1997 AUG 04 CC PACKETAGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
& PLANNING COMMISSION
Matsui Room, E1 Segundo Library -111 W. Mariposa Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items.
The Public can participate in the discussion of any item listed on the Agenda. To facilitate your presentation, please place a check
mark ✓ beside each item you would like to address on the Agenda provided by the City Clerk, preferably PRIOR to the start of the
meeting. Any other item not listed on the Agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council may be directly addressed
during Public Communications.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and give: Your name and address and the organization you
represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's
Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00 p.m. the prior Tuesday). The request must include a brief
general description of the business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 607 -
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
ADJOURNED MEETING/WORKSHOP OF
THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, AUGUST 4,1997 - 6:30 P.M.
Matsui Room, El Segundo Public Library
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Sandra Jacobs
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - (Related to City Business Only - 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and
employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a
misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS -
Public Hearing /Workshop to discuss, provide direction to staff and take possible action on the
following items:
0 002
A. First Quarter General Plan Amendment and Zone Text Amendment continued items (EA -405,
GPA 97 -1, ZTA 97 -1):
1. Sepulveda Building Heights - Revise height limits along Sepulveda corridor and east
of Sepulveda Boulevard (ZTA).
2. Drive -thrus - Encourage /discourage drive -thru restaurants in certain land use areas
and zones (GPA and ZTA).
3. Residential Heights - Investigate alternatives for measuring residential structure
heights (ZTA).
B. Wireless Communication Facilities (EA -403, ZTA 96 -3).
C. Second Quarter General Plan Amendment and Zone Text Amendment items - Preliminary
Discussion (EA -408, GPA 97 -2, ZTA 97 -2, ZC 97 -2):
1. Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Parking - Revise 10% parking reduction in Smoky
Hollow Zones (ZTA).
2. Parking Covenant - Revise off -site parking covenant requirements to provide a
maximum time limit for the covenant (ZTA).
3. Parking Demand Studies - Revise requirements for Parking Demand Studies (ZTA).
4. Outdoor Dining Access - Create standard for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in
private walkways (ZTA).
5. Sound Transmission Control - Move Sound Transmission Control regulations to
Title 16 of the El Segundo Municipal Code and revise standards (ZTA).
6. Storm Water Management - Incorporate Storm Water Permit Management Policies
(GPA).
7. Garage Streets side Setbacks - Revisions to provide a minimum street side yard
setback of 20 feet for garages in R -1 and R -2 Zones (ZTA).
8. Thrifty Land Use Changes - Change land use designation and zoning for a potion of
Thrifty property at southeast corner of Standard Street /Grand Avenue from Smoky
Hollow Mixed - Use /Small Business (SB) to Downtown Commercial (C -RS). (GPA
and ZC).
9. Drive -thrus (GPA only).
10. Other Revisions - Other possible revisions to the General Plan, Zoning and
Subdivision Codes, and Zoning Map affecting the development of residential,
commercial and industrial properties.
D. Architectural Building Features and Planning Commission Appeals.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - (Related to City Business Only - 5 minute limit) Individuals who have
received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer,
must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250.
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED:
DATE: TIME: NAME
0 003
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO -
Inter- Departmental Correspondence
1UL 3 0 1997
DATE: July 29,199? ^; ,�.�ti.�- - =iCL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
3
THROUGH: Bret B. Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety
FROM: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner 4
SUBJECT: Potential Conflicts of Interest for August 4, 1997, Joint City
Council /Planning Commission Public Hearing/Workshop.
Planning Staff has reviewed the Potential Conflicts of Interest for the subject meeting with
the City Attorney and has determined that based in the latest 1996/97, Statement of
Economic Interest Forms (Form 770) on file with the City Clerks Office, there are no
Potential Conflicts of Interest for the City Council or Planning Commission.
1 11.
r
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 4, 1997
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Continued Public Hearing on the following proposed (First Quarter) amendments to the General Plan, Zone Text, and
Zoning Map: 1) Sepulveda Boulevard Building Heights, 2) Drive - thru's (ZTA only, GPA to be processed with
Second Quarter Items), and 3) Residential Heights; and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in
accordance with CEQA. Environmental Assessment EA -405A and Zone Text Amendment ZTA 97 -1 A. Applicant:
City of El Segundo - Citywide Amendments.
HEGOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Hold Continued Public HearingMlorkshop;
2) Discussion;
3) Direct Staff to draft Ordinance consistent with City Council direction; and,
4) Schedule introduction and first reading of Ordinance on August 19, 1997; and /or,
5) Other possible action /direction.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On July 1, 1997, the City Council held a Continued public hearing (from May 6, 20, June 3 and 17, 1997) on the
proposed first quarter General Plan, Zone Text, and Zoning Map Amendments (EA -405A, ZTA 97 -1 A), reviewed the
proposed amendments, and directed Staff to schedule a special joint City Council /Planning Commission public
hearing /workshop to review the remaining three topics from the First Quarter Amendments package. These three
remaining topics have been renumbered as EA -405A, GPA 97 -1 A, and ZTA 97 -1 A. There are no Zone Changes or
General Plan Amendments as part of these remaining topics, however the General Plan Amendment for Drive - thru's
is included in the Negative Declaration for this Quarter.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. List of future GPAs, ZTAs and ZCs authorized for initiation by the City Council on December 17, 1996.
2. Updated (June 26, 1997) future GPAs, ZTAs and ZCs authorized for initiation by the City Council on
December 17, 1996.
3. draft ZTA's, dated August 4, 1997 - Exhibits 1 through 3.
4. draft Initial Study / Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, June 17, 1997.
FISCAL IMPACT:
(Check one) Operating Budget: Capital Improv. Budget:
None Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance: Date:
Account Number:
Pro' se:
ro ria on Required - Yes_ No
ORIGINATED: Date: July 28, 1997
Bret B. Bea d, AiC , Dire or o ning and Building Safety
REVIEW D Date:
7-' 71
Jam ison. City Manaaer
ACTION TAKEN:
0 005
GPAIZTAIZC
City Council Staff Report
August 41997
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND (CONTINUED):
On 17 June 1997, the City Council conducted the second reading of Ordinance No. 1272 and adopted the first quarter
packet amendments with respect to Subdivision Extensions, SHSP Height Bonus, Service Stations/Automobile
Services, MU North and South, Architectural Landscape Features, Initiation of ZTA/GPA, Planning
Commission Appeals, Golf Course, Video Arcades, Edison Right -of -Way (Change from OS to MM Zone), and
Wireless Communication Facilities (GPA only).
DISCUSSION:
Also on 17 June 1997, the Council Continued the discussion of Sepulveda Height, Drive Thru's, and Residential
Heights, to its 01 July 1997 meeting so that a special joint City Council/Planning Commission public hearing/workshop
could be scheduled on that occasion on these three remaining subjects. At that meeting, the Council also Continued
discussion of TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights until the review of the third quarter General Plan and Zoning
Code Amendments (which have now been partially reviewed by the Planning Commission).
The following discussion provides a brief background of each of the three remaining proposed Amendments, together
with a discussion and analysis of the various options which the Planning Commission discussed and the final
recommended changes. A brief summary of the Planning Commission's recommendations is shown at the
beginning of each subject in bold type. Several of the proposed amendments may require multiple amendments
such as a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Text Amendment (ZTA), and Zone Change (ZC); and, therefore
they have been organized so that there is only one discussion for each item to avoid duplication. Each proposed
amendment also has multiple redline /strikeout exhibits associated with it. Each exhibit has been labeled with a header
to easily cross - reference the exhibit to the appropriate proposed Amendment.
1. Sepulveda Height - Revise height limits along Sepulveda corridor and east of Sepulveda Boulevard
from 200 foot limits to 150 -200 feet, depending on distance of building east of Sepulveda Boulevard
(ZTA). (Exhibit 1)
The subject of height limits east of Sepulveda Boulevard and along the Sepulveda Boulevard corridor was previously
reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1996 as part of the last series of Zone Text Amendments (EA- 376A). The
City Council (seated at that time) did = come to a consensus at that time on the height amendments and referred
them back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation and recommendations.
During the processing of the 1996 Code Amendments, Staff presented revisions to the height limits east of Sepulveda
Boulevard which would have reduced height limits from 200 feet to 150 feet between Sepulveda Boulevard and
Continental/Lairport Streets. Between Continental /Lairport Streets and Nash Street, height would have been reduced
from 200 feet to 175 feet. Height limits east of Nash Street would have been permitted to increase from 175 feet to
200 feet. The purpose of the tiered height limit was to gradually decrease height limits and the associated visual impact
of development on the residential neighborhood as one got closer to Sepulveda Boulevard. The previous proposal
would have placed a 200 foot height limit adjacent to the residential areas of Del Aire in Los Angeles County, east of
Aviation Boulevard. The current standards allows a 175 foot height limit in the MU Zone and 200 foot height limits in
the other zones east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
Staff was asked by the City Council to examine height from the perspective of the existing topography to determine
if height limits could be based on some reference datum, such as the elevation of Sepulveda Boulevard above sea
level, to determine if buildings of a certain height above this reference datum would be visible from areas west of
Sepulveda Boulevard. Using topographical maps, which are still accurate enough for this study, Staff has prepared
a graph which depicts relative elevations throughout the City. The City generally increases in elevation gradually from
Aviation Boulevard to Sepulveda Boulevard and then becomes much more varied with steeper hills east toward Main
Street. Since most land east of Sepulveda Boulevard is lower than the residential areas, the impacts of future building
heights east of Sepulveda should be minimized by virtue of beginning at a lower elevation. Staff believes that using
ON
11.
GPAIZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 41997
a reference datum which is some distance from the location of the construction project could pose difficulties during
the plan check review process because the exact height of the property in relation to the reference datum would have
to be verified and this would likely require a survey to be conducted for each and every project.
At the Planning Commission meeting on January 23, 1997, the Commission reviewed the subject of height limits east
of Sepulveda Boulevard and along the Sepulveda Boulevard corridor. Staff was requested to research any Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations which would impact height limits east of Sepulveda Boulevard. The FAA
indicated that there are no specific height limits for buildings near the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Instead,
the FAA reviews each building on a case -by -case basis to determine if that specific building will have an impact on
aircraft operations. The FAA then issues an airspace determination which approves the height for the particular
building. However, FAA regulations also indicate that a building within three (3) nautical miles to the south of LAX with
a height above 200 feet could be considered an obstruction by the FAA. Staff is not aware of any building in EI
Segundo which has been judged to be an obstruction by the FAA. Thus, based on the most recent information from
the FAA, FAA regulations should not be a constraint on height limits east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
The Commission consensus was to not pursue the use of an off -site reference datum to determine the elevation from
which to measure height; in part because the Commission did not want a height standard which might result in future
buildings all having the same height or a skyline with overly uniform heights. The Commission preferred requirements
which were based on the existing topography and thus would encourage buildings to have varying height even if all
buildings were built to the maximum allowed height. Therefore, Staff again recommended the use of the height limits
presented during the processing of the 1996 Code Amendments. Staff presented revisions to the height limits east
of Sepulveda Boulevard which would have reduced height limits from 200 feet to 150 feet between Sepulveda
Boulevard and Continental/Lairport Streets. Between Continental /Lairport Streets and Nash Street, height would have
been reduced from 200 feet to 175 feet. Height limits east of Nash Street would have been permitted to increase from
175 feet to 200 feet. The previous proposal would have placed a 200 foot height limit adjacent to the residential areas
of Del Aire in Los Angeles County, east of Aviation Boulevard. The current standards allow a 175 foot height limit in
the MU Zone and 200 foot height limits in the other zones east of Sepulveda Boulevard. The Commission consensus
was to recommend revisions to the Zoning Code consistent with recommendations of Staff, as described above.
2. Drive - thru's - Prohibit drive -thru restaurants in the C -RS, C -2 and C -3 Zones west of Sepulveda
Boulevard and require a Conditional Use Permit in other areas (ZTA). {Exhibit 2)
The City Council requested that the General Plan and Zoning Code be revised to encourage drive -thru restaurants
in zones where the City will consider approving the use, and discourage them in all other zones. Council expressed
concerns regarding the potential impacts, due to significant noise, lighting, odor, emissions, traffic, litter, crime, etc.,
of drive -thru restaurants on nearby residential properties.
Drive -thru restaurants are defined in Section 20.08.335, and they are currently allowed in all Commercial and Industrial
Zones with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 20.74). Prior to 1993, drive -thru restaurants, considered
as an outdoor -use, were prohibited in all Commercial and Industrial Zones. The 1993 Zoning Code update provided
more flexibility in its interpretation of permitted uses, and the C -3 Zone (Section 20.33.060 Al) was revised to permit
"outdoor restaurants, cafes or seating areas; outdoor retail activities customarily conducted outdoors, including but
not limited to, lumber yards and nurseries...". The Council expressed concerns that this Code section, along with the
flexibility of the Code through the Administrative Determination process, could be interpreted to allow drive -thru
restaurants as a permitted use. On April 2, 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1251, as an Urgency
Ordinance, requiring a Conditional Use Permit for all drive -thru restaurants in all Commercial and Industrial Zones.
On June 18, 1996, Ordinance No. 1257 was adopted which permanently codified the requirements for a Conditional
Use Permit for drive -thru restaurants.
The Commission reviewed the three following potential approaches to encouraging and discouraging drive -thru
restaurants in particular zones:
1) Prohibit drive - thru's in certain zones, such as the C -RS, C -2 and C -3 (west of Sepulveda Boulevard) Zones,
and to require a Conditional Use Permit for drive - thru's in the other Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts.
The majority of the C -RS, C -2 and C -3 Zones are immediately adjacent to Residential Zones. This approach
3
0 007
GPA/ZTARC
City Council Staff Report
August 41997
would most directly regulate the potential impacts of drive - thru's by prohibiting them in the majority of areas
that may impact residential uses.
2) Prohibit drive - thru's located within a certain distance, 100 to 500 feet, of all Residential Zones. This approach
would limit, but not prohibit, drive - thru's in the Downtown (C -RS Zone) area and allow them on the west side
of Sepulveda Boulevard generally north of Sycamore and south of Holly Avenues. A Conditional Use Permit
would still be recommended for all zones outside of the 100 -500 foot prohibition radius.
3) Develop performance standards or criteria that the Planning Commission could use to evaluate the impacts
of any proposed drive -thru restaurant. Staff has researched several other cities' drive -thru restaurant
regulations. Some cities (such as Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, Rolling Hills, Rancho Palos Verdes and
San Luis Obispo) totally prohibit drive - thru's citywide, where others prohibit the use in certain zones, or in
combination with residential uses, and allow the use in other zones with a Conditional Use Permit. None of
the cities contacted allowed drive -thru restaurants as an outright permitted use. One of the cities contacted
(Santa Monica) has specific criteria, in addition to the Conditional Use Permit findings, such as prohibiting
restaurant operations located adjacent to residential areas to operate between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am,
minimum lot size, minimum driveway size and vehicle stacking /waiting area, parking and circulation plan
approval, refuse storage, litter control within 300 feet, equipment location, maximum decibel (noise) levels,
and minimum distance requirements for the drive -thru speaker.
The recommendation of the Commission is to prohibit drive -thru restaurants in the C -RS, C -2 and C -3 Zones west
of Sepulveda Boulevard and continue to require a Conditional Use Permit for drive -thru restaurants in all other zones.
Sections 20.31.040, 20.32.040 and 20.33.040 have been revised to reflect this change and Sections 20.31.050,
20.32.050, and 20.33.050, Prohibited Uses, have been added to the C -RS, C -2 and C -3 Zones to specify that drive -
thru restaurants are prohibited in these zones west of Sepulveda Boulevard.
