Loading...
CC RESOLUTION 4314RESOLUTION 4314 A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2002071106, AND TO ADOPT FINDINGS, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of El Segundo that having received, reviewed, and considered the following information as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City Council of the City of El Segundo hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. A. Project Location. The Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "LAAFB ") consists of seven separate areas that are located within industrial, commercial and residential portions of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. These seven areas include two within the City of El Segundo (the "City "). The USAF property located at the southeast corner of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard in the City is referred to as "Area A ". The USAF property located at the northwest corner of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard in the City is referred to as "Area B ". The USAF property located on Aviation Boulevard north of Marine Avenue in the City of Hawthorne ( "Hawthorne ") is referred to as the "Lawndale Annex ", and a USAF property within the Sun Valley Community of the City of Los Angeles referred to as the "Sun Valley property ". Three other USAF properties within the San Pedro community of the City of Los Angeles (Fort MacArthur Middle Reservation, Pacific Crest Housing Area and Pacific Heights Housing Area comprise the remainder of the LAAFB. B. Project History and CEQA Process. 1. Pursuant to the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106 -398) as amended by Section 2841 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the United States Air Force ( "USAF ") has partnered with SAMS Venture, LLC (the "Developer ") to build new USAF facilities on Area B in exchange for the USAF conveying Area A, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley property to the Developer (the "Proposed Action" or "Project "). The three San Pedro sites are not included in the proposed land exchange between the USAF and the Developer. The new development on Area B will house the Space and Missile Systems ( "SAMS ") Center. 2. The Proposed Action generally includes the following: (1) conveyance of Area A, the Lawndale Annex, the Sun Valley property to the Developer; (2) construction of new seismically -safe, state -of- the -art SAMS facilities for the USAF on Area B; (3) relocation of existing USAF functions into the new facilities on Area B; and (4) private development of Area A and the Lawndale Annex by the Developer, which could include the following activities: (a) detachment of Area A from the City and annexation of Area A into Hawthorne; and (b) granting of land use entitlements, permits and other discretionary actions by Hawthorne to permit the private development of the conveyed land. 3. Originally, detachment of Area A from the City and annexation of Area A into Hawthorne was not included in the Project; the Developer and the USAF contemplated the development of commercial retail uses on Area A and submitted applications to the City for approval of commercial development of Area A. The City assumed the role of Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and, in July, 2002, the City initiated CEQA review for approvals and entitlements, which would allow commercial development of Area A. The City prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "2002 Draft EIR ") for agency and public comment between September 30, 2002 and November 13, 2002. In addition, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2002 Draft EIR on November 14, 2002, at which public input and comments were taken regarding the 2002 Draft EIR. 4. The City received comments pertaining to the 2002 Draft EIR, which suggested that the nature of the commercial Project on Area A be changed. Many of the comments suggested that a joint Environmental Impacts Statement / Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the Project and that the Project description should be revised to reflect residential development of Area A, rather than its commercial development. As a result of the comments received on the 2002 Draft EIR and from input during community meetings, the City and the Developer undertook additional consultation and coordination with the USAF and Hawthorne, as well as with homeowner organizations and residents located in the areas adjacent to Area A. This process resulted in a new residential Project proposed to be studied on Area A. 5. The City, as a policy, does not desire residential development on Area A within its City boundaries, therefore additional consultation was undertaken with the Hawthorne and the Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO ") to consider initiating a reorganization of territory in which Area A would be detached from the City and annexed into Hawthorne. On January 13, 2003, the Hawthorne City Council of the City adopted Resolution No. 6771, advising LAFCO that the City was considering initiating annexation Reorganization proceedings for the Area -2- A. On January 21, 2003, the City Council adopted a resolution advising LAFCO that El Segundo was considering initiating detachment of Area A. 6. The City Community, Economic and Development Services determined that a new Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") be prepared to determine the individual and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Project as revised to anticipate residential development of Area A. The Project description involved up to 850 residential units proposed for development on Area A and up to 300 residential units on the Lawndale Annex. 7. Because the City began as Lead Agency for the Project and because the City will be the first public agency to act on the Project, the City remained Lead Agency for the Project. Hawthorne was identified as a Responsible Agency under CEQA because the Project involves subsequent approvals within Hawthorne's jurisdiction. 8. The Project will also involve federal action by the USAF. The Project is therefore also subject to the National Environmental Protection Act ( "NEPA "). For those components of the Project requiring action, the USAF is lead agency under NEPA. For purposes of NEPA, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS ") be prepared jointly with an EIR. 9. The City Community, Economic and Development Services prepared an Initial Study (the "Initial Study "). Based on the Initial Study the City Community, Economic and Development Services and the USAF consulted with Hawthorne officials and staff and determined to prepare a joint EIS /EIR as provided in CEQA and NEPA. 10. The objectives of the Project are as follows: a) To relocate the LAAFB facilities currently on Area A, including the SAMS facility from facilities in severe disrepair which do not meet current building codes for fire and earthquake safety to a new state -of- the -art facility which will generate approximately $3.5 million in annual operations and maintenance savings for the USAF on Area B; b) To achieve the goals of recently- enacted special federal legislation allowing the USAF to fund its relocation by conveying land for the development of new facilities for the USAF on Area B; c) To provide development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex at a density sufficient to assist in addressing the approximate $65 million gap between the value of the USAF's conveyed land and the cost of constructing new facilities for the USAF on Area B. IN 11. The Project requires the following discretionary actions by the City: a) Resolution No. 4315, requesting the LAFCO to detach Area A from the City for annexation of Area A into Hawthorne. b) Ordinance No. , granting the Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency the authority to include Area A within Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2; c) Resolution No. 4315, approving a Reorganization Agreement among the City, Hawthorne, and the Developer regarding LAFCO and annexation of Area A into Hawthorne. 12.A Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the Draft EIS /EIR was prepared and circulated for a 30 -day public review period beginning on January 2, 2003. Based on public comments in response to the NOP and a review of environmental issues by the El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and Development Services, the Draft EIS /EIR analyzed the following environmental impact areas: a) Population, Housing and Employment b) Land Use c) Aesthetics d) Shade /Shadow e) Transportation f) Public Utilities g) Public Services h) Hazardous Materials And Hazardous Waste Management i) Soils and Geology j) Water Resources k) Air Quality 1) Noise m) Cultural Resources 13. The City Community, Economic and Development Services held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on January 30, 2003 to receive public input and comments regarding the scope of the environmental impacts that should be studied regarding the Project. -4- 14.The Draft EIS /EIR was prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates under contract to the City and under the supervision of the City Community, Economic and Development Services, and circulated for review from April 11, 2003 to May 27, 2003. 15.The City received approximately 25 comments on the Draft EIS /EIR from public agencies, groups and individuals. 16. The Hawthorne Planning Commission and the USAF held a duly noticed joint public hearing to receive public comment regarding the Draft EIS /EIR on May 7, 2003. 17. The City Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing to receive public comment regarding the Draft EIS /EIR on May 22, 2003, and adopted Resolution No. 2450 recommending approval of the project. 18. Responses to comments were prepared and included in the Final EIS /EIR. 19. As a result of public input on the Project, the Project description was revised to lower the residential density and the maximum height of buildings along the southern property line of Area A. The maximum density of Area A was reduced from 850 residential units to 750 residential units. The maximum density of the Lawndale Annex was reduced from 300 residential units to 280 residential units. The maximum height of the structures along the southern property line of Area A was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. 20.A Final EIS /EIR has been prepared, which includes the NOP, NOP Comments, the Draft EIS /EIR, comments regarding the Draft EIS /EIR and written responses to such comments, a summary of changes to the Draft EIS /EIR, and all technical appendices (the "Final EIS /EIR "). 21.The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2003 to consider the adequacy of the Final EIS /EIR, certify the Final EIS /EIR, and adopt findings (attached hereto as Exhibit "A "), including a Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. A. The City, acting as lead agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the Draft EIS /EIR and the Final EIS /EIR to reflect its own independent judgment to the extent of its ability, including reliance on concerned City technical personnel from other departments as well as professional consultants retained by the City in order to provide technical advice an assistance in evaluating environmental impacts associated with the Project. B. