ORDINANCE 1400ORDINANCE NO. 1400
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
702 (EA -702), SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 06 -1, AND ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT NO06-04 TO MODIFY
DOWNTOWN SPECIFICIPLAN AREA.
HT
RESTRICTIONS WITHIN THE
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does ordain as follows
SECTIO` The City Council finds and declares that
A On March 6, 2006, the City of El Segundo filed an application for an
Environmental Text Amendment (ZT)A 06 44) to modify he building height
01), and Zone he ght
restrictions within the Downtown Specific Plan,
B The application was reviewed by the City's Planning and Building Safety
Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan, as required by
Government Code § 65454 which states that no specific plan may be
amended unless the amendment is consistent with the general plan, and
conforms with the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC "),
Illkw C in addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, of 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 The Planning and Building Safety Department completed its review and
scheduled the public hearing regarding the application before the Planning
Commission for September 14, 2006,
IM
E On September 14, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications
including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning
Commission by City staff, public testimony, the applicants /property owners
and their representatives,
F On September 14, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No 2610 recommending City Council approval of Environmental
Assessment No EA -702, Specific Plan Amendment No 06 -01, and Zone
Text Amendment No 06 -04,
G On September 19, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing and
-1-
considered the information provided by
closed the public hearing, introduced an
item to the September 25, 2006 meeting,
City staff and public testimony;
Ordinance, and continued the
Fi On September 25, 2006, the City City U meeting and
an Ordinance ras
the information provided by taff e
amended,
I This Ordinance and its findings are made based upon the testimony and
evidence presented to the Council at its September 19, 2006 hearing and
September 25, 2006 meeting including, without limitation, the staff report
submitted by the Planning and Budding Safety Department
SECTION 2
Factual Findings and Conclusions The City Council finds that the
following facts exist
Affected properties are located with the boundaries of the Downtown
Specific Plan (DSP) area The Downtown Specific Plan area
located on the 100 through 500 blocks of
encompasses the properties
the 100 through 200 blocks of Richmond Street, the west side
Main Street,
of the 300 block of Richmond Street, a portion of the east side of the 300
block of Richmond Street, the lots fronting the 100 and 200 blocks of West
Grand Avenue from Concord Street to Main Street, and a portion of the
100 block of East Grand Avenue from Main Street to the alley west of
Standard Street
A
The General Plan Land Use designation for this area is Downtown
Specific Plan.
B
The Downtown Specific Plan includes the following Districts Main Street
District, Main Street Transitional District, North Richmond Street District,
Richmond Street District, Grand Avenue District, and West Grand Avenue
Transitional District
C
The land uses permitted in the Downtown Specific Plan include a variety
of commercial uses, residential uses above the first floor, and recreational
uses
D
Surrounding land uses in the area generally consist of multi- family
residential dwellings to the north, the west and to the east, offices and
industrial uses to the east, and industrial uses to the south The
surrounding area is a fully developed urban environment
E
The proposed amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) would
a 25 -foot setback from the front property line for the portion of the
require
building exceeding 30 feet in height
M
IPA
SECTION 3 General Plan Findings A required under �e o
proposed amendment of the Downtown p ec f cPian s consistent with he City's
General Plan as follows
The El Segundo General Plan ne neighborhood Downtown
rving commere al
Plan This designation is intended for ne
and residential uses
A The amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with several
General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies related to Land Use and
Economic Development Specifically, the amendment is consistent with
Land Use Element Goals, Objectives and Policies that include Goal LU1,
Objective LU1-4, Goal LU4, Objective LU4 -2 1 and Objective LU4 -2 6, in
that amending the DSP to restrict building heights and number of stories
will further the goal of maintaining a "small town" atmosphere, will maintain
the City's Downtown as integral to the City's appearance and function, will
provide a stable tax base for the City through development of new
commercial uses, revitalize and upgrade commercial areas, making them
a part of a viable, attractive, and people - oriented commercial district with
consideration to aesthetic architectural improvements, zoning and shopper
amenities, and maintain and encourage low -scale architectural profile and
pedestrian- onented features in the Downtown area, consistent with
existing structures
r B The amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan is consistent with the
Economic Development Element Goals, Objectives and Policies
Specifically, the amendment is consistent with Goal ED3, Objective ED3 -
1, Policy ED3 -1 1, Policy ED3 -1 2, and Policy ED3 -1.3, in that the
amended Downtown Specific Plan will strive to preserve and improve the