A new General Plan Land Use Policy LU -1 -5.9 (Exhibit 2 -Page 1 of 1) is also recommended by the Planning
Commission to implement the City Council's direction to encourage and discourage drive -thru restaurants in certain
zoning districts in order to minimize impacts to nearby residential uses. However, Staff recommends the Council defer
adoption of the General Plan Amendment for Drive - thru's until the second quarters set of General Plan Amendment
are reviewed by the Council in order to minimize the number of General Plan Amendments processed in one year,
as only four are allowed per calender year. This would be the second General Plan Amendment of the year because
this item -along with TDB's (deferred to third quarter packet) - have been separated from the remainder of the first
quarter's General Plan Amendments and three more amendment 'packages' are planned for this year. The second
quarter amendments will also be discussed at the special joint Public Hearing/Workshop on August 4, 1997.
3. Residential Heights - Investigate alternatives and develop new standards for measuring residential
structure heights (ZTA). {Exhibit 3)
The City Council directed Staff to review different methods for measuring the height of residential buildings and
structures. The Zoning Code definition of building height, which is used for residential as well as commercial and
industrial buildings (Section 20.08.185), is taken directly from the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and measures height
from the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof to finished
grade within a 5400t horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building. If there is a difference of more than 10 feet
between the highest finished grade and the lowest finished grade around the building, height is measured from a
reference datum 10 feet up from the lowest finished grade. The Zoning Code (Section 20.08.185) contains illustrations
to help explain the definition. This definition was adopted in 1993 as part of a comprehensive Zoning Code update in
order to provide consistency between the Zoning Code and the UBC so property owners and developers could use
one standard that was already familiar to them. Because the definition measures height to the average height of a
sloped roof, which is most common in residential construction, the maximum height limit was reduced from 30 feet
to 26 feet in order to maintain approximately the same height limit even though the definition changed. Prior to 1993,
height was measured from the top of a roof to natural (existing) grade on any point on the lot. This was difficult to
4
o 008
GPAIZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 41997
apply, particularly on sloped lots, because it was not easy to determine where the natural grade on a property was,
particularly without requiring a survey of the property.
Staff has researched the methods of determining height in several different cities and found there are many different
methods of determining height, some of which are simple and some of which are much more complicated. Attached
are the definitions of height and the associated definitions of grade from various cities. All but two of the cities surveyed
measure height to the highest point of the roof. Portland uses a slightly different version of the UBC definition currently
used in El Segundo.
The use of existing or finished grade is also an important part of measuring height. Some jurisdictions use existing
grade in order to prevent properties from being built up through grading, thereby creating a higher pad on which to
build. Some communities also use averaging of various points of existing grade on a property to create a reference
datum from which height will be measured. Typically, the elevations at the corners of the property, or a line bisecting
the center of the property, are used to create the reference datum. Height can also be measured from the top of curb
or even the midpoint of the facing street. The use of finished grade in measuring height has the advantage of not
having to determine the natural, or existing grade of a property, which is most accurately done with a survey, and the
City Council's policy has been to not require a survey for residential construction. Finished grade typically does not
have to be verified with a survey because the grade is apparent when construction and grading is completed.
On March 6, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed different methods for measuring the height of residential
buildings and structures. Base on that review, the Commission recommends revising the definition of building height,
which is used for residential, as well as commercial and industrial buildings (Section 20.08.185). The revised text
reflects the Commission's recommendation to retain the point at which the height is measured - namely the highest
point of a flat or mansard roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. The grade from
which building height is measured has been amended to replace finished grade, as defined by the Uniform Building
Code, with the existing grade at the time of original construction. This revision would prevent an unfair height
advantage being gained by the filling of a lot to create a higher pad on which to build. The revised definition returns
the point at which grade is measured to that which was in effect prior to the 1993 Zoning Code update which
introduced finished grade. The Commission also recommends revising the definition of building heights to place a
maximum height that the ridge of a gable, pitched, or hipped roof may extend above the height limit by 6 feet which
would still permit the use of a sloped roof on top of a two story house while ensuring adequate light and air would be
available to neighboring properties.
An Initial Study /Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is required to evaluate the potential impacts which may
be caused by the proposed regulations. Since a Negative Declaration requires a minimum 20 -day public notice and
circulation period, based on the direction and recommendations from the Planning Commission on the General Plan
and Zone Text Amendments and the Zone Map changes for EA -405 which included a review of the three topics
Continued until tonight, the City proceeded with the required environmental review process for the proposed
Amendments, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Council Resolution No. 3805,
after the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution with their recommendations. The Draft Initial Study / Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impacts for EA -405 was circulated for the 20 day public and agency review period from
April 29th to May 18th, 1997, and no comments were received on the document. Planning Staff and the City Attorney's
office would recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, which
indicates there will be no environmental impacts associated with the three items which make up the Continued first
quarter General Plan Amendments and Zone Text Amendments, (EA- 405A).
5
p:\zoning\ea405a\ea4O5-7-ais
1111M
Page 1 of 3
LIST OF FUTURE GPA'S, ZTA'S, AND ZC'S
Authorized to Initiate by City Council on December 17, 1996
The following is a cumulative list of topics for future General Plan Amendments, Zoning Code
Text Amendments and Zoning Map Changes, as initiated by the City Council -- the requestee
appears in ( ):
1. Establish provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (Hughes Electronics).
2. Split the Mixed Use land use designation to Mixed Use -North and Mixed Use -
South at El Segundo Blvd. (Council).
3. Change land use designation for Edison R -O -W and adjacent properties south of
Holly Avenue, north of Grand Avenue, along Illinois Street from Open Space to
Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use (Council).
4. Update Open Space and other elements related to the golf course (Staff).
5. Encourage /Discourage drive - thru's in certain land use areas (Council).
6. Wireless Communication Facilities goals (City Attorney).
1. Change land use designation for a portion of Thrifty property at Standard /Grand
from Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use to Downtown Commercial (Staff).
2. Incorporate Public Works Storm Water Permit Management Requirements (City
Attorney, Public Works, State Law).
1. Revise non - conformity language in Land Use Element (Council).
1. Use of current traffic counts instead of 1988 baseline traffic counts (Staff).
2. Study modification of east side Sepulveda access streets in Circulation Element
(Council).
3. Incorporate Public Works Water Conservation Plan (City Attorney, Public Works,
State Law).
II. Zone Text Amendments
1 st Quarter
1. Revise standards for video arcades for less than 8 machines (Council).
2. Create distance requirement for service stations from residential uses (Council).
3. Revise 10% parking reduction in Smoky Hollow (Council).
4. Revise height limits along Sepulveda Corridor and east of Sepulveda Blvd.
(Council).
5. Create zoning standards for new MU North and South Zones (Council).
0 01Q
Page 2 of 3
6. Establish provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (Hughes Electronics).
7. Revise standards for residential wall heights to limit fill to less than 6 feet
(Council, Staff) {continued to second quarter).
8. Investigate alternatives for measuring residential structure heights (Council,
Staff).
9. Revise Subdivision Code (Title 19 of ESMC) to increase maximum approval
period for tentative subdivision maps to 5 years (Staff).
10. Revise inconsistency in height limit bonus for lot consolidation between the MM
Zone (10 feet) and SHSP (15 feet) (Staff).
11. Clarify only City Council, not the Planning Commission, can initiate ZTA/GPA
(City Attorney).
12. Allow /prohibit drive - thru's in certain land use areas (Council).
13. Clarify language regarding appeals of Planning Commission items -- Code
stipulates 10 days (Staff, City Attorney).
14. Develop regulations for Wireless Communication Facilities (Council, Staff).
15. Develop standards for Architectural Building Features to allow them to encroach
into setbacks in Industrial and Commercial Zones (Council, February 18, 1997).
1. Create standard for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in private walkways
(Staff).
2. Revise the parking standards for high schools and adult schools (Council).
3. Revise requirements for Parking Demand Studies (Council).
4. Revise Sign requirements, including political signs (Chapter 20.60) (Staff, City
Attorney).
5. Move Sound Transmission Control (Chapter 20.58) to Title 16 of the ESMC and
revise standards (Staff).
6. Revise off -site parking covenant requirements (Section 20.54.080) to provide a
time limit for the covenant (City Attorney).
7. Limit number of Amplified Sound Permits per address annually (Staff).
8. Revisions to provide a minimum street side setback of 20 feet for garages in R -1
and R -2 Zones (Council).
9. 20.20.025 - (R -1) - Prohibit toilets and potentially prohibit sinks in accessory
buildings. No "R" occupancy (UBC) in accessory buildings (Staff).
10. Revise standards for residential wall heights to limit fill to less than 6 feet
(Council, Staff) {continued from first quarter).
1. Create mini - variance procedures (Staff).
2. Revise non - conforming uses (Chapter 20.70) (Council).
3. Mansionization /Livable Neighborhood revisions (ie. heights, setbacks,
encroachments, porches, and wall modulation /encroachment lines) (Staff, P.C.,
Council).
4. Public Hearing Waiver for minor Coastal Development Permits (Staff).
5. Revise standards for residential curb cuts and driveways to decrease width
(Council).
6. Revisions to provide a time limit to bring non - conforming uses into conformance
(Council).
0 011
Page 3 of 3
7. 20.08.020 - "Accessory" Definition - Require accessory buildings to be "internally
integrated and connected" with the main building to be considered part of the
main building (Staff).
1. Reorganize General Provisions (Chapter 20.12) (Staff).
2 Revise R -2 Front/Rear Setbacks (Council).
3. Revise landscaping requirements for front and street side setbacks for residential
property (Staff).
4. Initiate merger of 25 foot wide lots or rezoning vacant parcels to Open Space
(Council).
5. Revise standards for legal second units in the R -1 Zone consistent with State
provisions (Council, City Attorney).
6. 20.20.020 K 1 and 2 - (R -1) - Requires Mobile and Manufactured homes be
certified to 1974 Manufacturing Housing Codes and Title 25 California Health and
Safety Code. Move to Chapter 16 for Building Safety to enforce (Staff).
7. 20.20.025 - (R -1) - Permitted Accessory Uses. Combine A and B which lists the
types of permitted uses and their limitations (Staff).
8. 20.08.340 - "Dwelling" Definition - Eliminate, covered by "Dwelling Unit' definition
(Staff).
9. 20.20.040 - (R -1) - Move mobile home Title 25 California Health and Safety Code
Conformance to Chapter 16 (Staff).
10. 20.12.040 - Fences, Walls, Hedges - Resolve conflicts between 6 foot fence
allowed in rear of reverse corner lot, but only 42 inches in front of key lot (Staff).
1 st Quarter
1. Split the MU Zone at El Segundo Blvd. to MU -North and MU -South (Council).
2. Change Edison R -O -W and adjacent properties south of Holly Avenue, north of
Grand Avenue, along Illinois Street from O -S Zone to MM Zone (Council).
Change Thrifty property at Standard /Grand from SM Zone to C -RS Zone (Staff).
P: \future.lst
0 012
List of future GPA's, ZTA's and ZC's Page 1 of 5
Authorized to initiate by City Council
June 26,1997 Update
LIST OF FUTURE GPA'S, ZTA'S, AND ZC'S
Authorized to Initiate by City Council on December 17, 1996
June 26, 1997 - Update
(With Staff recommendations for third quarter)
The following is a cumulative list of topics for future General Plan Amendments, Zoning Code
Text Amendments and Zoning Map Changes, as initiated by the City Council -- the requestee
appears in ( ):
1 st Quarter
1. Establish provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (Hughes Electronics).
(6117197 - CC continued to third quarter at applicant's request)
2. Split the Mixed Use land use designation to Mixed Use -North and Mixed Use -
South at El Segundo Blvd. (Council). (Adopted 6117197)
3. Change land use designation for Edison R -O -W and adjacent properties south of
Holly Avenue, north of Grand Avenue, along Illinois Street from Open Space to
Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use (Council). (Adopted 6117197)
4. Update Open Space and other elements related to the golf course (Staff).
(Adopted 6117197)
5. Encourage /Discourage drive - thru's in certain land use areas (Council). (6117197
CC continued to joint workshop T.B.A.)
6. Wireless Communication Facilities goals (City Attorney). (Adopted 6117197)
2nd Quarter
1. Change land use designation for a portion of Thrifty property at Standard /Grand
from Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use to Downtown Commercial (Staff). (6112197 - PC;
CC - T.B.A.)
2. Incorporate Public Works Storm Water Permit Management Requirements (City
Attorney, Public Works, State Law). (6112/97 - PC; CC - T.B.A.)
1. Revise non - conformity language in Land Use Element (Council).
2. Establish provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (Hughes Electronics).
(6117197 continued from first quarter at applicant's request)
0 013
List of future GPA's, ZTA's and ZC's
Authorized to initiate by City Council
June 26, 1997 Update
Page 2 of 5
*Recommend continue both to fourth quarter, to limit number of GPA's processed in one
year.
4th Quarter
1. Use of current traffic counts instead of 1988 baseline traffic counts (Staff).
2. Study modification of east side Sepulveda access streets in Circulation Element
(Council).
3. Incorporate Public Works Water Conservation Plan (City Attorney, Public Works,
State Law).
1 st Quarter
1. Revise standards for video arcades for less than 8 machines (Council).
(Adopted 6117197)
2. Create distance requirement for service stations from residential uses (Council).
3. Revise 10% parking reduction in Smoky Hollow (Council). (CC continued to
second quarter)
4. Revise height limits along Sepulveda Corridor and east of Sepulveda Blvd.
(Council). (6117197 CC continued to joint workshop T.B.A)
5. Create zoning standards for new MU North and South Zones (Council).
(Adopted 6117197)
6. Establish provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (Hughes Electronics).
(6117197 CC continued to third quarter at applicant's request)
7. Revise standards for residential wall heights to limit fill to less than 6 feet
(Council, Staff). (Continued to second, then third quarter)
8. Investigate alternatives for measuring residential structure heights (Council,
Staff). (6117197 CC continued to joint workshop T.B.A.)
9. Revise Subdivision Code (Title 19 of ESMC) to increase maximum approval
period for tentative subdivision maps to 5 years (Staff). (Adopted 6117197)
10. Revise inconsistency in height limit bonus for lot consolidation between the MM
Zone (10 feet) and SHSP (15 feet) (Staff). (Adopted 6117197)
11. Clarify only City Council, not the Planning Commission, can initiate ZTA/GPA
(City Attorney). (Adopted 6117197)
0 014
List of future GPA's, ZTA's and ZC's Page 3 of 5
Authorized to initiate by City Council
June 26, 1997 Update
12. Allow /prohibit drive - thru's in certain land use areas (Council). (6117197 CC
continued to joint workshop T.B.A.)
13. Clarify language regarding appeals of Planning Commission items -- Code
stipulates 10 days (Staff, City Attorney). (Adopted 6117197)
14. Develop regulations for Wireless Communication Facilities (Council, Staff).
(6117197 CC continued to joint workshop T.B.A.)
15. Develop standards for Architectural Building Features to allow them to encroach
into setbacks in Industrial and Commercial Zones (Council, February 18, 1997).
(Adopted 6117197)
2nd Ouarter
1. Create standard for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in private walkways
(Staff). (6112197 - PC; CC - T.B.A.)
2. Revise the parking standards for high schools and adult schools (Council).
(6112197 continued to third quarter)
3. Revise requirements for Parking Demand Studies (Council). (6112197 - PC; CC -
T. B.A.)
4. Revise Sign requirements, including political signs (Chapter 20.60) (Staff, City
Attorney). (6112197 continued to third quarter per City Attorney)
5. Move Sound Transmission Control (Chapter 20.58) to Title 16 of the ESMC and
revise standards (Staff). (6112(97 - PC, CC - T.B.A.)
6. Revise off -site parking covenant requirements (Section 20.54.080) to provide a
time limit for the covenant (City Attorney). (6112(97 - PC; CC - T.B.A.)
