required and results determine that
hazardous substances are present in onsite building materials, the Phase II/site
characterization specialist must determine appropriate prevention/remediation
measures that are required and/or the methods for proper disposal of hazardous waste
at an approved landfill facility, if required.
HAZ-6 If during construction unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered by the
contractor that are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor must
comply with the following:
a Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove
workers and the public from the area;
a Notify the Director of Public Works of the City of El Segundo;
a Secure the area as directed by the Director of Public Works; and
■ Notify the El Segundo Fire Department (or other appropriate agency specified by the
Director of Public Works). The Fire Department's Environmental Safety Manager can
advise the responsible parry of further actions that must be taken, if required.
HAZ-7 Before any Building Permit is issued, vapor intrusion investigations must be conducted by
a qualified Environmental Professional, in consultation with the El Segundo Fire
Department. Should the Environmental Professional determine that proposed buildings
could be impacted by vapor intrusion, the Environmental Professional, in consultation
with the El Segundo Fire Department, must recommend that specific measures be
incorporated into the buildings' design that would reduce these indoor air quality
concentrations to below regulatory thresholds, as directed by the El Segundo Fire
Department.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-30
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.8c Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR p. 5.7-26)
The FEIR identified the following existing schools located within one -quarter mile of the ESSCSP area:
Beach Babies LLC (located 750 feet east and 1,385 feet north of the ESSCSP area) and Wondertree Kids
(located 1,065 feet south of the ESSCSP area). The ESSCSP could result in hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. However, buffers in the form of
roadways and intervening structures would separate the proposed uses within the ESSCSP from the
existing nearby schools, which would maintain the riskto acceptable levels. Furthermore, the hazardous
substances that may be handled, used, and stored within the ESSCSP area would be required to comply
with federal, State, and local regulations, which is considered adequate to offset the potential negative
effects related to the hazardous materials associated with future development within the ESSCSP.
Therefore, the FEIR concluded a less than significant impact concerning emitting hazardous emissions or
handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: Beach Babies LLC is approximately 1,653 feet (0.3 miles) southeast of the
Proposed Project site. Wondertree Kids was identified as being 1,065 feet (0.2 miles) south of the
Proposed Project site, but no longer exists at that location. Therefore there are no existing school sites
within 0.25 miles of the Proposed Project site. The Proposed Project involves a corporate headquarters
building, natural grass fields, and a warehouse, all of which would utilize typical small quantities of
hazardous materials for operation and maintenance purposes. The maintenance of the natural grassfields
would require the use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fuel for machinery and mechanical
equipment. However, these proposed uses would not emit hazardous emissions. The Proposed Project is
not anticipated to involve facilities or activities that would result in hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous materials. Additionally, buffers in the form of roadways and intervening structures would
separate the Proposed Project site from nearby existing schools. Furthermore, the Proposed Project's
proposed uses would be required to comply with the established federal, State, and local regulatory
framework, as it relates to emitting hazardous emission or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, following compliance with all applicable standards and
regulations, impacts concerning emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous materials within
one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. No new or more severe
impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.8d Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and as a result, would create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-31
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
.........................................
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.7-26 — 5.7-27)
The FEIR identified that the ESSCSP area is listed on the GeoTracker database (maintained by the State
Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB]) and is reported as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST)
cleanup site. The LUST case is reported to be closed as of July 22,1996; therefore, it is not anticipated that
an environmental condition exists in the ESSCSP area as a result of the former LUST. Therefore, the FEIR
concluded a less than significant impact related to the ESSCSP being located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The FEIR reported a closed LUST case on the Raytheon Campus due to soil contamination;
however, as the LUST case was closed on July 22, 1996, the LUST is not considered an environmental
condition. Furthermore, the DTSC EnviroStor data management system for hazardous waste facilities and
sites shows that there are no active cases on or within a 4,000-foot radius of the Proposed Project site.
Additionally, the SWRCB GeoTracker database confirmed the LUST closure and that no other LUST cleanup
sites exist on the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project site is not included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would
occur in this regard. No new or more severe impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Miti ation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.8e 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, result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working the project area?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, pp. 4.8-2 — 4.8-3)
The FEIR identified that the ESSCSP area is located approximately 0.76 miles south of the Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX), but the ESSCSP area is not located within the LAX Planning Boundary/Airport
Influence Area. The ESSCSP is located approximately 1.9 miles west of Hawthorne Municipal Airport
(HMA), but the ESSCSP area is not located within the HMA Planning Area Boundary/Airport Influence Area.
Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: Although the Proposed Project would be located within 2.0 miles of LAX and HMA, the
Proposed Project site is notwithin the LAX Planning Boundary/Airport Influence Area orthe HMA Planning
Area Boundary/Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in an airport -
related safety hazard for people working on the Proposed Project site and no mitigation is required. No
new or more severe impact concerning airport -related safety hazards would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-32
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Ana
4.8f Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.7-27 — 5.7-28)
The FEIR identified that the General Plan does not identify primary evacuation routes within the City;
however, East El Segundo Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard are major arterial streets and would be
used by persons evacuating the ESSCSP in the event of an emergency. Construction of proposed roadway
improvements could temporarily block emergency access and/or evacuation routes, which would affect
access along El Segundo Boulevard. Impacts during construction would be temporary and would only
affect El Segundo Boulevard, and as such, would be unlikely to interfere with emergency response vehicles
(e.g., fire, police, or ambulance). Implementation of MM HAZ-8 would require future development in the
ESSCSP to notify the El Segundo Fire, Police, Public Works, and Planning and Building Safety Departments
of construction activities that would impede movement along roadways adjacent to the ESSCSP and to
allow for uninterrupted emergency access and maintenance of evacuation routes. Furthermore, the City
has an adopted Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, which identifies activities that would assist the City in
reducing risk and preventing loss from future hazardous events, including those involving evacuation. The
City would implement evacuation -related mitigation actions on an ongoing basis which would further
minimize impacts resultingfromthe ESSCSP's potential interference with an adopted emergency response
or evacuation plan. With implementation of MM HAZ-8 and the City's continued compliance with the
Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project site would not be located
adjacent to East El Segundo Boulevard or Sepulveda Boulevard, both of which were identified in the FEIR
as being streets that would be used by persons evacuating the ESSCSP in the event of an emergency.
Construction activities associated with the proposed uses would occur on the subject sites, thus, would
not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. Notwithstanding, Proposed Project construction would implement MM HAZ-
8 to ensure coordination with the El Segundo Fire, Police, Public Works, and Planning and Building Safety
Departments such that construction activities would not impede movement along East El Segundo
Boulevard or Sepulveda Boulevard and to allow for uninterrupted emergency access and maintenance of
evacuation routes. The proposed Nash Street extension would not result in any closures that would
impede traffic/emergency access. The City would continue to implement evacuation -related mitigation
actions from the City's Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, which would further minimize the potential for the
Proposed Project to interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, with
implementation of MM HAZ-8 and the City's continued compliance with the Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan,
impacts related to potentially impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be reduced to less than significant levels.
No new or more severe impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
HAZ-8 At least three business days before any lane closure, the construction contractor must
notify the El Segundo Fire Department, El Segundo Police Department, El Segundo Public
Works Department, and the El Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department of
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-33
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
construction activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures) along
roadways immediately adjacent to the development area, to allow for uninterrupted
emergency access and maintenance of evacuation routes.
4.8g Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.8-3)
The FEIR identified that the ESSCSP area consists of, and is surrounded by, urban/developed land, and
implementation of the ESSCSP would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving
wildland fires. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site consists of and is surrounded by urban/developed land. The
Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires and
no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning wildland fires would occur as a result
of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9a Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.8-17 — 5.8-19)
The FEIR concluded that construction activities would result in short-term impacts to water quality;
therefore, the ESSCSP would be subject to compliance with General Construction Permit requirements.
Before the City issues grading permits, the Applicant must prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) to control common pollutants such as suspended soil in stormwater runoff from leaving the
ESSCSP area. The SWPPP would include an Erosion Control Plan and appropriate Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and restrict sedimentation of the storm drain downstream. With
compliance with the NPDES and ESMC requirements, construction activities would have a less than
significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
A reduction in permeable surfaces, which allow for rain and runoff to infiltrate into the ground, would
result in the potential to affect long-term water quality during operation. ESSCSP implementation would
not result in a reduction of permeable surfaces, but stormwater and nuisance water runoff associated
with the proposed uses under the ESSCSP could have the potential to affect water quality. The ESSCSP
could potentially include organics, trash, debris, oil/grease, nutrients, metals, and sediment, which could
have a significant adverse impact to stormwater quality if not mitigated. The ESSCSP would implement
post -construction controls under the MS4 Permit to mitigate stormwater pollution, which would include
BMPs to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume. Future development under the ESSCSP
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-34
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
would be subject to compliance with NPDES requirements, MS4 Permit Order requirements, and must
implement BMPs.
Therefore, following compliance with all applicable permit and ESMC requirements, the FEIR concluded a
less than significant impact related to violating water quality standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrading surface or groundwater quality.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would include construction activities that would be
subject to compliance with General Construction Permit requirements. The Applicant would prepare a
SWPPP to control common pollutants in stormwater runoff leaving the Proposed Project site during
construction. The SWPPP would include BMPs to minimize erosion and restrict sedimentation of the storm
drain downstream. Further, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all NPDES and MS4
Permit Order requirements. Therefore, Proposed Project impacts during construction would be less than
significant as it relates to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Proposed Project operations could result in organics, trash, debris, oil/grease, nutrients, metals, and
sediment which could have a significant adverse impact to stormwater quality. The Proposed Project
would be required to mitigate stormwater pollution through the implementation of BMPs to control
pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume. Therefore, following compliance with all applicable permit
and ESMC requirements, Proposed Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact
related to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. No new or more severe impact
concerning water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.9b Would the Project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR p. 5.8-26)
The FEIR concluded that the ESSCSP would not interfere 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 ESSCSP is
not located within a groundwater recharge area. Furthermore, the ESSCSP would not reduce the ability of
surface waters to be absorbed or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge as the ESSCSP's
imperviousness is expected to decrease upon buildout. The City does not use groundwater as a potable
water source, so the ESSCSP would not deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, the FEIR concluded a
less than significant impact related to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: While the Proposed Project would generate a water demand on the
Proposed Project site, as discussed under Threshold 4.17b Analysis of Proposed Project, the City does not
use groundwater as a potable water source. Therefore, the Proposed Project's water demands would not
.......................
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-35
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
decrease groundwater supplies. Also, the Proposed Project would not interfere with groundwater
recharge given the Proposed Project site is not within a groundwater recharge area and the Proposed
Project would increase onsite pervious areas by replacing impermeable surface parking area with three
permeable full-size natural grass fields. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in a less than
significant impact concerning groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. No new or more severe
impact concerning groundwater would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Miti A!j9 Measures
No mitigation required.
4.9c Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off -site, or
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provided substantial additional resources of polluted runoff?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.8-19 — 5.8-26)
See Threshold 4.9a Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above concerning ESSCSP erosion and
water quality.
The FEIR indicated that the ESSCSP would be served by approximately 7,000 linear feet of new onsite
storm drain lines, with a maximum pipe diameter of 54 inches; see FEIR Exhibit 5.8-3: Proposed
Stormwater and Site Drainage System. The ESSCSP area would continue to drain northwest to southeast;
see FEIR Exhibit 5.8-4: Proposed Conditions Hydrology. Reconfiguration of site roadways and replacement
of existing buildings and surface parking lots with new buildings and parking lots/structures would change
drainage patterns and locations/amounts of impervious surface areas. The sub -drainage areas would
continue to flow to the City's storm drain along the ESSCSP area's eastern and southern edges. The minor
offsite flow from El Segundo Boulevard and the property to the south would continue unobstructed to
combine with onsite flows. The ESSCSP area's average imperviousness is anticipated to decrease from
79.5 percent to 70.0 percent, and there would be no net increase in stormwater discharge from the
ESSCSP area. The FEIR concluded that onsite detention would not be required, and an increase in the rate
or amount of stormwater runoff above existing conditions would not occur. However, final hydrology
calculations would be required to verify that detention facilities are not required in each of the proposed
sub -drainage areas. MM HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would require that a Construction -Level Hydrology and
Hydraulic Study be conducted before any Grading Permit is issued to verify whether detention facilities
are required in each proposed sub -area. Compliance with MM HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would reduce the
potential impacts from drainage and runoff to less than significant levels.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-36
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: The Proposed Project involves development of a
corporate headquarters building, natural grass fields, and a warehouse. The fields would replace existing
surface parking lots and ornamental landscaping, which would provide more pervious surfaces on the
Proposed Project site, as compared to the Approved Project. FEIR Exhibit 5.8-4 depicts the site's drainage
patterns upon Proposed Project implementation, which would closely match existing drainage patterns.
FEIR Exhibit 5.8-3 depicts existing and proposed storm drains and indicates that a new storm drain is
proposed within the Nash Street extension, just north of the proposed corporate headquarters building.
Additional storm drains would be developed as part of the ESSCSP. The Proposed Project would
implement MM HWQ-1 and HQW-2, which require that a Construction -Level Hydrology and Hydraulic
Study be conducted before any Grading Permit is issued to verify whether detention facilities would be
required in each proposed sub -area. If so required, it is assumed these would be located onsite.
