CC RESOLUTION 4361RESOLUTION NO. 4361
• RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY
• SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NO. 559, SUBMITTED BY MATTEL INCORPORATED, FOR AN
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND
CORPORATE OFFICE (C -O) ZONE FOR 455 CONTINENTAL
BOULEVARD AND 1955 EAST GRAND AVENUE.
The City Council of the city of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On July 25, 2001, Mattel, Inc. filed an application for an Environmental
Assessment to amend and extend a Development Agreement for property
located at 455 Continental Boulevard. On June 20, 2003, Mattel, Inc. filed
additional applications requesting to amend the General Plan designation,
amend the Zoning Code, and to include 1955 E. Grand Avenue in the
Development Agreement to allow an expanded corporate office and
research development;
B. The Mattel, Inc. application was reviewed by the City's Department of
Community, Economic and Development Services for, in part, consistency
with the General Plan and conformity with the El Segundo Municipal Code
( "ESMC ");
C. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq., "CEQA "), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal.
Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines "), and the
City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805,
adopted March 16, 1993);
D. An Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The
Initial Study demonstrated that the project could cause significant
environmental impacts. Accordingly, a Draft Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report ( "DEIR ") was prepared and circulated for public review and
comment between September 25, 2003 and November 11, 2003;
E. The Department of Community, Economic and Development Services
completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the
application before the Planning Commission for November 13, 2003;
F. On November 13, 2003 the Commission opened a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
Page 1 of 9
including, without limitation, information provided to the Commission by
City Staff and representatives of Mattel, Inc. and continued the public
hearing to December 18, 2003;
G. On December 18, 2003, the Planning Commission held the continued
public hearing and adopted Resolution No. 2556 recommending City
Council approval of Environmental Assessment No.559, General Plan
Amendment 03 -3, Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -2, and Development
Agreement No. 01 -3;
H. On February 3, 2004 the Council held a public hearing and considered the
information provided by City staff, public testimony and Mattel, Inc. This
Resolution and its findings, are made based upon the testimony and
evidence presented to the Council at its February 3, 2004 hearing
including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department
of Community, Economic and Development Services.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings. The Council finds that the following facts exist:
A. The real property affected by this resolution includes two parcels located
at 455 Continental Boulevard - a 3.5 acre irregular shaped area, and at
1955 East Grand Avenue - a 5 acre rectangular area;
B. The subject properties have vehicular access from Continental Boulevard
and East Grand Avenue;
C. The 455 Continental site is currently occupied by private recreational
facilities, and the 1955 East Grand Avenue site is currently occupied by a
55,000 square foot two -story office building and associated surface
parking;
D. The applicant proposes constructing 300,000 square of office and
research & development space and a parking structure at 455 Continental,
and 255,000 square feet of office and research & development space and
a parking structure at 1955 East Grand Avenue. The applicant also
proposes demolition of the 55,000 square foot office building at 1955
Grand Avenue.
E. The subject properties are located within the Corporate Office (C -O) Zone,
which allows development with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.8:1. The
applications request that the FAR be increased to 1.96:1 for the 455
Continental parcel. The applications request that the FAR be increased to
1.17:1 for the 1955 East Grand Avenue parcel.
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. The City Council makes the following
environmental findings:
Page 2 of 9
A. The Draft EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; Guidelines §
15090. A Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared
for this project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. A Notice of
Preparation of the Draft SEIR was prepared and circulated for public
review from May 11, 2001 to June 11, 2001. The public review and
comment period for the Draft EIR extended from September 25, 2003 to
November 11, 2003. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State
Clearinghouse on September 25, 2003.
B. The City Council reviewed and considered information contained in the
Final SEIR before approving or denying the project in accordance with
CEQA Guidelines § 15090. Pursuant to City CEQA Regulations, the Final
SEIR was prepared, distributed, and presented for City Council approval.
C. In accordance with § 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the record on which
the City Council's findings are based is located at the Department of
Community, Economic and Development Services, City of El Segundo,
350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. The custodian of records
is the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services.
D. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15090, the Final SEIR reflects the City's
independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has independently
reviewed and analyzed the Draft SEIR prepared for the Project. This Draft
SEIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential
environmental impacts of the project. The Draft SEIR reflects the
independent judgment of the City. The Final SEIR was be prepared under
the direction of the City of El Segundo Department of Community,
Economic and Development Services and reflects the independent
judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts and comments
received on the Draft SEIR.
E. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091, any changes or alterations
required for the project, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect have been
identified in the Final SEIR. Any potential changes or alterations that may
be made to the proposed mitigation measures are addressed and
analyzed in the Final SEIR.
F. The Draft SEIR was made available for public review and comment in the
time and manner prescribed by CEQA. The Draft SEIR concluded that
with mitigation the proposed project would not have a significant, adverse
effect on the environment, with the exception of unavoidable traffic and air
quality impacts.
Page 3 of 9
G. There is no evidence that the project will have the potential for an adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends,
because the project is in a built -out urban environment.
H. Because of the facts identified in this Resolution, the Draft SEIR showed
that a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required in order
for the project to be approved.
The Draft SEIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact
of the project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures to reduce
such impact to a level of insignificance, with the exception of construction
and traffic related air quality impacts.
J. These findings are based on the various mitigation measures to be
required in the implementation of the project as recommended by the Draft
SEIR or identified by the Draft SEIR 9s already having been incorporated
into the Project. The City Council finds that all the mitigation measures
now incorporated into the project are desirable and feasible.
K. Within ten (10) days of the certification of the Final SEIR, the applicant
must submit to the City of El Segundo a fee of $25.00 required by the
County of Los Angeles for the filing of this certificate along with the
required Notice of Determination. The statutory requirements of CEQA will
not be met and no vesting will occur until this condition is met and the
required notices and fees are filed with the County.
SECTION 4: General Plan. The proposed project conforms with the City's General
Plan as follows:
A. The General Plan contains a number of relevant Goals, Objectives, and
Policies in the Economic Development Element. The goal of Objective
ED1 -1 is building "support and cooperation among the City of El Segundo
and its businesses and residential communities for the mutual benefits
derived from the maintenance and expansion of El Segundo's economic
base ". The benefits of the development will be shared and supported by
all constituencies in the City. The proposed project also provides benefits
for the applicant with important benefits for the community as a whole.
B. Objective ED1 -2 directs diversification of the economic base "on targeted
industries that meet the City's criteria for job creation, growth potential,
fiscal impact and fit with local resources." The City's Economic
Development Advisory Council (EDAC) prepared a list of targeted
industries, which was approved by the City Council. These industries are
eligible for certain financial incentives because they meet the criteria
described in Objective ED1 -2. The research and development uses would
be on the list of targeted industries that the City is recruiting in order to
Page 4 of 9
meet its diversification efforts. Therefore, the proposed project meets the
diversification criteria established in the General Plan, by the EDAC, and
the City Council.
C. Due to the City's tax structure, a significant portion of the fiscal benefit
derived from most proposed development would be attributed to the
number of employees in a new development. The project is proposed to
consolidate a significant number of full time jobs from within El Segundo
and from other jurisdictions if developed as proposed. Therefore, the
project meets the job creation Objective (ED 1 -2) in the General Plan.