7. Limit number of Amplified Sound Permits per address annually (Staff). (6112(97
Continued to third quarter per City Attorney)
8. Revisions to provide a minimum street side setback of 20 feet for garages in R -1
and R -2 Zones (Council). (6112197 - PC, CC T.B.A.)
9. 20.20.025 - (R -1) - Prohibit toilets and potentially prohibit sinks in accessory
buildings. No "R" occupancy (UBC) in accessory buildings (Staff). (6112197
continued to third quarter)
10. Revise standards for residential wall heights to limit fill to less than 6 feet
(Council, Staff). (Continued from first quarter, continued to third quarter)
11. Delete definition of massage establishments (Staff and City Attorney). (Adopted
6117/97)
0 015
List of future GPA's, ZTA's and ZC's Page 4 of 5
Authorized to initiate by City Council
June 26, 1997 Update
12. Revise 10% parking reduction in Smoky Hollow (Council). (CC continued from
first quarter)
3rd Quarter
1. Revise non - conforming provsions to
a) Provide a time frame to bring non - conforming uses into conformance,
b) Limit expansion of non - conforming uses and buildings and,
c) Create a time limit for vacancies, which allow continuation of non - conforming
uses. (Chapter 20.70) (Council (1), Staff (2) & (3)). *Recommend continue to
fourth quarter
2. "Maximization" /Livable Neighborhood revisions (ie. heights, setbacks,
encroachments, porches, and wall modulation /encroachment lines) (Staff, P.C.,
Council). *Recommend continue to fourth quarter
3. Revise standards for residential curb cuts and driveways to decrease width
(Council). * Recommend continue to fourth quarter and review same time as
fourth quarter item no.3 - Landscape Requirements for residential front and
streetside setbacks.
4. Establish provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (Hughes Electronics).
(6117197 City Council continued from first quarter at applicant's request)
*Recommend continue to fourth quarter (With GPA)
5. Create mini - variance procedures (Staff).
6. 20.08.020 - "Accessory" Definition - Require accessory buildings to be "internally
integrated and connected" with the main building to be considered part of the
main building (Staff).
7. Revise the parking standards for High Schools and Adult Schools (Council).
(6112197 continued from second quarter)
8. Revise sign requirements, including political signs (Chapter 20.60) (Staff, City
Attorney). (6112197 continued from second quarter per City Attorney)
9. Limit number of Amplified Sound Permits per address annually (Staff). (6112197
continued from second quarter per City Attorney)
10. 20.20.025 (R -1) Prohibit toilets and potentially prohibit sinks in accessory
buildings. No "R" occupancy (UBC) in accessory buildings (Staff). (6112197
continued from second quarter)
11. Revise standards for residential wall heights to limit fill to less than 6 feet
(Council, Staff). (6112197 continued from first and second quarters)
0 016
List of future GPA's, ZTA's and ZC's Page 5 of 5
Authorized to initiate by City Council
June 26, 1997 Update
12. Public Hearing Waiver for minor Coastal Development Permits (Staff)
4th Quarter
1. Reorganize General Provisions (Chapter 20.12) (Staff).
2 Revise R -2 Front/Rear Setbacks (Council).
3. Revise landscaping requirements for front and street side setbacks for residential
property (Staff).
4. Initiate merger of 25 foot wide lots or rezoning vacant parcels to Open Space
(Council).
5. Revise standards for legal second units in the R -1 Zone consistent with State
provisions (Council, City Attorney).
6. 20.20.020 K 1 and 2 - (R -1) - Requires Mobile and Manufactured homes be
certified to 1974 Manufacturing Housing Codes and Title 25 California Health and
Safety Code. Move to Chapter 16 for Building Safety to enforce (Staff).
7. 20.20.025 - (R -1) - Permitted Accessory Uses. Combine A and B which lists the
types of permitted uses and their limitations (Staff).
8. 20.08.340 - "Dwelling" Definition - Eliminate, covered by "Dwelling Unit" definition
(Staff).
9. 20.20.040 - (R -1) - Move mobile home Title 25 California Health and Safety Code
Conformance to Chapter 16 (Staff).
10. 20.12.040 - Fences, Walls, Hedges - Resolve conflicts between 6 foot fence
allowed in rear of reverse corner lot, but only 42 inches in front of key lot (Staff).
1st Quarter
1. Split the MU Zone at El Segundo Blvd. to MU -North and MU -South (Council).
(Adopted 6117197)
2. Change Edison R -O -W and adjacent properties south of Holly Avenue, north of
Grand Avenue, along Illinois Street from O -S Zone to MM Zone (Council).
(Adopted 6117197)
Change Thrifty property at Stanard /Grand from SM Zone to C -RS Zone (Staff).
(6112197 - PC; CC - T.B.A.)
P: \future -3.Ist
0 917
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 49 1997
SEPULVEDA HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 1
1 11ONAL AIRPORT
CENTURY (1 -105)
5 �
i AVE mi
I.
1 SO'
7EM
K
.l
s ^
� r
I
Page 1 of 5
L____
„0 IN ST. -
11! TN ST.
I
119 TN ST.
120 TH ST.
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
,14 TH ST.
P
PF
AVE (U
AVC I
�I
�I
llCID
112'
PF��
CITY OF
HAWnAORNE
0 018
- +NW ?C7�Q��10000$0
0000000000 0000000 0000
mTG)'_ox3�-
tn :3
D
m
c
w
N
c
9
�
y
>1
A �m
D fD
<
-1
m
J
J
i
cp
i
w
N
(Ji
~
J�
J
0-
I
J
i
i
0
J
O
W
a
0-4--0
bo
V
O(Ti00JN'`
cn
n
w
CID
i
Jco
NON�JN.
W
N
CD
J
J
N
J
N
i
-+w0
-4
W
J
Im
a
n
3
J
J
y-
01WO
-4
W
V/
NONJ�7—
=r
0
ST
�0!I ,0Ivlj.l ,olbo
N
m
m
1
m
a
m
r
a
O
Z
N
T
m
m
D
O
m
N
m
a
r
m
m
r
a>
rAcR
C D
mc
°r Z.,
=vim
m g ;+
=�a
0 N
I I
ma
x
_�
�J_c CA
'i
J
V
T
tQ
(D
N
O
--w
U7
0 019
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SEPULVEDA HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 1
HEIGHT LIMITS EAST OF SEPULVEDA
Section 20.33.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Section 20.34.060
C. Height
L East of Sepulveda
Boulevard:
Page 3of5
West of Sepulveda No building or structure shall exceed
Boulevard: 45 feet. If the subject property abuts
residentially zoned property, no building or
structure shall exceed 40 feet.
U C
(b N
119 Q 2
= a C
N
o
West of Sepulveda Boulevard
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
East of Sepulveda Boulevard
C. Height No btti d-111r, 0! exceed 2 .. 150 feet
L East of Sepulveda
Boulevard: 11l. I1 11 •. w..1 &nWygda
Boulevard . 1 Continent
J3o11Jp,vardJair120rt _ And •
Ayi ali • i •
5 feet 11!. 11.11 brlimrg ( •1 !'!
Boulr,vaW/Lailmort 5=1.
West of Sepulveda No building or structure shall exceed 45
Boulevard: feet, if the subject property abuts
residentially zoned property, no
building or structure shall exceed 40
feet.
0 020
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SEPULVEDA HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 1
Section 20.36.060
U C
� N
a:
� o
West of Sepulveda Boulevard
East of Sepulveda Boulevard
SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
C. Height
:L North of El Seeundo
Iv
• • ••
Page 4 of 5
LO
°�
r
0 021
EA-405A/ZTA 97-1 A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SEPULVEDA HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 1
'T
I mi,
.......... .
CHAPTER 20.40 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (M -11 ZONE
Section 20.40.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
C. Height
:L North of El S2&Uad2
pmm���
��fT �fftl�
IN
mr-4 IN Ll IL", I
MY&
111 i . t •
K,71
pill
p:\zoning\ea-405a\exhibits\sep-hgts.wpd
Page 5 of 5
0 022
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A Page 1 of 1
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
DRIVE -THRUS - EXHIBIT 2
Policy LU1 -5.9
Develop standards to address the potential impacts of drive -thru restaurants on residential uses.
General Plan Land Use Element Page 3 -21
To be adopted with Second Quarter Amendments.
USES SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
20.33.040 General Commercial (C -3) Zone
PROHIBITED USES
20.31.050 Downtown Commercial (C -RS) Zone
20.32.050 Neighborhood Commercial (C -2) Zone
20.33.050 General Commercial (C -3) Zone
Drive thru ream rants located west of Sepulveda Boulevard.
zoning \ea -405a \exhibits \d rive.cc
0 023
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 3
20.08.185 BUILDING HEIGHT.
Page 1 of 4
Highest Point of Coping
CM
c rn
'd
m =
Average of
Highest Gable
rn�
C_ L
.5.�
CD =
Deckline
rc� 0
m�
Flat Roof Pitched or Hipped Roof Mansard Roof
!!0.08.435 GRADE, PRE-EXISDNG QBADE, AND FINISHED Q56U.
•t; qf tWe surface • - ...i.
zoning \ea -405a \exhibits\bldg - hgt.cc
0 024
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A Page 2 of 4
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 3
DEFINITIONS OF BUILDING HEIGHT
"Building height" or "height" shall mean the vertical distance as measured continuously along a line at
existing grade bisecting the width of the lot to the highest point of a building or stricture, except as provided
elsewhere in this chapter (see illustration below).
"Grade, existing" shall mean the surface of the ground or pavement at a stated location as it exists prior to
disturbance in preparation for a construction project.
"Grade, finished" shall mean the finished surface elevation of the ground or pavement at a stated location
after the completion of a construction project.
"Building height' is the vertical distance measured from the average natural grade to the highest point of the
roof. However, in connection with development projects in the Ocean Park Districts, building height shall be
mean the vertical distance measured from the theoretical grade to the highest point of the roof.
"Grade, average natural" the average elevation of the ground level of the parcel surface in its natural state
as measured at the intersection of the rear and front setback lines (if any) with the side setback lines of the
parcel. For parcels with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or more, as measured from either any point on the
front setback line to any point on the rear setback line, or from any point on a side setback line to any point
on the opposing setback line, average natural grade shall be calculated on three equal segments of the parcel
created by drawing imaginary lines connecting opposite parcel lines at the intersection of the rear and front
setback lines (if any) with the side setback lines at one -third increments of the depth of the parcel from the
rear to the front setback (if any). This height calculation method shall be optional for parcels with less than a
12.5 -foot grade differential.
"Grade, theoretical" an imaginary line from the midpoint of the parcel on the front property line to the midpoint
of the parcel on the rear property line, from which height calculations in the Ocean Park District are measured.
Height of a building or height of a structure is the vertical distance measured from all points on top of
the structure or any of its appurtenances to grade directly below.
"Grade" is the elevation of the surface of the ground of a premises, pre- existing or finished, whichever is lower
in elevation.
"Pre- existing grade" is the ground elevation of a premises which existed prior to modifications for
development or redevelopment. Reference to grade on adjacent properties may be utilize to assist in
establishing pre- existing grade when the presence of said grade is not readily apparent on the subject
premises.
"Finished grade" is the elevation that will exist when all cut, fill or improvements, including but not limited to,
pathways, pavements, hardscape or landscaping, are complete.
0 025
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A Page 3 of 4
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 3
"Height of building" means the vertical distance between average top of curb and to the highest edge of
a gable, hip or shed roof or top of parapet. Building height shall apply to not less than ninety -five percent
of the total roof surface; the remaining five percent may project not more than ten feet above top of
parapet and may only be used for enclosing elevators, mechanical penthouses, solar structures, antennas
or other equipment.
"Grade" means the average of the existing ground level at the center of all walls of a building. In case walls
are parallel to, and within five feet of, a sidewalk, the ground level shall be measured at the sidewalk.
"Established grade" means the curbline grade at the lot lines established by the city engineer.
"Building height (structure height)" - The vertical distance from any part of the structure, excluding
appurtenances, to the existing or natural grade below. In a subdivision for which overlot grading was permitted
prior to October 18, 1994, the overlot grading shall be the existing grade.
Measuring Height:
A. Measuring building height. Height of buildings is generally measured as provided in the Oregon
Structural Speciality Code (the Uniform Building Code as amended by the State.) The height of
buildings is the vertical distance above the base point described in Paragraphs 1. or 2. below. The
base point used is the method that yields the greater height of building. For a flat roof, the
measurement is made to the top of the parapet, or if there is no parapet, to the highest point of the
roof. The measurement is made to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the average height of the
highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof that has a roof pitch of 12 in 12 or less. For pitched or hipped
roofs with a pitch steeper than 12 in 12, the measurement is to the highest point. For other roof
shapes such as domed, vaulted, or pyramidal shapes, the measurement is to the highest point. See
Figure 930 -5. The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of
the building.
1. Base point 1. Base point 1 is the elevation of the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground
surface within a 5 foot horizontal distance of the exterior wall of the building when such
sidewalk or ground surface is not more than 10 feet above lowest grade. See Figure 930 -6.
2. Base point 2. Base point 2 is the elevation that is 10 feet higher than the lowest grade when
the sidewalk or ground surface described in Paragraph 1. above, is more than 10 feet above
lowest grade. See Figure 930 -7.
B. Measuring height of other structures The height of other structures such as flag poles and fences is
the vertical distance from the ground level immediately under the structure to the top of a structure,
excluding exempted portions. When chimneys and other objects are allowed to exceed the base
height of the zone by a set amount, that set amount is measured to the top of these objects. Special
measurement provisions are also provided below.
0 026
EA- 405A/ZTA 97 -1 A
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS - EXHIBIT 3
Page 4of4
1. Measuring height of retaining walls and fences. Retaining walls and fences on top of retaining
walls are measured from the ground level on the higher side of the retaining wall. See Figure
930 -8.
2. Measuring height of decks. Deck height is determined by measuring from the ground to the
top of the floor of the deck if there is no rail or if the rail walls are more than 50 percent open,
and from the ground to the top of the rails for all other situations.
"Determining Average Slope" When calculating the slope of a lot an average slope is used based on the
elevations at the corners of the lot. The average slope of a lot is calculated by subtracting the average
elevation of the uphill lot line and the average elevation of the downhill lot line and dividing the sum by the
average distance between the two lot lines. The average elevation of the uphill or downhill lot line is calculated
by adding the elevations at the ends of the lot line and dividing by two. See Figure 930 -9.
"Height of building ": The vertical distance above finished grade to the highest point of a flat roof, to the deck
line of a mansard roof or to the average height between the plate and the ridge of gable or hip roofs. The
height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building.
"Building height": The vertical distance from the natural, mean ground elevation of the lot to the highest point
of the building.
zoning \ea- 405a\exhibits\bldg- hgt.SVY
0 027
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY WIDE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENTS.
FIRST QUARTER - CONTINUED ITEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -405A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -1 A
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 97 -1 A
May 1, 1997
(Revised May 21, June 17, and July 28,1997)
Prepared by:
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY
350 MAIN STREET
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
1
0 028
SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following General Plan Amendments and Zone Text Amendments are proposed Citywide:
1. Sepulveda Heights - Revise height limits along Sepulveda corridor and east of Sepulveda Boulevard
(ZTA).
The subject of height limits east of Sepulveda Boulevard and along the Sepulveda Boulevard corridor was
previously reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1996. The City Council did not come to a consensus at
that time on the height amendments and referred them back to the Planning Commission for further evaluation
and recommendations.