Compliance with MM HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would reduce the potential impacts from drainage and runoff,
including flooding on- or off -site, to less than significant levels. No new or more severe impact concerning
groundwater would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR IM lti ation Measures
HWQ-1 Before the City issues any grading permit, the Applicant must conduct a Construction
Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study to determine potential storm water runoff rates
and peak flows from the Project site per County of Los Angeles methodology. The 50-year
storm flows for both existing and proposed Project conditions must be included in the
study. The Study must be completed by a qualified professional, approved bythe Director
of Public Works, and be consistent with standard engineering practices for the region,
including the use of the Los Angeles County Manual. The Study must demonstrate the
effect of storm water discharges to any City, County, or other agency -owned drainage or
flood control facility, as mitigated and be designed and implemented to prevent an
increase in the rate or amount of storm water runoff above the baseline condition.
The Study must also determine whether onsite detention is required. If the final
hydrology calculations determine that onsite detention is required to avoid downstream
impacts, the Study must also identify the necessary flood control mitigation, which may
include a surface stormwater detention pond, subsurface detention structure, or
subsurface detention pipes. The construction level hydrology calculations and
Construction Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study must be prepared and reviewed by
the Director of Public Works and Building Official before any Grading Permit is issued.
HWQ-2 Before the City issues any permit for development of an individual parcel, the
Construction Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study must be updated and submitted to
the Director of Public Works for review. The phasing must be implemented to prevent an
increase in the rate or amount of storm water runoff above the baseline condition.
4.9c Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-37
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, pp. 4.9-3 — 4.9-4)
The FEIR concluded that the entire City is placed in Zone X pursuant to Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 1770F, Map No. 06037C1T10F, which indicates
that the City is in an area of minimal flood hazard. Therefore, the entire ESSCSP area would not have any
risk of flood hazards. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact as it relates to impeding or redirecting flood
flows.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard. Therefore, the Proposed
Project would have no impact concerning the potential to alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows and no mitigation is
required. No new or more severe impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.9d Would the Project, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.9-4)
The FEIR concluded that the entire City is placed in Zone X pursuant to FEMA FIRM Panel 1770F, Map No.
06037C1T10F, which indicates that the City is in an area of minimal flood hazard. Therefore, the entire
ESSCSP area would not have any risk of flood hazards. Furthermore, the ESSCSP is not located within a
levee, dam, or tsunami inundation area. There are also no enclosed -bodies of water that are located in
the vicinity of the ESSCSP, which could cause a seiche. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact as it relates
to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site was identified as being in an area of minimal flood hazard. The
Proposed Project site is located away from any waterbodies or coastal zones, thus, would not be within a
levee, dam, or tsunami inundation area or subject to a seiche. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
have no impact concerning the risk release of pollutants due to inundation and no mitigation is required.
No new or more severe impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.9e Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-38
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Not applicable since this threshold was not analyzed in the FEIR.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: See Threshold 4.9a Analysis of Proposed Project above concerning water
quality control plan compliance. See Threshold 4.9b Analysis of Proposed Project above concerning
sustainable groundwater management plan compliance.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.10 Land Use and Planning
4.10a Would the Project physically divide on established community?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.10-1)
The FEIR identified that the City is generally described according to quadrants. The City's residential uses
are located in the northwest quadrant, and the non-residential land uses are located in the remaining
three quadrants. The ESSCSP encompasses approximately 142 acres in the City's southeast quadrant. The
ESSCSP proposed commercial and industrial mixed -use development, which would be consistent with the
City's existing land use pattern. The ESSCSP would not physically divide an established community.
Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project would develop a corporate headquarters building, natural grass fields,
and a warehouse within the ESSCSP, and the proposed land uses would be consistent with the ESSCSP's
land use plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on physically dividing an established
community and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning physically dividing
an established community would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.10b Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.1-21— 5.1-28)
According to the FEIR, the ESSCSP is determined to be consistent with the relevant SCAG's 2012 RTP/SCS
goals and adopted growth forecasts, the ESMC, and General Plan Policies, excluding the following
Circulation Element Policies:
Circulation Element Policy C1-1.2: Pursue implementation of all Circulation Element policies such
that all Master Plan roadways are upgraded and maintained at acceptable levels of service (LOS).
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-39
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
o Reason for ESSCSP inconsistency with policy: With implementation of identified feasible
mitigation in FEIR Section 5.2: Transportation, the impacts at El Segundo Intersections 29, 32,
38, 48, 50, and 51 would remain significant and unavoidable, and acceptable levels of service
would not be maintained at these intersections. Therefore, the ESSCSP would conflict with
Policy C1-1.2, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.
• Circulation Element Policy C1-1.5: Implement roadway and intersection upgrades to full
Circulation Element standards when needed to improve traffic operating conditions and to serve
development.
o Reason for ESSCSP inconsistency with policy: See Policy C1-1.2 above.
• Circulation Element Policy C1-1.10: Ensure that new roadway links are constructed as designated
in the Master Plan and link with existing roadways within the City such that efficient operation of
the circulation system is maintained at an operating Level of Service "D" or better.
o Reason for ESSCSP inconsistency with policy: See Policy C1-1.2 above.
No feasible mitigation is available to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, implementation of the ESSCSP
would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding conflicts with Circulation Element Policies
C1-1.2, C1-1.5, and C1-1.10.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: As noted above, the FEIR concluded implementation of the ESSCSP would
result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding conflicts with Circulation Element Policies C1-1.2,
C1-1.5, and C1-1.10. It is anticipated the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact
concerning compliance with these policies given: Level of Service (LOS) is no longer a metric for
transportation impact analysis; and the Proposed Project involves development that provides
approximately 58 percent less gross floor area and generates approximately 55 percent fewer trips
compared to the Approved Project. State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 codifies the change from LOS to VMT
as a metric for transportation impact analysis. Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743, VMT analysis is the primary
method for determining CEQA impacts. The City has completed a preliminary Draft SB 743
Implementation Guidelines (Kimley-Horn, November 2020) for purposes of analyzing transportation
impacts under CEQA and anticipates that after some revisions, the Guidelines will be adopted by May
2022.
As the Proposed Project would develop the same uses as proposed in the ESSCSP, the Proposed Project
would be consistent with SCAG's 2012 RTP/SCS. The Proposed Project involves development that provides
approximately 58 percent less gross floor area and generates approximately 55 percent fewer trips
compared to the Approved Project. As described in Section 4.13: Population and Housing, below, the
Proposed Project would generate approximately 377 employees on the Proposed Project site (including
the early arriving employees). It is unknown if any of these employees would choose to relocate to the
City, increasing the City's population. Since the Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similar
to those permitted under the ESSCSP, but provides approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when
compared to the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would have less potential population growth on
the Proposed Project site than what was anticipated for the Approved Project, and the Proposed Project
would be consistent with the adopted growth forecasts.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-40
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project's modifications include realigning the Nash Street extension and
realigning/relocating the Coral Circle connection to the Nash Street extension through Lots 20 and 22. The
proposed modified circulation pattern would continue to provide for possible future connection from the
Nash Street extension to Coral Circle and capacity for additional parking for the Coral Circle businesses.
The City's Public Works Department conducted an analysis of the Nash Street extension and Coral Circle
connection's compliance concerning function, capacity, capacity, and street classification and standards
with the General Plan Circulation Element; the ESMC; and the ESSCSP.' Therefore, the Nash Street
extension and Coral Circle connection would be in substantial compliance with the General Plan
Circulation Element concerning function, capacity, and street classification and standards. Furthermore,
the City's Public Works Department provide the following conditions of approval:
1. The Applicant must build the Nash Street roadway extension and associated public improvements
in accordance with Development Agreement Section 7.1. Nash Street roadway extension design
and construction is subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and Director
of Development Services.
2. The Applicant must construct Class II bicycle lanes in the Nash Street roadway extension in
accordance with the ESSCSP and Development Agreement Section 7.5.
3. The Applicant must record a 20-year irrevocable offer of dedication of Lots 20 and 22 (Coral Circle
Connection) of Vesting Map No. 71551 in accordance with the ESSCSP and Development
Agreement Section 7.7. Before recordation, the irrevocable offer to dedicate must be reviewed
and approved by the Director of Development Services, the Director of Public Works, and the City
Attorney.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the Circulation Element, and impacts would be
less than significant.
ESSCSP Table III-1: Land Use Summary, anticipates that the allowed new development would total
1,930,000 net SF (2,161,600 gross SF). To allow for maximum flexibility within the ESSCSP area, the ESSCSP
utilizes a mixed -use concept, with regulatory mechanisms to allow for transfers between land use types
and planning areas, subject to various requirements concerning FAR, allowable land uses, and AM, PM,
and daily trip generation ceilings. As of October 21, 2021 (i.e., inclusive of Phase I entitled development
only), approximately 1,866,750 net SF (approximately 2,095,950 gross SF) of entitled floor area remains
within the ESSCSP; see Appendix A: ESSCSP Phase I Development Tracking Table. The Proposed Project
involves development of approximately 131,685 net SF (approximately 153,915 gross SF) of floor area;
see Table 2-3: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Development Scenarios. With implementation of
the Proposed Project, approximately 1,735,065 net SF (approximately 1,942,035 gross SF) of entitled floor
area would remain within the ESSCSP. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause the allowed new
development within the ESSCSP, as detailed in ESSCSP Table III-1: Land Use Summary, to be exceeded.
Overall, the Proposed Project would be subject to compliance with the ESSCSP and ESMC. The Proposed
Project would also be consistent with the General Plan, with the exclusion of the Circulation Element
Policies listed above. No new or more severe impact concerning conflicting with any land use plan, policy,
8 L. Carver, personal communication, October 21, 2021.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-41
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would occur as a
result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.11 Mineral Resources
4.11a Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.11-1)
The FEIR concluded that no State -designated mines or mineral producers currently exist within the
ESSCSP, and the ESSCSP area does not maintain any natural mineral resources. Therefore, the FEIR
concluded no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no State -designated mines, mineral producers, or maintenance of any natural
mineral resources within the Proposed Project site. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact
on mineral resources and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact concerning mineral
resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Miti ation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.11b Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resources recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.11-1)
The FEIR concluded that no State -designated mines or mineral producers exist within the ESSCSP, and the
ESSCSP area does not maintain any natural mineral resources. The ESSCSP would not result in the loss of
availability of locally important mineral resources recovery sites. Therefore, the FEIR concluded no impact
in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: There are no State -designated mines, mineral producers, or maintenance of any natural
mineral resources within the Proposed Project Site. The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of
availability of locally important mineral resources recovery areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
have no impact on mineral resources and no mitigation is required. No new or more severe impact
concerning mineral resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-42
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
W
No mitigation required.
4.12 Noise
4.12a Would the Project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.5-13 — 5.5-15, 5.5-17 — 5.5-22)
Construction
The FEIR concluded that construction -related noise impacts could occur during site preparation, which
can create the highest levels of noise. Noise from construction activities is generated by two primarily
sources: 1) the transport of workers and equipment to construction sites, and 2) the noise related to active
construction equipment. Sensitive receptors adjacent to the ESSCSP area would be exposed to sporadic
high noise levels associated with construction activities. Construction traffic would access potential
construction sites within the ESSCSP area from major roadways, including El Segundo Boulevard,
Sepulveda Boulevard, and Hughes Way. The closest sensitive receptors to the ESSCSP are immediately
adjacent to the east (Oceanside Christian Fellowship Church) and west (The Lakes at El Segundo Golf
Course); see FEIR Table 5.5-4: Surrounding Off -Site Sensitive Receptors. As noted in the FEIR, the majority
of construction would occur at distances of 50 to 400 feet or more from the nearest sensitive receptors
and would not be expected to interfere with normal recreational or institutional activities. Furthermore,
construction activities would begin in one specific area within the ESSCSP and subsequently move to the
other specific areas. Therefore, construction would not occur in any one location for an extended period
of time. All development within the ESSCSP area would be subject to the General Plan Noise Element and
ESMC Chapter 7-2 (Noise and Vibration). Furthermore, the ESSCSP would implement MM N-1 to reduce
construction noise associated with future development by requiring preparation of a Construction Noise
Management Plan to limit construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the day (i.e., between the
hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM) and ensuring that proper operating procedures are followed during
construction such that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise (pursuant to ESMC
Chapter 7-2-4 standards).
Operations
The FEIR determined that off -site (traffic) noise levels resulting from the ESSCSP would not result in
significant impacts. The ESSCSP would generate long-term stationary noise from delivery trucks,
mechanical equipment (air conditioners, trash compactors, emergency generators, etc.), light industrial
production (manufacturing equipment, etc.), and typical parking lot activities (e.g., parking lot traffic and
car door slamming).
The noise levels from the delivery trucks are within the City's allowable exterior noise level thresholds for
churches and outdoor sports parks; therefore, the Oceanside Christian Fellowship Church and The Lakes
at El Segundo Golf Course would not be directly exposed to excessive noise levels from the deliverytrucks.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-43
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
The ESSCSP's mechanical equipment would result in potential noise levels below the City's limits. The
Metro C (Green) Line would further buffer the ESSCSP's mechanical equipment noise from the Oceanside
Christian Fellowship Church and would mask any noise from the ESSCSP's mechanical equipment. Impacts
from mechanical equipment would be less than significant.