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21082.1(c)(3) the City hereby finds that the Final EIS /EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. Ws III. CERTIFICATION. A. The City has reviewed the Final EIS /EIR for the Project and has considered the public record on the Project, including without limitation the following: I. Staff reports prepared by the Community, Economic and Development Services and the Draft and Final EIS /EIR prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates for the City; 2. Staff presentations at public hearings; 3. All applicable regulations and codes; 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received and /or submitted at or prior to the public hearings, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; 5. Testimony and /or comments from the applicant and its representatives submitted to the City in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearings; 6. All related documents received and /or submitted at or prior to the public hearings. B. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record upon which these findings are based is the City Community, Economic and Development Services. The record is available for public review at the City Community, Economic and Development Services, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. C. The City Council hereby certifies that Final EIS /EIR SCH No. 2002071106, dated July 2003 for the Project described below is adequate and has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the City of El Segundo, and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of the City of El Segundo, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of ly, 2003. %-d,& . A. . /t—,- — Mike Gordon, Mayor -6- ATTEST: Cindy Mort�er , City Clerk APPROV By: 14, M D. ensley City Attorney CERTIFICAtIQ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ) I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of members of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being RESOLUTION NO. 4314 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 15th day of July, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Gordon, Jacobs, McDowell, & Gaines NOES: Wernick ABSENT: None ABSTENTION: None NOT PARTICIPATING: None WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF S, jID CITY this 15th day of July 2003. - Xhthe Mortes n, y O City of El Segun o, California (SEAL) P \Planning & Building Safety \PROJECTS \576 - 599 \EA- 577\Councd approved documents \CEQA Resolution approved doc -7- RESOLUTION No. 4314 Exhibit A The City Council that having received, reviewed, and considered the following information as well as all other information in the record of proceedings in this matter, finds, determines, and declares as follows: I. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require a public agency, prior to approving a project, to identify significant impacts of the project and make one or more of three allowable findings on the basis of substantial evidence in the record for each of the significant impacts: A. The first allowable finding is that "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)). B. The second allowable finding is that "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(2)). C. The third allowable finding is that "specific economic, social, or other considerations make unfeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)). II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT. A. Potential Impacts Found to be Insignificant by the Initial Study. The environmental effects listed below were identified as not potentially significant based upon the Initial Study. The City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Natural Resources (Endangered Species, Wetlands, or Habitat). 2. Agricultural Resources. 3. Coastal Resources. Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Exhibit A have the same meaning as identical terms in the body of the Resolution. 4. Archeological Resources. 5. Paleontological Resources. B. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study But Which Did Not Exceed Significance Thresholds in the DEIS/EIR. The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were identified as potentially significant based upon the Initial Study, the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Population. Housing and Employment. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction of the Proposed Action would result in increased employment opportunities in the construction field, which would not result in significant demand for housing or population growth. (2) Existing Area personnel would be relocated to Area B upon completion of the new SAMS facilities in Area B, with no net change in employment. No new housing would be required to accommodate existing employees. (3) The Proposed Action involves the development of new housing stock and the improvement of the LAAFB facilities that would not create new employment opportunities. Consequently, the Project would not involve new land uses that would change the amount of existing employment. (4) Employment at the Sun Valley Property would not increase; buildings could be reoccupied at previous land use and density. (5) The additional residential units on Area A and the Lawndale Annex would slightly exceed Southern California Association of Governments ( "SCAG ") forecasts for the Hawthorne and Region of Influence, but would be consistent with SCAG's population Projections for the South Bay Cities Subregion. (6) Population and housing growth on the Lawndale Annex and Area A together would be consistent with population and housing Projections for the Subregion. b) : No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. K c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to population, housing and employment. 2. Land Use. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. (2) Development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex would be consistent with the Hawthorne General Plan as amended, the Redevelopment Plan as amended, the Hawthorne Zoning Code as amended, and the SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. (3) Area B would remain under federal jurisdiction as part of LAAFB. Area B would not be subject to the provisions of the El Segundo General Plan or the City's Zoning Code. However, these types of uses currently exist on LAAFB Area B and are not in conflict with the surrounding land uses. (4) No impacts to land use compatibility or consistency with adopted plans or policies at the Sun Valley Property would occur. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to land use. 3. Aesthetics. a) Facts (1) Short-term impacts would involve the demolition, grading, and construction activities at Areas A and B and the Lawndale Annex. The construction period would create temporary visual conditions typically associated with construction operations. (2) No significant public views or viewsheds are associated with Area A that could be affected by development under the Proposed Action. 3 (3) Loss of potential views of arriving aircraft at LAX from approximately three to five residences that currently have views between Building 115 and the Ramada Inn would be less than significant due to the small number of residences involved. (4) Views within and through Area B after development of the Project would be similar to the existing views. (5) No significant public views or viewsheds are associated with the Lawndale Annex that would be affected by development under the Proposed Action. (6) No change to the Sun Valley Property would occur under the Proposed Action. (7) With the use of non -glare glass, the new SAMS buildings in Area B will not be a source of glare from reflected sunlight. (8) New sources of lighting could be introduced on Areas A and B and the Lawndale Annex as a result of the Proposed Action, but the impact would not be significant due to the ambient night lighting that already exists. (9) As described in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, visual impacts along the southern property of Area A will change significantly after development of the Project. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts associated with Area B, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley Property below a level of significance. c) Finding: With the exception of visual impacts along the southerly boundary of Area A, which will change significantly and unavoidable as described in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, the City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to aesthetics. 4. Shade /Shadow. a) Facts /Effects. (1) In Area A the winter shadows cast by the Proposed Action would remain within the boundaries of the Project site or would not extend beyond the adjacent roadway to affect sensitive uses off -site. (2) In Area A neither the winter nor the summer shadows that could be cast by the Project buildings would extend 4 beyond the boundaries of the property to affect any off -site shadow sensitive uses. (3) In Area B the proposed development will have a maximum height limit of 45 feet, which would cast a maximum shadow length of 136 feet. The nearest off -site shadow - sensitive use is approximately 300 feet away. (4) In the Lawndale Annex neither the winter nor the summer shadows that could be cast by the Project buildings would extend beyond the property affect any off -site shadow sensitive uses. (5) In the Sun Valley Property, no demolition or construction would occur and so no shade or shadow impacts would occur. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to shade and shadow. 5. Transportation. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The DEIS /EIR studied Project - related impacts on 37 intersections and four freeway segments using Intersection Capacity Utilization values and corresponding Level of Service ( "LOS ") analyses. (2) The Proposed Action would not exceed the significance thresholds of either the City or Hawthorne for the intersections or freeway segments analyzed, other than at Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard. (3) As described in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, significant unavoidable impacts to the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard are expected to occur. b) Mitigation: Except for a significant unavoidable impact to Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, which is discussed in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, no mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that, except for an unavoidable impact to Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, the 5 FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to transportation. 