business environment and image of Downtown El Segundo, create an
economically viable and stable Downtown area that uniquely contributes
to El Segundo's commercial options through development standards that
facilitate the revitalization of underdeveloped property in the Downtown
area, present a clear and consistent image of the Downtown area,
preserve the Downtown area's economic viability, and encourages the
revitalization efforts that improve the appearance of the Downtown area
business
0
SECTION 4• Zone Text Amendment Findings Based on the factual findings of this
Ordinance, the proposed Zone Text Amendment is necessary to cant' out the proposed
project in order to modify the budding height limits in the Downtown Specific Plan
Chapter VI Development Standards
SECTION 5 Environmental Assessment Because of the facts set forth in Section 2,
the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Categorical Exemption 15305 (Class 5 —
Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)
-3-
1%W rovals The City Council approves Specific Plan Amendment No 06-
SECTION 6 App
01 and Zone Text Amendment No -04
xh�b A'rw'hgch' ►s incorporated by reference
DSP m the manner set forth in attached
Text to be inserted into the DSP is indicated in Underline type, text to be deleted is set
forth in strike- through type
SECTION 7 If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the city council intends that such invalidity will not affect the
effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable
SECTION 8 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
accurate assumptions Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability
m solve what are in
he political framework within which national il exists and with the limitations
must work within p
inherent in that framework
SECTION 9 Repeal or amendment of any provision of the ESMC will not affect any
�4r penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of
penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date Any such
repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting
violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance
M
SECTION 10 If this entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal of the ESMC or other the city ordinance by
this Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such ESMC provision or other the city
ordinance to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 11 The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance, cause it to be entered into the City of El Segundo's book of original
ordinances, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting,
and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it
to be published or posted in accordance with California law
-4-
SECTION 12- This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty -first (31st) day
following its passage and adoption
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
i, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of Council of said California,
five, that hereby
he foregoing
the whole number 1�00 embers of the City y y
Ordinance No _ _ was duly Introduced b said City Council at a regular meeting
held on the 19th day of septeaber —,
2006, and was duly passed and
adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the
3rd ay
City Clerk, all at a regular meetin g of said Council so assed °andh adopted by the
Of October 2006, and the same P
following vote
AYES Busch, BoulBarides, Fisher
NOES McDowell
ABSENT pone
ABSTAIN pone
NOT PARTICIPATING: Jacobson
'`'
Cindy M esen, City Clerk
APPROVED A 100
Mark D Hens y, QIty
2
Kdh H Betger
Assistant City A
P \Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \701 - 725 \EA - 702 \Council Mtg 1
-5-
_7
CC Ord doc
EXHIBIT "A"
DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN SUPPLEMENT
VI DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Main Street District — (300.400 Blocks Main Street)
7 Site Development Standards -
c Height
iii) portion the extent building that exceeds 30 feet in height tmust be
portion o 9
setback 25 feet from the front property line.
B. Main Street Transitional District — (100- 200 & 500 Blocks Main
Street)
7 Site Development Standards -
c Height
iii) To the extent a building exceeds 30 feet in height, the front
portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height must be
setback 25 feet from the front property line
C. Richmond Street District — (100- 200 Blocks Richmond Street)
7 Site Development Standards -
c Height
iii) To the extent a building exceeds 30 feet in height, the front
portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height must be
setback 25 feet from the front property line
D. North Richmond Street District — (300 Block Richmond Street)
7 Site Development Standards -
c Height
iii) To the extent a building exceeds 30 feet in height, the front
portion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height must be
setback 25 feet from the front property line
E. Grand Avenue District — (300 Block east side Richmond Street —
former- Ralph's market and adjacent lots)
7 Site Development Standards -
c Height.
M
he front
IV) To the extent a building at exceeds
exceeds 30 feet in height tmust be
portion of the building
setback 25 feet from the front property line
F. WEST GRAND AVENUE TRANSITIONAL BLOCK OF WEST GRAND AVE BETWEEN CONCORD STREET AND
THE ALLEY WEST OF RICHMOND STREET)
7 Site Development Standards -
c Height
iii) the extent a buildi t
po rtion of the building that exceeds 30 feet in height must be
I
setback 25 feet from the front property line
P \Planning and Budding Safety\PROJECTS \701- 725\EA- 702\rouncil Mto 100306\2006 10 03 EA702 CC ExhibitA doc
2