D. The proposed project meets the City's policy of seeking balance between
enhanced economic development and available resources and
infrastructure capacity (Policies ED1 -2.3 and LU7 -1.2). As adequate
resources are currently available within the City to serve the proposed
project, as supported by the Draft SEIR, a substantial new commitment of
resources or infrastructure is not required. The project also proposes
several roadway improvements to ensure that the project would not
overburden the existing roadway infrastructure.
E. Implementation of the proposed project will meet relevant goals and
policies with regard to the City Land Use Element. The project would
combine with existing portions of the larger Mattel / Grand Way project to
provide office, research & development uses, retail uses, restaurants, and
hotel uses which would "provide synergistic relationships which have the
potential to maximize economic benefit, reduce traffic impact, and
encourage pedestrian environments" as envisioned by General Plan Land
Use Objective LU4 -4. These characteristics contribute to the mixed -use
nature for the project. As conditioned, the proposed office and research
and development project use is a mixed -use project as envisioned in the
General Plan for the property.
F. The proximity of the existing Norwalk-El Segundo MTA Green Line
stations will encourage employee utilization of this transportation facility
and will provide a viable alternative to commuting by automobile. (Policies
LU4 -3.2, LU4 -3.4, LU4 -4.7, and C3 -1.2, and Objective AQ3 -1). The
proposed project will be accessible by other public transit (i.e., bus
service, and the MTA Blue Line).
G. The proposed project will include landscaping throughout all project areas
that will meet coverage requirements of the City (Policy LU4 -1.1 and LU4 -
3.6).
H. The proposed project will be required to have strategic safety plans and a
fire life safety plan in place. All on -site utilities will be placed underground
(LU7 -2.3). The ESMC requires that all health and safety Code regulations,
Page 5 of 9
as well as all seismic safety, water, noise, and air standards be adhered to
(LU4 -1.2 and LU4 -1.4).
Policies C3 -1.1 and C3 -1.5 of the General Plan require all project - related
transportation impacts to be mitigated by the developer, to the extent
feasible. The traffic impact study identified a number of intersections in the
City that would require mitigation and proposed mitigation measures to
address the traffic impacts. Mitigation measures B -1, B -2, B -3, and B -4 will
mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.
J. Air Quality Element Goals AQ14 and AQ15 generally state that the City
will ensure that pollution sources comply with all federal, state, regional,
and local regulations, and that the City reserves the right to be more strict
with development projects that these regulations require. The project
would implement all feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the identified
project related impacts. However, the project would contribute to
significant unavoidable impacts during construction of the project and
would contribute to exceeding cumulative CO standards at the intersection
of Imperial Boulevard and Nash Street. Approval of a Statement of
Overriding Consideration for the unavoidable significant impacts, which
are due to the infeasibility of the identified mitigation measures, is
compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan
Circulation Element to mitigate all impacts. The purpose of these policies
was not to preclude the use of Statement's of Overriding Considerations
as provided in CEQA or the approval of future developments. As
described above, the proposed project is consistent with the AQMP and
therefore is considered consistent with Air Quality Element Goals AQ14
and AQ15 (and related policies).
K. Implementation of the proposed project, subject to mitigation measures C-
1 and C -2, which address construction hours, equipment mufflers, and
construction equipment staging, will be consistent with relevant policies of
the City's Noise Element (Policies N1 -2.1 and N1 -3.1).
L. The subject site is designated Corporate Office on the General Plan Land
Use Element. The Corporate Office designation states that office and
research uses are to be constructed to a 0.8:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), but
provides for special situations where exceeding the standard may be
acceptable.
M. The proposed amendment to the General Plan would add site - specific
language to allow a project with increased development intensity (FAR).
The General plan amendment has been processed consistent with the
regulations of Government Code §§ 65000, et seq. The modification is
consistent with the plan for and uses within the surrounding area.
Page 6 of 9
SECTION 5: Approvals.
A. The City Council adopts Findings of Facts and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as set forth in Exhibit "A ", which are incorporated into this
Resolution by reference.
B. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section
21081(a) and 21081.6, the City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) as set forth in attached Exhibit "B," which is
incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The City Council hereby
adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth herein as
conditions of approval of the reduced project. In the event that the terms or
provisions of any such mitigation measure conflict with the terms and
provisions of the other project conditions of approval adopted by the City
Council in this action or the Development Agreement, the terms and
provisions of such other project conditions or the Development Agreement, as
the case may be, shall control. The other project conditions of approval and
compliance with applicable codes, policies, and regulations will further assure
that the environmental impacts of the proposed project will not be greater
than set forth in the FEIR and these findings.
C. The City Council amends the land use designations ( "commercial
designations') subsection of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
permit a maximum FAR of 1.96:1 for 455 Continental Boulevard. The
corresponding changes as set forth in attached Exhibit "C" are incorporated
into this resolution by reference.
D. Subject to the conditions listed on the attached Exhibit "D," which are
incorporated into this Resolution by reference, the City Council certifies the
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report of Environmental Impacts for
Environmental Assessment No. 559, General Plan Amendment 03 -3, Zoning
Text Amendment 03 -2, and Development Agreement Renewal, Extension
and Amendment 01 -3.
SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations in
this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City
Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole.
SECTION 7: Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is
based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a
project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not
exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council's lack of
knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form
Page 7 of 9
accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability
to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City
must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations
inherent in that framework.
SECTION 8: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings,
which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The
absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a
particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 9: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 10: According to the El Segundo Municipal Code, a copy of this Resolution
shall be mailed to Mattel, Inc., and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 11: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become
effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February 2004.
Page 8 of 9
ATTEST:
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 said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. 4361 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 3rd day of February, 2004, and the same was so passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Jacobs, Gaines, McDowell, Wernick
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NOT PARTICIPATING: None
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorn y
Page 9 of 9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4361
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
FEIR 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. Aesthetics,
2. Agricultural Resources
3. Natural Resources (Endangered Species, Wetlands, or Habitat).
' Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Exhibit A have the same
meaning as identical terms in the body of the Resolution.
1
4. Cultural Resources.
5. Archeological Resources.
6. Paleontological Resources.
7. Geology and Soils.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
10. Mineral Resources.
11. Noise.
12. Population and Housing.
13. Public Services
14. Recreation
15. Utilities and Service Systems.
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 FEIR 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. Air Quality— Operational.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The project would not result in any exceedances of the
state one -hour CO standards at any of analyzed
intersections.
(2) Similarly, eight -hour concentrations at the analyzed
intersections would remain below the state standards.
(3) The proposed project would not cause or create localized
air quality impacts related to mobile sources.
(4) The project would be consistent with applicable policies
in the Air Quality Element. Although the project may be
inconsistent with AQMP population, housing, and
employment projections, the inconsistency would not trigger
a significant physical impact on the environment as the
project, as a whole, would result in daily emissions and
regional air quality impacts below SCAQMD thresholds
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Air Quality - Operational.
2. Land Use
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed R &D and office uses would be fully
compatible with surrounding uses, which include office and
hotel.