During the processing of the 1996 Code Amendments, Staff presented revisions to the height limits east of
Sepulveda Boulevard which would have reduced height limits from 200 feet to 150 feet between Sepulveda
Boulevard and Continental /Lairport Streets. Between Continental /Lairport Streets and Nash Street, height
would have been reduced from 200 feet to 175 feet. Height limits east of Nash Street would have been
permitted to increase from 175 feet to 200 feet. The purpose of the tiered height limit was to gradually
decrease height limits and the associated visual impact of development on the residential neighborhood as
one got closer to Sepulveda Boulevard. The previous proposal would have placed a 200 foot height limit
adjacent to the residential areas of Del Aire in Los Angeles County, east of Aviation Boulevard. The current
standards allows a 175 foot height limit in the MU Zone and 200 foot height limits in the other zones east of
Sepulveda Boulevard. The proposed amendment would incorporate these revisions
As an alternative, height limits could be based on some reference datum, such as the elevation of Sepulveda
Boulevard above sea level. This method could be used to determine if buildings of a certain height above this
reference datum would be visible from areas west of Sepulveda Boulevard. Using 1966 topographical maps,
which are still accurate enough for this study, Staff has prepared a graph which depicts relative elevations
throughout the City. The City generally increases in elevation gradually from Aviation Boulevard to Sepulveda
Boulevard and then becomes much more varied with steeper hills east toward Main Street. Since most land
east of Sepulveda Boulevard is lower than the residential areas, the impacts of future building heights east
of Sepulveda should be minimized by virtue of beginning at a lower elevation.
As additional information, the FAA indicated that there are no specific height limits for buildings near the Los
Angeles International Airport. Instead, the FAA reviews each building on a case -by -case basis to determine
if that specific building will have an impact on aircraft operations. The FAA then issues an airspace
determination which approves the height for the particular building. Staff is not aware of any building in El
Segundo which was judged to be too tall by the FAA. Thus, based on the most recent information from the
FAA, FAA regulations should not be a constraint on height limits east of Sepulveda Boulevard.
2. Residential Heights - Investigate alternatives and develop new standards for measuring residential
structure heights (ZTA).
The proposed amendment will evaluate different methods, and provide new standards, for measuring the
height of residential buildings and structures. The current Zoning Code definition of building height, which is
used for residential as well as commercial and industrial buildings (Section 20.08.185), is taken directly from
the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and measures height from the highest point of a flat roof or the average
height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof to finished grade within a 5 -foot horizontal distance of
the exterior wall of the building. If there is a difference of more than 10 feet between the highest finished grade
and the lowest finished grade around the building, height is measured from a reference datum 10 feet up from
the lowest finished grade. The Zoning Code (Section 20.08.185) contains illustrations to help explain the
definition. Prior to 1993, height was measured from the top of a roof to natural (existing) grade on any point
on the lot. This was difficult to apply, particularly on sloped lots, because it was not easy to determine where
the natural grade on a property was, particularly without requiring a survey of the property.
2
0 029
There are many different methods of determining height, some of which are simple and some of which are
much more complicated. Most cities measure height to the highest point of the roof. The use of existing or
finished grade is also an important part of measuring height. Existing grade may be used in order to prevent
properties from being built up through grading, thereby creating a higher pad on which to build. Averaging of
various points of existing grade on a property to create a reference datum from which height will be measured
may also be used. The elevations at the corners of the property, or a line bisecting the center of the property,
may be used to create the reference datum. Height can also be measured from the top of curb or even the
midpoint of the facing street. The use of finished grade in measuring height has the advantage of not having
to determine the natural, or existing grade of a property, which is most accurately done with a survey.
Finished grade typically does not have to be verified with a survey because the grade is apparent when
construction and grading is completed.
3. Drive- thru'sr Encourage /Discourage drive - thru's in certain land use areas and Zones (GPA, ZTA).
The General Plan and Zoning Code are proposed to be revised to encourage drive -thru restaurants in zones
where the City will consider approving the use, and discourage them in all other zones. The amendment will
address concerns regarding the potential impacts, due to significant noise, lighting, odor, emissions, traffic,
litter, crime, etc., of drive -thru restaurants on nearby residential properties. Drive -thru restaurants are defined
in Section 20.08.335, and they are currently allowed in all Commercial and Industrial Zones with approval of
a Conditional Use Permit (Chapter 20.74).
The three following potential approaches to encouraging and discouraging drive -thru restaurants in particular
zones will be considered:
a) One approach would be to prohibit drive - thru's in certain zones, such as the C -RS, C -2 and
C -3 (west of Sepulveda Boulevard) Zones, and to require a Conditional Use Permit for drive -
thru's in the other Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts. The majority of the C -RS, C -2
and C -3 Zones are immediately adjacent to Residential Zones. This approach would most
directly regulate the potential impacts of drive - thru's by prohibiting them in the majority of
areas that may impact residential uses.
b) The second option would be to prohibit drive - thru's located within a certain distance, 100 to
500 feet, of all Residential Zones. This approach would limit, but not prohibit, drive - thru's in
the Downtown (C -RS Zone) area and allow them on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard
generally north of Sycamore and south of Holly Avenues. A Conditional Use Permit would
still be recommended for all zones outside of the 100 -500 foot prohibition radius.
C) A third approach would be to develop performance standards or criteria that the Planning
Commission could use to evaluate the impacts of any proposed drive -thru restaurant.
Different criteria such as totally prohibiting drive - thru's Citywide, or in certain zones, or in
combination with residential uses, and allow the use in other zones with a Conditional Use
Permit will be considered. Specific criteria, in addition to the Conditional Use Permit findings,
such as prohibiting restaurant operations located adjacent to residential areas to operate
between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, minimum lot size, minimum driveway size and vehicle
stacking /waiting area, parking and circulation plan approval, refuse storage, litter control
within 300 feet, equipment location, maximum decibel (noise) levels, and minimum distance
requirements for the drive -thru speaker, may be considered.
A new General Plan Land Use Policy, which encourages and discourages drive -thru restaurants in certain
zoning districts in order to minimize impacts to nearby residential uses, is also proposed.
0 030
SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The City of El Segundo is located in the Los Angeles urban area and is considered part of the Airport/South
Bay subregion at the southwestern edge of the Los Angeles coastal basin. Downtown Los Angeles is about
20 freeway miles northeast of El Segundo. The City itself is 5.46 square miles (3,494.4 acres), with a resident
population, per 1995 estimates, of 15,853 people, with a total of 7,190 dwelling units, and a considerably larger
daytime (employee) population of approximately 56,000.
Immediately to the north is Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the City of Los Angeles. The Los
Angeles residential areas of Playa del Rey and Westchester are located just northerly of the Airport. To the
east is Del Aire, which is an island of Los Angeles County, as well as the City of Hawthorne. Both areas are
predominantly residential. Some commercial uses in the City of Hawthorne line Aviation Boulevard. The City
of Manhattan Beach is directly south of El Segundo. The Chevron Refinery is located in the southern portion
of El Segundo, between the City's residential areas and the City of Manhattan Beach. To the west of El
Segundo is the Pacific Ocean. A majority of the coastline is owned by the City of Los Angeles, which operates
two facilities within this area: the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant, currently undergoing an expansion, and
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Scattergood Generating Station. A small portion of the
coastline, 0.8 miles, is within the El Segundo City limits. The Southern California Edison Generating Station
and a coastal portion of the Chevron Refinery are located along this portion of the shoreline. The beach area
is publically owned and accessible.
The City of El Segundo has a very strong residential base, which is a mixture of single - family, two - family, and
multi - family residential. A majority of the residential area is in single - family use; however, according to the
1990 Census, over one -half of the population lived in multi - family units. Almost 66 percent of all residential
acreage, and almost 77 percent of the area located west of Sepulveda Boulevard and north of El Segundo
Boulevard, is in single - family use. Total acreage is about 687, or nearly 15 percent of the City. However,
single - family units account for only 47 percent of the housing units in the City. The two - family residential
category accounts for only 25 acres, or less than one percent of land in the City. Typical densities are 10 to
17 units per acre. Nearly one -third of all R -2 zoned sites are in single - family use. Multiple family residential
uses include apartment buildings and condominiums. Land area devoted to multiple family use accounts for
approximately 105 acres, or three percent of the total land area of the City. Densities generally range from
18 to 45 units per acre, in projects up to three and one -half acres. As of 1990, multi - family units comprise 53
percent of all residential units available.
Near the residential area is Downtown, which includes the Civic Center and provides a strong focal point for
the City. Also in this general vicinity is an older industrial area called Smoky Hollow. This area contains
mostly older industrial buildings of one or two stories.
There are neighborhood commercial areas scattered throughout the residential areas to serve the residents
of the City. In addition, there are some commercial uses east of Sepulveda Boulevard, mostly designed for
the daytime employee population. In addition to retail commercial, the City has a growing number of hotel
uses. There are over 1,446 hotel rooms currently available in the City.
The area of the City south of El Segundo Boulevard and west of Sepulveda Boulevard is taken up mostly by
the Chevron Refinery. The Refinery occupies approximately one -third of the City. The portion of the City east
of Sepulveda Boulevard is a combination of industrial, office, and commercial uses. This area contains the
"super block" development, a mixture of office and research and development uses, as well as the U.S. Air
Force Base.
An additional category of land use is public and quasi - public uses. These include the U.S. Air Force Base;
property owned by the City and County, including the City Hall and the Library; as well as the School District
property. Two of the District's school sites are not being used, one is vacant and the other is being leased
to the L.A. Raiders as a training camp. In addition, there is one parochial school and several churches
throughout the City. The City has excellent open space and recreation facilities, which exceed the State
4
0 031
suggested standards. These areas include publicly -owned parks, private parks, a publicly -owned beach area
open for public use, utility rights -of -way that have been used for park and open space areas, and the Chevron -
owned preserve for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly. Other uses not discussed above include railroad rights -of-
way, parking lots, streets and alleys.
The City of El Segundo is served by the existing network of roadways which is essentially a grid system of
north /south and east/west roadways. The primary north /south roadways are Aviation Boulevard, Douglas
Street, Nash Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, Center Street, Main Street, and Vista Del Mar. The primary
east/west streets are Imperial Highway, Imperial Avenue, Maple Avenue, Mariposa Avenue, Grand Avenue,
El Segundo Boulevard, and Rosecrans Avenue.
The six lane Glenn Anderson Freeway (Interstate 105), built along the City's northern boundary adjacent to
Imperial Highway, opened to the public in October 1993. Exits for the freeway are located at Nash Street and
Sepulveda Boulevard with eastbound entrances at Atwood Way off of Douglas Street and Imperial Avenue
off of Sepulveda Boulevard. The freeway terminates at California Street. The San Diego Freeway (Interstate
405) is located on the City's eastern boundary, with entrances and exists off of the 1 -105, El Segundo
Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) immediately north provides for
international air traffic.
The Century-El Segundo Extension Rail Transit Project (the Metro Green Line) opened in August of 1995.
Stations are located at Aviation Boulevard and 116th Street (connecting with the Century Rail Line), Mariposa
Avenue at Nash Street, El Segundo Boulevard at Nash Street, Douglas Street near Alaska Avenue, and
ending at Compton /Marine Boulevard in the City of Redondo Beach. A future station (Del Norte) will be
located near Douglas Street between the Aviation and Mariposa Stations.
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Reproduced as Appendix 1 is the City of El Segundo Initial Study and Checklist under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the form is to identify and evaluate potential
adverse environmental impacts. The checklist consists of background information, a checklist of
environmental impacts, and a determination by the lead agency of the project's potential impacts on the
environment and the type of CEQA document that will be prepared. A discussion of the items checked on the
form is located in Section 4.0.
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The first two Amendments (Items 1 and 2) simply provide more up -to -date Code language and, as discussed
under the project descriptions, will have no foreseeable environmental impacts in any of the categories. The
last amendment (Item 3) will have a less than significant impact related to Land Use, Noise, Hazards, Public
Services and, Aesthetics since the provisions create standards which currently do not exist in order to
minimize potential land use incompatibilities, minimize potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise,
reduce potential impacts to public services and minimize any potential aesthetic impacts.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Amendments, as minor Amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code and Zoning Map do
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and will not achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. There are no foreseeable negative cumulative impacts or
any impacts that will have an adverse affect on human beings, for the reasons previously detailed.
SECTION 5.0 SOURCES
5
p:\zoning\ea-405a\ea-405a.isr
0 032
Project # EA- 405A/GPA 97 -1 A/ZTA 97 -1 A
I. BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: General Plan Amendments (GPA), and Zone Text Amendments (ZTA).
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Segundo.
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Laurie B. Jester, Planning and Building Safety Department, (310)
322 -4670, extension 212.
4. Project Location: Citywide - City of El Segundo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of El Segundo, 350 Main St., El Segundo, CA. 90245 -
Citywide Amendments.
6. General Plan Designation: All designations
7. Zoning: All zones
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The proposed project includes Citywide General Plan Amendments, Zone Text Amendments and Zone
Changes as initiated by the City Council. The amendments are in response to the public's concerns about
potential impacts of certain land uses and development standards, particular impacts on residential areas
(Sepulveda Heights, Residential Heights and Drive - thrus).
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings)
The City of El Segundo is located in the Los Angeles urban area and is considered part of the Airport/South
Bay subregion. Situated between Los Angeles International Airport to the north, the City of Los Angeles
Hyperion Wastewater and Department of Water and Power Treatment Plants and the Pacific Ocean to the
west, the Chevron refinery and the City of Manhattan Beach to the south, and the City of Hawthorne to the
east.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None
0 033
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning — Biological resources _ Utilities and Service
Systems
Population and Housing — Energy and Mineral
Resources _ Aesthetics
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
III. DETERMINATION:
Hazards
Noise
Public Service
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this Initial Study of Environmental Impact, the Planning Commission of the City of El
Segundo finds the following:
That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
_ That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because mitigation measures, as described on an attached sheet, have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
_ That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the impact is "potentially
significant impact" or a "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant
effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable andards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR, including
revisions or ion me sures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
/-4-/
Bret B.Pernarcy AICP,
Director of Pla ning and Building Safety
Secretary of the Planning Commission
City of El Segundo
June 25 , 19 -2Z._
2
0 034
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets).
3
r
1 �i
Potentially
Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
Significant
No
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
1.
Land Use Planning. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with general plan designation or
X
zoning?
b)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
X
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
X
vicinity?
d)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
X
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
e)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
X
established community (include a low- income or
minority community)?
2.
Population and Housing. Would the proposal:
a)
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
X
population projections?
b)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
X
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
X
housing?
3.
Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a)
Fault rupture?
X
b)
Seismic ground shaking?
X
c)
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
d)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
X
e)
Landslides or mudflows?
X
f)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g)
Subsidence of the land?
X
h)
Expansive soils?
X
3
r
1 �i
0 036
Potentially
Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
X
4. Water. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
X
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
X
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
X
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
X
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
X
of water movements?
f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either
X
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifier by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capacity?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
X
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
5. Air Quality. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
X
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
X
or cause any changes in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
X
6. Transportation/Circulation. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
X
nearby uses?
0 036
5 p 037
Potentially
Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
Significant
No
Significant
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
X
bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
X
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
X
7. Biological Resources. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
X
habitats (including, but not limited to, plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage
X
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
X
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and
X
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
X
S. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
X
plans?
b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and
X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
X
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
9. Hazards. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
X
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
X
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
X
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
X
potential health hazards?
5 p 037
0 038
Potentially
Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
No
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
X
brush, grass, or trees?
10. Noise. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X
11. Public Services. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection?
X
b) Police protection?
X
c) Schools?
X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
e) Other governmental services?
X
12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
b) Communications systems?
X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e) Storm water drainage?
X
f) Solid waste disposal?
X
g) Local or regional water supplies?
X
13. Aesthetics. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
X
c) Create light or glare?
X
14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
X
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
X
0 038
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
7 0 039
Potentially
Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
c) Affect historical resources?
X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
X
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
X
the potential impact area?
15. Recreation. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
X
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
a) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
X
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
X
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
X
short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in conjunction
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects
X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
7 0 039
b) impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site - specific conditions for the project.
zoning \ea- 405a \EA- 405a.isc
8 0 040
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 4, 1997
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Continued Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to provide new regulations for Wireless
Communication Facilities; and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with CEOA.