The FEIR concluded that noise associated with the ESSCSP's proposed parking structures would be of
greatest annoyance to the sensitive receptors, these noise levels at the exterior of the sensitive receptors
would not exceed the City's exterior standards, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore,
ESSCSP operations would result in less than significant impacts.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated:
Construction
The Proposed Project site would be located farther from The Lakes at El Segundo Golf Course, but still
adjacent to the Oceanside Christian Fellowship Church. Given the Proposed Project would require less
construction on the Project site than the Approved Project, the length of construction and level of
construction activities would be proportionately less than the Approved Project and as set forth in the
FEIR. Proposed Project construction would be subject to the General Plan Noise Element and ESMC
Chapter 7-2 (Noise and Vibration). Furthermore, Proposed Project construction would implement MM N-
1 to reduce construction noise associated with future development by requiring preparation of a
Construction Noise Management Plan to limit construction to the less noise sensitive periods of the day
(i.e., between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM) and ensuring that proper operating procedures are
followed during construction such that nearby sensitive receptors are not adversely affected by noise
(pursuant to ESMC Chapter 7-2-4 standards). Proposed Project impacts would be reduced to a less than
significant level. Therefore, no new or more severe impact concerning the generation of substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards would occur as a result
of the Proposed Project.
Operations
The Proposed Project involves approximately 58 percent less (gross SF) development and approximately
55 percent fewertrips, as compared to the Approved Project. As the FEIR determined that off -site (traffic)
noise levels resulting from the ESSCSP would be less than significant, the Proposed Project would also
result in less than significant off -site noise levels. Proposed Project operations would include delivery
trucks that could not expose sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels from the delivery trucks. The
noise from the Proposed Project's mechanical equipment would be buffered by the Metro C (Green) Line,
and impacts would be less than significant. Proposed Project impacts from operations would be less than
significant. Therefore, no new or more severe impact concerning the generation of substantial temporary
or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards would occur as a result of the
Proposed Project.
FEIR Miti ation Measures
N-1 Before the City issues grading permits, the Project Applicant must demonstrate, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that the Project complies with the following:
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-44
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
All construction equipment must be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices
(e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the
original equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.
Y The contractor must maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise
emissions.
0 Stationary equipment must be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to
the sensitive receptors.
All equipment servicing must be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible
distance to the sensitive receptors.
Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction are required to be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever
possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically
powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust
muffler must be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about
10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves must be used where feasible, and this
could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures must be used, such as drills
rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible.
A qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" will be retained amongst the construction
crew to be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise.
When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within
24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting
too early, malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and implement reasonable measures to resolve
the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning and Building Safety.
R Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry
into sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers).
4.12b Would the Project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.5-16— 5.5-17)
The FEIR concluded that groundborne noise and vibration would occur during construction activities due
to operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, and other heavy-duty construction equipment. Operation of
construction equipment would generate vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish rapidly
in amplitude with distance from the source. As indicated in FEIR Table 5.5-8: Typical Vibration Levels for
Construction Equipment, the vibration velocities from the construction equipment that would be utilized
during ESSCSP construction combined with the commercial/light industrial and institutional uses located
approximately 50 feet east of the ESSCSP area would be below the 0.2 inch -per -second PPV significance
threshold. Vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant. The uses
proposed in the ESSCSP are not anticipated to generate high levels of groundborne noise and vibration.
Therefore, vibration impacts associated with operations would be less than significant.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-45
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: Proposed Project construction could generate varying degrees of
groundborne vibration depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used.
The Proposed Project site would be located farther from The Lakes at El Segundo Golf Course, but still
adjacent to the Oceanside Christian Fellowship Church. Given the Proposed Project would require less
construction on the Proposed Project site than the Approved Project, the length of construction and level
of construction activities would be proportionately less than the Approved Project. As construction would
be reduced as compared to the Approved Project, Proposed Project construction vibration impacts would
be less than significant. The Proposed Project's uses are not anticipated to generate excessive
groundborne vibration or noise levels. Operations of the Proposed Project would include truck deliveries.
Due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground -borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events,
vehicular traffic -induced ground -borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way,
and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. Therefore, no new or
more severe impact concerning the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.12c For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.12-2)
See Threshold 4.8e Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: See Threshold 4.8e Analysis of Proposed Project above.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.13 Population and Housing
4.13a Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or
indirectly?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.9-8 — 5.9-11)
As indicated in the FEIR, the ESSCSP would not propose new residential land uses, and therefore, would
not induce population growth directly through housing. Additionally, although the ESSCSP would propose
improvements/modifications to existing roads and infrastructure, it would not involve the extension of
roads or other infrastructure into undeveloped areas. Therefore, the ESSCSP would not induce population
growth indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-46
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
As shown in FEIR Table 5.9-8: Project Compared to Existing Conditions, the ESSCSP would increase the
City's employment by 4,598 jobs, or approximately 5.1 percent over existing conditions in 2015. The
ESSCSP's increase in employment could result in population growth within the City, as the potential exists
that future employees could relocate to the City. However, estimating the number of employees who
could relocate to the City would be highly speculative. Furthermore, numerous alternative housing
opportunities would be available to future employees. The ESSCSP's potential population growth is
considered less than significant, since it is anticipated that significantly fewer than 377 of the Proposed
Project's future employees would chose to relocate to the City due to the availability of numerous
alternative housing opportunities within the City and neighboring cities and jobs created by the Proposed
Project could be filled in part by the approximately 20,200 unemployed persons who already reside in the
City and neighboring cities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not develop residential land uses, and
therefore, would not induce population growth directly through housing. The Proposed Project would
propose improvements/modifications to existing roads and infrastructure to serve the new uses on the
Proposed Project site, but would not extend into undeveloped areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project
would not induce population growth indirectly through extension of roads or other infrastructure.
As shown in Table 4-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Employment Forecast, Proposed Project
implementation would increase the City's employment by approximately 377 jobs, or approximately 49
percent fewer jobs, as compared to 744 jobs estimated for the Approved Project. When compared to the
existing conditions in the City as noted in the FEIR, the Proposed Project would increase the City's
employment by approximately 0.74 percent (377 jobs) over existing conditions (50,902 jobs). The
Proposed Project's potential population growth from new employees relocating to the City is considered
less than significant, since the Proposed Project's future employees could also choose to relocate to
available alternative housing opportunities in neighboring jurisdictions.
Table 4-4: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Employment Forecast
Employment Factor
Land Use'
Square
Feet
Employment
(SF per Employee)'
... ____.___...._........m.m . _..
(net)
Estimate
ExistingConceptual...
Development Scenario
Office 440 327,680 744
Proposed Conceptual Development Scenario
_. _......._ ... ..
Office 440
126,448
.........
.... _.. a ...
.... 288
......................................
Warehouse 1,518
.�
5,237
4
Special Staff
NA
85
....... _.................
Total Proposed Project
.......
131,685
377
....... ...
Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conceptual Development Scenario (number)
-367
Proposed Project Compared to Existing Conceptual Development Scenario (percent)
..._......__.............
-49%
Note:
1, Based on FEIR Table 5.9-7: Project Employment Forecast.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-47
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
The Proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth through employment
in the City, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or
more severe impact concerning population and housing would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.13b Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.13-2)
As indicated in the FEIR, no housing units exist in the ESSCSP. The ESSCSP would not displace housing or
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the FEIR concluded
no impact in this regard.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project would not displace housing or people in the ESSCSP. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would have no impact on displacement and no mitigation is required. No new or more
severe impact concerning displacement would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.14 Public Services
4.14a 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:
(i) Fire protection?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.10-7 — 5.10-8)
The FEIR indicated that the ESSCSP would not propose new or physically altered fire protection facilities.
While the ESSCSP would increase the non-residential land uses, which would result in an increased
demand for fire protection services, the ESFD confirmed there would be no need to add a new fire station
as a result of the ESSCSP. The FEIR also concluded that the ESSCSP would not increase response times to
the ESSCSP area or surrounding vicinity or require the construction of new or physically altered fire
protection facilities. The ESSCSP would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-27A, which requires
payment of a development impact fee, to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the ESSCSP's
development impact on the City's fire protection services. Compliance with ESMC Chapter 15-27A would
ensure that applicants of future development projects within the ESSCSP area pay their fair share of the
costs of providing the necessary public services and public facilities, including fire suppression facilities,
vehicles, and equipment. All future development would also comply with the requirements set forth in
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-48
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
the California Fire Code, California Building Code, and ESMC Title 13, Building Regulations. Therefore,
compliance with all applicable codes and regulations, as well as ESMC Chapter 15-27A, would ensure that
the ESSCSP would result in less than significant impacts to fire protection services.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not develop new or physically altered fire
protection facilities. The Proposed Project's land uses would be similar to those permitted under the
ESSCSP, but would involve approximately 58 percent less grossfloor area when compared to the Approved
Project. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-27A, which requires
payment of a development impact fee to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the Proposed
Project's development impact on the City's fire protection services. The Proposed Project would be
required to comply with the California Fire Code, California Building Code, and ESMC Title 13 to ensure
that the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to fire protection services. No new
or more severe impact concerning fire protection services would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.14a 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:
(ii) Police protection?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.10-8 — 5.10-9)
The FEIR indicated that the ESSCSP would not propose new or physically altered police protection facilities.
While the ESSCSP would increase the non-residential land uses, which would result in an increased
demand for police protection services, the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD) confirmed there would
be no need to add a new police station as a result of the ESSCSP. The FEIR noted that according to the
ESPD, the ESSCSP would increase calls for service, which would increase response times and potentially
require an additional officer or resources. The ESSCSP would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter
15-27A, which requires payment of a development impact fee, to minimize, to the greatest extent
practicable, the ESSCSP's development impact on the City's police protection services. Compliance with
ESMC Chapter 15-27A would ensure that applicants of future development projects within the ESSCSP
area pay their fair share of the costs of providing the necessary public services and public facilities,
including law enforcement facilities, vehicles, and equipment. All future development would also comply
with the ESPD's security requirements, which include lighting, landscaping, addressing, bicycle racks, trash
dumpsters, access control, doors and door hardware, parking structures, security cameras, and tenant
improvement requirements for individual commercial/retail establishments, among others. The ESPD
would review each future site plan before approval and impose standard conditions of approval to ensure
adequate design features are included to minimize any potential increase in demand for police protection
services. Therefore, compliance with ESPD's security requirements and ESMC Chapter 15-27A would
ensure that the ESSCSP would result in a less than significant impact to police protection services.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-49
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not develop new or physically altered police
protection facilities. The Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similarto those permitted under
the ESSCSP, but would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when compared to the
Approved Project. The Proposed Project would include various types of lighting surrounding the parking
lot perimeters and around the corporate headquarters and maintenance buildings to minimize darkened
areas and potential hazards. The parking lots would be tended by a security booth, and all entrances to
the buildings on -site would be through a secured gated area or main entry lobby. Six types of perimeter
fencing would also be proposed around the Proposed Project site, corporate headquarters building, and
surface parking lots. Given the Proposed Project's scope and nature, it is not anticipated to result in an
increase in response times or require additional officers or resources. Also, the Proposed Project would
be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-27A, which requires payment of a development impact fee
to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the Proposed Project's development impact on the City's
police protection services. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the ESPD's security
requirements and ESMC Chapter 15-27A to ensure that the Proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts to police protection services. No new or more severe impact concerning police
protection services would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.14a 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:
(iii) Schools?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.10-9 — 5.10-10)
The FEIR indicated that the ESSCSP would be situated within the Wiseburn School District (WSD) and the
Centinela Valley Union High School District (CVUHSD). The ESSCSP does not propose new or physically
altered school facilities. However, the ESSCSP would increase the non-residential land uses, which could
indirectly result in increased enrollment within the WSD and CVUHSD. As noted in the FEIR, the WSD does
not base its attendance on student generation rates, and enrollment is regulated through inter -district
permits. Therefore, any increase in enrollment in the WSD would be limited. The CVUHSD also does not
utilize student generation rates. Under Education Code §§ 17620, et seq., school districts collect impact
fees from developers of new commercial/industrial building space. Pursuant to Government Code
§65996, school fees imposed through the Education Code are deemed to be full mitigation for new
development projects, and no additional mitigation measures would be imposed by the City. Developer
impact fees would be imposed on future applicants within the ESSCSP area. Thus, compliance with the
Education Code and Government Code would ensure that the ESSCSP would result in less than significant
impacts to schools.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-50
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not develop new or physically altered school
facilities. The Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similar to those permitted under the
ESSCSP, but would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when compared to the Approved
Project. The Proposed Project would comply with the Education Code and Government Code, and the
Project Applicant would pay the impact fee to offset the cost of providing services for any additional
students generated by the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less than
significant impacts to schools. No new or more severe impact concerning schools would occur as a result
of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.14o 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:
(iv) Parks?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.10-11— 5.10-12)
The FEIR indicated that the there are approximately 16 acres of privately -owned recreational resources in
the northwest corner of the ESSCSP, which is available for private use by Raytheon's employees. The
ESSCSP would remove those private outdoor recreational uses and provide approximately 7.5 acres of
new recreational facilities at the southeast corner of the Raytheon Campus, which would also be available
for private use by Raytheon's employees. The ESSCSP would not involve residential development and
therefore, would not induce substantial population growth through new residential development that
would generate a significant demand for park facilities. The existing employees in the ESSCSP would utilize
the existing and new park and recreational facilities offered by the ESSCSP and would have minimal
opportunity to use the City's facilities. The ESSCSP would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-
27A, which requires payment of a development impact fee, to minimize, to the greatest extent
practicable, the ESSCSP's development impact on the City's parks and recreational facilities. Compliance
with ESMC Chapter 15-27A would ensure that applicants of future development projects within the
ESSCSP area pay theirfair share of the costs of providing the necessary public services and public facilities,
including parks/open space and recreational facilities and public use (community centers) facilities.