(2) Phase II of The Grand Way Project would result in build
out of a project that was originally approved through a
Development Agreement in 1985. An Amended and
Restated Development Agreement for Phase II was
approved in 1993.
(3) The redevelopment of 1955 East Grand Avenue would
exceed the allowable 0.8 FAR. Zone Text Amendment and
General Plan Amendment applications are proposed to allow
for the additional 80,760 square feet above that allowed in
the corporate office land use designation.
(4) With the approval of the requested Zone Text
Amendment and General Plan Amendment, the project
would be consistent with all applicable policies of the El
Segundo Land Use Element and the Southern California
Association of Government's Regional Comprehensive Plan
and Guide.
(5) The proposed R &D and office uses would be permitted in
the CO Zone. Phase II of The Grand Way Project was
approved through a Development Agreement, which
provided some flexibility in the required setbacks.
(6) The proposed development at 1955 East Grand Avenue
would comply with the development standards for the CO
Zone.
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
3. Transportation and Circulation.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The project would generate an estimated 4,473 net new
daily trips, including 576 inbound and 88 outbound trips
during the A.M. peak hour and 95 inbound and 537 outbound
trips during the P.M. peak hour.
(2) Of the 12 study intersections, the project would result in
the worsening of the traffic conditions at the intersection of
Grand Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard during both A.M.
and P.M. peak hours. (This intersection is operating at LOS
F and would experience a V/C ratio increase of over 0.020
as a result of the proposed project.)
(3) A freeway segment analysis was conducted on the 1 -105
east and west of the 1 -405 and on the 1 -405 north and south
of the 1 -105. The 1 -105 east of Sepulveda Boulevard is
considered a CMP monitoring location. As requested by
Caltrans, an analysis of future conditions in the year 2020
without and with the project indicated that the project would
not cause or worsen a LOS F segment or increase traffic
demand by two percent of capacity at LOS F for the freeway
segments.
(4) There would be no additional project impacts or
cumulative traffic impacts if Nash Street and Douglas Street
were converted back to two -way operation.
(5) The project would be consistent with applicable policies
in the City's Circulation Element
b) Mitigation:
(1) The applicant shall extend the existing TDM program for
Phase I of The Grand Way Project to the proposed project to
increase the convenience and attractiveness of the other
transportation alternatives among employees and visitors.
The required TDM program shall include the following to
achieve vehicle trip reduction goals:
(a) The applicant shall encourage employee ridership
of the Metro Green Line through employee awareness
programs and convenient access to schedules and
routes.
(b) The applicant shall provide services, such as the
currently provided carpool and vanpool matching
though zip code information, reserved parking for
employees who carpool or vanpool together, and a
4
guaranteed free ride home should the employee need
to work late or leave work early due to a family
emergency, to facilitate ridesharing.
(c) The applicant shall maintain a designated
employee who provides Transportation Management
services. The benefits of the rideshare program shall
be communicated through the company intranet. The
program shall be communicated to new hires during
their orientation and periodically through the company
newsletter.
(2) To address project - related traffic impacts at the
Sepulveda Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection, Mattel
shall cooperate with and contribute a fair share payment to
the City of El Segundo to relocate street and traffic lighting
from the center median on the north leg of Sepulveda
Boulevard at Grand Avenue to the east side of Sepulveda
Boulevard, and add a second southbound left turn lane from
Sepulveda Boulevard to Grand Avenue. The fair share
payment shall be based on the project's contribution to traffic
growth at the intersection and shall be paid by Mattel at the
time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the proposed project. These improvements
are within the jurisdiction of, and are the responsibility of, the
City of El Segundo and Caltrans.
(3) Westbound Grand Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard shall
be re- striped to convert the outside through lane to an
optional shared through /right -turn lane.
c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to transportation and circulation.
C.
The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were
identified as potentially significant in the FEIR, 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. Air Quality - Construction
a) Facts /Effects.
I
(1) The construction of Phase II and the redevelopment of
1955 East Grand Avenue would not occur simultaneously.
Worst -case daily emissions associated with project
construction are expected to exceed SCAQMD daily
significance thresholds for ROC and NO,,. Worst -case daily
emissions for CO, SOx, and PM10 would be considered
adverse, but less than significant, since levels of these
emissions would fall below SCAQMD significance
thresholds. In addition, given that the project has a short-
term construction impact for ozone precursors (ROC and
NOx) and that the Basin is non - attainment for ozone, the
project would also contribute to a significant cumulative
construction air quality impact.
b) Mitigation:
(1) All equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
(2) General contractors shall maintain and operate
construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust
emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in
loading and unloading queues shall be kept with their
engines off, when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions,
Construction emissions shall be phased and scheduled to
avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second -
stage smog alerts.
c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Air Quality- Construction.
The City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FEIR and the record of
proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying
significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project that cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
E. Insignificant Cumulative Impacts.
The City Council finds that the FEIR 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 3.0 of the DEIR (collectively, the "Related
Projects ") with respect to the areas listed below.
1. Aesthetics.
2. Agricultural Resources
3. Natural Resources (Endangered Species, Wetlands, or Habitat).
4. Cultural Resources.
5. Archeological Resources.
6. Paleontological Resources.
7. Geology and Soils.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
9. Land Use
10. Hydrology and Water Quality
11. Mineral Resources.
12. Noise.
13. Population and Housing.
14. Public Services
15. Recreation
16. Transportation and Circulation
17. Utilities and Service Systems.
F.
The City Council finds that although the following cumulative environmental
effects were identified as potentially significant based upon the Initial Study, the FEIR
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. Transportation.
a) Facts
(1) With regard to cumulative impacts, five intersections
would be significantly impacted with the addition of
cumulative development to the study intersections both
without and with project traffic.
(2) Roadway improvement measures have been designed to
address some of these traffic congestion locations on a
citywide basis.
7
(3) The cumulative analysis does not include the
implementation of the recommended mitigation measures for
each of the 47 related projects because of the speculative
nature of such measures, which results in a conservative
cumulative analysis.
b) Mitigation:
(1) B -4. The Applicant shall make a contribution of a "fair
share" payment for programmed roadway improvements as
detailed in the City's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee
Ordinance to mitigate the project's cumulative traffic impact.
The fee shall be paid at the time of final inspection or
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy in compliance with
Section 3.C. of Resolution No. 3969, which establishes the
traffic mitigation fee pursuant to the City of El Segundo's
General Plan.
c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant cumulative environmental effects of the
Project with respect to transportation and circulation
G. Slonificant 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. Air Quality— Operation.
a) Facts
(1) With regard to cumulative operation, with the existing
roadway configuration, one -hour cumulative CO levels would
be less than significant at all analyzed intersections.
(2) However, under the possible two -way roadway
configuration, cumulative traffic would result in an
exceedance of the one -hour standard and, thus, a significant
cumulative localized impact at the intersection of Imperial
Highway and Nash Street.
(3) The project would contribute to an eight -hour cumulative
CO impact at the intersections of Imperial Highway and
Sepulveda Boulevard, Imperial Highway and Nash Street, El
Segundo Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard and El
Segundo Boulevard and Nash Street.
