CC RESOLUTION 3653RESOLUTION NO.
36433 .
• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS
REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA 147, ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT EA -231, SUBDIVISION 90-2 AND ADMINISTRATIVE SITE
PLAN REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2179 on June 25, 1987 approving
Tentative Parcel Map 17750 to allow subdivision of a 43.3 acre site into eight parcels subject to 46
conditions which established allowable land use, building intensity standards and parking requirements
for development of each parcel; and
WHEREAS, the conditions imposed by Resolution 2179 amend and supercede the standards
of the underlying Commercial - Manufacturing zone (C -M); and
WHEREAS, Condition 45 of Resolution 2179 states that permitted uses within the subdivision
are limited to light manufacturing, warehouses and distribution centers; and
WHEREAS, Condition 43 of Resolution 2179 further establishes and requires that all uses
proposed on all parcels shall be subject to an administrative site plan review by the Director of
Planning (now the Planning Manager) in conformance with:
(a) The El Segundo Municipal Code.
(b) The purpose and intent of the approval of Tentative Map 17750 (Resolution 2179) and
the findings and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment EA -126 (Resolution 2177).
(c) All conditions of approval of Tentative Parcel Map 17749 (Resolution 2178) Tentative
Parcel Map 17750 and Environmental Assessment EA -126 (Resolution 2177) including development
standards and Floor Area Ratios (FARs).
WHEREAS, on October 15, 1987 the applicant, United Parcel Service ( "UPS" or "Applicant"),
submitted an application to construct a 311,500 square foot subregional parcel distribution center on
three legal lots of record totalling approximately 23.7 acres in size; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1987 the Environmental Quality Board for the City determined
that a focused Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") would be required for the proposed project; this
determination was appealed to the City Council which upheld the Environmental Quality Board
determination on December 3, 1987 thus requiring an EIR; and
WHEREAS, a focused Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the project. Thereafter
the EIR was certified by the Planning Commission. The appeals period for challenging certification of
the EIR has passed. On January 25, 1990 the Planning Commission denied Environmental
Assessments EA -147 and EA -231, the site plan review application and the lot merger and consolidation
of Lots 6, 7 and 8 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 17750, as recorded in Resolution No. 2269. Thereafter,
applicant filed this appeal of the Planning Commission denials; and
• WHEREAS, on May 15, June 5 and July 17, 1990 at a duly noticed meeting the appeal was
taken up by the El Segundo City Council after presentations by City staff and the applicant; and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the following facts and findings were established:
1. The proposed project, based upon traffic projections and analysis, will have a substantial
impact upon the environment by increasing traffic during peak hours at two, or possibly three
intersections, rated D or less by more than 2% of existing traffic levels. The intersections affected are:
Hughes Way and Sepulveda Boulevard; Sepulveda Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard; and El
Segundo Boulevard and Douglas Street.
2. The methodology employed in the calculation of traffic projections for the proposed
project in the focused EIR, prepared for the project and supplemental traffic studies prepared by the
City's traffic consultant has provided the most reliable traffic estimates presented to the Council on this
matter. This methodology takes into account maximum potential intensity for the proposed use and
takes into account the variable functions which may be performed at a UPS facility such as that
proposed. This methodology also relies upon actual numerical data gathered at existing UPS sites
similar to the proposed project and employs a minimum of mathematical factoring to skew or bias the
resulting projections. The methodology employed by UPS is heavily factored using variables over
which the City would have minimal or no control (e.g. number of employees) and is therefore more
skewed and less reliable.
3. Because of the siting of the proposed development and the limited access thereto
mitigation measures which would lessen the impact of the traffic to be generated by the proposed
project are not feasible. Those proposed by the applicant (i.e. monetary penalties for exceeding specified
traffic levels) fail to actually mitigate the negative environmental impact of the additional traffic.
4. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 5,310 trips per day.
1
5. The projected increase in traffic during peak hours at intersections with ratings of D
through F were: Hughes Way and Sepulveda Boulevard 2.4 %; Sepulveda Boulevard and El Segundo
Boulevard 6.7%; Douglas Street and El Segundo Boulevard 2.1%. Each of these intersections has a
rating of D or lower. Under the City's environmental standards these increases constitute a significant
environmental impact as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ).
6. Under the CEQA Guidelines when a project has a significant impact on the environment
that impact must be mitigated. If the impact cannot be mitigated the approving agency must find that
the benefits of the project outweigh the adverse environmental effects in order to approve the project.
No measures have been presented to adequately mitigate the adverse impacts of the project. No
evidence of any benefits of the project which would outweigh its negative environmental impact has
been provided. No inference can be made that such benefits exist from the evidence presented. It is
thus not possible to make a statement of overriding considerations regarding the project.
7. The proposed project is inconsistent with the conditions of Tentative Parcel Map 17750
in that it would generate significantly more traffic than the maximum threshold of 2,604 trips per day
identified in the Environmental Review of Parcel Map 17750. In addition, the proposed project would
require a lot merger because it occupies Lots 6, 7 and 8 of the map. Approval of the project would
therefore forego the setbacks, light and air that would have been distributed among individual buildings
on the three lots as envisioned under Parcel Map 17750. The visual impact of one massive building
covering the three lots, versus having individual buildings on each of the three lots with the applicable
setbacks as required under Parcel Map 17750, would provide a less desirable aesthetic appearance and
emphasize the massiveness of the project by eliminating the required open space between the buildings.
These impacts are directly contrary to those envisioned by the requirements of Parcel Map 17750.
8. The project as proposed is inappropriate for the site because of its scale, its location
• with respect to the local and regional circulation systems, and its acumulative impact on the City's
traffic congestion.
9. The proposed project is inconsistent with the circulation element of the City's General
Plan in that its implementation would result in significant reduction of levels of service on key streets
and intersections surrounding the project. The goals set forth in the circulation element of the City's
General Plan provide for approval of projects which will not contribute to the degradation of existing
intersections which will increase traffic in phases which are consistent with the phased improvements
to the City's circulation system.
10. The project is inconsistent with specific goals, policies and objectives of the City's
General Plan as follows:
A. To keep traffic on all streets in balance with the capacity of the circulation
system through regulation of the magnitude of land use in conformance with the General Plan.
(Circulation Element, page 3 -4)
B. Use of a Transportation Systems Management program to handle projected trips
in the area. (Circulation Element, page 2 -5)
C. Capital contributions for roadway improvements identified in the focused EIR
have not been proposed. (Circulation Element, page 2 -6)
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of El Segundo
does hereby deny the appeal of United Parcel Service regarding Environmental Assessments EA -147 and
EA -231, Subdivision 90-2, and the Administrative Site Plan Review for said projects and upholds the
denial of each of the aforesaid by the City Planning Commission.
rl
L_
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of August , 1990.
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Ronald L. Hart, 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, being Resolution No. 3653 was duly passed and adopted by the
said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City
Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the 7th day of
August, 1990 and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
DANNEN, WISE, WESTAND MAYORJACOBSON.
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
CLUTTER
WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this 17th day
of December, 1990.
RONALD L. HART
City Clerk of the
City of El Segundo, California
(SEAL)