Therefore, compliance with ESMC Chapter 15-27A would ensure that the ESSCSP would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered park facilities,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similar to those
permitted under the ESSCSP, but would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when
compared to the Approved Project. While the Proposed Project would not develop new or physically
altered parks or recreational facilities, the proposed corporate headquarters building would include
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-51
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
various amenities, such as training and weight rooms, an auditorium, and natural grass fields for internal
use.
Additionally, the ESSCSP included a private outdoor recreational facility for Raytheon employees totaling
7.54 acres within Lot 11. The Proposed Project would decrease the land available for this private facility
to approximately 7.34 acres on Lots 10 and 11 (a decrease of 0.20 acres). This change would not generate
the need for new or physically altered recreational facilities elsewhere to meet any parkland standard
given it is a private facility. Additionally, the Proposed Project would not generate any demand for
recreational facilities given it does not include residential uses but does include various private
recreational amenities for internal use.
The Proposed Project would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-27A, which requires payment
of a development impact fee to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the Proposed Project's
development impact on the City's parks and recreational facilities. Therefore, compliance with ESMC
Chapter 15-27A would ensure that the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to
parks and recreational facilities. No new or more severe impact concerning parks and recreational
facilities' would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.14a 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:
(v) Other Public Facilities?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.14-3)
The FEIR indicated that the ESSCSP would not include residential development or induce substantial
population growth. Therefore, the ESSCSP would not generate a significant demand for new physically
altered library facilities or result in adverse physical impacts associated with library facilities. The ESSCSP
would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-27A, which requires payment of a development
impact fee, to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the ESSCSP's development impact on the City's
libraries. Compliance with ESMC Chapter 15-27A would ensure that applicants of future development
projects within the ESSCSP area pay their fair share of the costs of providing the necessary public services
and public facilities. Therefore, compliance with ESMC Chapter 15-27A would ensure that the ESSCSP
would result in less than significant impacts to library facilities.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would not include residential developmentthat would
generate substantial population growth generating a demand for library facilities. The Proposed Project's
proposed land uses would be similar to those permitted under the ESSCSP, but would involve
approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when compared to the Approved Project. The Proposed
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-52
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Project would be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-27A, which requires payment of a
development impact fee to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the Proposed Project's
development impact on the City's libraries. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with ESMC
Chapter 15-27A to ensure that the Proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to library
facilities. No new or more severe impact concerning libraries would occur as a result of the Proposed
Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.15 Recreation
4.15a Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.15-1)
See Threshold 4.14a(iv) Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: See Threshold 4.14a(iv) Analysis of Proposed Project above.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.15b Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.10-11— 5.10-12)
See Threshold 4.14a(iv) Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: See Threshold 4.14a(iv) Analysis of Proposed Project above.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.16 Transportation
4.16a Would the Project conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.2-34— 5.2-110)
The FEIR studied 71 intersections that would be located in the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach,
Redondo Beach, Hawthorne, and Los Angeles, and the County of Los Angeles. The ESSCSP proposes to
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-53
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
establish a net additional 2,142,457 gross SF over existing conditions. As shown in FEIR Table 5.2-27:
Forecast Long -Range With Project Buildout Conditions Peak Hour Study Intersection LOS, with the
addition of the trips generated by ESSCSP buildout, 13 intersections would continue to operate at an
acceptable Level of Service (LOS) (LOS D or better), and 11 intersections would result in significant impacts.
Implementation of MM TRA-1 through TRA-7 would reduce traffic impacts at Intersections 29, 32, 48, 49,
50, 53, and 55; however, only Intersection 49 would be reduced to a less than significant level. No
mitigation would be feasible due to right-of-way limitations and existing structures at Intersections 38,
51, 62, and 69. Therefore, impacts at Intersections 29, 32, 38, 48, 50, 51, 53, 55, 62, and 69 would remain
significant and unavoidable. For the State Highway intersections, the ESSCSP would have potentially
significant impacts at Intersections 7, 13, and 57. With implementation of MM TRA-8 and TRA-9, traffic
impacts would be reduced at Intersection 57 to less than significant levels. However, Intersections 7,
which would have no feasible mitigation measures due to right-of-way limitations and existing structures)
and 13 would also remain significant and unavoidable.
The FEIR identified the following transit services available in the ESSCSP's vicinity:
• Metro Bus Line Route 125 travels along Rosecrans Avenue and intersects Sepulveda Boulevard
a Metro Bus Line Route 232 travels along Sepulveda Boulevard and intersects Rosecrans Avenue
0 Metro C (Green) Line 801 travels alongside the ESSCSP and stops at El Segundo Station, located at
El Segundo Boulevard and Nash Street
The ESSCSP is forecast to generate approximately 149 AM peak hour transit trips, approximately 153 PM
peak hour transit trips, and approximately 1,303 daily transit trips. Since the ESSCSP transit trips can be
accommodated by existing transit service in the vicinity, no significant transit impacts would occur, and
impacts would be less than significant.
There are no bicycle facilities located in the ESSCSP's vicinity. ESMC Chapter 15-16 sets forth requirements
for major new developments to provide facilities that encourage and accommodate the use of ridesharing,
transit, pedestrian, and bicycle commuting as alternatives to single occupant motor vehicle trips.
According to the ESCM Chapter 15-16-2, before approval of any development project, the Applicant must
provide for, at a minimum, all of the applicable Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and trip
reduction measures. As described in FEIR Table 5.1-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis, the ESSCSP
proposes a 6.0-foot wide Class II, on -street bicycle lane, on each side of the street, within the Nash Street
extension. Therefore, following compliance with the ESMC, impacts would be less than significant related
to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Overall, the FEIR concluded that the ESSCSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related
to conflicting with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similar to those
permitted under the ESSCSP, but would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area and
approximately 55 percent fewer trips when compared to the Approved Project. The ESSCSP has a trip
ceiling of 3,042 AM peak hourtrips, 3,120total PM peak hourtrips, and 26,585total daily trips; see ESSCSP
Table III-3: Project Trip Ceiling for Trips Associated with New Development Within the ESSCSP Area. As of
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-54
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
October 21, 2021 (i.e., inclusive of Phase I entitled development), approximately 2,954 AM peak hour
trips, approximately 2,965 PM peak hour trips, and approximately 24,756 total daily trips remain within
the ESSCSP; see Appendix A: ESSCSP Phase I Development Tracking Table. As shown in the Trip
Generation Assessment- ESSCSP—Southeast Quad (Fehr & Peers, October 28, 2021) (see Appendix C: Trip
Generation Assessment)' and in Table 4-5: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Trip Generation, the
Proposed Project would generate a 267 AM peak hour trips, 230 PM peak hour trips, and 1,808 total daily
trips. As shown in Table 4-5, the Proposed Project would result in approximately 55 percent fewer daily
vehicle trips than the Approved Project.
Table 4-5: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Trip Generation
Estimated Trip
Generation"
ITE AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Code Size Daily In Out Total
In
Out
Total
ESSCSP
ESSCSP All Uses N/A 26,585 2,634 408 3,042
J.
631 J2",=4893,1�0
Existing Conceptual Development Scenari02
4(4048 504
454
547
0367SF002
Office 7
8) (0)
.1)
(4)
()
Proposed Conceptual Development Scenario
..................
_.. _.
Corporate Headquarters and
Recreation Facility 148,050 1,633 203 28 231
38
183
221
Internal capture (1% PM / 1% 710 SF (16) 0 0 0
0
(2)
(2)
ADT)3 ..........
Special staff ' 85 em 170 34 0 34
....... ......_ __________ ................_ ......
0 ........ ..
9
9 w...
Subtotal Lots 7and 8 _ 1,787 237 28 265
38
190
228
Warehouse 150 5,865 SF 21 2 0 2
1
1
2
Total Proposed Project Trips 1,808 239 28 267
_. ........... _.
39
191
230
_.
Proposed Project Compared to Existing
Conceptual Development Scenario (number) -2,240
Proposed Project Compared to Existing
Conceptual Development Scenario (percent) -55%
Proposed Project Proportion of ESSCSP 6,gy
Notes:
1, Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) T6p G r&,4, MalManual 9th Edition
2. Source: Fehr & Peers, Trip Generation Assessment - ESSCSP—Southeast Quad, October 28, 202L
3. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips occurring between land uses proposed or already operating within the site (Raytheon
South Campus).
4. All employees were assumed to travel in single occupancy vehicles. To be conservative, 40% of the employees
were assumed to travel
during the AM peak hour and 10% in the PM peak hour.
PCE = Passenger Car Equivalent; KSF = Thousand Square Feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, Trip Generation Assessment — ESSCSP —Southeast Quad, October 282021. Provpdedl un Appendix C.
9 Kimley-Horn conducted a third -party review of the Proposed Project's Trip Generation Assessment on behalf of the City; see
Appendix C: Trip Generation Assessment. The third -party review concluded the analyses meet the applicable provisions of
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-55
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
With implementation of the Proposed Project, approximately 2,687 AM peak hour trips, approximately
2,735 PM peak hour trips, and approximately 22,948 total daily trips would remain within the ESSCSP.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause the ESSCSP trip ceiling, as detailed in ESSCSP Table III-3,
to be exceeded, and impacts related to the circulation system would be less than significant.
See Threshold 4.10b Analysis of Proposed Project above concerning consistency with programs, plans,
ordinances, and policies addressingthe circulation system. The Proposed Project would comply with ESMC
Chapter 15-16, which requires the Project to provide facilities that encourage and accommodate the use
of ridesharing, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle commuting as alternatives to single occupant motor vehicle
trips. The Proposed Project would also include applicable TDM and trip reduction measures. As noted in
Threshold 4.10b Analysis of Proposed Project above, the Proposed Project would be required to
implement the City's Public Works Department conditions of approval related to the Nash Street
extension. Therefore, impacts related to conflicting with program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than
significant. No new or more severe impact would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.16b Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Not applicable since this threshold was not analyzed in the FEIR.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: State CEQA Guidelines §15064.3 codifies the change from LOS to VMT as a
metric for transportation impact analysis. Pursuant to SB 743, VMT analysis is the primary method for
determining transportation impacts under CEQA. The City is in the process of developing SB 743
implementation guidelines related to VMT analysis. Therefore, the State Office of Planning and Research
(OPR)'s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA will be utilized for the VMT
analysis. OPR acknowledges that CEQA documents released for public review before July 1, 2020 are not
required to incorporate a VMT analysis, and that CEQA analyses prepared after July 1, 2020 may rely on a
previously certified EIR that analyzes traffic impacts using the LOS metric. Lead agencies may use their
discretion to determine if a VMT analysis is not required for later -prepared documents.lo See, e.g., CREED
v. San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.AppAth 515; Concerned Dublin Citizens v. Cityof Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.AppAth
1301, 1320.) Therefore, a VMT analysis is not required for the Proposed Project. Notwithstanding, based
on the VMT-based analysis provided below, the Proposed Project is presumed to result in a less than
significant transportation impact concerning VMT.
The OPR Guidelines state that projects located within half mile from an existing major transit stop or
within half of a mile from an existing stop along a high -quality transit corridor can be screened out, and
10 California Governor's Office of Planning and Research, SB 743 Frequently Asked Questions, Irott as:' a r ca;gv' a:e a xb
113 fA%Litr d#dr dads. Accessed November 3, 2021.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-56
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
thus presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact. As the Proposed Project would
be located less than 0.5 miles south of the Metro C (Green) Line El Segundo station, the Proposed Project
is screened out and is presumed to result in a less than significant transportation impact concerning VMT.
FOR Miti atiori Measures
No mitigation required.
4.16c Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.2-34— 5.2-110)
The FEIR concluded that while the proposed ESSCSP development would not result in incompatible uses,
the ESSCSP's generated trips would result in impacts at study area intersections, which could lead to
increased transportation hazards at study area intersections (e.g., a dangerous intersection). Therefore,
ESSCSP implementation would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to increased hazards
due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: The Proposed Project would develop uses that are consistent with
those assumed in the ESSCSP land use plan and evaluated in the FEIR. The Proposed Project land uses that
would be consistent with the ESSCSP's land use plan and not result in incompatible uses. Additionally, the
Proposed Project would result in approximately 55 percent fewer daily vehicle trips than the Approved
Project. However, the Proposed Project would generate 1,808 total daily trips, which could lead to
increased transportation hazards at study area intersections (e.g., a dangerous intersection). Therefore,
the Proposed Project's uses could increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact, as
concluded in the FEIR. It is noted that although the Proposed Project would result in a significant and
unavoidable impact concerning increased transportation hazards, this significant and unavoidable impact
was previously identified in the FEIR. No new or more severe impact concerning increased transportation
hazards would occur, as a result of the Proposed Project. As described above, the Proposed Project would
result in 55 percent less total daily trips, as compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, an additional
finding concerning this significant impact is not required, since such a finding was already made in
adopting the original FEIR, and this Addendum is the proper CEQA document per State CEQA Guidelines
§§15162 and 15164 because no new significant environmental impacts have been identified.