LIJ
(4) The project would contribute to a significant and
unavoidable cumulative eight -hour CO impact under the
existing roadway configuration and the possible two -way
roadway configuration.
(5) 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.
H. 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.
2. No Action Alternative.
a) Description.
Under the No Project/Existing Development Alternative, the proposed project
would not be constructed. It is assumed that the existing interim, private recreational
facilities would remain on the Phase II Grand Way portion of the site and that the
structure at 1955 East Grand Avenue would remain. Build out of The Grand Way
project and redevelopment of 1955 East Grand Avenue would not occur.
b) Comparison to Project.
As shown in Table 5 -1 of the DER, the No Action Alternative would not result in
any of the significant impacts associated with the Project.
Even without the project trips, existing conditions at the intersections of
Sepulveda Boulevard at Imperial Highway, Sepulveda Boulevard at Grand Avenue, and
Sepulveda Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard, are currently operating at unacceptable
levels of service. Under the future (2011) conditions without the project the No
Project/Existing Development Alternative would result in significant impacts at Imperial
Highway at Sepulveda Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard at Grand Avenue. Under
the cumulative scenario without the project, the No Project/Existing Development
Alternative would have impacts at five intersections (Imperial Highway at Sepulveda
Boulevard, Imperial Highway at Nash Street, Sepulveda Boulevard and Mariposa
Avenue, Sepulveda Boulevard and Grand Avenue, and El Segundo Boulevard and
Sepulveda Boulevard). However, this alternative would not exacerbate the deficient
conditions at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard that would
M
occur with implementation of the project. Therefore, while traffic impacts would be
similar under this Alternative as those identified for the proposed project, additional
vehicles from the project would not be added to those impacted intersections.
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.
3. Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative.
a) Description.
Under the Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative, the
project would not be developed, but other development activities would occur on -site.
Development of the Phase II Grand Way Project would be completed in accordance
with the Corporate Office General Plan designation and the CO Zone District.
Redevelopment of the 1955 East Grand Avenue property would also proceed in
accordance with Corporate Office General Plan designation and the CO Zone District.
Under the Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative, the
Phase II portion of the site would be developed up to a maximum of 0.8:1 FAR, for a
total of approximately 122,150 square feet of floor area. Assuming the same mix of
floor area as the project, the Phase II portion of the site would be developed with
approximately 91,610 square feet of research and development and 30,540 of office
floor area. In addition, the 1955 East Grand Avenue property would be redeveloped up
to the allowable FAR of 0.8:1, for a total of approximately 174,240 square feet of office
floor area. The project would result in a total of 296,390 square feet, of which
approximately 91,610 square feet would be occupied by research and development
uses and approximately 204,780 square feet would be occupied by office uses.
b) Comparison to Project.
As shown in Table 5 -1 of the DEIR, the Development in Accordance with Existing
Regulations Alternative would result in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Under the Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative a
General Plan and Zone Text Amendment would not be necessary since the intensity of
development would occur as permitted by the General Plan and Municipal Code. An
extension of the Amended Development Agreement would also not be required. The
uses, since they would be R &D and office as with the project, would be consistent with
the land use designation, since they are the same as that proposed with the project, and
would be compatible with the surrounding land uses.
The Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative would
result in an increase in levels of traffic and air emissions. However, the Alternative
would be considered generally consistent with the MTA's Congestion Management Plan
(CMP) and the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The Alternative
would result in infill development and the location of development within close proximity
to public transit. Therefore, the Alternative would be consistent with SCAG's Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) of promoting redevelopment of older areas,
making better use of existing facilities, and encouraging the use of transit.
10
Based on the reduction in square footage, the Development in Accordance with
Existing Regulations Alternative would generate approximately 2,082 trips less than the
project. Even with the reduction in the number of trips, the Development in Accordance
with Existing Regulations Alternative would result in a significant impact at the
Sepulveda Boulevard and Grand Avenue intersection during the A.M. and P.M. peak
hours. As with the project, with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified
in Section 4.8.5 of this EIR, traffic impacts at the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard
and Grand Avenue during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours would be reduced to a less than
significant level, Therefore, and traffic impacts under this Alternative would be similar to
those identified for the proposed project.
Because of the reduction in floor area, this Alternative would result in a reduction
of 2,082 daily trip ends. The number of daily trips generated by the Phase II portion of
the site and the 1955 East Grand Avenue property would be 54 percent and 25 percent
less than the project, respectively, resulting in proportionate reductions in mobile source
emissions. Emissions from stationary sources for the Phase II portion of the site and
the 1955 East Grand Avenue property would be reduced by 59 percent and 32 percent,
respectively; however, emissions from these sources comprise a very small portion of
this alternative's overall emissions. As with the proposed project, the total contributions
to regional emissions under the Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations
Alternative would be less than significant.
However, due to the high ambient background CO concentration in the project
area, one or both of these CO standards would still be exceeded under this Alternative
when considered with the 47 related projects identified in Table 3 -1. As such, this
Alternative would result in a significant cumulative impact on local CO concentrations
similar to the proposed project.
4. Modified Intensity Alternative.
a) Description.
The Modified Intensity Alternative would involve the development of Phase II of
the Grand Way project as proposed. This would result in 225,000 square feet of
research and development and 75,000 square feet of office floor area. Similar to the
proposed project, the development would include an 8 -story tower and a parking
structure. In addition, the Modified Intensity Alternative would involve the
redevelopment of the 1955 East Grand Avenue at the FAR allowed by the Corporate
Office General Plan designation and the CO Zone District. The redevelopment of the
1955 East Grand Avenue property with 0.8:1 FAR would result in a total of 174,240
square feet of office floor area, or a net increase of 118,885 square feet above what is
currently developed at that location. Under the Modified Intensity Alternative, a total of
225,000 square feet of research and development and 193,885 square feet of office
floor area would be developed on the project site.
b) Comparison to Project.
As shown in Table 5 -1 of the DEIR, the Modifies Intensity Alternative would not
result in similar impacts as the proposed project.
11
Under
-Text Amend the Modified lilt
the F�RwOUId perequirthe Deve"811Y Pm�temative, a Genera/
allowed ands ed' Since the nt Agreemen neral plan
the d is not see General pla�aptiOn °f the o�� phaseofgment and a
ensure eking additional was reduced fro the zone Y
ian Am
Dev consistenc erydment and ° 2
elopme Y betwe a zone square foots .D:1 toPment gg�ee wa
not be ne nt Agreeme en the Gen Text q ge for this g.8 :1. Th meet
propel cessary sine n ' However eral Ptan /zo mendmenf are PDrtlon of the s, while P.