Environmental Assessment EA -403 and Zone Text Amendment ZTA 96 -3. The General Plan Amendment associated
with Wireless Communication Facilities was processed and approved (Ordinance No. 1272) with the first quarter
General Plan Amendments/ Zone Text Amendments, (EA -405, GPA 97 -1, and ZTA 97 -1) on June 17, 1997.
Applicant: City of El Segundo.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Hold Continued Public Hearing/Workshop;
2) Discussion;
3) Reading of Ordinance by title only;
4) Introduce Ordinance;
5) Schedule second reading and final adoption of Ordinance on August 19, 1997; or,
6) Schedule introduction and first reading of Ordinance on August 19, 1997; and /or,
7) Other possible action /direction.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On July 07,1997, the City Council held a Continued public hearing (from May 20, June 3 and 17, 1997) on the Zone
Text Amendments for Wireless Communications Facilities, and directed Staff to also include discussion of Wireless
Communication Facilities at this special joint Public Hearing/Workshop. Staff previously distributed to the City Council
letters from the FCC regarding the status of the City's regulations, a response to the FCC from the City, various articles
on Wireless Communications and color copies of examples of different type of screening for Wireless Communication
Facilities.
(Continued on next page )
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. draft Ordinance No.
2. Exhibit "A" - Utility and Street Light Pole Heights and Widths.
3. Exhibit "K" - General Plan Amendment Policy, adopted June 17 1997.
FISCAL IMPACT:
(Check one) Operating Budget: Capital Improv. Budget:
None Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance: Date:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required - Yes_ No_
ORIGINATED: Date: July 28, 1997
Bret B. Birnard /AicP, DireEtor of Planning and Buildi
BY:
'. Morrison
TAKEN:
Date:
0 X41
Wireless Communication Facilities
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND (Cont.):
In February 1996, the Federal Telecommunications Act was signed into law, which preserves local authorities the right
to govern, through an ordinance, the placement, design, and construction of Wireless Communication Facilities.
Section 704 of the Act does not allow regulations which prohibit or have the affect of prohibiting the provisions of
"Personal Wireless Services ".
At the November 5, 1996 City Council meeting, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858, the Council
approved an Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) , Ordinance No. 1262, as an "urgency" measure. The Ordinance
imposed a forty -five (45) day moratorium upon the issuance of permits for Wireless Communication Facilities in the
City. At the December 17, 1996 City Council meeting, the IZO was extended to remain in effect until November 4,
1997, ten months and 15 days from the expiration date; or, until it is superseded by the adoption of another Ordinance.
On January 9, 1997, the Planning Commission conducted a public workshop to study the issues pertaining to wireless
communication facilities, and directed staff to schedule a public hearing for discussion and consideration of Wireless
Communication Facilities regulations, and a related General Plan Policy. On January 30, 1997, Planning Staff and the
City Attorney met with representatives from telecommunication carriers and consulting services (LA Cellular, Air
Touch, AT &T Wireless, Nextel, Cox, Next Wave, and Koll Telecommunication Services, The Planning Consortium,
and JM Consulting Group), discussed a number of issues relative to the proposed regulations and received their input
on the draft regulations. On February 13 and 27, March 6 and 27, and April 10 and 24, 1997, the Planning
Commission held public hearings on Wireless Communication Facilities Regulations.
On April 24, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2391 which recommends approval of revisions
to the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. The Planning Commission Resolution was previously distributed to the
City Council.
DISCUSSION:
Section 20.08.020 of the ESMC (Zoning Code) presently allows cellular towers in non - residential zones as accessory
uses; and, Section 20.12.030 provides an exemption to building height for cellular towers, or other similar structures,
so that they may be erected above the height limits required by the zoning district. Since the City's Zoning Code does
not currently provide specific standards or regulations for Wireless Communication Facilities, the continued application
of the very minimal standards contained in the City's Zoning Code could result in a threat to the public safety and
welfare. The citizens of El Segundo have expressed significant concern relating to the location of wireless
communication facilities within the community. Their primary concern relates to the aesthetic effects of such facilities
on neighboring properties and the community as a whole. The proposed General Plan and Zone Text Amendments,
by adding new definitions and regulations for Wireless Communication Facilities, should serve to reduce the potential
for negative impacts to the community. These regulations are intended to supersede applicable provisions of the Citys
Zoning Code pertaining to antenna structures and communication equipments, and to establish requirements and
guidelines for governance of wireless communication facilities, without imposing unreasonable limitations on cellular
transmission facilities.
The proposed Zone Text Amendment addresses specific safety and aesthetics concerns through a two -tired regulatory
process which divides antennas and supporting structures into "Major Facilities" and "Minor Facilities." The
amendment requires Planning Commission approval for Major Facilities through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
process and administrative approval through a Wireless Communication Facilities Permit (WCFP), which would utilize
the existing Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process.
The Amendment specifies general regulations for all facilities, including location, design, and development
requirements, as well as discretionary screening and site selection guidelines. The screening and site selection
guidelines allow the City to evaluate and process any facility permit based on size, obtrusiveness, location preferences,
and the extent to which the proposed facility is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, or blends into the
surrounding environment. Additionally, the proposed amendment provides separate regulations for Major and Minor
Facilities.
0 042
Wireless Communication Facilities
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
For example, if a Minor Facility is proposed to be located within a residential zone, Planning Commission approval of
a Conditional Use Permit is required. Major Facilities are prohibited within two hundred (200) feet of any property
containing a residential use. More detailed discretionary guidelines with respect to screening, site selection, and
setbacks of major and minor facilities and their location in close proximity to other types of utility facilities, are also
provided.
Additionally, the proposed amendment includes provisions that make pre- approved locations available for lease to
wireless communications providers. These provisions will allow the providers to install a Major Facility by obtaining
an administrative approval of a Wireless Communications Facilities Permit (WCFP). It also encourages the providers
to lease public and other pre- approved properties in locations that the City determines are best suited for such
purposes. These properties may include the City water tower, the golf course, park light poles, the bell tower at the
High School and Southern California Edison substations or rights -of -way. It is Staffs intention and goal to identify and
have the Planning Commission and City Council pre- approve antenna locations, as a separate item, as soon as
possible after the new Code amendment is adopted. Approval of these locations is not a part of this proposed
amendment. Additionally, the City Council will need to adopt fees for the new WCFP and Coordinated Antenna Plan
(CAP) Permits concurrently with the adoption of the Zoning Code Amendment, or shortly thereafter. This effort will
follow a similar noticed public hearing process.
The proposed Amendment also includes Coordinated Antenna Plan (CAP) provisions, which allow Wireless
Communication Facility providers to request Planning Commission approval for the location of potential future facilities
without providing detailed design specifications. The CAP will identify potential future facility locations by lot and parcel
number. Approval of a CAP authorizes the Director of Planning and Building Safety to later approve major facilities
through an administrative WCFP, subject to the requirements of the CAP without further Planning Commission
approval.
The Amendment, as originally drafted by the City Attorney, included a provision which required quarterly processing
of all Major Facilities applications. This would allow the Planning Commission to review all major applications received
in a quarter at one time at one public hearing. This is similar to the Quarterly General Plan Amendment/Zone Text
Amendment/Zone Change system that Staff and the City Council have recently established. The provision could
speed up the processing of some applications and slow down others. Also, it would give the Planning Commission
the opportunity to look at the broader issues of the potential impacts of multiple facilities. The Planning Commission
did not recommend approval of this provision, as they were concerned that it may delay the processing of applications
and providers may "time" their application submittal which may not be beneficial to the City.
The Planning Commission also recommended an exemption, Section 20.62.060 D1 on page five (5) of the draft
Ordinance, for "Ham" radio antennas. Although Ham radio antennas can have visual impacts, the proposed
amendment is directed at regulating the potential proliferation of cellular antennas.
The Planning Commission recommends that a Variance not be required for either Minor or Major facilities in order to
exceed height limitations existing in the applicable zoning district. Sections 20.62.100 C. and 20.62.120 D. of the
proposed regulations require approval of a Conditional Use Permit for any Facilities, except Utility Mounted, which
exceed the maximum building height for the applicable zoning district.
In order to ensure the City's security in the event that a Facility is abandoned, and that the City will not be required to
incur costs in connection with a Facility's removal, Sections 20.62.220 C, D, and F of the regulations require that until
the cost of removal, repair, restoration and storage is paid in full, a lien will be placed on the abandoned personal
property and any real property on which the Facility was located, for the full amount of the cost of removal, repair,
restoration and storage.
The Planning Commission also had concerns regarding the telecommunication carriers various needs related to Utility
Mounted Facilities, and the appropriate lateral or vertical extensions beyond the existing utility pole. Exhibit "A" has
information on the average vertical height and horizontal extension for utility and street light poles in the City of El
Segundo. Most carriers indicated that they have no specific need for Utility Mounted Facilities, since they have no
intention of either attaching their facilities to utility poles or have no current projects. Sections 20.62.100 D and E
provide some flexibility for Utility Mounted Facilities, and Section 20.62.080 D (Screening and Site Selection
Guidelines) will be used when evaluating any proposed Facility. The Planning Commission believes these sections
0 043
Wireless Communication Facilities
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
will adequately address concerns regarding the potential visual impact of ladders and cages, often associated with
utility mounted poles for access and safety.
The City Council did adopt General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU 7 -1.7 as part of the first quarter amendment
process (EA -405) on June 16, 1997. Attached is the language which was approved, which states that the City will
develop standards for Wireless Communications Facilities to protect the public safety, general welfare, and quality of
life in the City.
An Initial Study/Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is required to evaluate the potential impacts which may
be caused by the proposed regulations. Since a Negative Declaration requires a minimum 20 -day public notice and
circulation period, based on the direction and recommendations from the Planning Commission on the General Plan
and Zone Text Amendments and the Zone Map changes, the City proceeded with the required environmental review
process for the proposed Amendments, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City
Council Resolution No. 3805, after the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution with their recommendations. The
Draft Initial Study / Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts was circulated for the 20 day public and agency
review period from May 1 st to May 29th, 1997, and no comments were received on the document. The Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impacts, which indicates there will be no environmental impacts associated with the
project, was adopted in conjunction with the first quarter General Plan Amendments, Zone Text Amendments, and
Zone Changes (EA -405) since the General Plan Amendment for Wireless Communication Facilities was adopted at
that time. The Ordinance for Wireless Communication Facilities has been modified to incorporate this Negative
Declaration by reference.
p:\zoning\ea403\ea4O3.ais
1.�
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -403 AND ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA 96 -3 REGULATING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
FACILITIES. PETITIONED BY THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO.
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the City Council did, pursuant to California Government Code Section
65858, adopt an Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) (Ordinance No. 1262) as an urgency measure to impose a forty -five
(45) day moratorium upon the issuance of permits for Wireless Communication Facilities; and,
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1996, the City Council did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised public
hearing and extended the Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO), by adopting Ordinance No. 1266, until November 4, 1997,
ten months and fifteen (15) days from the expiration date on December 20, 1996; and,
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment (EA -403), including a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impacts forthe Zone TextAmendments, General Plan Amendments, and Zone changes,
has been prepared and circulated to all interested parties, staff, and affected public agencies for review and comment
in the time and manner prescribed by law; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 1997, the Planning Commission did hold, pursuant to law, a public workshop to
review revisions to the Zoning Code and the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on February 13, 1997, the Planning Commission did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised
public hearing on amendments to the Zoning Code and City's General Plan, and notice was given to the time, form
and manner prescribed by law; and,
WHEREAS, on February 27, March 6, and 27, and April 10, and 24,1997, the Planning Commission did hold,
pursuant to law, duly advertised continued public hearings on amendments to the Zoning Code and City's General
Plan, and notice was given to the time, form and manner prescribed by law, and,
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1997, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2391 recommending to
the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment EA -403, General Plan Amendment 97 -2, and Zone Text
Amendments ZTA 97 -1 regarding amendments to the Zoning Code and General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on May 20 , June 3, and 17, July 1, and August 4, 1997, the City Council did hold, pursuant to
law, duly advertised public hearings on amendments to the Zoning Code and City's General Plan, and notice was
given to the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and,
WHEREAS, at said hearings, the City Council established the following facts and findings:
1. That the Federal Telecommunications Act was signed into law in February of 1996. The effects of this Act
upon the City's ability to regulate these facilities require further study by the City; and,
2. That changes in wireless telecommunications technology, additional licenses granted by the Federal
Communications Commission, and the increased demand for wireless communication services have led to
a significant increase in the demand for wireless communication facilities within the City of El Segundo.
There has been an increase in the number of applications for, and inquiries regarding, proposed wireless
communication facilities in the City; and,
3. That the citizens of El Segundo have expressed significant concern relating to the location of wireless
communication facilities within the City. Their primary concern relates to the aesthetic effects of such
facilities on neighboring properties and the community as a whole; and,
0 045
i Mo,
4. That failure to implement new regulations for wireless communication facilities will result in a substantial
number of wireless communication facilities being installed without regulations needed to protect the public
safety and welfare of the citizens of El Segundo. New regulations will provide for consistency in decision -
making among applications before the City; and,
That because of its size, topography, and development, there are a limited number of potential sites in the
City which would be acceptable for the installation of wireless communication facilities; and,
6. That the City of El Segundo is nearly fully developed with a variety of residential and commercial uses; and,
7. That the adoption of regulations and guidelines for the establishment of wireless communication facilities will
serve to reduce the potential for negative impacts on the community; and,
That the requirements and restrictions imposed by this Ordinance are necessary to protect the safety and
welfare of the citizens of El Segundo.
9. That the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of a General Plan Amendment
encouraging the development of standard for the location and design of wireless communication facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after consideration of the above facts and study of proposed
Environmental Assessment EA-403 and Zone Text Amendment 96 -3 the City Council finds as follows:
GENERAL PLAN
1. The proposed Zoning Code amendments are consistent with the 1992 General Plan.
2. The General Plan Amendment considered by the Planning Commission was reviewed in conjunction with
other General Plan Amendments as part of Environmental Assessment EA-405 and General Plan
Amendment 97 -2.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Draft Initial Study was made available to all local and affected agencies and for public review and
comment in the time and manner prescribed by law. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted with the General Plan Amendment for Wireless Communications,
which was adopted on June 17, 1997 with Ordinance No. 1272. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is
hereby incorporated into this approval by reference; and
2. That when considering the whole record, 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; and
That the City Council directs the Director of Planning and Building Safety to file with the appropriate agencies
a Certificate of Fee Exemption and de minimus finding pursuant to AB 3158 and the California Code of
Regulations. Within ten (10) days of the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts, the applicant shall 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. As approved in AB
3158, the statutory requirements of CEQA will not be met and no vesting shall occur until this condition is
met and the required notices and fees are filed with the County.
2 0 046
r,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council approves EA-403 and Zone Text
Amendment ZTA 96 -3, and adopts changes to the El Segundo Municipal Code as follows:
Section 1. Chapter 20.62, "Wireless Communication Facilities," is hereby added to the El Segundo Municipal
Code to read as follows:
"Chapter 20.62
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Sections:
20.62.020
Purpose.
20.62.040
Definitions.
20.62.060
Applicability.
20.62.070
Distances.
20.62.080
Regulations For All Wireless Communication Facilities.
20.62.100
Additional Regulations for Minor Facilities.
20.62.120
Additional Regulations for Major Facilities.
20.62.140
Public Property Facilities.
20.62.160
Coordinated Antenna Plans.
20.62.190
Appeal or Review and Notices.
20.62.200
Reservation of Right to Review Permits.
20.62.220
Facility Removal.