The Proposed Project's modifications to realign the Nash Street extension would require minor utility
relocations. The Proposed Project would also realign/relocate the Coral Circle connection to the Nash
Street extension through Lots 20 and 22. The proposed modified circulation pattern would continue to
provide for possible future connection from the Nash Street extension to Coral Circle (an easement
through Lots 20 and 22) and capacity for additional parking for the Coral Circle businesses (Lots 20 and
22). As noted in Response to Threshold 4.10b Analysis of Proposed Project above, the City's Public Works
Department analyzed the Nash Street extension and Coral Circle connection for compliance concerning
function, capacity, and street classification and standards with the General Plan Circulation Element, the
ESMC, and the ESSCSP, and found that the two proposed modifications would be in substantial
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-57
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
compliance." The Proposed Project would implement the City's Public Works Department conditions of
approval related to the Nash Street extension, which would also require that the design and construction
of the Nash Street extension be subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and
Director of Development Services. Complying with the conditions of approval would further ensure that
the Proposed Project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
Impacts would be less than significant. No new or more severe impact concerning increasing hazards due
to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.16d Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.7-27 — 5.7-34)
See Threshold 4.8f Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: See Threshold 4.8f Analysis of Proposed Project
above.
FEIR Miti anon Measures
See MM HAZ-8, above.
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
4.17a Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.11-24 — 5.11-28, 5.11-35 — 5.11-36)
See Threshold 4.9c Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above concerning storm water drainage
improvements.
See Threshold 4.9a Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above concerning electric power and
natural gas improvements.
Water
The FEIR quantified the proposed potable water use within the ESSCSP based on the proposed land uses
to be 308,168 gallons per day (gpd) or 457.3 acre-feet per year (AFY). The ESSCSP proposed a potable
water system with three connection points to serve the proposed land uses, and approximately 6,600
linear feet of water lines within the ESSCSP boundary. Regarding fire flow, the City defers to Los Angeles
County Fire Department standards, and all final fire flows would be based on building size, construction
11 L. Carver, personal communication, October 21, 2021.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-58
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
type, and relationship to other structures. MM USS-1 was recommended to require an additional analysis
to determine the most feasible method for reducing velocities in the City's existing water system, which
would also indicate the potential need to parallel off -site City pipelines or add service connections points
for the ESSCSP. The ESSCSP also proposed recycled water use for irrigating existing and new landscaped
areas. Therefore, the ESSCSP would require and result in the construction of new water facilities; however,
the construction would occur primarily within the road rights -of -way, and impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation incorporated.
Wastewater
The FEIR quantified the ESSCSP's projected average daily wastewater generation to be 308,168 gpd. As
identified in the FEIR, sufficient capacity exists to sewer the entire ESSCSP in the southerly trunk;
therefore, the ESSCSP would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects.
However, the FEIR also identified that the Applicant may discharge a portion of the wastewater for the
ESSCSP to the northerly trunk in El Segundo Boulevard. The ESSCSP would require additional capacity to
the northerly trunk and would upsize the critical pipe segment. In the event the City permits the Applicant
to sewer a portion of the development in the ESSCSP to the northerly trunk, the ESSCSP would be required
to implement MM USS-2 such that an adequately sized relief sewer be installed within Douglas Street that
connects with the trunk line at Coral Circle and Douglas Street and diverts sufficient sewer flow from the
northerly trunk to provide adequate capacity.
The FOR concluded that implementation of the ESSCSP would not result in significant impacts concerning
utilities and service systems. However, the implementation of the below referenced Mitigation Measures
was recommended.
Telecommunication Facilities
The FOR identified that telecommunications service to the ESSCSP area is proposed via the existing line
located along the ESSCFSP's eastern boundary, within the property line. There would be one connection
point to serve the ESSCSP, approximately mid -way along the eastern property line. All construction
impacts would occur primarily within the road rights -of -way. The FEIR concluded that implementation of
the ESSCSP would not result in significant impacts related to telecommunications, and no mitigation is
required.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated:
Water
The FEIR anticipated that the entire ESSCSP area would demand approximately 308,168 gpd or 457.3 AFY.
The ESSCSP would include three new connection points to serve the ESSCSP. The Proposed Project would
be located within the ESSCSP and would include similar uses already analyzed in the FEIR, but would
develop approximately 58 percent less gross floor area than the Approved Project. As concluded in
Threshold 4.17b Analysis of Proposed Project below, while the Proposed Project's water demand would
be less than the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would still be required to implement MM USS-1
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-59
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Ana
to require additional analysis of the regional system to reduce system velocities during peak system
demands. With implementation of MM USS-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Wastewater
The FEIR anticipated that the entire ESSCSP area would generate approximately 308,168 gpd of
wastewater. The Proposed Project would be located within the ESSCSP and would include similar uses but
would develop approximately 58 percent less gross floor area than the Approved Project. This analysis
assumes the Proposed Project would be serviced by the City's existing 21-inch trunk sewer (D-207) (i.e.,
the "southerly trunk sewer") located near the Proposed Project site's southeast corner; see FEIR Exhibit
5.11-3: Existing Sewer System. The FEIR concluded that the entire ESSCSP could be serviced by the
southerly trunk, which would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater facilities or
expansion of existing facilities. As concluded in Threshold 4.17c Analysis of Proposed Project below, the
Proposed Project's wastewater generation would be less than the Approved Project. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
Telecommunication Facilities
The Proposed Project site is located in a developed and urbanized area in the City and the ESSCSP that is
already served by existing telecommunication services. The Proposed Project would install
telecommunication lines in El Segundo Boulevard and along the western boundary of the ESSCSP. Existing
telecommunication lines exist along the eastern boundary of the ESSCSP. Construction impacts associated
with the installation of new telecommunication infrastructure were already analyzed as part of the FEIR.
Installation of the infrastructure would be limited to on -site distribution and minor off -site work
associated with connections to the public systems. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project
would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects that have
not already been addressed in the FEIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Overall, impacts concerning water facilities would be less than significant with implementation of MM
USS-1. Impacts concerning wastewater and telecommunication facilities would be less than significant.
No new or more severe impacts concerning relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Miti ation Measures
USS-1 Before the City issues a building permit, the Applicant's Engineering Representative must
coordinate with the Director of Public Works, or designee, to increase capacity of the
City's High Pressure Zone in the vicinity of the Project site. This will include, at a minimum,
regional system analysis of the City's Water System using the City's system -wide
computer model with the goal of reducing system velocities during peak demands
adjacent to the Project site. The Director of Public Works, or designee, will determine the
system improvement options that are required.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-60
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.17b Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.11-34 — 5.11-35)
The FEIR anticipated that the entire ESSCSP area would demand approximately 308,168 gpd or 457.3 AFY.
In accordance with SB 610 and SB 221, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the ESSCSP to
verify that sufficient water supply is available to the water provider during normal, single dry, and multiple
dry years within a 20-year projection that would meet the ESSCSP's projected demand, in addition to
existing and planned future uses. The FEIR concluded there would be sufficient water supplies available
to serve the ESSCSP from existing entitlement and resources, and no new or expanded entitlement would
be needed. Impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would develop land uses that would be similar to
those permitted under the ESSCSP, although with approximately 58 percent less gross floor area than the
Approved Project. As shown in Table 4-6: Proposed Project Potable Water Demand, the Proposed
Project's water demand is estimated to be approximately 25,420.5 gpd. The Proposed Project's natural
grass fields would utilize recycled water as proposed in the ESSCSP; therefore, the fields would not
generate additional potable water demand that was not anticipated as part of the ESSCSP and analyzed
in the FEIR.
Table 4-6: Proposed Project Potable Water Demand
Land User Square Feet Flow Factor Average Flow (gpd)
Office 126,448 200 gpd/ksf 25,289.6
........ .....
Warehouse 5,237 25 gpd/ksf 130.9
............. .....
Total Proposed Project 25,420.5
.............. __.......
Note:
1. Based on FEIR Table 5.11-6: Project Potable Water Demand.
As the Proposed Project would develop less square footage than the Approved Project, the Proposed
Project would be adequately served by the water provider and impacts would be less than significant. No
new or more severe impact concerning sufficient water supply would occur as a result of the Proposed
Project.
FEIR Miti anon Measures
No mitigation required.
4.17c Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.11-35 — 5.11-36)
The FEIR anticipated that the entire ESSCSP area would generate approximately 308,168 gpd of
wastewater. The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) was operating at approximately 66 percent
capacity based on a design capacity of 400 million gallons per day (MGD) and the current (at time of EIR
......
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-61
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
preparation) treatment totaled approximately 265.4 MGD. Therefore, approximately 134.6 MGD of
available capacity existed at the JWPCP to serve the ESSCSP. The ESSCSP's 308,168 gpd (or 0.31 MGD)
would not exceed the available capacity at the JWPCP and impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would develop land uses that would be similar to
those permitted under the ESSCSP and would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when
compared to the Approved Project. As shown in Table 4-7: Proposed Project Wastewater Generation,
the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate 25,420.5 gpd (0.03 MGD) of wastewater.
Table 4-7: Proposed Project Wastewater Generation
Land Use' Square Feet Flow Factor Average Flow (gpd)
Office 126,448 200 gpd/ksf 25,289.6
......_— � _________ ........ .... .
Warehouse 5,237 25 gpd/ksf 130.9
mmm ,. ............... --- m _______..... _.........._ _ .. .......__
Total Proposed Project 25,420.5
Note:
1. Based on FEIR Table 5.11-8: Project Wastewater Generation.
As the Proposed Project would develop less square footage than the Approved Project, the JWPCP would
have adequate and sufficient capacity to accommodate the Proposed Project, and the JWPCP would not
be required to increase its design capacity. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than
significant impact on wastewater. No new or more severe impact concerning wastewater treatment
provider and capacity would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.17d Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.11-36 — 5.11-38)
The FEIR anticipated that the entire ESSCSP area would generate approximately 8,761 tons per year (tpy)
of solid waste. Consolidated Disposal Inc. would provide solid waste collection services to the ESSCSP are
and would be able to serve the ESSCSP. The ESSCSP would be served by a landfill with permitted capacity
to accommodate the ESSCSP's solid waste disposal needs. Further, as described Threshold 4.17e Summary
of Previous Environmental Analysis below, the ESSCSP would comply with the City's Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) to divert solid waste. Some source reduction programs available to the
commercial uses proposed within the ESSCSP include Commercial On -Site Greenwaste Pick -Up; Electronic
Waste; Commercial On -site Pick -Up; and Business Waste Reduction Program. Compliance with the SRRE
would reduce the volume of solid waste ultimately disposed of at the landfill. Compliance with the SRRE
would also allow the ESSCSP to further the City's goal of exceeding Assembly Bill (AB) 939's 50 percent
diversion requirement. Therefore, the ESSCSP would not result in solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals. Impacts would be less than significant.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-62
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: The Proposed Project would develop land uses that would be similar to
those permitted underthe ESSCSP, and would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area when
compared to the Approved Project. As shown in Table 4-8: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation, the
Proposed Project is anticipated to generate approximately 723.4 tpy, which would be accommodated at
the same landfills with permitted capacity to accommodate the ESSCSP's 8,761 tpy of solid waste. The
Proposed Project would be required to comply with the SHE to divert solid waste, which would assist the
City in meeting and exceeding the AB 939's diversion requirements.
Table 4-8: Proposed Project Solid Waste Generation
Generation Rate Generation
Land Use'
Employees!
(Ibs/day/emp)
(Ibs/day)
Generation (tpy)
Office
288
10.53
3,032.6
553.5
.......
Warehouse
4
8.933
35.7
....
6.5
Special Staff
85
10W53._....
......_ 895.1
_..... 163.4
Total Proposed Project
3,963.4
723.4
Notes:
1. Based on FEIR Table
5.11-6: Project Potable
Water Demand.
2. Based on Table 4-4:
Proposed Project Employment
Forecast.
As the Proposed Project would develop less square footage than what was anticipated on the Proposed
Project site under the ESSCSP, the Proposed Project would be adequately served by the identified landfills
and impacts would be less than significant. No new or more severe impact concerning solid waste
generation would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation atioin Measures
No mitigation required.
4.17e Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 5.11-36 — 5.11-38)
See Threshold 4.17d Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above.
Analysis of Proposed Project
Less Than Significant Impact: See Threshold 4.17d Analysis of Proposed Project above.
FEIR Mitigation ation Measures
No mitigation required.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-63
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
4.18 Wildfire
4.18a If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
4.18b If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
4.18c If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such
as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
4.18d If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR Section 10.1: Notice of Preparation/Initial
Study/Environmental Checklist, p. 4.8-3)
The revised State CEQA Guidelines include a new separate discussion for Wildfire hazards. Although not
addressed as a separate threshold, the FEIR's Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis (see Threshold
4.8g Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis above) noted that the ESSCSP area consists of, and is
surrounded by, urban/developed land. Furthermore, the ESSCSP is not located within a Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Analysis of Proposed Project
No Impact: The Proposed Project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact concerning wildfires, and no mitigation is required.
No new or more severe impact concerning wildfires would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitl atiorw (Vkeasures
No mitigation required.
4.19 Energy
4.19a Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-64
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 6-6 — 6-9)
The updated State CEQA Guidelines include a new separate threshold for Energy. Although not addressed
as a separate threshold in the FEIR, the FEIR analyzed energy conservation in FEIR Section 6.4.1: Project
Energy Consumption.
Regarding energy utilized during short-term construction, the ESSCSP would incorporate MM AQ-4 to
ensure that development associated with the ESSCSP would utilize diesel construction equipment that
complies with at least Tier 3-level emissions standards. The use of Tier-3 off -road engines would improve
the fuel economy of the equipment fleet. There are no unusual characteristics of the ESSCSP that would
necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy -efficient than at comparable
construction sites in the region or State. Implementation of MM AQ-4 would further minimize energy
utilized during construction. Therefore, it is expected that fuel consumption associated with ESSCSP
construction would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than other similar development
projects of this nature. Impacts would be less than significant.