6. Public Utilities -- Sewer. a) Facts /Effects. (1) An estimated 165,750 gpd of wastewater would be generated at Area A, 112,000 gpd of wastewater would be generated by Area B and estimated 58,500 gpd of wastewater would be generated by the Lawndale Annex, compared to existing generation of 177,690 gpd. The net total of Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex would increase the flow to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant ( "JWPCP ") by 0.04 percent with a net increase of 158,560 gpd. JWPCP has sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate the sewage flow, and there is sufficient remaining capacity in the trunk sewers. (2) The Sun Valley Property would generate approximately 1,490 gpd upon reoccupation. The sewage would represent an increase of 0.0004 in the daily flow to the Hyperion Treatment Plant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to sewers. 7. Public Utilities -- Water. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Water consumption on Area A would decrease by 1,500 gpd, and would increase by 134,016 gpd on Area B and 63,000 gpd on the Lawndale Annex. (2) According to the Southern California Water Company, sufficient supply is available to meet the water demand on Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. (3) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand on the water supply. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. n c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to water supply. 8. Public Utilities —Solid Waste. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Daily solid waste associated with the residential uses at Area A would be approximately 4,250 pounds per day. This would be 760 pounds less per day than currently generated by the office buildings. (2) Daily solid waste associated with the office use on Area B would be approximately 3,360 pounds per day. The solid waste generated at Area B would be 3,350 pounds per day more than the existing office buildings. (3) Daily solid waste associated with the residential uses at the Lawndale Annex would be approximately 1,500 pounds per day. The solid waste generated at the Lawndale Annex would be 1,320 pounds per day more than the existing office buildings. (4) Because there is available capacity, debris generated during demolition and construction of the Project on Areas A and B and the Lawndale Annex as well as solid waste generated with the new uses on those sites can be accommodated by existing landfills. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand on landfills. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to solid waste. 9. Public Utilities — Natural Gas. a) Facts /Effects. (1) According to the Southern California Gas Company, the demand for natural gas can be accommodated by the existing natural gas supply. The Proposed Action is 7 estimated to consume 133,334 net cubic feet of natural gas per day. The existing gas mains are adequate to serve the current demand and would be upgraded if required to serve the residents of the Proposed Action at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. (2) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for natural gas. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to natural gas resources. 10. Public Utilities -- Electricity. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action would have a net decrease of 16,522 kilowatt hours per day on Area A and a net increase of 19,609 kilowatt hours per day on Area B and 3,561 kilowatt hours per day on the Lawndale Annex. SCE has indicated that they can accommodate the electricity demands of the Proposed Action. (2) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for electricity. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to electricity. 11. Police Protection. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Development plans for Area A and the Lawndale Annex will be subject to mandatory review by the Hawthorne Police Department ( "HPD ") to assure that design features reduce the opportunity for crime and provide adequate emergency access. D (2) Although the population increase caused by the Project would increase demand for police services and equipment, the Project will not result in the need for substantial amounts of new equipment or substantially diminish the status of adequacy within the HPD. (3) On Area B, the military police would handle all on -site incidents on Area B, unless a police report is filed or if backup service is requested from the El Segundo Police Department. Military police would adjust their staffing and equipment as necessary. (4) Although the HPD initially indicated that the Project could result in the need for three or four additional police officers, the HPD subsequently indicated that there is no presently anticipated need for additional personnel. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for police services. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to police services. 12. Fire Protection. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Los Angeles County Fire Department ( "LACED ") Stations 160 and 161 could absorb the additional demand associated with development of Area A and the Lawndale Annex. (2) The Project will be designed to provide all necessary fire - flows, provide adequate emergency vehicle access, and comply with all applicable fire prevention codes and requirements. (3) Area B is served by the City of El Segundo Fire Department ( "ESFD "). There would be a net decrease in building area served by the ESFD. (4) The Sun Valley Property could same intensity of use and so would demand for fire protection services. E be reoccupied at the not create an increased (5) Compliance with fire codes and LACFD approval of emergency access are incorporated as part of the Project. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to fire protection and services. 13. Schools. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action is elementary school students, and 103 high school students. projected to generate 241 108 middle school students, (2) The development of the Proposed Action for Area B would have no impact on schools. (3) The Wiseburn Elementary School District would receive a total of 349 elementary and middle school students. The district currently serves 1,700 students, of whom 30 percent come from outside of the district. The District could accommodate the projected increase in enrollment through developer fees, reopening of closed facilities and /or modifications in transfer policy. (4) The Centinela Valley Union High School District would receive a total of 103 high school students. Through developer fees and other means of funding, the district expects to be able to accommodate the increase in students. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand on the school system. (6) State law requires that the Developer pay statutory developer fees to Wiseburn Elementary School District or otherwise enter into an agreement with the district. (7) State law requires that the Developer pay statutory developer fees to Centinela Valley Union High School District or otherwise enter into an agreement with the district. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. 10 c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to school impacts. 14. Hazardous Materials & Waste. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The current six aboveground storage tanks ( "ASTs ") at Area A will be removed, subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations, under the Proposed Action, thus minimizing the potential for environmental consequences. Nine underground storage tanks ( "USTs ") have been removed with no further action required. (2) Three USTs and three ASTs on Area B may remain in place. New storage tanks may also be put in place. All storage tanks are subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations. (3) No storage tanks are located on the Lawndale Annex or the Sun Valley Property (4) Small arms ammunition are not stored at Area A, the Lawndale Annex, or the Sun Valley Property; nor would they be stored at these sites under the Proposed Action. (5) An armory is located in the Security Forces Operations portion of Building 241. According to site personnel, the armory is the only area where munitions are stored at Area B. Real Property Accountable Records indicate that former Building 221 was at one time used to store explosives. A bunker located east of Building 221 was used to calibrate aircraft gun sights (via test firing) during US Navy occupation of the site. After diligent research, no documentation was found regarding the closure or decommissioning of the structure. (6) Radon is not present in appreciable concentrations at LAAFB. (7) There is no presence of or generation of medical and biohazardous waste on Area A, the Lawndale Annex or the Sun Valley Property. The Medical /Dental Clinic located in Building 200 in Area B disposes of the waste through a licensed medical waste contractor using an approved method. 11 (8) Existing structures may include building materials containing Asbestos Containing Materials ( "ACM "). The ACM materials will be managed and dealt with under the Base's Asbestos Management Plan and South Coast Air Quality Management District ( "SCAQMD ") regulations prior to demolition or renovation. (9) Existing structures may include building materials containing lead -based paint. Any limited lead -based paint encountered during construction activities will be dealt with under the base's Lead -Based Paint Management Plan and applicable CalOSHA and DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substance Control) regulations. (10) All PCB - contaminated electrical equipment whose dielectric fluid contains greater than 50 ppm PCBs have been removed or replaced with non -PCB containing equipment. (11) On the basis of community notifications made under Proposition 65, possible emissions of an air toxic, Hexavalent Chromium [Cr(VI)], may migrate from their source at the adjacent Northrop Grumman plant to the Child Development Center ( "CDC "), a sensitive receptor on Area B. A review of health risk assessment data shows that projected levels of Cr(VI) are considered acceptable based on the guidelines of the U.S. EPA, California EPA, and SCAQMD. Because projected emissions were based on very conservative assumptions, it can be concluded that potential Cr(VI) exposures at the CDC are not a health concern. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to hazardous materials. 15. Air Quality— Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction activities that generate pollutants include demolition, grading, construction vehicular emissions, fuel consumption, and architectural coating. (2) No construction activity is proposed for the Sun Valley Property. 12 (3) Construction emissions of Carbon Monoxide ( "CO ") and Particulate Matter ( "PM1o') would not exceed the thresholds during any year of construction. (4) As discussed in Sections II.D and 115 of this Exhibit A, construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Nitrogen Oxides ( "NOx ") in 2004 and 2006, and would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases ( "ROG ") emissions in 2005 and 2007. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce CO and PM10 impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to construction emissions of CO and PM,(). 16. Air Quality — Operational. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Long -term Project - related emissions would be generated by both stationary sources and mobile sources such as motor vehicles. (2) Motor vehicles are the predominate source of operational emissions and air quality impacts. (3) Operational emissions of PM,o would not exceed significance thresholds. (4) As discussed in Section II.D and II.F. of this Exhibit A, operational emissions of NOx, CO, and ROG would result in significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impacts to air quality. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce PM10 impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to operational emissions of PM10 13 17. Noise -- Operational. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Area A and the Lawndale Annex are located in high ambient noise areas. (2) Traffic noise impacts contributing to the ambient noise in the existing environment would be inaudible and below thresholds of significance. (3) There is a potential that parking - related noise, such as car alarms, door closing, and the starting of car engines, would be audible at nearby residential uses. However, these sources would be no different than are currently associated with the surface parking lots located within Area A and the Lawndale Annex, along with noise associated with activity on the recreational field at the Lawndale Annex. (4) With the construction of a sound wall, the Lawndale Annex will not be impacted by noise from the Metro Rail Green Line. (5) A 6 -8 foot high wall is proposed along the southerly boundary of Area A. The southerly boundary adjoins a railroad right -of -way. There will be an increase of 0.5 dB in the CNEL due to train noise reflecting off of the wall. An increase of less than 1dB in CNEL is not noticeable. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to operational noise impacts. 18. Noise -- Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) No construction activity is proposed at the Sun Valley Property. (2) As discussed in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, noise construction impacts on Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex will be significant and unavoidable. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts on the Sun Valley Property below a level of significance. 14 c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to noise construction impacts on the Sun Valley Property. C. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant But Which Can Be Reduced to Less - Than - Significant Levels or Which Can Be Avoided. The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were identified as potentially significant in the FEIS /EIR, changes or alterations within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agency to avoid or lessen the potential significant environmental effects listed below to a level of insignificance. 1. Soils and Geology. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The potential for surface fault rupture at the four Project sites is low. Additionally, no actions or changes would occur at the Sun Valley Property. (2) The four sites are not identified as being located within areas at risk for landslides or as having the potential for seismic slope instability. However, all four sites are located within the Southern California region that is known for seismic activity and groundshaking. (3) Liquefaction will not be a significant impact at the Project sites. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in or expose people to significant impacts related to seismic settlement and differential compaction. (4) There are no significant impacts related to flooding at Areas A & B. (5) The Lawndale Annex is located within a 500 -year floodplain. However, flooding impacts would be less than significant. (6) The Sun Valley Property is not located in a 100 -year floodplain but it is located in an area with minimal to moderate flooding. However, no physical changes to the site are anticipated or planned under the Proposed Action that would result expose people to any significant impacts related to flooding. 15 (7) Elevated levels of methane gas have been observed at Area B of LAAFB, in the vicinity of the Fitness Center. Since significant levels of methane have been detected in Area B and since a portion of Area A is within an oil field and there are documented producing wells nearby, there is a potential for significant levels of methane to be present at Area A and Area B. No information regarding methane gas is available for the Lawndale Annex or the Sun Valley Property. (8) Expansive or corrosive soils could have a significant impact on the Proposed Action at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. (9) Grading is not anticipated to have a significant impact at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex under the Proposed Action. No grading would occur at the Sun Valley Property. (10) The stability of the proposed slopes will be analyzed during the comprehensive geotechnical investigation for the Proposed Action as required by the City of Hawthorne and the Air Force to ensure that the Proposed Action does not result in any significant slope stability impacts at Area A, Area B, or the Lawndale Annex. (11) The potential for erosion or for the volume of runoff to increase at these sites as a result of the Proposed Action is not considered significant. b) Mitigation: (1) A comprehensive geotechnical report shall be prepared for Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. Specific design recommendations presented in the comprehensive geotechnical report for all Project sites shall be incorporated into the final design and construction of the Proposed Action. The comprehensive geotechnical report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following geotechnical hazards: ground shaking, slope stability, and expansive /corrosive soils. (2) On -site grading shall be performed in accordance with applicable codes so that erosion of graded areas will not occur. All areas of construction shall be fine- graded to drain in conformance with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements and direct permissible runoff to the street or to the nearest available storm drain. No runoff within the property boundaries shall be allowed to flow uncontrolled 16 over any existing slopes. All permanent slopes shall be planted in conformance with current grading codes. (3) Although liquefaction is not considered to be a significant impact at the Project sites, the comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall use site - specific soil and groundwater data to specifically evaluate the potential for liquefaction at each site. If there is a medium to high potential, specific recommendations shall be included in the geotechnical report to minimize the potential for damage from liquefaction. (4) The recommendations presented in the comprehensive geotechnical investigation report for design of walls below grade to support the lateral earth pressure and the additional surcharges from adjacent buildings and traffic shall be followed. (5) A site specific methane gas study shall be performed at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex to characterize the levels of methane and other volatile gases that may be present at these locations and to evaluate the level of impact that hazardous gases might have on the Project. An approved methane gas consultant shall be retained for the site - specific methane gas study. The methane consultant would be approved by the local government entity with jurisdiction over the specific Project site. If levels of methane are detected at the site, a permanent methane gas control system may be necessary beneath the proposed buildings. The potential for methane gas to have a significant impact at the site can be reduced to a less than significant level by installation of a permanent gas control system at the site, if necessary. An approved methane specialist, as described above, shall be retained for the design of a methane gas control system. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on soils and geology. 17 2. Water Resources. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The proposed storm drain system for Area A would connect to existing storm drains. The parking lot detention system for the Proposed Action at Area A will be designed to store a minimum of 350 cubic feet of detained runoff. The drainage system would be designed to the Hawthorne and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works standards, and all storm drains would be designed for a 25 -year frequency storm event. The Proposed Action at Area A would not result in any significant hydrology impacts. Provided the mitigation measures listed below are implemented, the Proposed Action at Area A would not result in significant hydrology impacts. (2) Although impervious surfaces on Area B are expected to decrease as a result of increased open space, there may be a need for on -site detention of storm water. (3) The Lawndale Annex will be developed as residential with a required imperviousness of 0.9 per County standards. Runoff of 38 cfs will result, which will exceed the allowable 13 cfs. As such, a detention of 13,330 cubic feet must be provided on -site. This level of detention and runoff can be accommodated at parking lots at the site. (4) No new development would occur at the Sun Valley Property under the Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant surface hydrology, flooding or groundwater impacts would be created by the Proposed Action. (5) The Proposed Action at Area A, Area B and Lawndale Annex does not involve deep excavations that have the potential to intercept existing aquifers, nor would it involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater. Therefore, impacts to groundwater are anticipated to be less than significant. (6) Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex are not located within a 100 -year floodplain. There are no significant impacts related to flooding and the Proposed Action would not result in or expose people to significant impacts related to flooding. (7) Since the Proposed Action involves clearing, grading, and excavation of one or more acres, a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit must be obtained prior to the start of construction. A Storm Water Pollution 18 Prevention Plan ( "SWPPP ") must be prepared that identifies which structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices ( "BMPs ") will be implemented, such as sandbag barriers, temporary desilting basins near inlets, gravel driveways, dust controls, employee training, and general good housekeeping practices. With the implementation of the BMPs, short -term water quality impacts would be less than significant. (8) The Proposed Action will provide structural or treatment control BMPs designed to mitigate storm water runoff. While some infiltration through landscape areas will occur, the Proposed Action will primarily rely on the implementation of Treatment Control BMPs. As required by the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan ( "SUSMP "), detailed plans for the Project's compliance with the SUSMP will be submitted to the City of Hawthorne as part of the development plan approval process prior to issuance of building and grading permits. With compliance with the SUSMP requirements, the Proposed Action's operational impacts on storm water quality will be less than significant. b) Mitigation. (1) The Developer shall prepare a master drainage plan for Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex. This plan shall include detailed hydrology /hydraulic calculations and drainage improvements, showing quantitatively how the Project will eliminate potential for downstream flooding due to increased storm water runoff. These plans will also identify the proposed Best Management Practices to be implemented in compliance with the requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and applicable codes. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Hawthorne and the LACDPW. (2) The Developer shall design a conveyance and detainment system to meet the LACDPW limits on the storm drains that would convey the discharge from Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex. (3) The Project applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent ( "NOI ") for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") General Permit for Construction Activities with the California State Water Resources Board. Compliance with the NPDES general permit shall be certified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. 19 (4) During construction and operations, all waste shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Properly labeled recycling bins shall be utilized for recyclable construction materials including solvents, water -based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and concrete, wood, and vegetation. Non - recyclable materials and wastes must be taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed, regulated disposal site by a licensed waste - hauler. (5) All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction shall be cleaned up promptly and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations to prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be washed away into the storm drains. (6) If materials spills occur, they should not be hosed down. Dry cleaning methods shall be employed whenever possible. (7) Construction dumpsters shall be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting if left uncovered for extended periods. All dumpsters shall be well maintained. (8) The Developer shall conduct inspections of the Project site before and after storm events to determine whether BMPs to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan are adequate and properly implemented. (9) The Developer shall conduct daily street sweeping and truck wheel cleaning to prevent dirt in storm water. (10) The Developer or its successor -in- interest shall provide regular sweeping of private streets and parking lots within the Project site with equipment designed for removal of hydrocarbon compounds. (11) The Developer or its successor -in- interest shall maintain all structural or treatment control Best Management Practices for the life of the Project. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on water resources. 3. Cultural Resources. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Grading and excavation activities could potentially, although unlikely, encounter archaeological resources. (2) Native American resources such as sacred sites or traditional use locations associated with the Gabrielino- Tongva are not expected to occur. There is a low probability that subsurface deposits or burial sites may exist which could be encountered during grading or excavation operations. (3) No adverse impacts to historic resources would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action. b) Mitigation: (1) In the event that archaeological or traditional resources are encountered during the course of grading or construction, all activities must temporarily cease in these areas until the resources are properly assessed and subsequent recommendations are determined by a qualified consultant. (2) In the event that human remains are discovered, there shall be no disposition of such human remains, other than in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 800.13, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. These code provisions require notification of the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission, who in turn must notify those persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American for appropriate disposition of the remains. Excavation or disturbance may continue in other areas of the Project site that are not reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains or cultural resources. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on cultural resources. 21 D. Significant Unavoidable Effects that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance. The City Council finds that in response to each adverse impact identified below, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project, which lessen the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. 1. Aesthetics. a) Facts (1) Under the Proposed Action, Area A buildings could extend up to 25 feet above the eight of the existing buildings. The maximum height of the buildings along the southern property line of Area A have been reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet in the specific plan for Area A., thereby reducing the severity of the visual impact from 25 feet to 15 feet. b) Mitigation: Even with the reduction in height, development of Area A would result in a significant impact to views from the residential area located to the south of the site. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City finds that although the aesthetic impact of the Project on the residential area to the south of Area A will remain significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 2. Transportation. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action is expected to produce one Project related significant traffic impact during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. This impact would occur at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard. b) Mitigation. (1) A northbound right turn lane shall be installed on Aviation Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard. Land shall be dedicated on the east side of Aviation Boulevard south of El Segundo Boulevard from Area A to create sufficient right -of -way for the installation of a right turn lane. 22 c) Finding: The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and incorporated into the Project to reduce the impact at Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 3. Libraries. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Development would increase the permanent residential population by approximately 2,530 persons occupying Area A and the Lawndale Annex. (2) The Proposed Action for all four sites would have less than significant impacts on the El Segundo and City of Los Angeles libraries, but would have a potentially significant impact on the Los Angeles County Public Library ( "LACPL ") system. (3) The LACLP Wiseburn, Hawthorne and Lawndale libraries, which would serve Area A and the Lawndale Annex residents, are adequately supplied with books and materials to meet the new demand. However, the size of the Wiseburn Library, the closest facility, may not be adequate to accommodate the approximately 2,530 additional residents, which could result in the need for constructing a new library facility. (4) Although developer fees for LACPL impacts may be imposed upon projects in unincorporated Los Angeles County territory, LACPL does not require mitigation fees for projects that are developed within municipal boundaries. No developer fees have been established in the City or in Hawthorne to mitigate impacts to LACPL libraries. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for library services. b) Mitigation: (1) LACPL has requested that the City establish and impose a developer fee to mitigate impacts to the LACPL system. 23 c) Finding. (1) The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. However, Hawthorne may find that the imposition of a developer fee to mitigate impacts to the LACPL system would be economically unfeasible, because it would exacerbate an existing gap between the collective value of Area A, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley Property and the cost of the SAMS Center on Area B. Widening the gap is also inconsistent with the Project objectives. (2) LACPL funding sources (e.g. property tax, general fund, parcel tax, grants, etc.) should reduce the severity of the impact that the Proposed Action could have on the LACPL system. However, this funding may not reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. (3) The City finds that the impact of the Project on the LACPL library system would remain significant and unavoidable without the imposition of a developer fee, as no other feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 4. Parks. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action would result in an increase in approximately 2,530 persons on Area A and the Lawndale Annex, which would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks with the potential to accelerate the physical deterioration of the facilities. Because Hawthorne is park deficient, the addition of approximately 2,530 permanent residents would further exacerbate an already substandard park service ration. (2) Hawthorne includes public parks as a component of development impact fees to mitigate impacts to parks. (3) Under the Proposed Action, existing USAF activities on Area A would be relocated to Area B. This would not result in additional demands on the City's park system. (4) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for park services. 24 b) Mitigation: A developer fee could be imposed to mitigate the impact of Area A and the Lawndale Annex on the Hawthorne park system. c) Finding: (1) The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. However, Hawthorne may find that the imposition of a developer fee to mitigate impacts to the Hawthorne park system would be economically unfeasible, because it would exacerbate an existing gap between the collective value of Area A, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley Property and the cost of the SAMS Center on Area B. Widening the gap is also inconsistent with the Project objectives. (2) The City finds that the impact of the Project on the Hawthorne park system would remain significant and unavoidable without the imposition of a developer fee, as no other feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 5. Air Quality -- Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Nitrogen Oxides ( "NOx ") in 2004 and 2006. (2) Construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases ( "ROG ") emissions in 2005 and 2007. (3) State law requires that the Developer implement SCAQMD Rule 481 to control ROG emissions. b) Mitigation. (1) Construction contracts shall stipulate that diesel powered construction equipment shall be shut off when not in direct use. (2) Diesel engines, motors, or equipment shall be located as far away as possible from existing residential areas. 25 (3) Construction contracts shall explicitly stipulate that all diesel power equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained. c) Finding: The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and incorporated into the Project to reduce construction air quality impacts. However, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 6. Air Quality- Operational. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Operational emissions would exceed significance thresholds for regional NOx, CO and ROG emissions. (2) The predominate source of such operational NOx, CO, and ROG emissions are motor vehicles associated with the traffic trip generation of the Project. b) Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce operational air quality impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding. The City finds that although operational air quality impacts of the Project remain significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen these impacts below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 7. Noise -- Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction activities within Area A would result in significant impacts related to construction noise at two locations (Del Aire Park and Wiseburn Ave), while construction activities on the Lawndale Annex would result in significant impacts related to construction noise at one location (town home residential complex located immediately south of the Lawndale Annex). (2) Construction activities on Area B would result in significant construction noise impacts at one receptor location (LAAFB Child Development Center). 26 b) Mitigation. (1) Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices. (2) All residential units and other sensitive receptors located within 400 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the Project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. (3) A "noise disturbance coordinator" position shall be established for the Project. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad mufflers, etc.) and would be required to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. All notices that are sent to residential units within 400 feet of the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to reduce construction noise impacts. However, these construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. E. Insianificant Cumulative Impacts. The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence which identifies significant adverse cumulative environmental effects associated with the Project in conjunction with the related Projects identified in Section 2.6 of the DEIS /EIR (collectively, the "Related Projects ") with respect to the areas listed below. a) Population, Housing and Employment b) Land Use 27 c) Aesthetics d) Shade /Shadow e) Public Utilities (Sewer, Water, Natural Gas, and Electricity) f) Public Services (Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Schools) g) Hazardous Materials And Hazardous Waste Management h) Soils and Geology i) Water Resources j) Operational Noise k) Cultural Resources F. Significant Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts. The City Council finds that in response to each impact identified below, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project, which lessen the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. The Project's contribution to these impacts would be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 1. Transportation. a) Facts (1) The impacts of cumulative traffic growth were incorporated into the traffic modeling for the Project. (2) The level of service is expected to decline to unacceptable levels at 27 of the 37 intersections studied in the DFIS /EIR whether or not the Project is approved. (3) No sub - regional traffic impact fee has been established or proposed for "fair- share" contributions to regional transportation improvements that might reduce the severity of cumulative traffic impacts. b) Finding: The City Council finds that although mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to reduce the severity of the Project - specific traffic impact, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable cumulative impacts. W 2. Solid Waste. a) Fact/Effects. (1) With mandatory source reduction and recycling programs, the Project and Related Projects would not produce an amount of solid waste that exceeds available landfill capacity. (2) The Project together with Related Project could contribute to a significant unavoidable cumulative impact on solid waste disposal capacity caused by regional growth. (3) Such impacts cannot by reduced below a level significance by Project - specific mitigation measures. b) Finding: The City Council finds that while mitigation is not needed to reduce Project- specific solid waste impacts, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts caused by solid waste generation. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 3. Libraries. a) Facts (1) The majority of Related Projects are commercial, and commercial projects do not typically generate a significant demand for library services. (2) The imposition of library impact fees upon residential Related Projects is not expected to reduce the cumulative impact of residential development upon the LACPL system to a level of less than significant. b) Finding: The City Council finds that since mitigation is not feasible to reduce the Project- specific impact on libraries, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on the LACPL system. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 4. Parks. a) Facts (1) The majority of Related Projects are commercial, and commercial projects do not typically generate a significant demand for park services. 29 (2) Impacts caused by the residential Related Projects could be reduced through developer fees or parkland contributions. (3) None of the residential Related Projects are proposed to be located in Hawthorne. However, because Hawthorne is already parkland deficient, the imposition of park impact fees upon Related Projects is not expected to reduce the cumulative impact of residential development upon Hawthorne's park system to a level of less than significant. b) Finding: The City Council finds that since mitigation is not feasible to reduce the Project - specific impact on parks, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on Hawthorne's park system. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 5. Air Quality— Construction. a) Facts (1) If construction of Related Projects overlap construction of the Project, a temporary increase in short-term PM10, CO, ROG and NOx emissions would occur. (2) Although Project- specific mitigation measures have been imposed upon the Project and may be imposed upon the Related Projects, because the South Coast Air Quality basin is in non - attainment status for these pollutants, any contribution is considered cumulatively significant. b) Finding: The City Council finds that although mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to reduce the severity of Project - specific air quality impacts due to construction, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts due to construction. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 6. Air Quality— Operation. a) Facts (1) The Project together with Related Projects will exceed the cumulative significance thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOx. KE (2) No feasible mitigation measures are available to implement regional reductions in operational air quality impacts below significant levels. b) Finding: The City Council finds that since mitigation is not feasible to reduce Project- specific impacts on air quality related to operations, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts related to operations. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 7. Noise — Construction. a) Facts (1) If construction of Related Projects overlap construction of the Project, cumulative noise impacts would contribute temporarily to the existing ambient noise levels of the area and exceed the threshold of significance. (2) Although project- specific mitigation measures have been imposed upon the Project and similar measures may be imposed upon Related Projects, no mitigation measures are available to implement regional reductions in construction noise impacts below the level of significance. b) Finding: The City Council finds that although mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to reduce the severity of the Project - specific noise impact on sensitive receptors, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impacts on such receptors. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. G. Project Alternatives. 1. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration. Various alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered and dismissed without further study because they failed to accomplish the objectives of the Project or were otherwise not feasible. One alternative involved selling Area A and the Sun Valley Property as well as building new facilities on Area B and upgrading Building 80 on the Lawndale Annex to meet seismic requirements using traditional USAF funding. This alternative was considered and evaluated in the Draft EA prepared by the Air Force in September, 2002 (Alternative #2). However, the USAF concluded that the lead time required to include the financial requirements associated with this alternative in the federal budget would 31 not feasibly lead to the provision of seismically safe facilities in a reasonable period of time and would thus have the potential to result in mission degradation. Another alternative involved development of Area A with residential units within the boundaries of the City. This alternative was considered, but eliminated from further consideration, because the City would not be able to provide adequate public services to residential development located on Area A. Presently, all residential development within the City is located west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The City has planned for and deployed, primarily on the west side of the City, the resources associated with the major infrastructure and public services that it provides to reflect this land use pattern. Another alternative would include development of office or industrial uses on Area A. This alternative was considered and eliminated from further consideration because the potential environmental impacts associated with this alternative would exceed those associated with developing a commercial center on Area A, particularly with respect to traffic, air quality, noise and, potentially, the use of hazardous materials in conjunction with an industrial use. Finally, the alternative of locating the proposed private land uses identified in the Proposed Action at an alternate location was considered and dismissed. The feasibility of the concept, which the USAF is pursuing under the SAMS Project, depends upon the development of the sites that would be conveyed by the USAF with private uses that generate sufficient value to support the construction of the new facilities for the USAF on Area B at no cost to the federal government. Therefore, development of the specific sites evaluated in the DEIS /EIR is integral to the Proposed Action. Alternative locations would not meet the needs of the Proposed Action or the Project Objectives. 