land u e d would be R� p mitteb by °f develapmenl a� zone ra the e�ens uestedeta
Proposed and office Y the Dener nt °n the 195, ext gmenq on of the
pimarilycomes would be co they arethe s ith the protect and palast Grand q eould
The mercial of, Ce R& compatible with the e as that prow °utd be consistent e, the uses
e
on the 1955 °dified Intens, light industrials nd nding and d with the r with the
Pro' footage by approxi rand Avenel ternative would hate/ uses. ses since the area s
a gI the mately go e grope reduce
Aproximath number of �g� square Property, which wont the size of t
local stud Y 691 trips. trips genera feet, saseq d reduce the
the exc Y intersectio This reduction ated by the On the reductiooveraU sitwaf area
would eption Of the ns. The ICU in tri pro" n t
service t e intersect. far all of thps wOUld sll Ject would °f officesquare
he
sa fieice at all stale same as the of Imperial e IntersectionstlY alleviate tba reduce
wor as the pro o intersectio Proposed Nlghwa would 'lightly impact's Y
seeing of the Posed pro' ns duri g both Pr °Jee (See t Sepulvedaghtly "Proe at
Q02p var ,during oth c canditonshe MOq' �a t,t and p "M. Peak D) O /eVard. Which
S, to the, M and a Mat the interne nsitY Alter hours would levels
measures Identified e proposed " peak h action Of native would
The of
during the In ours Gran rem in the
theprpore, arc m P.M peak hp 5 °f this With implern ratio would iat SePuIn the
posed Pro1elC pacts under this Ouid be �' the trek entat]on °f ncrease Over a
Similar Alternative reduce to a sdact at this h - rnitigatfon
With Inflar to
with the additia the propose uld be similar than signific section
at thehlflsveternativef Th�urative deyejo. five intersectio to those identities for
considers ntersect, traffic contrib rnent to the ns wOUld be
Mmulat v d ¢'1 meet. tons w th he minimal; ho alts�s sn�4 tl peeled
8- his ectio Y im
e Impact. generated e prop as wever cumulative to the cu without
under this ed Project wit Im cumulative and
on the Under the M alternative h inco Pacts Pact
the Phase °dified would not IPoration of would be
�c sas 1 t P sel °n °f theensitagl lternativ de result in a sign "cant
constr tho site e,
footage ton period woactivities under the 1g$5 �Inolitira and
the bed uld be er th East Gr Site pre
prOPoseq evelopeq Shortened e Project and Avenu paratian
emissions as the p opti an project, i construct. the,
reduction wvnr the am u at on would b be lon
e day wouiduresult in S.O.ar tleare
as
ally
12
The Modified Intensity Alternative would also generate long -term operational
mobile source emissions and stationary source regional emissions. The number of
daily trips generated by the Phase II portion of the site under this alternative would
remain the same as those estimated for the proposed project. However, the 1955 East
Grand Avenue property would generate 25 percent fewer trips than proposed at that
property under the project. This would result in an overall daily trip reduction of 15
percent resulting in proportionate reductions in mobile source emissions. Emissions
from stationary sources for the Phase II portion of the site would be the same as the
project. Stationary source emissions for the 1955 East Grand Avenue property would
be reduced by 32 percent; however, emissions from these sources comprise a very
small portion of this alternative's overall emissions. As with the proposed project, the
total contributions to regional emissions under this alternative would be less than
significant.
The reduction in traffic associated with the Modified Intensity Alternative (i.e., a
reduction of 691 daily trip ends) would contribute to a proportionate reduction in
localized emissions of carbon monoxide. Since project - related traffic would not result in
the exceedance of the one -hour or eight -hour CO standard at any of the analyzed study
intersections and since this alternative would generate fewer trips than the proposed
project, this alternative would not result in the exceedance of the one -hour or eight -hour
CO standards at any of the study intersections selected for local CO concentration
analysis as well. However, similar to the proposed project and the Development in
Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative, due to the high ambient background
CO concentration in the project area, one or both of these CO standards would be
exceeded under this alternative when considered with the 47 related projects identified
in Table 3 -1 of the DEIR. As such, this alternative would result in a significant
cumulative impact on local CO concentrations similar to the proposed project.
5. Findings Regarding Alternatives.
a) Reasonable Range of Alternatives.
The City Council finds that that (a) the FEIR 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.
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. However, the No Project/Existing Development Alternative would not allow
for the build out of Phase II of The Grand Way Project, which was originally approved in
1985 and amended in 1993 with the Amended Development Agreement. The No
Project/Existing Development Alternative would not provide for infill development within
13
proximity to public transit. In addition, this Alternative would not support the City's
Economic Development goals to expand the City's tax base. This Alternative would not
preclude future development of the site with another R &D and office project.
Consequently, the No Action Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an
environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative, a
comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that the Development in
Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative would be environmentally superior.
Relative to the proposed project, the Development in Accordance with Existing
Regulations Alternative would result in reduced impacts with respect to traffic and
construction and operational air emissions. However, as with the proposed project, air
quality impacts would remain significant. As with the proposed project, the
Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative would not result in
significant land use impacts. Therefore, although the Development in Accordance with
Existing Regulations Alternative would not reduce the air quality impacts associated
with the project to less than significant, the Development in Accordance with Existing
Regulations Alternative would generally reduce the level of impact as compared with the
project.
Although the magnitude of traffic and air quality impacts would be reduced, the
Development in Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative would not achieve a
key objective of the project to allow for development of the property in a way that is
consistent with approved plans for the site. Furthermore, other objectives would not be
met to the same extent as the proposed project. For example, with a reduction in the
amount of R &D and office square footage, implementation of the Development in
Accordance with Existing Regulations Alternative would not provide for the
consolidation of Mattel facilities from other areas of the City and would not provide for
the creation of an efficient corporate headquarters. The Development in Accordance
with Existing Regulations Alternative also would not provide as much square footage
within an area that is well served by public transit. The reduction in R &D and office floor
area would not serve to maximize the potential of the site.
III. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES.
The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIR 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 FEIR, 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 employees 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.
14
B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.
Construction of the project would require the use of nonrenewable resources,
such as wood, the raw materials in steel, metals such as copper and lead, aggregate
materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand and stone, water, petrochemical
construction materials such as plastic, and petroleum based construction materials. In
addition, fossil fuels used to power construction vehicles would also be consumed.
Operation of the project would involve the ongoing consumption of nonrenewable
resources such as natural gas and electricity, petroleum based fuels, fossil fuels, and
water. Energy resources would be used for heating and cooling of buildings, lighting,
and transporting people and goods to and from the project site. Operation of the project
would occur in accordance with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations,
which sets forth conservation practices that would limit the amount of energy consumed
by the project. Nonetheless, the use of such resources would continue to represent a
long -term commitment of essentially nonrenewable resources. Operation of the project
would also result in an increased commitment of public maintenance services such as
waste disposal and treatment as well as increased commitment of the infrastructure that
serves the project site.
The limited use of potentially hazardous materials typical of R &D and office
developments, including copper sulfate, acids and alkalines, and waster plating
solutions; plastisol waste from rotocast operations; small quantities of lab pack from the
Materials Laboratory wasted chemicals; and photo - finishing chemicals, such as fixers
and developers, as well as cleaning agents and pesticides for landscaping, would occur
on the site. Such materials would be used, handled, stored, and disposed of in
accordance with applicable government regulations and standards, which would serve
to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change resulting from the
accidental release of hazardous materials.
The project site has been designated for development for many years and is
located in an urban area with services in place. As such, while the development of the
project would commit the land to R &D and office uses, such a commitment would be
justified based on the historic commitment of this site to urban uses and would not result
in a significant impact.