During operations, the ESSCSP would not result in any unusual characteristics that would result in
excessive long-term operational fuel consumption. The ESSCSP is located adjacent to the Metro C (Green)
Line, which would reduce the use of transportation fuel. Future development within the ESSCSP,would
also be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-16, which would require developments to provide
facilities that encourage and accommodate the use of ridesharing, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle
commuting. The ESSCSP would also include bicycle network improvements. Therefore, the ESSCSP would
reduce the use of transportation energy. For building energy, the ESSCSP would implement MM GHG-1
and include several energy efficiency measures, including exceeding Title 24 requirements as set forth in
the CCR, high -efficiency lighting, shade trees, and high efficiency heating and cooling systems. The ESSCSP
would adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including Title 24
standards, the California Building Code, Energy Code, Mechanical Code, Fire Code, and CALGreen Code.
Therefore, the ESSCSP would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy
during operation, and impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would require less construction on the Proposed Project site than assumed for the
Approved Project. Therefore, energy used during construction would be less than the Approved Project.
During operation, the Proposed Project's proposed land uses would be similar to those permitted under
the ESSCSP, but would involve approximately 58 percent less gross floor area and would generate
approximately 55 percent fewer trips when compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, the energy
required for the Proposed Project and the transportation fuel associated with the Proposed Project
vehicle trips would also be proportionately less than the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would
be required to comply with ESMC Chapter 15-16 to provide facilities that encourage and accommodate
multi -modal transportation. The Proposed Project would implement MM GHG-1 and several energy
efficiency measures to further minimize the energy required for the Proposed Project. The Proposed
Project would be required to comply with all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of
energy and impacts would be less than significant. No new or more severe impact concerning the
consumption of energy resources would occur as a result of the Proposed Project.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-65
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
FOR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.19b Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis (FEIR pp. 6-6 — 6-9)
The updated State CEQA Guidelines include a new separate threshold for Energy. Although not addressed
as a separate threshold in the FEIR, the FEIR analyzed energy conservation in FEIR Section 6.4.1: Project
Energy Consumption. Regarding conflicting with or obstructing a State or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency, the ESSCSP would comply with all federal, State, and local requirements for energy
efficiency. ESSCSP development would not preclude or conflict with plans or policies for renewable
energy. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Analysis of Proposed Project
The Proposed Project would comply with all federal, State, and local requirements for energy efficiency.
Through implementation of MM GHG-1, the Proposed Project would comply with requirements of
Title 24, which would include installing high efficiency lighting, HVAC systems, water -efficient fixtures, etc.
Therefore, development of the Proposed Project would not preclude or conflict with plans or policies for
renewable energy, and impacts would be less than significant. No new or more severe impact concerning
conflicts with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency would occur
as a result of the Proposed Project.
FEIR Mitigation Measures
No mitigation required.
4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.20a Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
4.20b Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource
determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-66
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
Summary of Previous Environmental Analysis
Not applicable since tribal cultural resources were not analyzed in the FEIR.
Analysis of Proposed Project
This section briefly examines potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources that could result from
the Proposed Project. This analysis is based primarily on the FEIR's Cultural Resources analysis and as
described under Thresholds 4.5a through 4.5d above.
Public Resource Code (PRC) §21074 defines a tribal cultural resource as follows:
(a) "Tribal cultural resources" are either of the following:
(1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical
Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section
5020.1.
(2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this
paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
(b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the
extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape.
(c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in
subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a "nonunique archaeological resource" as defined in
subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the
criteria of subdivision (a).
PRC §5020.1(k) states:
(k) "Local register of historical resources" means a list of properties officially designated or
recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or
resolution.
PRC §5024.1(c) states:
(c) A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the
following National Register of Historic Places criteria:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California's history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-67
4. Proposed Project Environmental Impact Analysis
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or maybe likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
As stated in the FEIR, the ESSCSP area has already been subject to extensive disruption and may contain
artificial fill materials. Given the Proposed Project site's highly disturbed condition, the potential for
ground -disturbing activities to impact an as yet unidentified tribal cultural resource is considered remote.
The ESSCSP Notice of Preparation was filed in 2009; therefore, AB 52, which was enacted on July 1, 2015,
does not apply to this Proposed Project as the CEQA document is an Addendum to the FEIR and not subject
to the provisions of AB 52.
Based on the above, the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact concerning tribal
cultural resources; however, as discussed in Threshold 4.5d Analysis of Proposed Project, if human
remains are discovered during excavation of a site, the Proposed Project would be required to comply
with the same regulations as detailed in the FEIR as it relates to proper treatment, discovery, and
notification. Impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.
No mitigation required.
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training Facility Project November 2021
4-68
/
�/
„iiJ"l�r��Jl
offilifIlp
� r
pi/i ��
Man /I
IV
4N
1
�LAO�d� J f
//
South Campus Development Tracking Table - Square Feet and FAR
As of October 21, 2021
South Campus Specific Plan
Office
® e j
f
Entitled Square Feet
1,565.000 1.752.800
Warehouse/Storage
82.000
91,840
Light Industrial
Commercial
150.000
133.000
168.000
148.960
Subtotal Entitled Additional Development
1,930,000
2,161,600
Existing Campus Uses-
1,788,889
2,069,947
Total Campus Entitled Square Feet
3,718,889
4,231,547
Phase - New Development
Office
40.600
43.000
Warehouse/Storage
-
-
Light Industrial
Commercial
22.650
22.650
Total Phase I Square Feet
63,250
65,650
Phase II - New Development
Office
Warehouse/Storage
Light Industrial
-
Commercial
-
Total Phase II Sguare Feet
-
-
Phase III - New Development
Office
Warehouse/Storage
Light Industrial
Commercial
Total Phase III S stare Feet
Phase IV - New Development
Office
-
Warehouse/Storage
Light Industrial
-
Commercial
Total Phase IV Square Feet
-
Remaining South Campus Specific Plan Entitled Square Feet
Office
l ,524,400
1.709.800
Warehouse/Storage
82.000
91.840
Light Industrial
150,000
168.000
Commercial
110.350
126.310
Subtotal Remaining Specific Plan Entitled Square Feet
1,866,750
2,095,950
Existing Campus Uses-
1,788,889
2,069,947
Total Campus Entitled Square Feet
3,718,889
4,231,547
South Campus Specific Plan FAR
Total Entitled FAR
0.60
Total FAR of Existing Development
0.29
Total FAR of New Development
0.01
Total FAR of Existin . & New Development
0.30
Total FAR Remaining
0.30
South Campus Development Tracking Table - Trip Generations
As of October 21, 2021
< I e
q /,/
fdpf
MR
'vo
AMIN
go -
WON
oil
ad,
. . .. ............
p .... ....... .
AQ-1 Before the City issues a Grading Permit, the Director of Public Works and Director of Planning and
Building Safety must approve Grading Plan, Building Plans, and specifications that comply with
SCAQMD Rule 403, excessive fugitive dust emissions must be controlled by regular watering or
other dust prevention measures, and Rule 402, which requires implementation of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off -site as specified in
the SCAQMD's Rules and Regulations. Implementation of the following measures would reduce
short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors:
• All active portions of the construction site must be watered every three hours during daily
construction activities and when dust is observed migrating from the Project site to prevent
excessive amounts of dust.
• Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on -site
construction activity including resolution of issues related to particulate matter generation.
• Pave or apply water every three hours during daily construction activities or apply non -toxic soil
stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. More frequent watering
must occur if dust is observed migrating from the site during site disturbance.
• Any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt, or other dusty material must be enclosed, covered, watered
twice daily, or non -toxic soil binders shall be applied.
• All grading and excavation operations must be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles
per hour.
• Disturbed areas must be replaced with ground cover or paved immediately after construction is
completed in the affected area.
• Track -out devices such as gravel bed track -out aprons (3 inches deep, 25 feet long, 12 feet wide
per lane and edged by rock berm or row of stakes) are required to reduce mud/dirt trackout from
unpaved truck exit routes. Alternatively a wheel washer must be used at truck exit routes.
• On -site vehicle speed must be limited to 15 miles per hour.
• All material transported off -site must be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent excessive amounts of dust before departing the job site.
• Reroute construction trucks away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas.
AQ-2 During construction, all trucks hauling excavated or graded material on -site must comply with
Vehicle Code § 23114 (Spilling Loads on Highways) regulating the manner for preventing material
spilling onto public streets and roads. Before the City issues Grading Permits, the Project Applicant
must demonstrate to the Director of Public Works how operations comply with Vehicle Code §
23114 during hauling activities, as applicable.
AQ-3 The following measures must be implemented by the contractor to reduce ROG emissions
resulting from application of architectural coatings:
Use high -pressure -low -volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at
least 50 percent;
d Use pre -painted construction materials; and
a VOC content of architectural coatings cannot exceed 35 grams per liter.
AQ-4 Before the City issues a Grading Permit, the construction contractor must provide evidence to the
Public Works Director that the following measures are implemented during construction. See also
MM GHG-1.
0 Provide temporary traffic controls such as a flag person, during all phases of construction to
maintain smooth traffic flow.
■ Provide dedicated turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on- and off -
site.
■ Improve traffic flow by signal synchronization, and ensure that all vehicles and equipment will be
properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturers' specifications.
Require the use of electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power
generators.
Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil
import/export) and if the Director determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks
cannot be obtained then trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements
may be used.
During Project construction, all internal combustion engines/construction, equipment operating
on the project site must meet EPA -Certified Tier 3 emissions standards, or higher according to
the following:
o Project start, to December 31, 2014: All off -road diesel -powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower must meet Tier 3 off -road emissions standards. In addition, all
construction equipment must be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor must achieve emissions reductions that are
not less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a
similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o Post -January 1, 2015: All off -road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50
horsepower must meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all
construction equipment must be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any
emissions control device used by the contractor must achieve emissions reductions that are
not less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a
similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
o A copy of each unit's certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD
operating permit must be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of
equipment.
GEO-1 Before the City issues a Grading Permit or Building Permit, a lot -specific Geotechnical/Soils
Investigation must be conducted, to a satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Safety.
The Geotechnical/Soils Investigation must:
00 Be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code by a civil
engineer registered in this State;
d Comply with the recommendations specified in the Geology, Soils, Seismicity Report in Support
of Raytheon El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan (D. Scott Magorien, C.E.G., March 6, 2013);
and
a Recommend the appropriate corrective action, which is likely to prevent structural damage to
each structure proposed to be constructed in the area where geotechnical/soils problems exist.
GHG-1 The Project must incorporate the improvements listed below to ensure consistency with
applicable law. The Project Applicant must demonstrate compliance with this measure to the
satisfaction of the Building and Planning Safety Director before the City issues building permits or
certificates of occupancy.
Energy Efficiency
Design buildings to be energy efficient, 15 percent above Title 24 requirements (building permit).
Install light colored "cool' roofs and cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees
(building permit).
Install high efficiency lighting, and energy efficient heating and cooling systems (building permit).
■ Reduce unnecessary outdoor lighting (building permit).
Water Conservation and Efficiency
w Install water -efficient fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, showers) (Building Permit).
Solid Waste
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil,
vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard) (Building Permit).
Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and adequate recycling containers
located in public areas (Occupancy Permit).
HAZ-1 Before a Grading Permit is issued, the actual location of onsite oil/gas wells must be verified with
DOGGR. All onsite wells present must be properly plugged and abandoned per current DOGGR,
DTSC, and RWQCB requirements. Further, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site
characterization experience must verify through soil sampling that no residual contamination has
resulted from historic oil/gas production activities onsite.
HAZ-2 Before a Grading Permit is issued, soil sampling must be conducted within the portions of the
Project site that have historically been utilized for agricultural purposes and may contain pesticide
residues in the soil, as determined by a qualified Phase II/site characterization specialist. The
sampling, conducted in consultation with the El Segundo Fire Department, must determine if
pesticide concentrations exceed established regulatory requirements and identify further site
characterization and remedial activities, if necessary. Should further site
characterization/remedial activities be required, these activities shall be conducted per the
applicable regulatory agency requirements, as directed by the El Segundo Fire Department.
HAZ-3 Before a Grading Permit is issued, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site characterization
experience must determine, based on the Current Conditions Report (CCR), RCRA Facility
Investigation Work Plan (RFI Work Plan), and sampling and analysis conducted in accordance with
the RFI Work Plan, whether subsurface release of hazardous materials/waste to the
soil/groundwater associated with the existing storage facilities has occurred. If subsurface release
of hazardous materials/waste to the soil/groundwater has occurred, the environmental
consultant must determine if contaminant concentrations exceed established regulatory
requirements and identify further site characterization and remedial activities, if necessary.
Should further site characterization/remedial activities be required, these activities must be
conducted per the applicable regulatory agency requirements.
HAZ-4 Before a Grading Permit is issued, an environmental consultant with Phase II/site characterization
experience must prepare a Worker Safety Plan to ensure construction worker safety during
grading/excavation activities, based on their review the following documents:
is Current Conditions Report (CCR);
• RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan (RFI Work Plan);
• Findings of the RFI Work Plan's Sampling and Analysis; and
• Existing Hazardous Materials Conditions Assessment.