20.62.020 PURPOSE.
The purpose of these requirements and guidelines is to regulate the location and design of 'Wireless
Communication Facilities' as defined herein to protect the public safety, the general welfare, and the
quality of life in the City of El Segundo, and to facilitate the orderly deployment and development of
wireless communications services in the City of El Segundo. The El Segundo City Council has found
and determined that these requirements and guidelines for Wireless Communication Facilities are
necessary to attain such purpose. These regulations are intended to supersede applicable provisions
of the El Segundo Zoning Code pertaining to antenna structures and appurtenant communications
equipment and to establish minimum requirements and flexible guidelines for the governance of
Wireless Communications Facilities, taking into consideration the rapid technological advances and
the proliferation in use of radio communication services.
20.62.040 DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases and their derivations shall have
the meanings given herein. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not merely directory.
A. "Accessory structure" means an "accessory structure" as defined in Section 20.08.020 of the
El Segundo Municipal Code.
B. "Antenna structure" means an antenna, any structure designed specifically to support an
antenna, and /or any appurtenances mounted on such structure or antenna.
C. "Collocation" or "collocated" means the location of multiple antennas which are either owned
or operated by more than one service provider at a single location and mounted to a
common supporting structure, wall or building.
D. "Commercial mobile service" means any Mobile Service that (1) is offered in return for
monetary compensation, (2) is available to the public or a substantial portion of the public
and (3) provides subscribers with the ability to access or receive communication from the
0 047
public switched telephone network. Commercial Mobile Service includes, but is not limited
to, paging service, wireless data transmission, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile
radio service (SMR), and personal communications service (PCS).
E. "Coordinated antenna program" or 'ICAP" means a coordinated program to pre- approve
multiple locations for proposed and potential future Facilities.
F. `Disguised facility" means any Wireless Communication Facility which is designed to blend
into the surrounding environment, typically one that is architecturally integrated into a building
or other concealing structure.
G. `fixed wireless service" means any service providing Radio Communication to or from
antenna structures at fixed and specified locations which are not designed to be moved
during operation and which offers the ability to access or receive communication from the
public switched telephone network.
H. `Ground Mounted "means Mounted to a pole, lattice tower or other freestanding structure that
is specifically constructed for the purpose of supporting an antenna.
I. `Lattice tower"means a tower -like structure used to support antennae, typically with a height
in excess of forty feet (40') and comprised of three or four steel support legs.
J. 'Major facility" means a Wireless Communication Facility that is either Ground Mounted or
Roof Mounted; provided that a Roof Mounted facility screened on all four sides by solid
material that is architecturally compatible with the surrounding environment and does not
exceed the maximum height of the applicable zoning district shall be deemed a Minor
Facility.
K. 'Microwave communication" means the transmission or reception of Radio Communication
at frequencies of a microwave signal (generally, in the 3GHz to 300GHz frequency
spectrum).
L. 'Minor facility" means a Wireless Communication Facility that is either (1) Wall Mounted, (2)
Utility Mounted, or (3) Roof Mounted in such a manner that the entire facility is screened by
solid material on four sides, is architecturally compatible with the surrounding environment,
and does not exceed the maximum height of the applicable zoning district.
M. 'Mobile service" means any service providing Radio Communication to or from at least one
antenna that is designed to be moved during operation or used during halts at unspecified
locations; or as otherwise defined in 47 USCS Section 153 and interpreted by the Code of
Federal Regulations and the Federal Register.
N. 'Mounted" means any manner of attachment, support, or connection, whether on ground or
on a structure.
O. `Muttipoint distribution service" means a Microwave Communication service that delivers
video programming directly to subscribers, including multichannel multipoint distribution
services, instructional television fixed services, and local multipoint distribution services, or
as otherwise defined by the Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section
1.4000 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations and any interpretive decisions thereof
issued by the Federal Communications Commission.
P. 'Radio communication" means the transmission and /or reception of impulses, writing, signs,
signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds through space by means of electromagnetic waves.
4 0 048
Q. Roof Mounted" means a Facility that is Mounted on any structure that is not specifically
constructed for the purpose of supporting antennae, in any manner that does not satisfy the
either the definition of Wall Mounted or Utility Mounted, typically Mounted on the roof of an
existing building.
R. `Utility Mounted" means a Facility that is Mounted to an existing above - ground structure
specifically designed and originally installed to support electrical power lines, cable television
lines, street lighting, traffic signal equipment, park lighting or a structure on public or private
property deemed by the City to be similar in nature.
S. 'Wall Mounted" means a Facility that is Mounted on any vertical or nearly vertical surface
of a building or other existing structure that is not specifically constructed for the purpose of
supporting an antenna (including without limitation the exterior walls of a building, an existing
parapet, the side of a water tank, the face of a church steeple, or the side of a freestanding
sign) such that the highest point of the Antenna Structure is at an elevation equal to or lower
than the highest point of the surface on which it is mounted.
T. 'Wireless communications facility' or 'Facility" means an Antenna Structure and any
appurtenant facilities or equipment located within City limits and that is used in connection
with the provision of Wireless Service.
U. `Wireless service" means any type of wireless service providing Radio Communications that
satisfies the definition of Commercial Mobile Service, Fixed Wireless Service, or Wireless
Video Service.
V. 'Wireless video service" means any service providing Radio Communication which delivers
video programming.
20.62.060 APPLICABILITY.
A. All Facilities which are erected, located, or modified within the City of El Segundo on or
following the effective date of this Ordinance shall comply with this Chapter, subject to the
categorical exemptions under Paragraph 3 of this Section, provided that:
1. All Facilities for which applications were determined complete by the Planning and
Building Safety Department prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be
exempt from the regulations and guidelines of this Chapter;
2. All Facilities for which building permits were issued by the Planning and Building
Safety Department prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be exempt from
the regulations and guidelines of this Chapter, unless and until such time as
subparagraph (B) of this Section applies; and,
B. All Facilities for which building permits and any extension thereof have expired shall comply
with the provisions of this Chapter.
C. The following uses shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter until such time as
federal regulations are repealed or amended to eliminate the necessity of the exemption:
1. Any Antenna Structure that is one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter and is
designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct -to -home
satellite service, as defined by Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any interpretive decisions thereof
issued by the Federal Communications Commission;
2. Any Antenna Structure that is two meters (78.74 inches) or less in diameter located
in a commercial or industrial zone and is designed to transmit or receive Radio
Communication by Satellite Antenna;
3. Any Antenna Structure that is one meter (39.37 inches) or less in diameter or
diagonal measurement and is designed to receive Multipoint Distribution Service,
provided that no part of the Antenna Structure extends more than twelve feet (12')
above the principal building on the same lot; and,
D. The following uses shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter:
1. Any Antenna Structure that is designed and used solely to receive television
broadcast transmission.
2. Any Antenna Structure that is designed and used solely in connection with
authorized operations of an amateur radio station licensed by the FCC (i.e., a "HAM"
radio transmission).
20.62.070 DISTANCES.
For the purpose of this Chapter, all distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to
intervening structures, from the nearest point of the proposed Major Facility to the relevant property
line.
20.62.080 REGULATIONS FOR ALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES.
A. Application Requirements and Procedures.
Each applicant for a permit required by this Chapter shall submit (1) a Site Plan to
the City which includes a description and visual diagram of the location and design
of the proposed Facility; and (2) a completed application for either a Wireless
Communications Facilities Permit ( "WCFP ") or a Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP "), in
accordance with the requirements set forth in Chapters 20.72 (Administrative
Determination) and 20.74 (Variance and Conditional Use Permit) of the City of El
Segundo Municipal Code, and such additional or different requirements as are made
applicable by this Chapter. Any application that is improperly submitted or fails to
contain all of the information as required by this Chapter shall be deemed
incomplete.
2. Each application shall contain a brief narrative accompanied by written
documentation that explains and demonstrates Applicant's efforts to locate the
facility in accordance with the Screening and Site Selection Guidelines set forth in
Paragraph (3) of this Section.
3. Each application shall contain a narrative that discloses the exact location and
nature of any and all existing Facilities that are owned, operated or used by the
Applicant and located within five (5) miles from the geographic borders of the City
of El Segundo.
4. Each application shall contain a narrative and appropriate maps that disclose the
geographic area(s) within the City of El Segundo that are proposed to be serviced
by the proposed Facility, the geographic area(s) bordering the City of El Segundo,
if any, that will be serviced by the proposed Facility, the nature of the service to be
provided or purpose of the Facility, the reasons, if any, why the Applicant cannot
locate the Facility outside the City of El Segundo, and the efforts, if any, that
Applicant has made to locate the Facility outside the City of El Segundo.
6
0 050
5. Notwithstanding any permit that may be granted in accordance with this Chapter, the
Facility shall be erected, located, operated and maintained at all times in compliance
with this Chapter and all applicable laws, regulations and requirements of the
Building Code, and every other code and regulation imposed or enforced by the City
of El Segundo, the State of California, and the United States Federal Government.
Applicants are separately required to obtain all applicable building and construction
permits that may be required prior to erecting or installing the Facility.
B. Development Requirements. The Facility shall comply with each of the following
requirements:
1. The Facility shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification,
public safety, warning, or other required seals or required signage.
2. Any and all accessory equipment, or other equipment associated with the operation
of the Facility, including but not limited to transmission cables, shall be located within
a building, enclosure, or underground vault in a manner that complies with the
development standards of the zoning district in which such equipment is located.
In addition, if equipment is located above ground, it shall-be visually compatible with
the surrounding buildings and either (1) shrouded by sufficient landscaping to screen
the equipment from view, or (2) designed to match the architecture of adjacent
buildings. If no recent and /or reasonable architectural theme is present, the Director
of Planning and Building Safety may require a particular design that is deemed by
the Director to be suitable to the subject location.
3. The Facility exterior shall be comprised of non - reflective material(s) and painted or
camouflaged to blend with surrounding materials and colors.
4. Any and all screening used in connection with a Wall Mounted and /or Roof Mounted
Facility shall be compatible with the architecture, color, texture and materials of the
building or other structure to which it is Mounted.
C. Setback Requirements and Guidelines. The Facility shall be considered an Accessory
Structure. If the Facility is located in a residential zone or within two hundred (200) feet of
a residential use, then the Facility shall comply with the setback requirements for such zone.
In all other instances, the extent of compliance with the setback requirements for the zone
in which the Facility is located shall be considered, in accordance with the following
guidelines, by the City in connection with its processing of any Facility permit.
D. Screening and Site Selection Guidelines. In addition to the above requirements the following
guidelines shall be considered by the City in connection with its processing of any Facility
permit.
1. The extent to which the proposed Facility blends into the surrounding environment
or is architecturally integrated into a concealing structure, taking into consideration
alternate sites that are available.
2. The extent to which the proposed Facility is screened or camouflaged by existing or
proposed new topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures.
3. The total size of the proposed Facility, particularly in relation to surrounding and
supporting structures.
4. The location of the proposed Facility and the extent to which it conforms to the
following in order of preference (Item a being the most preferred):
7 0 051
Collocated with an existing Facility or located at a pre- approved location.
b. Attached to an existing structure such as an existing building,
communication tower, church steeple or utility.
C. Located in an industrial zoning district.
d. Located in a commercial zoning district.
The availability of suitable alternative locations for the Facility.
20.62.100 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR MINOR FACILITIES.
The following requirements shall apply in addition to the requirements of Section 20.62.080.
A. Requirement for Wireless Communications Facilities Permit ( "WCFP "). Subject to
Subparagraphs B. and C. of this Section, each Minor Facility that is not specifically exempt
under Section 20.62.060 of this Chapter must first obtain administrative approval of a WCFP
in accordance with Chapter 20.72, Administrative Determinations and any additional or
different requirements made applicable by this Chapter. If the Director of Planning and
Building Safety denies an application for a WCFP, (s)he shall make a written determination
supported by findings that the proposed Facility would cause significant negative impacts on
the public safety or welfare.
B. Residential Zones Require Conditional Use Permit. A Minor Facility shall not be located
within a residential zone in the City of El Segundo unless such Facility receives Planning
Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
C. Height Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision in the El Segundo Municipal
Code, no Minor Facility, except Utility Mounted facilities, shall exceed the maximum building
height for the applicable zoning district unless such Facility receives Planning Commission
approval of a Conditional Use Permit, which permit shall not be considered for approval
unless:
(1) the applicant demonstrates to the City's satisfaction that exceeding the height
limitation is reasonably necessary for operation of the facility; or
(2) the Facility is collocated and the height in excess of zoning requirements is
reasonably necessary to the proposed shared use.
D. Vertical Extension - Utility Mounted Facilities - A Utility Mounted Facility may, if approved by
the Director of Planning and Building Safety or Planning Commission, as appropriate, exceed
the maximum building height limit for the applicable zoning district. The extent that the Utility
Mounted Facility increases the height of the existing utility pole or structure, and the need
for such height increase, shall be additional considerations taken into account by the City in
connection with its processing of any permit for a Utility Mounted Facility. A Utility Mounted
Facility shall not increase the height of a utility pole or structure by more than four (4) feet
of its existing height unless such facility receives Planning Commission approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
E. Horizontal Extension - Utility Mounted Facilities - The extent that the Utility Mounted Facility
protrudes or extends horizontally from the existing utility pole or structure, and the need for
such extension, shall be additional considerations taken into account by the City in
connection with its processing of any permit for a Utility Mounted Facility. A Utility Mounted
Facility may not protrude or extend horizontally more than eighteen (18) inches from the
0 052
J
existing utility pole or structure unless such Utility Mounted Facility receives Planning
Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
20.62.120 ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS FOR MAJOR FACILITIES.
The following requirements shall apply in addition to the requirements of Section 20.62.080.
A. Requirement for Conditional Use Permit. Each Major Facility that is not specifically
exempt under Section 20.62.060 of this Chapter must first obtain Planning
Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Chapter 20.74,
Variance and Conditional Use Permit, and any additional or different requirements
made applicable by this Chapter. If the Planning Commission denies any application
for a Conditional Use Permit, it shall make a written determination supported by
findings that the proposed Facility would cause significant negative impacts on the
public safety or welfare.
B. Location Requirements.
Lattice Towers shall not be located in (1) any part of Zones C -RS or C -2, (2) any
area zoned for residential use, or (3) any part of Zone C -3 located west of
Sepulveda Blvd. Lattice Towers may be permitted in all other Zones; provided,
however, that they shall not be located within one hundred (100) feet of any property
containing a residential structure.
2. No portion or extension of a Major Facility shall protrude beyond property lines or
extend into any portion of property where such facility is not itself permitted;
provided, however, that the City may approve the location of guy wires in a required
setback if such approval is consistent with the guidelines and requirements set forth
in this chapter.
3. A Ground Mounted Facility shall not be located in a required parking area, vehicle
maneuvering area, vehicle/ pedestrian circulation area or area of landscaping such
that it interferes with, or in any way impairs, the utility or intended function of such
area.
C. Additional Design Requirements.
1. A Ground Mounted Facility shall be secured from access by the general public with
a fence of a type and design approved by either the Director of Planning and
Building Safety or the Planning Commission.
2. A Ground Mounted Facility shall be covered with a clear anti - graffiti material of a
type approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. The City may grant
an exception to this requirement if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the City that there is adequate security around the Facility to prevent graffiti.
D. Height Requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision in the El Segundo Municipal
Code, no Major Facility shall exceed the maximum building height for the applicable zoning
district unless such facility receives Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use
Permit, which permit shall not be considered for approval unless:
(1) the applicant demonstrates to the City's satisfaction that exceeding the height
limitation is reasonably necessary for operation of the facility; or
(2) the Facility is collocated and the height in excess of zoning requirements is
reasonably necessary to the proposed shared use.
0 053
E. Additional Screeninq and Site Selection Guidelines. In addition to the above requirements,
the following guidelines shall be considered by the City in connection with its processing of
any facility permit.
1. A Major Facility should not be located within two hundred (200) feet of any property
containing a residential use.