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 FEIR as well as existing city, county, state and federal safety
regulations.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIR 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. This determination is based on the following factors and the substantial public,
social, economic, and environmental benefits flowing from the Project as identified in
the FEIR and the record of proceedings in the matter.
15
A. The proposed project will facilitate the consolidation of facilities for one of the
City's largest and most valuable businesses. Such facilities will help the business
remain and grow in the City, which will help the City in terms of additional
revenue stability and revenue.
B. The developer will pay additional traffic impact mitigation fees of
approximately $433,164 for the Phase II parcel and $298,783 for the 1955 East
Grand Avenue parcel to offset potential impacts of the project.
C. The developer will pay additional police service mitigation fees of
approximately $27,055 for the Phase II parcel and $19,166 for the 1955 East
Grand Avenue parcel to offset potential impacts of the project.
D. The developer will pay additional fire service mitigation fees of approximately
$42,000 for the Phase II parcel and $24,394 for the 1955 East Grand Avenue
parcel to offset potential impacts of the project.
E. The developer will pay additional library service mitigation fees of
approximately $9,000 for the Phase II parcel and $5,227 for the 1955 East Grand
Avenue parcel to offset potential impacts of the project.
F. The Project will create attractive, well- designed corporate headquarters
development, which will further strengthen the sense of community, adhere to
livable community principles, and enhance the quality of life in the City.
G. The Project facilitates of the long -term economic health of the City and it's
neighboring cities and communities by providing additional employment for 1,500
to 2,000 people in the City.
H. The project will increase and further stabilize the City's tax base through
development of new commercial businesses.
I. The project will Increase City revenues through a generation of taxes that
outweigh the City cost of services.
J. Development of a project will increase the use of MTA Green Line.
V. RECIRCULATION.
A. Facts.
1. The City received comments on the DEIR from members of the public
and from public agencies in both written and oral form. The FEIR contains
written responses to all comments ( "Responses to Comments ") received
on the DEIR as of January 19, 2004. Some comments were incorporated
into the FEIR as factual corrections and minor changes. Chapter 3.0 of
the FEIR sets forth all factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR.
W
B. Finding.
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15088.5 and Public Resources Code Section
21092.1 and based on the FEIR and the record of proceedings in this matter, the City
Council finds that:
1. Factual corrections and minor changes are set forth as additions and
corrections to the DEIR; and
2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR are not
substantial changes in the DEIR 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 DEIR will not result in
new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity
of the significant effects previously disclosed in the DEIR; and
4. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR will not involve
mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the DEIR that would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment; and
5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR do not render
the DEIR 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 DEIR into the FEIR
does not require that the FEIR to be recirculated for public comment.
VI. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
The City Council finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every
finding made herein is contained in the FEIR, which is incorporated herein by this
reference, and in the record of proceedings in the matter. To the extent applicable,
each of the other findings made by the City Council in connection with its approval of
the entitlement applications listed in Section I above are also incorporated herein by this
reference.
PAI'lanning & Buffdfng Safety lPROJECTSV551- 575{EA- 559lFinal Council approved documentskCEQA Resolution findings
Exh A.final.doc
17
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4361
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires adoption of a MMRP for projects in
which the Lead Agency has required changes or adopted mitigation to avoid significant
environmental effects. The City is the lead agency for the proposed Phase Il of The Grand Way
Project and the redevelopment of the 1955 East Grand Avenue Property and is, therefore,
responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision - makers must define
specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation
prior to final approval of the proposed project. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure
that the mitigation measures identified in the Subsequent EIR are implemented thereby
minimizing identified environmental effects.
The MMRP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project,
including design (preconstruction), construction, and operation (both prior to and post -
occupancy). The City shall be responsible for administering the MMRP activities to staff,
consultants or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented through
periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental
monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that
may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems.
Each impact and mitigation measure is categorized by impact area, with an
accompanying identification of:
• The phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored;
• Preconstruction
• Construction ,
• Prior to occupancy
• Post - occupancy
• The enforcement agency, and
a The monitoring agency.
The MMRP is provided as Table 4 -1 on page 51, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
Phase 11 of The Grand Way Project and 1955 East Grand Avenue SCH No. 2003061104
City of El Segundo January 2004
Page 1
.ti
i
V
d
H
V
W
0
U
N
v
a
A q °
wT
�
a
W
°
u 'S
U oALa
v
tip
q
a
w
C
>.
°
a
q
v
O
s
°
p
0
.0
I
r�
a,
o 4pg,
o ��
v •�
� m y a�'`e�
4?
m .q o
(�j�
..O b W N y .�
gpuy
H
u
d y
❑�❑ �ypyo
b 5 D ^"
d m o y o
C N b O •' 1tOgy O
.o .�
66033 a� •�
04
O O oq t+ r°.•
'�
" V
..
a 'G 'O y �" �.°
Y7 a� �tl
CR
G
'og
Via.
W
ti
d m� 0
14 1
-4 Fl 4' RI in o
�tL
V
W
0
U
N
v
a
O
O
q
0
I
W
v
of
z v,
v
O F+
d
Np
W
ti
W
0
U
w
Q
4tlin-
°
U
U
02
U
0
U o
U 0
U 0
U y
q
U
U
.o
a
,d
,btlptl
w
,(0
��
w
g
Kpwb
� " b
Wa
Uj •'
U) p
O
w �
O
W�
y 0
UA3
l
u
�A3
v
a
� '
P
U
U
0 U
a
4
w
O
O
U
Q
O
as
a
P�U
a
p
y �y
(q�
oa
y
' wD,
ipFI 'O a06 q N �g9
y V
VVG .O 'a�
''�' d
G 'yyF
N N ya U nj P
p an d .�
m
, U o
P.
VN
q m 'y °
m P. 7c°i
$
n
b 4i U
�n
'w
p
p rom
O 0
o•^
m a b� U
O U
y �
NO
7
,ti0
0
U a o .`3
o �J t�
W«J• 0
°oav
FUi a m 1° O
�qi
Mo
o
.v '�
"do A
u
•mo� o
o 0
° '3r�� c „
a o
,Z
o 1 o y a m
❑❑i ,q�tl
.°n W �
Fy r'�. m o
P�� w �
� Pa
U
N
w
M
w
m
U H U
V b
�Ui
p
y Th�'d N
o R ^alb N T q ro
0�U
Np
W
ti
W
0
U
w
I
O
QI
N
0
0
0
I
'fl
F
q
V
v
d
F
U
b
W
O
0
v
a
w
U
ti
U
a
qU
O
U
U
rn
n
U
O
U
00
w
U
�
�lm'? p❑
b0l�
p,
O ° 1�+
ogin U oQr
d
cyl
�A �A
v u
U m U
A.
p
0
u
q
0
0 U
r
q q
NNy
vvgq!! gN U
q
U
0. t^J!' W IT GGO�i
qp G u o
bO
�y
U
6 0 U g
O .,R as
U U
a
w 4b
U] tL
�i •pmppp [W� 7y U d�R
U
b
W
O
0
v
a
w
U
ti
U
a
qU
O
U
U
rn
n
U
O
U
00
w
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4361
EXHIBIT C
area downtown. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) allowed is
1.0.