HAZ-5 An environmental professional with Phase II/site characterization experience must conduct an
inspection of existing onsite structures before building renovation/demolition activities. The
inspection must determine whether or not testing is required to confirm the presence or absence
of hazardous substances in building materials (e.g., sinks, drains, piping, flooring, walls, ceiling
tiles). Should testing be required and results determine that hazardous substances are present in
onsite building materials, the Phase II/site characterization specialist must determine appropriate
prevention/remediation measures that are required and/or the methods for proper disposal of
hazardous waste at an approved landfill facility, if required.
HAZ-6 If during construction unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered by the contractor that
are believed to involve hazardous waste or materials, the contractor must comply with the
following:
■ Immediately cease work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, and remove workers and
the public from the area;
• Notify the Director of Public Works of the City of El Segundo;
•• Secure the area as directed by the Director of Public Works; and
• Notify the El Segundo Fire Department (or other appropriate agency specified by the Director of
Public Works). The Fire Department's Environmental Safety Manager can advise the responsible
party of further actions that must be taken, if required.
HAZ-7 Before any Building Permit is issued, vapor intrusion investigations must be conducted by a
qualified Environmental Professional, in consultation with the El Segundo Fire Department.
Should the Environmental Professional determine that proposed buildings could be impacted by
vapor intrusion, the Environmental Professional, in consultation with the El Segundo Fire
Department, must recommend that specific measures be incorporated into the buildings' design
that would reduce these indoor air quality concentrations to below regulatory thresholds, as
directed by the El Segundo Fire Department.
HAZ-8 At least three business days before any lane closure, the construction contractor must notify the
El Segundo Fire Department, El Segundo Police Department, El Segundo Public Works
Department, and the El Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department of construction
activities that would impede movement (such as road or lane closures) along roadways
immediately adjacent to the development area, to allow for uninterrupted emergency access and
maintenance of evacuation routes.
HWQ-1 Before the City issues any grading permit, the Applicant must conduct a Construction Level
Hydrology and Hydraulics Study to determine potential storm water runoff rates and peak flows
from the Project site per County of Los Angeles methodology. The 50-year storm flows for both
existing and proposed Project conditions must be included in the study. The Study must be
completed by a qualified professional, approved by the Director of Public Works, and be
consistent with standard engineering practices for the region, including the use of the Los Angeles
County Manual. The Study must demonstrate the effect of storm water discharges to any City,
County, or other agency -owned drainage or flood control facility, as mitigated and be designed
and implemented to prevent an increase in the rate or amount of storm water runoff above the
baseline condition.
The Study must also determine whether onsite detention is required. If the final hydrology
calculations determine that onsite detention is required to avoid downstream impacts, the Study
must also identify the necessary flood control mitigation, which may include a surface stormwater
detention pond, subsurface detention structure, or subsurface detention pipes. The construction
level hydrology calculations and Construction Level Hydrology and Hydraulics Study must be
prepared and reviewed by the Director of Public Works and Building Official before any Grading
Permit is issued.
HWQ-2 Before the City issues any permit for development of an individual parcel, the Construction Level
Hydrology and Hydraulics Study must be updated and submitted to the Director of Public Works
for review. The phasing must be implemented to prevent an increase in the rate or amount of
storm water runoff above the baseline condition.
N-1 Before the City issues grading permits, the Project Applicant must demonstrate, to the satisfaction
of the Director of Public Works that the Project complies with the following:
All construction equipment must be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g.,
intake silencers and noise shrouds) no less effective than those provided on the original
equipment and no equipment shall have an un-muffled exhaust.
■,, The contractor must maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise
emissions.
Stationary equipment must be placed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to the
sensitive receptors.
r All equipment servicing must be performed so as to maintain the greatest possible distance to
the sensitive receptors.
■ Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction are required to be hydraulically or electronically powered wherever possible to
avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler must be used; this
muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the
tools themselves must be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA.
Quieter procedures must be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever
feasible.
aA qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator" will be retained amongst the construction crew to
be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a
complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the
complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early,
malfunctioning muffler, etc.) and implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as
deemed acceptable by the Director of Planning and Building Safety.
Select demolition methods to minimize vibration, where possible (e.g., sawing masonry into
sections rather than demolishing it by pavement breakers).
USS-1 Before the City issues a building permit, the Applicant's Engineering Representative must
coordinate with the Director of Public Works, or designee, to increase capacity of the City's High
Pressure Zone in the vicinity of the Project site. This will include, at a minimum, regional system
analysis of the City's Water System using the City's system -wide computer model with the goal of
reducing system velocities during peak demands adjacent to the Project site. The Director of
Public Works, or designee, will determine the system improvement options that are required.
Trip Generabon A
0
331/1
'ly „ ,
r➢�
YY
i I111
kit
1004
t l,,,
$ ,
ro e.
. �a�a�rlraV�loll���
Kimley>»Horn
To: Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, City of El Segundo
From: Rita Garcia
Date: November 9, 2021
Subject:
Professional Sports Headquarters and Training IFacilliity (Project, Trip
Generation Assessment (Peer Review
Kimley-Horn has conducted a follow-up third -party peer review of the Project's Trip Generation
Assessment (Fehr & Peers, October 2021) on behalf of the City of El Segundo to verify that
Kimley-Horn's September 15, 2021 third -party peer review Technical Memorandum (TM)
recommendations have been incorporated. The revised October 2021 Trip Generation
Assessment addressed the third -party peer review comments and thus is in compliance with
the TM recommendations. The analysis, as revised, meets the applicable provisions of CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines and is adequate for inclusion in the Project Addendum.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at 714.786.6116 or Rita.Garcia@!kimley-hoirn.com with
any questions.
FEHR�PEERS
Date: October 28, 2021
To: Lionel Uhry, Senior Vice President, Mar Ventures, Inc
From: Anjum Bawa, AICP
Subject: Trip Generation Assessment — Ell Segundo South Campus Specific Plan —
Southeast Quad
F' i 2 1-0060
This memorandum summarizes a trip generation assessment conducted to evaluate
construction of a corporate headquarters and a recreation facility on El Segundo South
Campus Specific Plan Parcels 7 and 8. A separate trip generation assessment is also
provided for the construction of a warehouse building (Butler Building) on Parcel 18.
Provided below is a detailed summary of the proposed changes and results of our trip
generation assessment.
The October 2015 update to the El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan (ESSC-SP)
provided Raytheon the flexibility to either expand its existing operations or develop a
mixed -use project that would be compatible with the existing Raytheon Campus facilities
and operations. The roughly 142.28-acre specific plan area is allowed a maximum
development intensity of 3,718,889 net square feet. Figure 1 illustrates ESSC-SP land -use
plan, which identified the various parcels and designated land -use types. Figure 2 shows
a conceptual site plan of the approved development as part of the Specific Plan. Table 1
shows a summary of land -use type and maximum development allowable for each parcel.
M
Figure 1 - Current El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan - Land Use Plan
CamreercW / Offke Mod Use
Office / Indus dW Mbad Use
RecreaioNOpen Space
Source: Exhibit 5, El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 11-07, City of El
Segundo, October 2015
Figure 2 - El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan - Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Exhibit 6 — El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 77-07, City of El
Segundo, October 2075
Table 1 - El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan - Development by Parcel
�!//�/Bartel % / Use Acrea e//%GBwldm
Area Net gBuidln Area Grass
Assumed FAR,;
CommerciallOffice M:.
191,540
50,000
off
•
Commercial
•
111
"1
1
SubtotalII
1
11
l:
• 11 • '1 1'
�r
. �150,000
168,000
i .
. 1 . '
•�•
Subtotal18
,
I
El Segundo dNew
Road and
1
Dedicalion
Path
El Segundo Blvd. E)dsting
Dedication
•
is
�
1 .1 �.
Gross building area of new constriction is assumed to be 1.12% of net area. Twelve (12) percent of gross area is excluded, accounting for
elevators, stairwells, and other non occupied space.
FAR calculation yields a net building area.
Total allowable intensitywould be capped at a potential maximum of 3.718,889 net square feet
Source: Table 111-2 - Land Use — Project Development Scenario, El Segundo South Campus Specific
Plan, Specific Plan No. 71-07, City of El Segundo, October 2075
The Specific Plan's Development Regulation allow for transfers between land use types
and planning areas, subject to the following requirements:
• The overall FAR of the Campus cannot exceed 0.60 based on the gross acreage of the
site, resulting in a maximum development intensity of 3,718,889 net square feet of
building area (4,231, 547 square feet gross building area);
• Land uses conform to allowable uses as outlined in the Permitted Use Table in the
Development Standards section of this Specific Plan; and
• The total number of traffic trips cannot exceed the trip ceiling established for the
Project. The trip ceiling for trip generation of new development within the Project area
is:
0 631 PM peak hour inbound trips and 2,489 PM peak hour outbound trips, for
a total of 3,120 PM peak hour trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism
for the Project.
0 2,634 AM peak hour inbound trips and 408 outbound AM peak hour trips, for
a total of 3,042 AM peak hour trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism
for the Project.
0 26,585 daily trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism for the Project.
Table 2 summarizes the trip ceiling for the proposed development as provided in the
approved ESSC-SP.
Table 2 — El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan — Development Trip Ceiling
Source: Table 111-3 - Project Trip Ceiling for trips associated with new development within the
ESSCSP area. El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 11-07, City of El Segundo,
October 2075
The subject of this analysis is the corporate headquarters and recreation facility proposed
on El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan Parcels 7 and 8 considering the Specific Plan's
permitted 367,000 square feet gross floor area (GFA) of office use. Provided below is a
summary of the proposed use. To accommodate the proposed use, the ESSC-SP will also
be updated. The Project's proposed land use plan, conceptual plan, and summary of
development are provided in Appendix A.
Corporate Headquarters and Recreation Facility
The roughly 13.2-acre corporate headquarters is proposed to include a 3-story building
with a partial basement, approximately 148,050 square feet GFA including in-house fitness
facilities together with 5.8 acres of open, green space and 348 stall surface parking area.
The facility will span roughly 14-acre within Parcels 7 and 8 of the ESSC-SP.
Primary vehicular access to the Project site is proposed via a primary driveway located
along the southside of proposed Nash Street Extension. A secondary driveway access to
the site is proposed along the east edge of the site, also along southside of Nash Street
extension. Both driveways will provide bicycle and pedestrian access as well.
Typical hours of operation for the facility will be from 6:30 am to 5:30 pm, with selected
periods of the year extending into the evening. Provided below is a detailed trip
generation analysis for the proposed facility.
Trip Generation
ESSC-SP was approved for 3,718,889 net square feet of building area (4,231, 547 square
feet gross building area (GFA)) and a trip ceiling within the Project area as follows:
0 631 PM peak hour inbound trips and 2,489 PM peak hour outbound trips, for a total
of 3,120 PM peak hour trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism for the Project.
• 2,634 AM peak hour inbound trips and 408 outbound AM peak hour trips, for a total
of 3,042 AM peak hour trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism for the Project.
• 26,585 daily trips as outlined in the trip budget mechanism for the Project.
Provided below is a detailed trip generation summary for both Phases 1 and Phase 2 — Full
Buildout of the Specific Plan.
TABLES
EL SEGUNDO SOUTH CAMPUS SPECIFIC PLAN - PHASE I (NASH STREET EXCHANGE)
TRIP GENERATION
... . . .... . ..............
an Rat" Inl
Estimate r p Generation
ITE Land
Land Use Size
Daily
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Rate
'P
fly
AM Peak Hour
Trip&
PM Peak Hour Trips
Use Code
Rat.
Rate % In %Out Rate % In % Out Unit
Trim-
In
Out
total
In
Out
Total
PROPOSED PROJECT
Medical Office 720 43 000 k,l
34 K
2 7B 78% 22% 3,46 28% 72% per k5r
1,496
94
151
120
42
10 7
149
khe—al-fstwe [bj
f5%
(224)
(1 4f
(,)
(i 8
(6)
(16)
(22)
Cransil ,,d,t
%
(191)
(12Y
(1
(5)
(14)
(19)
pass -Pay [d)
i0fa
------------- 17
Cif
28
6L
Ae41 (ctlaeri after I().o) wo 12 100 W
37 75
000 62% 35% 181 46% 52% per k,.,,f
457
0
0
0
22
24
46
Pri 'opt." rQ'j
5%
01Y 5%
(23)
0
0
0
(if
(if
(2)
Tmmkk ct'00 [,1
5%
5% 5%
(22)
0
0
0
M
(2)
P"'s by rQsl
0%
0% 34%
0
0
p
C1
1
12)
(14),
Net Exorr-1 R,tail
412
Q
0
0
13
is
2B
Reail 820 1.302.5 kf
17 75
C0.94 62.15 38%, 81 48% 52% per sr
412
7
5
�2
24
26
50
thlernst. t—,ftJ
5%
5%
25)
if li
0
-0
M
(2)
(3)
Y'arisit cfedk
5%
Yf 5%
�23)
(1)
0
(1)
(1}
(1)
(21
po5sby ['2]
0%
0% 34%
0
0
9
Q
171.
181
(151
Net External Retail2.
5
5
to
15
15
Ki
.................................