2. A Major Facility should be located at least five hundred (500) feet from the nearest
existing, legally established Major Facility (except in the event that such Facility is
Collocated).
3. A Ground Mounted Facility should be located in close proximity to existing above
ground utilities, such as electrical tower or utility poles (not scheduled for removal
or undergrounding in the next eighteen (18) months), light poles, trees of comparable
height, water tanks and other areas where the Facility will not detract from the image
or appearance of the City.
4. A Roof Mounted Facility that extends above the existing parapet of the building on
which it is Mounted should be screened by a material and in a manner that is
compatible with the existing design and architecture of the building.
5. A Roof Mounted Facility, and any guy wires, supporting structures and accessory
equipment should be located and designed so as to minimize the visual impact as
viewed from surrounding properties and public streets.
6. No part of a Ground Mounted Facility should be located in any required setback.
20.62.140 PUBLIC PROPERTY FACILITIES.
A. Pre - Approved Locations.
1. The City will approve by Resolution, following a duly noticed public hearing, a list of
sites which may be located on public property or within the public right -of -way and
which are approved for Major Facilities. Each site shall include a description of
permissible development and design characteristics, including but not limited to
maximum height requirements. The City shall make said Resolution available to all
persons upon request. The approved list of locations may be subsequently
amended by Resolution from time to time.
2. All Facilities located on a public property site which is pre- approved in accordance
with subparagraph B.I. of this Section following the effective date of this Ordinance
must obtain administrative approval of a WCFP in accordance with Chapter 20.72,
Administrative Determinations, and any additional or different requirements made
applicable by this Chapter.
3. All leases of public property which are preapproved in accordance with
subparagraph B.1. of this Section shall be non - exclusive. The operator of a Facility
located on such public property shall make the supporting structure of the Facility
available to any other Applicant wishing to collocate to the extent technically
feasible.
B. Requirement for Separate Lease Agreement. Any lease of City-owned property for the
purpose of erecting a Wireless Communications Facility shall require a negotiated lease
agreement or other written license granted by the City of El Segundo. The existence of a
10
0 054
DRAVI
lease agreement or license shall not relieve Applicant of any obligations to obtain appropriate
permits as required by the El Segundo Municipal Code.
20.62.160 COORDINATED ANTENNA PLANS.
A. Requirements. Any Wireless Service provider may apply for Planning Commission approval
of a Coordinated Antenna Plan (CAP) to obtain pre - approval for the use of proposed and
potential future locations for Facilities, subject to the following requirements:
1. The CAP shall specify permissible development and design characteristics for
identified future locations, including but not limited to maximum height and size, type
of supporting structure, and type of antenna.
2. The CAP shall identify potential future locations by lot and parcel number.
3. Applications for a CAP may be considered by the Planning Commission after holding
a noticed public hearing thereon in accordance with Section Chapter 20.90,
Procedures for Hearings, Notices and fees.
Following Planning Commission approval of a CAP, each Facility that complies with
the specifications of the CAP may be approved subject to an administrative WCFP
in accordance with the requirements set forth and referenced herein. Except for the
type of permit, nothing in this Section shall relieve the Applicant of the obligation to
comply with the Regulations, Requirements, and Guidelines as required by this
Chapter, and the Director of Planning and Building Safety may deny a WCFP, or
place conditions upon its approval, notwithstanding prior approval of a CAP.
5. Any conditions placed on the approval of a WCFP for a Facility which complies with
the CAP shall not be inconsistent with the specifications of the CAP.
6. The CAP shall not vest any permanent rights to use the pre- approved locations for
Facilities beyond the date of expiration. Unless extended, the CAP shall expire
twenty-four (24) months following its approval by the Planning Commission
regardless of whether any WCFP has been granted pursuant to the CAP. The
Planning Commission may at its discretion, after written request therefor, extend the
term of the CAP for up to twenty four (24) additional months; no CAP shall continue
longer than forty-eight (48) months.
B. Findings. The Planning Commission shall approve a CAP based upon the following findings:
1. The intent and purpose of this Chapter, and all its Regulations and Requirements
will be preserved.
2. Any future Facility complying with the specifications imposed by the CAP will not
have a significant adverse impact on the subject site or surrounding community
beyond those impacts considered in the approval of the CAP.
3. Any future Facilities within the specifications of the CAP will be consistent with the
General Plan and the uses permitted in the Zoning Code, subject to subsequent
approval of a WCFP.
B. Application Procedures. Each applicant for a CAP shall submit the following information:
Written application on a form prescribed by the Planning and Building Safety
Department;
11 0 055
2. A map clearly indicating the following information:
Lot and parcel dimensions for proposed locations;
b. Location, size, height and use of all existing buildings and structures on the
proposed location and abutting properties;
C. Location, height, and description of all existing above - ground utility facilities
on the proposed location and abutting properties;
d. Location, size, and dimensions of all existing yards, setbacks, landscape
areas, parking, walls, fences, and spaces between structures on the
proposed location and abutting properties.
e. Any other information as may be required by the Planning and Building
Safety Department.
3. Written statement indicating for each location (1) the proposed maximum height of
the Facility; (2) the anticipated type of Antenna Structure; (3) any anticipated
accessory equipment to be located on the site; (4) proposed screening materials, if
any, in general terms; and (5) willingness to collocate on the proposed location.
4. All applicable permit processing fees as established by Resolution. An additional
permit fee for each proposed Facility shall be submitted with each subsequent
application for a WCFP, and with each request for modification of a permit.
D. Modification Procedures. Subsequent approval of a WCFP for a Major Facility subject to a
CAP requires strict compliance with the specifications of the CAP (in addition to any
additional conditions of the WCFP); provided, however, that the Director of Planning and
Building Safety may approve a Minor Modification of the CAP concurrent with an application
for a WCFP. For the purposes of this Section, a Minor Modification shall include any
adjustment to the approved specifications of the CAP which (a) does not increase the height
of the Facility by more five percent (5 %) from the approved maximum height, (b) does not
move the location of the Facility closer to any approved location, (c) does not move the
location of the Facility within two hundred (200) feet of a residential property or school
facility, and (d) does not otherwise significantly increase the adverse impacts upon the
subject site or surrounding community.
20.62.180 APPEAL OR REVIEW AND NOTICES.
Any Applicant or the operator and /or owner of a facility may appeal a final decision of the Director
of Planning and Building Safety or Planning Commission. All appeals shall be processed as provided
by Chapter 20.82, ( Appeal or Review) and Chapter 20.90 (Procedures for Hearings, Notices and
Fees).
20.62.200 RESERVATION OF RIGHT TO REVIEW PERMITS.
A. Changed Circumstance. Any Conditional Use Permit or WCFP granted or approved
pursuant to this Chapter shall be granted or approved by the City and its Planning
Commission with the reservation of the right and jurisdiction to review and modify the permit
(including the conditions of approval) based on changed circumstances. Changed
circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following in relation to the approved facility
as described and diagramed in the related Site Plan: increased height or size of the facility;
additional impairment of the views from surrounding properties; change in the type of
antenna or supporting structure; changed color or materials; substantial change in location
12
0 056
\ n
on the site; and an effective increase in signal output above or near the Maximum
Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits imposed by the Revised Radio frequency Emissions
Guidelines by the Federal Communications Commission.
B. Additional Right to Revoke for Violation. The reservation of right to review any permit
granted or approved hereunder by the City, its Planning Commission and /or City Council is
in addition to, and not in lieu of, the right of the City, its Planning Commission and /or City
Council to review and revoke or modify any permit granted or approved hereunder for any
violations of the conditions imposed on such permit.
C. Modification of Permit/ Collocation. Upon review, any changed circumstance as determined
by the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall require the application and approval of
a modification to the original WCFP or Conditional Use Permit, provided that any modification
to accommodate collocated facilities may be approved administratively without the approval
of the Planning Commission.
20.62.220 FACILITY REMOVAL.
A. Discontinued Use. The operator of a lawfully erected Facility, and the owner of the premises
upon which it is located, shall promptly notify the Director of Planning and Building Safety
in writing in the event that use of the Facility is discontinued for any reason. In the event
that discontinued use is permanent, then the owner(s) and /or operator(s) shall promptly
remove the Facility, repair any damage to the premises caused by such removal, and restore
the premises as appropriate such as to be in conformance with applicable zoning codes.
All such removal, repair and restoration shall be completed within ninety (90) days after the
use is discontinued, and shall be performed in accordance with all applicable health and
safety requirements. For purposes of this paragraph, a discontinued use shall be permanent
unless the Facility is reasonably likely to be operative and used within the immediately
following three -month period.
B. Abandonment. A Facility that is inoperative or unused for a period of six (6) continuous
months shall be deemed abandoned. Written notice of the City's determination of
abandonment shall be provided to the operator of the Facility and the owner(s) of the
premises upon which the Facility is located. Such notice may be delivered in person, or
mailed to the address(es) stated on the Facility permit application, and shall be deemed
given at the time delivered or placed in the mail. A written notice of the City's determination
of abandonment shall be mailed or delivered to the operator of the Facility at the address
stated in the relevant permit application.
C. Removal of Abandoned Facility or Hearing. The operator of the Facility and the owner(s)
of the property on which it is located, shall within thirty (30) days after notice of abandonment
is given either (1) remove the facility and restore the premises, or (2) provide the Planning
and Building Safety Department with written objection to the City's determination of
abandonment and request for hearing before the Director of Planning and Building Safety
in accordance with the procedures in Chapter 20.90 (Procedures for Hearings, Notices and
Fees) of the City of El Segundo Municipal Code. If a written objection is timely received and
a hearing is properly requested, the procedures for hearings, notices and related fees set
forth in Chapter 20.90 of the City of El Segundo Municipal Code shall apply. The operator
and /or owner shall be given the opportunity to provide evidence that the Facility was in use
during the relevant six (6) month period and that it is presently operational. The operator
and /or owner shall be given the opportunity to cross - examine any evidence provided by the
City to the contrary. The Director of Planning and Building Safety shall review all evidence,
determine whether or not the Facility was properly deemed abandoned, and provide the
operator notice of its determination.
13 0 057
,s 2
D. Removal by City. The City may remove the abandoned Facility, repair any and all damage
to the premises caused by such removal, and otherwise restore the premises as is
appropriate to be in compliance with applicable code at any time: 1) after thirty (30) days
following the notice of abandonment, or 2) following a notice of decision by the Director of
Planning and Building Safety, if applicable, subject to the owner /operator's right of appeal
under Chapter 20.82 (Appeal or Review) of the El Segundo Municipal Code. The City may,
but shall not be required to, store the removed Facility (or any part thereof). The owner of
the premises upon which the abandoned Facility was located, and all prior operators of the
Facility, shall be jointly liable for the entire cost of such removal, repair, restoration and
storage, and shall remit payment to the City promptly after demand therefore is made. The
City may, in lieu of storing the removed Facility, convert it to the City's use, sell it, or dispose
of it in any manner deemed by the City to be appropriate.
E. Penalties. The operator of the Facility, and the owners of the premises upon which it is
located shall be in violation of this Chapter for failure to timely comply with any requirements
hereunder. Each such person shall be subject to penalties for each such violation, pursuant
to Chapter 90.98 (Penalties) of the City of El Segundo Municipal Code.
F. City Lien on Property. Until the cost of removal, repair, restoration and storage is paid in full,
a lien shall be placed on the abandoned personal property and any real property on which
the Facility was located, for the full amount of the cost of removal, repair, restoration and
storage. The Director of Planning and Building Safety shall cause the lien to be recorded
in the County of Los Angeles Recorder's Office.
Section 2. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses,
phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; shall cause the same
to be entered in the book of original Ordinances of the City; shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof
in the records of the proceedings of the City Council at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall within
fifteen (15) days after the passage or adoption thereof cause the same to be published or posted in accordance with
the law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1997.
ATTESTED:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk (SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
N ' Mark Hensley, City Attor _ ey
14
Sandra Jacobs, Mayor
of the City of El Segundo, California
EA403 -2.ord
0 058
EXHIBIT A
UTILITY AND STREET LIGHT POLE HEIGHTS AND WIDTHS
STREET LIGHT
UTILITY POLES
STREET LIGHT
Major Arterial (i.e. Sepulveda, Aviation)
120 -180 feet
POLES
150 -175 feet
Wood Poles
Transmission Towers
Local- Residential (i.e. Hillcrest, Palm)
Height
35 -110 feet
75 -175 feet
30 -40 feet
Horizontal cross arm
Max. 6 feet
Max. 10 feet
4 -6 feet
length
(each side)
(5 feet on each side)
12 feet Imperial Hwy.
(each side)
STREET LIGHT
Street Type
Spacing Interval
Major Arterial (i.e. Sepulveda, Aviation)
120 -180 feet
Secondary Arterial (i.e. Nash, Grand)
150 -175 feet
Collectors (i.e. Main -4 lane, Center -2 lane)
110 -170 feet
Local- Residential (i.e. Hillcrest, Palm)
140 -200 feet
* Light pole spacing is often influenced by the location of existing structures, block lengths, property lines, and roadway
geometry and classifications.
p:\zoning\ea403\ea4O3.ais
0 059
City Council Ordinance No. 1272
EXHIBIT K
ADOPTED JUNE 16 ,1997
Land Use Element
Policy
LU 7 -1.7 Develop standards for Wireless Communication Facilities, to regulate their
location and design, to protect the public safety, general welfare and quality of life
in the City.
General Plan • Land Use Element Page 3 -29
Page 1 of 1
0 060
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 4,1997
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Public hearing on the following proposed (Second Quarter) amendments to the General Plan, Zone Text, and Zoning
Map: 1) Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Parking, 2) Parking Covenant, 3)Parking Demand Studies, 4) Outdoor
Dining Access, 5) Sound Transmission Control, 6) Storm Water Management, 7) Garage Streets side Setbacks,
8) Thrifty Land Use Changes, and 9) Drive- thru's - (GPA only); and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts in accordance with CEQA. Environmental Assessment EA -408, General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -2, Zone
Text Amendment ZTA 97 -2, and Zone Change ZC 97 -2, Second Quarter Amendments. Applicant: City of El Segundo
- Citywide Amendments;
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Open public hearing;
2) Discussion; and,
3) Direct Staff to draft Ordinance consistent with Planning Commission Recommendations or consistent with
alternate City Council direction;
4) Schedule introduction and first reading of Ordinance on August 19, 1997; and /or,
5) Schedule a Continued public hearing for a future date, if required; and /or,
6) Other possible action /direction.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On July 1, 1997, the City Council scheduled tonight's special joint Public Hearing/Workshop, which is the first time the
Council has reviewed the Second Quarter Amendments. On June 12, 1997, the Planning Commission Adopted
Resolution No. 2393 which recommends approval of revisions to the City's General Plan, Zoning Code, and the Zoning
Map. The Planning Commission Resolution was previously distributed to the City Council. These amendments include
proposed revisions to the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Parking which was held over from the first quarter
amendments at the request of Council. Additionally, pursuant to Council direction, the General Plan Amendment for
Drive - thru's, also not adopted as part of the first quarter Amendments, would be included with the second quarter
in order to avoid using one of the four General Plan Amendments allowed per year for the three remaining first quarter
amendments (EA -405A) which will also be discussed tonight.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. draft General Plan Amendments, Zoning and Subdivision Code Text Amendments and Zone Changes, dated
August 4, 1997 - Exhibits 1 through 8.
2. draft Initial Study / Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, June 18, 1997.
FISCAL IMPACT:
(Check one) Operating Budget: Capital Improv. Budget:
None Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance: Date:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
App
r ' tion Required - Yes_ No
ORIGINATED: Date: July 28,1997
/) -
.