General Commercial
Permits all retail uses, including hotel uses, and major medical
facilities, at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. Office
uses are not permitted except for those providing personal
services not exceeding 5,000 square feet such as travel and
insurance agents.
Corporate Office
Permits a mixture of office and food - serving uses in single -
tenant or multi - tenant buildings with limited retail uses permitted
in the lobby area. Research and development uses are
permitted east of Sepulveda Boulevard. Hotels and motels are
permitted east of Sepulveda and west of Aviation Boulevards
with a discretionary application. The maximum allowed floor area
ratio (FAR) is 0.8. A maximum FAR of 1.086 is permitted for the
property commonly referred to as 888 North Sepulveda
Boulevard (Assessors Parcel Number 4138-005-055), pursuant
to Development Agreement No. 00 -2. ). A maximum FAR of
1.96 is permitted for the property referred to as 455 Continental
Boulevard (Assessor's Parcel Number 4138-007-043). pursuant
to Development Agreement No. 01 -3 (Ord. GPA 03 -3,
2117104).
Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use
Permits primarily light industrial uses including light
manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and
office uses. The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for newly
constructed projects is 0.6. Existing structures shall be allowed
to expand, provided they conform to the Smoky Hollow
provisions within the Zoning Code and Policy 1-1-11 -3.2. Grand
Avenue commercial uses, and multi - family residential, shall also
be permitted in locations as designated underthe Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan. The permitted FAR for commercial uses is 0.5 for
newly constructed projects. Existing commercial buildings may
be utilized, using the same criteria as stated above. Permitted
residential densities shall be 18 dwelling units per acre. All lots
to be developed as multi - family residential must be a minimum
of 2.5 acres in size or one complete block, whichever is greater,
However, existing lots less than 2.5 acres in size, which are
totally surrounded by other land use designations and confined
by existing streets shall be allowed to develop as multi - family
residential without a variance from the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan.
Urban Mixed -Use North
T H E C I T Y O F . EL S E G U N D O M G E N E R A L P L A N
3 -7
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO, 4361
Exhibit D
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC "),
Mattel, Inc. agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of El
Segundo's approval of Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report of
Environmental Impacts for Environmental Assessment No. 559, General Plan
Amendment 03 -3, Zoning Text Amendment 03 -2, and Development Agreement
Extension and Amendment 01 -3. ( "Project Conditions ").
Zoning Conditions
1. Before the City issues a building permit, the applicant must submit plans,
which indicate that the project substantially complies with plans and
conditions approved and on file with the Department of Community, Economic
and Development Services. Any subsequent modification to the project as
approved must be referred to the Director of Community, Economic and
Development Services for a determination regarding the need for Planning
Commission review of the proposed modification.
2. A Landscaping and Irrigation Plan will be submitted by the applicant to the
Director of Community, Economic and Development Services, before
issuance of any construction related permit. Any new landscaped areas will
be provided with a permanent automatic watering or irrigation system and will
be permanently maintained in a neat and clean manner. The applicant will
incorporate provisions for the use of reclaimed water in the Landscaping and
Irrigation Plan. The Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community, Economic and Development Services, and installed per the City
approved plans by the applicant before the City issues a Certificate of
Occupancy.
3. There may be a maximum of 300,000 square feet of new office and research
space built on the Phase II parcel along with a maximum 8 story parking
structure. There may be a maximum of 174,240 square feet of new office and
research space built on the 1955 East Grand Avenue parcel along with a
maximum 3 story parking structure as shown on the plans on file in the
Community, Economic, and Development Services Department. Prior to any
construction occurring on the 1955 East Grand Avenue parcel, the existing
55,000 square foot building will be completely demolished and removed from
the site.
4. The applicant must record the Amended Development Agreement before the
issuance of building for either Phase II or 1955 E. Grand Avenue parcels.
-1-
February 9, 2004
5. The applicant must provide reciprocal access agreements, subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney, between Phase I, Phase II and 1955 E.
Grand Avenue parcels. Such agreement shall be recorded before the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a building for either Phase II or
1955 E. Grand Avenue parcels.
Public Safety Conditions
5. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a photometric
light study to the Police Department for review and approval.
6. Addressing for the office buildings and parking structures must be a minimum
of 6 to 24 inches high, visible from the street, of contrasting color to the
background and illuminated during hours of darkness.
7. Bike racks must be located in a busy, well -lit location to provide optimum
security for persons and property.
8. All landscaping must be low profile around perimeter fencing, windows, doors,
and entryways taking special care to not limit visibility and to not provide
climbing access. Floral or grass ground cover is recommended. Bushes
should be trimmed to 1 to 2 feet in height and away from buildings. Dense
bushes should not be clumped together, as this provides a hiding place for
criminal activity. Trees should be trimmed up to 7 feet. Berms, especially
those with landscaping on top are not recommended as they provide
concealment to commit crimes.
9. Trash bins located outside of the buildings should be enclosed with wrought
iron or steel tubular fencing. Dumpsters not enclosed with this type of fencing
must be constructed in a way which fully encloses the dumpster. All
enclosure gates must be locked and have a wall pack or light standard to
provide security lighting directly over the dumpster.
10. Employee parking should not be located by shipping /receiving docks or
dumpsters.
11. Permanently affixed ladders leading to a roof must be fully enclosed with
sheet metal to a height of 10 feet. This covering must be locked against the
ladder with a case - hardened hasp and secured with non - removable screws or
bolts. Hinges on the cover will be provided with non - removable pins when
using pin type hinges. If a padlock is used, it must have a hardened steel
shackle, locking at both heel and toe, and a minimum 5 -pin tumbler operation
with a non - removable key when in an unlocked position.
-2-
Febmary 9, 2004
12. Loading docks must have wall packs installed directly over the roll -up doors.
Roll -up doors should have two interior locking devices located on each side of
the door (padlocks or cane bolts can be used). The roll -up doors can have a
one -inch by 5 -inch vision panel to view outside before opening the door.
13. Entry and exit for parking lots and structures should be limited to one for
control and observation. A perimeter wall or fencing should fully enclose the
first level of the parking structure to limit access. Elevators and stairs should
be located on the perimeter of parking structures and be enclosed with glass
to optimize visibility and security. Openness on two sides is acceptable, four
sides would be preferable.
14. A lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Police Department prior
to issuance of any building permit. A transitional lighting plan within the
parking structures must be submitted indicating a minimum maintained
lighting level of two -foot candles on the surface. The lighting level is to be
maintained throughout the parking structure, not just on drive aisles. To
increase the general brightness of the parking structures, white staining
concrete applied to ceilings, walls, and beam soffits is recommended. For
areas outside of the parking structures, a minimum of one -foot candle of light
on the ground surface must be provided around all sides of the building,
throughout the driveways and surface parking areas during hours of
darkness. Aisles, passageways and recesses related to and within all sides
of the complex must be illuminated with a maintained minimum during hours
of darkness. Lighting devices must be enclosed and protected by weather
and vandal resistant covers.
15. If parking booths, security cameras, a signal booster, alarms or panic alarms
are to be used, a detailed plan should be submitted to the Police Department
for review and approval.