A. Tt.14,2jectIn s
1.82 9
66
99
155
SI
3775
89
Net trips —Uisbh, fr- ts,,oahsed Ishme f deve0l, t (6 A)
7,9.46
7
70
a Sour— insfituti, of ransporoillan Eogineers (It E), Yry,
Gsne,Mwe,
Wth FdWsri, 2017, unless othe—os rioted
b otormaf capitrie. represen[s flo, pe-trutage of trips -aud
g b.trru err wid rises propoted or Mrsady old—tiog within :he she (Raytli-n South Cannpris)
c Too generation acjusLoierTL disc—rit assortated mtilh proximiry to vtinit
serace for simii., it., based ori recornmendatioris publithred by f—, yr,,gaie,
Courq
i0evop.litao
han,tportatioaArah-ty
(LAMTA)
and [lE
d nl.rn d by City of l.- Angdoo Deparun-t of Trarigronetion
pass
bylop rate, denve.d froot suniey; pulil'�shk d in the 'Irlp Generati— Handirook.
An ITE ttecornrn�,nded
Prootice,"
2003
a Source: Apperidb, A Tairle 2: Surnmay of Trip Generation
Rates and
I rip Credits witfiio the Raytheon rsport for retail and rise
Table 4 — El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
Phase 2 (Full Buildout) Trip Generation
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Land Use
Trips
In Out Total
In Out Total
136.438 tsf General Office
187
26
213
34
169
203
1,505
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1 % PM, 1 % ADT)
0
0
0
0
-2
-2
-15
ITE Transit Service & Light Rail Trip Adjustment (5%)"
-9
-1
-10
-2
-8
-10
-75
Subtotal General Office
178
25
203
32
159
191
1,415
1,615.483 tsf General Office
2,213
307
2,520
404
2,003
2,407
17,819
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1 % PM, 1 % ADT)
0
0
0
-4
-20
-24
-178
Subtotal General Office
2,213
307
2,520
400
1,983
2,383
17,641
73.577 tsf Warehouse
18
4
22
6
18
24
262
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1% PM, 1 % ADT)
0
0
0
0
0
0
-3
Subtotal Warehouse
18
4
22
6
18
24
259
168 tsf Light Industrial
136
18
154
20
143
163
1,171
ITE Internal Trip Capture (1 % PM, 1 % ADT)
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-12
Subtotal Light Industrial
136
18
154
20
142
162
1,159
148.96 tsf Retail'
89
54
143
265
287
552
6,361
ITElnternal Trip Capture (1 % PM, 1 % ADT)
0
0
0
-3
-3
-6
-64
ITE Pass -by Trip Reduction (34% PM)
0
0
0
1 -89
-97
-186
-186
Subtotal Retail
89
54
143
173
187
360
6,111
Proposed ProIect Trip Generation
2,634
408
3,042
1 631
1 2,489
3,120
26,585
Nntp• tsf = thnusand square feet 1 = includes 92.96
tsf of retail
land use
associated
with Phase
1 proiect;
' = trip generation adjustment discount associated with proximity to transit service for similar sites based on
recommendations published by LOS Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LAMTA) and ITE.
Source: Table 72, Transportation Impact Study, El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report, 2075
The trip generation analysis shown in Tables 3 was obtained from June 2019 site plan
approval of proposed Phase 1 commercial development (also known as Nash Street
Exchange). Information presented in Table 4 was obtained from the ESSC-SP
Environmental Impact Report. The analyses were conducted using trip generation rates
provided in Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook (9th
Edition). Parcels 7 and 8 were determined to be located outside a convenient walking
distance to the Green Line light rail transit (LRT), therefore, a transit trip credit of 5% was
not applied to office use proposed for these two parcels.
Table 5 shows trip rates used to calculate trip generation for the proposed project.
Table 5 — Trip Generation Rates
Trip Generation Rates [a]
Land Use ITE LandDaily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Rate
Use Code
Rate Rate % In % Out Rate % In % Out Unit
General Office 710 11.03 1.56 88% 12% 1.49 17% 83% per ksf
N otes:
a. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
Table 6 summarizes trip generation estimates for general office use for Parcels 7 and 8 in
the ESSC-SP. As shown in Table 6, Parcels 7 and 8 were expected to generate a total of
4008 daily trips, of which 573 trips (504 inbound/69 outbound) would occur in the AM
peak hour and 542 trips (92 inbound/450 outbound) would occur in the PM peak hour.
Table 6 — El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
Trip Generation for Parcels 7 and 8 (As Approved in 2015)
Land Use
ITE
Land
Use
Size
Daily
Estimated TripGeneration
AM Peak Hour Trips
[a]
PM Peak Hour Trips
Code
-Trips
In Out Total
In Out Total
Parcels 7 and 8
General Office
710
367.000 ksf
4,048
504 69 573
93 454 547
Internal capture
1 % PM/ 1 % ADT[b]
(40)
0 0 0
(1) (4) (5)
Total Trips Estimated for
Parcels
7 and 8
4,008
504 69 573
92 450 542
Notes:
a. Source: Consistent with the 2015 El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan, rates from Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition were used.
b. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips occurring between land uses proposed or already
operating within the site (El Segundo South Campus).
Trip Generation — Proposed Corporate Headquarters and Recreation Facility
The proposed corporate headquarters would include a 148,050 square GFA corporate
office, including in-house fitness facilities. Considering the general nature of the proposed
use, we used the following approach to estimate daily, morning and afternoon peak hour
trips for the facility:
1. Estimate trips for the 148,050 square feet corporate office using trip rates provided
in ITE Trip Generation Handbook 91h Edition.
2. A special group of approximately 85 staff personnel will arrive at the project site in
the morning between 6:30 AM and 8:00 AM and departing by 3:00 PM. These staff
members are not part of corporate office functions and will travel to/from the
project to use its fitness facilities and recreation area. Therefore, trips generated by
these 85 staff members were accounted for separately from the office use.
3. Add the estimates from 1 and 2 to calculate total trips generated by the proposed
facility.
To be consistent with the 2015 ESSC-SP, we used trip generation rates for general office
provided in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition. All 85 early arriving/early departing
staff members were assumed to travel to/from the facility in single occupancy vehicles
(SOVs). Although majority of the early arriving/early departing staff would likely arrive at
the facility between 6:30 AM and 8:00 AM and leave by 3:00 PM; for the purpose of this
analysis, it is assumed that 40% will arrive during the morning peak commute hour' and
10% will depart the facility during the afternoon peak hour of commute.
Table 7 summarize total trips estimated to occur from the proposed corporate
headquarters and recreation facility.
Peak hour of commute is the one hour within the morning and evening commuter peak periods when the
traffic on the adjacent street is the highest on a weekday. Morning and evening peak commuting periods
are 7:00 AM — 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM — 6:00 PM, respectively. Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook,
AppendixA — Glossary
Table 7 — Trip Generation Estimates
Proposed Corporate Headquarters and Recreation Facility on Parcels 7 and 8
ITE
Estimated Trip
Generation [a]
Land
Dail Y
i
AM Peak Hour Trips
Peak Hour
PM P
Trips
Land Use Size
...
Use
Code
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Corporate
Headquarters and
Recreation Facility 710 148.050 ksf
1,633
203
28
231
38
183
221
Internal capture
(7% PM/ 7%
(16)
0
0
0
0
(2)
(2)
ADT) !b1
.....................
.........
Subtotal
_�.
7,677
203
_._._._
28
237
38
....._._._._
787
279
..
Special staff [c] 85 emp
170
34
0
34
0
9
9
Total Trips from Corporate Headquarters
1,787
237
28
265
38
190
228
and Recreation Facilit
Total Trips Approved for Parcels 7 and 8 in
4,008
504
69
573
92
450
542
2075 El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan
.... .......m ... ...... _
_
...
.
Un-used Trips Available for Transfer
2„221
�767
41
308
54
260
314
to Other Parcels
Notes:
a. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
b. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips occurring between land uses proposed or already operating
within the site (Raytheon South Campus).
c. All employees were assumed to travel in single occupancy vehicles. To be conservative 40% of the employees were
assumed to travel during the AM peak hour and 10% in the PM peak hour.
Butler Building
A 5,865-sf warehouse is proposed on Parcel 18 of the ESSC-SP. Site plan for the proposed
building is provided in Appendix B.
Trip Generation — Butler Building
The proposed Butler building would involve construction of a 5,865 square GBA of
warehousing use. To be consistent with the 2015 ESSC-SP, we used trip generation rates
for a warehouse use (ITE 150) provided in ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition.
Table 8 summarize total trips estimated to occur from the proposed warehouse use.
Table 8 — Trip Generation Estimates
Proposed Butler Building (Warehouse) on Parcel 18
ITE
Estimated Trip Generation
Land
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Land Use Size
Use
Daily
Trips
Trips..........
Code
Trips
In Out Total
In Out
Total
Parcel 18
Warehouse
150
5.865 ksf
21
2 0 2
1 1
2
1% Internal ca ture [b]
I 0
0 0 0
0 (0)
(0)
Total Trips Estimated for Parcel 6
21
2 0 2
1 1
2
Notes:
a. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 9th Edition.
Trip generation rates for warehouse land use (ITE 150):
Daily average rate= 3.56 per 1,000 sf; 50% inbound/50% outbound
AM Peak Hour average rate = 0.30 per 1,000 sf; 79% inbound/21% outbound
PM Peak Hour average rate = 0.32 per 1,000 sf; 25% inbound/75% outbound
b. Internal capture represents the percentage of trips occurring between land uses proposed or
already operating within the site (Raytheon South Campus).
I M, M, �r T mmon% M,#
As shown in Table 5, the proposed corporate headquarters and recreation facility will
generate a total of 1,787 daily trips, of which 265 trips (237 inbound/28 outbound) would
occur in the AM peak hour and 228 trips (38 inbound/190 outbound) would occur in the
PM peak hour. When compared to the trips anticipated for Parcels 7 and 8 in the approved
ESSC-SP (Table 4), the proposed training facility will generate 2,221 fewer daily trips, 308
fewer AM peak hour trips, and 314 fewer PM peak hour trips. Since, the 2015 ESSC-SP
allowed for maximum flexibility within the Specific Plan area, with mechanisms in the
Specific Plan's Development Regulation to allow for transfers between land use types and
planning areas, these un-used trips can be transferred towards future development of
other parcels within the ESSC-SP.
The proposed Butler building, a warehouse use, will generate a total of 21 daily trips, of
which 2 trips (2 inbound/0 outbound) would occur in the AM peak hour and 2 trips (1
inbound/1 outbound) would occur in the PM peak hour. Table 9 provides a summary of
total trips added by the corporate headquarter/recreation facility and Butler Building
together.
Table 9 — Summary of Total Net New Trip Generation
Net New Trip Generation
Proposed Use
Parcel #
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Daily
In Out Total
In Out Total
................. ....._
Corporate
_._
......... ._.._.._._._
Parcels 7
Headquarters and
1,787
237 28 265
38 190 228
and 8
Recreation Facility
Butler Building
Parcel 18
21
2 0 2
.... .....
1 1 2
.........I
Total Net New
Trips
1,808
239 28 267
39 191 230
- Appendix A-1 - El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan - Proposed Land Use Plan
- Appendix A-2 - El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan — Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
Appendix A-3 - El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan — Proposed Development by Parcel
Appendix B — Butler Building Proposed Site Plan
Appendix A-1
El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan - Proposed Land Use Plan
Commercial / Office Mixed Use
Office / Idustrial Mixed Use
Recreation / Open Space
Source: Mar Ventures, Inc.
Appendix A-2
El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan — Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Mar Ventures, Inc.
Appendix A-3
El Segundo South Campus Specific Plan - Proposed Development by Parcel
Commercial Office
Mixed Use (CMU)
2
_.._. ......
Office
_ ......_
4.85
� .............._
380,040
..........
425,645
� m.
1.80
_.
3
Office
2.57
..............
191,540
.......
214,525
1.71
.......4..........
e...
Office
5.20 _...........191,540
....214,5 25
0.85
14
Commercial..
3........... _
93
��� ...
50,000
........ ��
56,000
m....
0.29
15
Commercialmmmmmmm
... 3.99
46,000
51,520
0.26
�16�
Commercial
3.35
37,000
41,440
025��
Subtotal
�� � �
23.90
896,120
1003'654
0.86
Office/Industrial Mixed Use
m..�
. -
..
1
Office
10.01
191,540
214,525
0.44
5
Existing
7.17
228,305
262,553
0.73
6
Warehouse Light
g
4. 7.�.�,..
5
��...._
82,000
_.. ....__. �....................�,,
91,840
1.17
Ind_
150,000
168,000
.............
Office
�..5 71
�. 163,840 _
183 ....
500.8
�-�
0.66
. .. 8 ..
Office u�.
8�...
07
163,840
183,500.8
.
0.47
2.
Existing
7.78
53.,9.3.4 9.
.. 82,798
_
0.16
........._
13
.. ,
Office
.... ........
-
2.71
121,820
13 6,43 8.4
.................
1.03
17
Existin
22.32
996,871
1,121,048
1.03
�g - ...
Existing
18.41 ...„
670,619 ........
�.� .........._�
83,689
�.�. __..
0.84
Subtotal
...
86.74
_. a......
2,822,769
_...............
3,227,892.6
0.75
TOTAL DEV
110.65
3,718,889
4,231,547
0.77
.... 1..9-26.
Roads....�e...
/OS
18.24
-
9-11
Recreation
7.34
...... .....
0
0
...........
..... ....J...._....
El Segundo Blvd.
.........
Road and Bike
0.83
..__.......
-
New Dedication
Path
........_...
FEl Segundo Blvd.
......__------- _._...
Road
........................
5.22
-
..................
-
..........
-
Existing
Dedication
..._..-...._ .�
TOTAL
..............
142.28
-
-
0.60
Source: Mar Ventures, Inc.
Appendix B
Butler Building Proposed Site Plan
M tl (0113d1 NO3ilAtltl