2. No Action Alternative. a) Description. The No Action alternative allows local governmental decision - makers to compare the impacts of approving the Proposed Action with the impacts of not approving the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the USAF would continue to maintain and operate existing facilities at LAAFB in their current configuration. Seismic retrofits to existing facilities would be planned to occur over time to the maximum extent possible. Repair of primary building systems, roads, parking and primary utilities would not be accomplished unless traditional military ( "MILCON ") or Operations and Maintenance ( "O &M ") funding becomes available. No such funding for these repairs and upgrades is included in any current or foreseeable budget. For the foreseeable future, therefore, USAF personnel would continue working in existing buildings that do not meet building and safety codes, which would result in mission degradation for the LAAFB. If USAF facilities were upgraded as part of the No Action Alternative, construction activity would be primarily limited to interior work and would not include major demolition, grading or construction activities. The appearance of Area A, Area B, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley Property would not change substantially under the No Action Alternative. Existing LAAFB employment would not change under this 32 alternative and therefore no changes in traffic generation or utility consumption would be associated with the No Action Alternative. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the No Action Alternative would not result in any of the significant impacts associated with the Project. The No Action Alternative would, however, result in a short-term significant impact to soils and geology. In addition, seismic safety and hazardous materials impacts under the No Action Alternative would be greater than the Project. Nevertheless, the significant impacts associated with Project would be substantially avoided by the implementation of the No Action Alternative, but this alternative would not implement the Project objectives. However, the No Action Alternative could result in the closing or relocation of the LAAFB out of southern California as part of the federal Base Relocation And Closure ( "BRAC ") process. The next BRAC process is scheduled to start in 2004. The condition of the buildings, which is exemplified by deteriorating facilities, and substandard seismic and life safety building standards, such as exist on the LAAFB, is an important criterion under the BRAC process for determining whether a military facility should be closed. Closure of the LAAFB or its relocation outside of Southern California would be contrary to the Project objectives. 3. El Segundo Commercial Alternative. a) Description. Under the El Segundo Commercial Alternative, Area A would be conveyed by the USAF for private development with a commercial shopping center of up to 750,000 gross square feet, including up to 4,000 square feet of fast food uses. The reorganization process, by which Area A would be detached from the City and annexed to Hawthorne would not occur. All existing buildings on Area A (835,000 sq. ft.) would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development under this Alternative. El Segundo would be responsible for granting land use entitlements required to construct the commercial shopping center on Area A. Uses within the shopping center would include but not necessarily be limited to several anchor retail tenants with a mix of other merchandise stores, restaurants, service and /or fast food uses. A building height limit would be established along the southern boundary of Area A that would limit building height to 65 feet along the eastern 40% of this boundary and 35 feet along the western 60% of this boundary. Building heights along El Segundo Boulevard would be limited to 65 feet. Buildings would be required to be set back at least 100 feet from the southern boundary of the Project site. Design features would be required in this Alternative to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. To minimize noise, dust and lighting impacts on the Hollyglen community located to the south of the Project site, the existing chain link fence located along the southern edge of the Project site would be replaced with an eight -foot high concrete block wall. Landscaping would also be provided throughout Area A. Development of Area A under this Alternative would be anticipated to commence in 2006 and be completed in 2007. 33 Under the El Segundo Commercial Alternative, development of Area B would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Development of the Lawndale Annex by the Developer would be the same as under the Proposed Action; the land use entitlements would also be granted by Hawthorne. The Sun Valley Property would be conveyed by the USAF to the Developer, and the use would be the same as under the Proposed Action. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the El Segundo Commercial Alternative would not substantially reduce or avoid the significant impacts associated with the Project. The El Segundo Commercial Alternative would result in all the same significant unavoidable impacts as the Project, as well as an additional significant unavoidable impact arising from localized CO concentrations. In addition, significant unavoidable traffic and aesthetic impacts are more severe under the Commercial Alternative than under the Project. 4. Renovation Alternative. a) Description. The Renovation Alternative involves renovating existing substandard SAMS facilities on Area A (Buildings 100, 105, 115,120 and 125) by the USAF using traditional MILITARY or O &M funding as it becomes available. Renovation activities would include seismic retrofits, removal of interior walls and partitions to reconfigure space, replacement of primary building systems, removal of lead based paint and asbestos, installation of fire suppression systems and other actions required to fully meet seismic and life safety requirements within these buildings. This alternative would require the vacating of facilities during the renovation. Under this Alternative, right sizing would take place, and primary utilities would also be repaired or replaced. Under the Renovation Alternative, no new development or renovation activities would take place in Area B. Current LAAFB employees located on Area A would not be relocated to Area B under this Alternative. Under this Alternative, the Lawndale Annex would be retained by the USAF and would continue to be used for RV storage, parking and recreational uses. Building 80, located on the Lawndale Annex, would be upgraded by the USAF using MILCON or O &M funding as it becomes available to meet seismic and safety requirements. The Sun Valley Property would be disposed of through the traditional process of federal government excess property disposal administered by the General Services Administration. No demolition or construction activities would be anticipated to occur on this site in the reasonably foreseeable future, and no discretionary actions would be requested from the City of Los Angeles as part of this Alternative. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the Renovation Alternative would not result in any of the significant impacts associated with the Project. The Renovation 34 Alternative would, however, result in a short-term significant impact to soils and geology. Nevertheless, the significant impacts associated with Project would be substantially avoided by the implementation of the Renovation Alternative. However, the Renovation Alternative could result in the closing or relocation of the LAAFB out of southern California as part of the federal Base Relocation And Closure ( "BRAG ") process. The next BRAC process is scheduled to start in 2004. The condition of the buildings, which is exemplified by deteriorating facilities and substandard seismic and life safety building standards, such as exist on the LAAFB, is an important criterion under the BRAC process for determining whether a military facility should be closed. Closure of the LAAFB or its relocation outside of Southern California would be contrary to the Project objectives 5. Reduced Residential Alternative a) Description. Under the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the same land uses proposed for Area A under the Proposed Action would be constructed by the Developer, at a development density approximately 20% lower than under the Proposed Action. This would result in the construction of 600 residential condominium units on Area A. Area A would be reorganized from the City into Hawthorne. Project entitlements would be processed by Hawthorne. The same land use approvals and development standards designed to minimize impacts to the Hollyglen neighborhood to the south of Area A (block wall and canopy of mature trees) would be incorporated into this Alternative. Height limits would be reduced to 32 feet along the southern boundary of the site, increasing to 45 feet along El Segundo Boulevard. The same level of development as would occur under the Proposed Action would occur on Area B under the responsibility of the USAF. Under the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the same land uses proposed for the Lawndale Annex under the Proposed Action would be constructed by the Developer, at a development density approximately 20% lower than under the Proposed Action. This would result in the construction of 233 residential condominium units on the Lawndale Annex. Height limits would be reduced to 45 feet on the Lawndale Annex under this alternative. Under this Alternative, the Sun Valley Property will be conveyed by the Air Force to the private developer. However, no demolition or construction activities would be anticipated to occur on this site in the reasonably foreseeable future, and no discretionary actions would be requested from the City of Los Angeles as part of this Alternative. Under the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the Sun Valley Property could be re- occupied with the same land uses (i.e., industrial /warehouse) under the same development intensity as previously associated with this site. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce or avoid the some of significant impacts associated with the Project. The 35 Reduced Density Alternative would avoid the Project's significant unavoidable impact to aesthetics, but would not avoid any other significant unavoidable impacts arising from the Project. Nevertheless, the severity of such impacts would be reduced in rough proportionality to the reduction in the density of development associated with this Alternative. 6. Findings Regarding Alternatives. a) Reasonable Range of Alternatives. The City Council finds that that (a) the FEIS /EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the Project; and (b) the City Council evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the Project. b) Environmentally Superior Alternative. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to the Project shall identify one alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Furthermore, if the environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. From a strictly environmental standpoint, the No Action Alternative is superior to all others. It leaves the existing buildings intact and avoids the significant impacts associated with the Project. The No Action Alternative would be temporary in nature, however, as it would not necessarily preserve the LAAFB in the southern California region. Even if the LAAFB remained in its present location, the No Action Alternative provides no mechanism for upgrading the USAF facilities. Consequently, the No Action Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project. The Renovation Alternative is also environmentally superior to the Project. This alternative, however, depends upon MILCON and O &M funding to implement LAAFB facility improvements as does the No Action Alternative. The Project was authorized by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106 -398) as amended by Section 2841 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 because MILCON and O &M funding was too speculative to reasonably assure the renovation of LAAFB facilities. Currently no MILCON or O &M funding is allocated for LAAFB retrofitting or renovation. By letter dated May 27, 2003, the USAF informed the City that entire military construction budget for 9 major installments and 87 geographically separated sites worldwide averages $58 million per year. The cost to renovate the existing LAAFB facilities is estimated to be $134 million. Currently, there is no funding available to build the SAMS Center. It was this shortage of funds that first prompted the USAF to pursue what it describes as the unique process of exchanging land for new LAAFB facilities. Consequently, LAAFB retrofitting or renovation is economically infeasible. Other than the No Action Alternative and the Renovation Alternative, and based upon the evaluation of all environmental impacts associated with the Project and all 36 alternatives, the DEIS /EIR identified environmentally superior alternative as the Reduced Density Alternative. Under this alternative, one of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided and the remaining significant impacts would be reduced in severity. From an environmental standpoint this alternative is superior to the Project and all other Project alternatives. The Reduced Density Alternative, however, would fail to meet the objectives of the Project because a 20% reduction in development density on Areas A and C would fail to provide a density sufficient to assist in addressing the approximate $35 million gap between the value of the USAF's conveyed land and the cost of constructing new facilities for the USAF on Area B. Despite the environmental superiority of the Reduced Density Alternative, it is not economically feasible to implement and would have the identical practical effect of the No Action Alternative. The City, therefore, finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make unfeasible the environmentally superior Project alternatives identified in the FEIS /EIR. 111. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES. The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter that: A. Growth Inducing Impacts The Project is an in -fill development within a highly developed urban setting. As described in the FEIS /EIR, construction of the Project would result in increased population and short-term employment opportunities in the construction field. The Project would foster economic growth by increasing the number of residents in the Project area, who could, in turn, also patronize local businesses and services. The Project would not induce growth in an area that is not already developed with infrastructure to accommodate such growth. Thus, the Project would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. Construction of the Project would require the use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., wood, sand, gravel, fossil fuels) for building materials and to fuel construction vehicles and equipment. Subsequent use and maintenance of the Project would also require the long -term consumption of these nonrenewable resources at reduced levels typical for such developments. Long -term increases in ambient air pollution and noise levels would also occur as a result of the Project. The Project would also add traffic to local roads. Potential irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the Project are unlikely and will be avoided by compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR as well as existing city, county, state and federal safety regulations. 37 IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project and the unavoidable significant cumulative impacts are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project for the following reasons: A. The Project is the best option for upgrading the USAF facilities, and thereby preventing the LAAFB from being closed or relocated out of southern California as part of the BRAC process Deteriorating facilities such as exist on the LAAFB as well as substandard seismic and life safety building standards such as exist on the LAAFB are important criteria under the BRAC process for determining whether a military facility should be closed. The Project will allow for the redevelopment of the existing LAAFB facilities and remove existing unattractive and unsafe buildings and conditions. The Project, therefore, will substantially increase the likelihood of retaining the LAAFB in southern California by allowing the construction of the SAMS Center on Area B. The construction of the SAMS Center is expected to save approximately $3.5 million in annual operations and maintenance for the USAF. B. The LAAFB currently provides approximately 65,000 jobs and is projected to provide approximately 75,000 jobs directly and indirectly through considerable government contracts to local aerospace companies, currently valued at $8.5 billion and expected to increase to $10 billion. Most of the jobs and contracts created by the LAAFB exist in the City, Hawthorne, Manhattan Beach, and surrounding communities. C. The Project replaces currently underutilized USAF sites and replaces unsafe USAF building s with private uses that generate sufficient value to support the construction of the new facilities for the USAF no cost to the federal government. D. The Project will create attractive, well- designed residential development immediately adjacent to the City to serve the expected demand for new housing in the region, which will further strengthen the sense of community, adhere to livable community principles, and enhance the quality of life in southern California. E. The Project will improve the region's jobs /housing balance by providing new housing close to major employers. F. The Project facilitates of the long -term economic health of the City and it's neighboring cities and communities. G. The Project provides for residential housing rather than commercial development, which is preferred by the City of Hawthorne and the majority of the Hawthorne residents that have spoken out with respect to the Project. The Reorganization Agreement provides this residential component desired by Hawthorne while providing the City with assurances with respect to the use of tax revenues derived from Area A. Thus, the "transfer' of Area A from the City has been accomplished through a mutually beneficial agreement. 38 V. RECIRCULATION. A. Facts. 1. The fundamental nature of the project studied in the 2002 Draft EIR was changed in response to public comment, resulting in the Proposed Action set forth in the DEIS /EIR. 2. The City received comments on the DEIS /EIR from members of the public and from public agencies in both written and oral form. The FEIS /EIR contains written responses to all comments ( "Responses to Comments ") received on the DEIS /EIR as of July 3, 2003. Some comments were incorporated into the FEIS /EIR as factual corrections and minor changes. Chapter 11.5 of the FEIS /EIR sets forth all factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR. 3. As a result of public input on the Project, the Project was revised to lower the residential density of Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the maximum height of buildings along the southern property line of Area A. The maximum density of Area A was reduced from 850 residential units to 750 residential units. The maximum density of the Lawndale Annex was reduced from 300 residential units to 280 residential units. The maximum height of the structures along the southern property line of Area A was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. 4. These reductions were incorporated into the Project after public circulation of the DEIS /EIR. The analysis of environmental impacts associated with residential density, such as traffic impacts and air quality impacts, was not revised from the higher residential densities studied in the DEIS /EIR. Similarly, the environmental impacts analysis of the height of structures along the southern property line of Area A was not revised from the higher building heights studied in the DEIS /EIR. Thus the environmental impacts set forth in the FEIS /EIR with respect to these impacts is greater than is anticipated as a result of further reductions in residential density and building height. 5. In addition to density and height reductions, changes in financing and implementation strategies of the Project have substantially reduced the approximate $65 million gap between the value of the land to be conveyed by the USAF and the cost of constructing new facilities for the USAF on Area B. Nevertheless, an approximate $35 million gap remains between the value of the land and the cost of the new facilities. B. Finding. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15088.5 and Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and based on the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter, the City Council finds that: 39 1. Factual corrections and minor changes are set forth as additions and corrections to the DEIS /EIR; and 2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR are not substantial changes in the DEIS /EIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a feasible Project alternative; and 3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR will not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the significant effects previously disclosed in the DEIS /EIR; and 4. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR will not involve mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIS /EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment; and 5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR do not render the DEIS /EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. Thus, the City Council finds that none of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guideline 15088.5 or Public Resources Code 21092.1 requiring recirculation of a draft environmental impact report have been met. The City Council further finds that incorporation of the factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR into the FEIS /EIR does not require that the FEIS /EIR to be recirculated for public comment. P. \Planrnng & Budding Safety\PROJECTS \576- 599 \EA - 577 \Council approved documents \CEQA Resolution findings Exh. A doc 40