16. Double doors must have a secondary locking device, such as a cane or flush
bolt in addition to a deadbolt. The inactive leaf of double door(s) must be
equipped with metal flush bolts having a minimum embedment of 518 inch into
the head and threshold of the door frame.
17. Perimeter walls must be a minimum height of six feet and of solid
construction. Walls must limit climbing access (i.e. concrete walls must not
have varied sections where decorative blocks allow for stepping over the wall
or part of the wall consists of wrought iron). Wood, wrought iron or steel
tubular perimeters must be six feet high and all horizontal members must be
on the inside of the perimeter. Where wrought iron or steel tubular fencing is
used, the horizontal members must run along the top and bottom portion of
the fence.
-3-
February 9, 2004
Building Safety Conditions
18. Before the City issues any permit for construction, the applicant will submit a
Geotechnical Report to the Department of Community, Economic and
Development Services for review and approval.
19. Before the City issues any permit for construction, the applicant will submit a
Grading Plan to the Department of Community, Economic and Development
Services for review and approval.
20.Before building permits are issued, plans must show conformance with the
2001 California Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire, Plumbing, and Energy
Codes.
17. Before building permits are issued, plans will be reviewed for accessibility
requirements per Chapter 11 of the 2001 California Building Code.
18. Before building permits are issued, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) plan must be submitted to the City for review and approval.
Design Conditions
19. Before building permits are issued, easements shall be approved and
recorded ensuring reciprocal vehicle and pedestrian access between all
parcels in the total Grand Way and 1955 E. Grand Avenue projects.
20.The applicant will paint (or colorize) light standards, down drains, equipment
enclosures, and similar devices, to coordinate with buildings and similar
facilities in the surrounding area. All finishes will be non - reflective.
21. The applicant shall extend the existing TDM program for Phase I of the Grand
Way project to the proposed project to increase the convenience and
attractiveness of the other transportation alternatives among employees and
visitors. The required TDM program shall include the following to achieve
vehicle trip reduction goals:
a. The applicant shall encourage employee ridership of the Metro Green
Line through employee awareness programs and convenient access to
schedules and routes.
b. The applicant shall provide services, such as the currently provided
carpool and vanpool matching through zip code information, reserved
parking for employees who carpool or vanpool together, and a
guaranteed free ride home should the employee need to work late or
leave work early due to family emergency, to facilitate ridesharing.
c. The applicant shall maintain a designated employee who provides
Transportation Management services. The benefits of the rideshare
program shall be communicated through the company intranet. The
-4-
February 9, 2004
program shall communicate to new hires during their orientation and
periodically through the company newsletter.
22.To address project - related traffic impacts at the Sepulveda Boulevard / Grand
Avenue intersection, Mattel must contribute a fair share costs towards the
design and construction of a double left -turn pocket for southbound
Sepulveda Boulevard and the associated traffic signal street lighting
modifications. This work will require approval by Caltrans and Chevron
Products Company (who have an oil pipeline easement in Sepulveda
Boulevard. Such improvements must be installed before the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for either the Phase II or 1955 Grand Avenue
buildings, whichever is completed first.
23. The applicant must re- stripe westbound Grand Avenue at Sepulveda
Boulevard to convert the outside through lane to an optional shared through /
right -turn lane before the approval of any final inspection or issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy either the Phase II or 1955 Grand Avenue buildings,
whichever is completed first.
24. Implementation of the project includes modification of the Grand Avenue
median to add a left -turn pocket into the project. The applicant must obtain
an encroachment permit from the City before construction of this modification.
The improvements must be constructed before the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the 1955 East Grand Avenue building.
25.AII construction equipment must be properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
26. General contractors must maintain and operate construction equipment so as
to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in
loading and unloading queues shall be kept with their engines off, when not in
use, to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction emissions shall be phased
and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second —
stage smog alerts.
Fire Department Conditions
27. Before beginning construction, the applicant will obtain a Fire Lane Permit.
Fire lanes must be a minimum of 15 feet from the proposed buildings and a
maximum of 35 feet from the buildings. The required fire lane turning radius is
4D feet on the inside radius and 60 feet on the outside radius.
28. Before beginning construction, the applicant will obtain a Fire Main Permit.
29. Before the City issues a building permit, the applicant will submit a Fire /Life
Safety Plan to the Fire Chief, for review and approval. The Phase II building
-5-
Febmary 9, 2004
must comply with the fire /life safety requirements of the California Fire Code,
Article 37, Mid -Rise Buildings, as adopted by the City Fire Department.
30. Before the City issues any construction related permits, the applicant will
verify the location and adequacy of fire hydrants, and must provide Knox Box
access equipment (padlock or key switch) at access gates to the parking
structures.
31.The applicant must obtain the appropriate permits from the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Department of Community,
Economic and Development Services for the installation of any paint spray
booths in either the Phase II or 1955 East Grand Avenue buildings.
32. The applicant must provide provisions for gas detection and mitigation due to
the previous Gough Fee gas storage activities in the surrounding area.
33.The applicant must obtain the appropriate industrial waste treatment permits
from the Los Angeles County Sanitation District for any plating operations in
either the Phase II or 1955 East Grand Avenue buildings.
34. The applicant must comply with CaIOSHA requirements for employee hearing
protection during construction of the project.
Service Fees
35. Before building permits are issued for each building, the applicant will pay the
required sewer connection fees (as outlined in Title 12 -3 of the Municipal
Code) if the development requires any new sewer connection.
Miscellaneous Conditions
36. Before the issuance of a building permit for either the Phase II or 1955 East
Grand Avenue building, the applicant must provide Los Angeles County
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Debit/Credit Calculations, and a
Phasing Plan for CMP related improvements, to the Director of Community,
Economic, and Development Services for reasonable review and approval.
Such calculations will not be required if the CMP no longer requires the City
to maintain a positive credit balance at the time of issuance of a building
permit or Certificate of Occupancy for the either the Phase II or 1955East
Grand Avenue Building. If required, the calculations shall include only
programs, which meet all the minimum criteria (e.g., density) contained in the
CMP. Before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the Director of Community, Economic, and
Development Services that the proposed project CMP debits /credits related
improvements were implemented and balanced on the project site in
accordance with the approved phasing plan. As may be applicable, the City
-6-
February 9, 2004
will give credit for CMP related improvements towards the applicant's traffic
mitigation impact fee, as appropriate.
37.The applicant, Mattel, Inc. must acknowledge receipt and acceptance of the
Project Conditions by executing the acknowledgement below.
38.The applicant, Mattel, Inc. agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless
from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without
limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City's approval
of Environmental Assessment No. 559 and General Plan Amendment 03 -3.
Should the City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against
it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of
the City approval of Environmental Assessment No. 559 and General Plan
Amendment 03 -3, Mattel, Inc. agrees to defend the City (at the City's request
and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any
judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise.
For purposes of this section "the City" includes the City of El Segundo's
elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees.
By signing this document, Mattel, Inc. certifies that it has read, understood, and agrees
to the Project Conditions listed in this document.
MATTEL:
MATTEL, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
PAPlanning & Building Safety\PROJECTS\ 551- 5751EA- 5591EA- 559.reso.cc.clean.doc
-7-
February 9, 2004