Bret Bernard, A14, Dir ctlofanning and Building Safety
=orrison, Date:
-7
Manager
A ION TAKEN:
0 061
GPAIZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
DISCUSSION:
The following discussion provides a brief background of each of the nine proposed Amendments, together with a
discussion and analysis of the various options which the Planning Commission discussed and the final recommended
changes. A brief summary of the Planning Commission's recommendations is shown at the beginning of each
subject in bold type. Several of the proposed amendments may require multiple amendments such as a General
Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Text Amendment (ZTA), and Zone Change (ZC); and, therefore they have been
organized so that there is only one discussion for each item to avoid duplication. Each proposed amendment also has
multiple redline /strikeout exhibits associated with it. Each exhibit has been labeled with a header to easily cross -
reference the exhibit to the appropriate proposed Amendment.
1. SHSP Parking - Eliminate maximum 10% parking reduction in Smoky Hollow Zones, and allow parking
modifications pursuant to submittal of a parking demand study consistent with the requirements in
all other zones (ZTA).
The City Council expressed concerns regarding the current provisions in the parking section of the Zoning Code
(Section 20.54.030 B., Page 246) which allow the Planning Commission to approve a maximum 10% parking reduction
for properties located in Smoky Hollow (SB, MM, GAC and MDR Zones). Other existing provisions (Section 20.54.030,
B., Page 246) allow the Planning Commission to modify the required number of parking spaces in aU zone, based
on the submittal of a Parking Demand Study. In order to provide equity and consistency for all properties in all zones,
the provisions which allow the 10% maximum parking reduction in Smoky Hollow are proposed to be eliminated.
Instead the existing provisions which allow the parking space modification with submittal of a Parking Demand Study
are proposed to apply to all zones, including Smoky Hollow. On February 13, 1997, the consensus of the Planning
Commission was to accept Staff's recommendation to eliminate the 10% maximum parking reduction in Smoky
Hollow. This item was originally part of the first quarter set of amendments, but was held over to the second quarter
by the Council.
2. Parking Covenant - Revise off -site parking covenant requirements to provide a maximum 90 year time
limit for the covenant (ZTA).
The City Attorney has requested revisions to the Off -Site Covenant requirements in order to provide a time limit for
the Covenant. Under Section 20.54.080 of the Zoning code, property owners may enter into joint use and off -site
parking facilities agreements under certain situations. These agreements are then recorded as covenant against the
property. The proposed revisions to this section would make several minor changes.
First, the new language added to subsection B would make it clear that the covenant created by the agreement would
terminate no later than ninety years after the agreement becomes effective. Under the rule of perpetuities, certain
covenants and agreements are invalid unless they terminate either within ninety years after they are created of within
twenty -one years after the death of a person alive whom is a party to the covenant when the covenant or agreement
was first created. By making this revision, the agreements to be created pursuant to Section 20.54.080 would not be
held invalid based on the rule against perpetuities.
Second, the change in subsection A clarifies that the covenant created by the joint use and off -site parking facilities
agreement must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits or the beginning of the use, which ever occurs
first. Third, the second change to subsection A clarifies that the City Attorney may also require that certain conditions
and provisions be included in a joint use or off -site parking facilities agreement. On May 8, 1997, the Planning
Commission discussed the revisions that the City Attorney requested to the Off -site Parking Covenant requirements
in order to provide a time limit for the Covenant and agreed with Staffs recommendation.
0 062
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
3. Parka Demand Studies - Revisions to the requirements for Parking Demand Studies are not
recommended. (ZTA).
On December 17, 1997, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with amendments to the Zoning Code in order
to revise the provisions of the Zoning Code related to Parking Demand Studies. The Planning Commission has already
reviewed a portion of the regulations regarding the maximum parking reduction which may be granted in the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan area. The Commission as part of the first quarter Zone Text Amendments recommended to the
City Council that the 10% maximum reduction in required parking which could be granted in the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan area, with the approval of a Parking Demand Study by the Planning Commission, be eliminated.
The current standard for the rest of the City (Section 20.54.030 B.) allows the Planning Commission to modify the
required number of parking spaces based on the submittal of a Parking Demand Study. There is no limit on the
percentage reduction, that can be granted by the Planning Commission. Therefore it is up to the Planning
Commissions judgement to determine if a modification is appropriate and the size of the reduction. In fact, a Parking
Demand Study could conclude that increased parking over Code requirements should be provided and the Planning
Commission also has the authority to use this Code section to require that additional parking be provided. Additionally,
for any use for which there is no established number of required spaces in the Zoning Code, the Director of Planning
and Building Safety or the Planning Commission can require a Parking Demand Study to specify what the required
parking should be for a particular use.
The purpose of allowing the submission of a Parking Demand Study is to give a prospective developer or business
the opportunity to prove that their particular business operation does not need the number of parking spaces required
by Code and that they should be permitted to provide some lesser number of spaces; although as mentioned above,
a greater number may be required. An example of this is when Instorage, a mini - warehouse at 1017 East El Segundo
Boulevard, applied for a Variance to rent a portion of their required parking for long term vehicle storage. A Parking
Demand Study concluded only a fraction of the required number of spaces were necessary to serve the employees
and patrons of the facility. Based on the Study, the Planning Commission subsequently granted the Variance.
One concern raised by the City Council (Liam Weston) about allowing Parking Demand Studies is that the City has
developed a number of uses for which the required number of parking spaces is established. Developers and
businesses should simply comply with the required parking regulations and not be able to reduce that number. Another
implication of allowing reduced parking through a Parking Demand Study, discussed by the City Council, is the
potential for a new tenant to occupy a building which may have less than sufficient parking for that new use because
the building was constructed with less than the number of parking spaces required by code based on an approved
Parking Demand Study for the original tenant.
Planning Staff has researched the requirements for several other Cities in the South Bay and found that the Cities of
Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach have provisions for using Parking Demand Studies to reduce the number of
required parking spaces. The City of Long Beach has a provision for establishing the required parking for uses not
specified in the Zoning Code using a Parking Demand Study; while the City of Torrance has a default rate of
approximately one space for every 152 square feet of building area for any use not specifically listed in their Zoning
Code.
The Council may choose to expand upon the current requirements for preparation of a Parking Demand Study as
other Cities have done, but these requirements may not be appropriate in all cases. For very small businesses with
a limited number of employees and visitors, a Parking Demand Study prepared by licensed Traffic Engineer may be
overly onerous and unnecessary. In these cases, a count of actual parking spaces utilized, or anticipated to be utilized,
based on the company's business operations, could be sufficient to determine parking demand.
At its meeting of May 8, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed the current Zoning Code regulations for the use of
Parking Demand Studies as the method of determining the required number of parking spaces for uses which are not
listed in the Zoning Code; and, for business who desire to provide less than the required parking due to special
operational characteristics of their business. The Commission also reviewed the requirements from other cities in the
South Bay. The consensus of the Commission was to recommend to the City Council that the existing requirements
be retained which allow the use of Parking Demand Studies with no limit on the percentage decrease in parking that
may be granted.
0 063
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
4. Outdoor Dining Access - Create detailed standards for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in private
walkways (ZTA).
On August 17, 1996, the City Council adopted a Zone Text Amendment which included revisions to the requirements
for outdoor dining. As a result, the Zoning Code now requires a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor dining when the
outdoor dining area exceeds 200 square feet or 20% of the indoor dining area of a restaurant. Outdoor dining areas
below the size threshold are considered a permitted use. Through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, larger
outdoor dining facilities can be reviewed and conditions placed which require pedestrian access around the outdoor
dining areas to be protected. Without requirements in the Zoning Code for the smaller permitted outdoor dining areas,
it may be difficult to ensure safe pedestrian access is maintained around these outdoor dining areas.
Therefore, Planning Staff have proposed modifications to the Zoning Code to introduce minimum requirements to
ensure adequate access around outdoor dining areas. Staff proposes to use the standard in Title 24, the California
handicap accessibility standards and the Uniform Building Code (UBC), to insure that a minimum 48 -inch wide
pathway is maintain around an outdoor dining area. This is particularly important when existing restaurants are in a
strip mall, which would typically have a walkway between the shop front and the parking lot, request to place a small
seating area in front of their establishment. A minimum 48 -inch walkway width will ensure that pedestrians will be able
to travel safely along the walkway and not be forced to walk in the parking lot to get around an outdoor seating area.
The Public Works Department has recently approved several outdoor seating areas which encroach into the public
right -of -way (e.g., Stuft Pizza, Blue Butterfly, and Scoops Ice Cream). The business owners entered into agreements
with the City to operate the outdoor seating under specific conditions. These conditions include maintaining six (6) foot
wide clear sidewalk for pedestrian use, and other conditions to ensure the outdoor seating areas are operated in a safe
and clean manner. Planning Staff has developed two different approaches to ensure pedestrian accessibility around
outdoor dining areas. The first of these is to just include the minimum pedestrian walkway width into the site
development standards of each zone in which outdoor dining is permitted. This approach would not impose any other
requirements on operating an outdoor dining area. The second approach is to incorporate many of the conditions
placed on outdoor dining areas which encroach into the public right -of -way, into the Zoning Code to be used as general
standards for outdoor dining areas on private property. Several of these conditions do just simply reiterate other City
requirements and serve as notices to the business operator, such as requiring amplified sound permits and City
approval to sell alcohol. These are required even if they were not to be listed in this new section of the Zoning Code.
However, the City is considering these requirements in addition to the accessibility standards to ensure outdoor dining
areas are operated and maintained in a responsible manner.
On May 8, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed proposed revisions to the development standards for outdoor
dining to provide minimum requirements for pedestrian access around outdoor dining areas. The Commission
discussed two different approaches to the amendments. The first being to require a minimum pathway of 48 inches
in width adjacent to an outdoor dining area. This standard would be placed in the general provision section of the
development standards of each zone in which outdoor dining is permitted. The second approach was to include the
48 inch wide minimum pathway, as well as other more general standards for outdoor dining, in Chapter 20.12, General
Provisions. The Commission came to a consensus to recommend to the City Council the second approach; and, made
revisions to the draft text to include the actual standards and reference the Code sections which must be complied
with. Staff has revised the text (Exhibit 4) in order to provide the actual standards and to reference the regulations
which the outdoor dining general provisions are based upon.
5. Sound Transmission Control - Move Sound Transmission Control regulations to Title 16 of the El
Segundo Municipal Code and revise standards (ZTA).
Several changes are proposed for Chapter 20.58 of the Zoning Code, at the suggestion of City Staff, including
relocating it from Title 20, the Zoning Code, to Title 16, the Buildings and Structures Code. The regulations contained
pertain to the specifics of residential construction more than to the broader guidance of the Zoning Code, and Sound
Transmission Control is enforced by the City's Building Safety Division (which enforces Title 16), not the Planning
Division (which enforces Title 20). The following outlines the proposed revisions:
1 1 . •�
GPAIZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
1. Section 16.42.010 PURPOSE has been expanded to include that the objective of residential insulation, where
required, is to achieve an interior noise level of 45dB or lower.
2. Section 16.42.015 DEFINITIONS was added to provide definitions for the acoustic terms, since the absence
of these definitions have caused some confusion to users. Most of these definitions are currently included
in the Zoning Code and they have been updated. Two new definitions are added to emphasize the differences
between Expansions (definition 3.) and Remodels (definition 5).
3. Paragraph D of Section 16.42.020, SCOPE, has been expanded to explain why the Noise Contour Map of the
City uses Year 2000 predicted contours, rather than past or present contours. Emphasis on the Code's use
of the predicted noise contours for the year 2000 as the boundary for applicability of the Sound Transmission
Control Code is made here and elsewhere. It should be noted that if the predicted contour is accurate, there
will be a reduction of approximately 45% in the number of El Segundo residences currently within the LAX
noise impact area.
4. Section 16.42.040, APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS, has been modified with bold titles to make use
of the Chapter easier. The sub - sections of this Section have been reorganized to provide a smoother flow of
concepts. Following sub - section A., the parameters which mandate acoustic insulation are provided followed
by descriptions of those conditions which exempt residential construction from being insulated. The Section
has also been expanded to include the four situations wherein acoustic insulation would be mandatory in El
Segundo. Sub - sections B., C., and D. include additional description to clarify the differences between
remodels, generally the modification of the interior of an existing structure without significant increase to the
structure's square footage; room additions; and residential expansions which include multiple room
additions which add to the structure's total square footage. The four situations in which the
homeowner /developer must acoustically insulate include the following:
A. Paragraph C: When the value of a residential remodel reaches 75% of the assessed value of the
existing home the homeowner /developer must acoustically insulate (The homeowner /developer may
use the assessed value recorded with the county or a current assessment made by a licensed
property appraiser);
B.. Paragraph D: When a Habitable, Separable, Full room is added which increases the total square
footage of the home;
C. Paragraph E: When the addition is over 500 square feet; and
D. Paragraph E & G: When the addition is to be made to a home that has already been insulated using
public funds.
5. Section 16.42.045, APPLICATION TO NEW BUILDINGS, was not previously addressed although this Chapter
deals with both new and existing projects.
No changes have been made to what used to be Sections 20.58.050 through 20.58.080 aside from changing all
references from 20.58 to 16.42. The addition of acoustic treatment will normally add 3 - 12 % to the cost of the
addition, renovation, or expansion project. The regulations provided in this Chapter pertain specifically to single family
residential units. Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code specifies more stringent acoustical mitigation in multi - family
residential construction.
Specifically, to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission regarding the requirement that remodels that
are 75% or greater in cost of the existing assessed value of the residence will require insulation, the following are the
two goals and associated methodologies used in the development of this Code:
1. Goal: Reduce health risks, improve the quality of life of residents and prevent the degradation of
housing stock within the higher LAX noise impact contours, those above 70dB.
0 065
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
Methodology: Establish Municipal Code requirements, for single family housing stock within the 70dB CNEL
noise contour, that include acoustically upgrading existing stock as it is modified and require
new stock to include acoustic mitigation features. This is the same approach used by all
jurisdictions to provide improved energy conservation, fire and earthquake safety features
and health protection through improved Building, Electrical and Plumbing Codes. (The
Uniform Building Code has already established more stringent acoustic requirements for
multi - family residential construction than what we are recommending for single family
construction here). This is also consistent with the zoning provisions which require that any
new construction meet current codes, and when old structures are voluntarily removed, they
lose their non - conforming status.
2. Goal: Achieve a balance between the demand for acoustic insulation in single family residential
construction and the fiscal impact on families.
Methodology: The predicted 65dB CNEL contour for the year 2000 falls close to the existing 70dB CNEL
noise contour. By using the year 2000 noise contours we are able to exempt all residents
living in lesser impacted homes, essentially those in the current 65 - 70dB noise contour.
Further, only significant residential modifications require acoustic insulation, including the
following:
A. Habitable room additions that can and would normally be separable from the rest of
the house by use of a door.
B. Large scale modifications such as a complete remodel of the interior of an existing
structure, the addition of multiple rooms in a new wing, or a second story addition.
Modifications to existing residences which exceed 75% of the value of the existing
home are defined as "large scale ".
C. Any addition of greater than 500 square feet.
D. New construction.
E. Any modification or addition to a home that has been acoustically treated through a
program funded in part or in whole by the public.
As an example of how these regulations would apply, there are very few homes in El Segundo which have fire
insurance policies for less than $75,000, the cost of replacement of the structure. The proposed 75% rule would
mandate that someone remodeling or expanding an existing residence valued at $75,000 insulate the entire structure
acoustically, if the value of that remodel or expansion is equal to or greater than $56,250. A typical 698 square foot
expansion costs $56,250 according to the City's Building Valuation Guide. The cost of insulating such a "large scale"
improvement is approximately 6% of the total value of the construction. In the example given, typical acoustic
insulation would cost approximately $3,375. The acoustic treatment would consist, at a minimum, of double paned
windows, solid core exterior doors, and attic insulation.
The Commission questioned how acoustic improvements through the Residential Sound Insulation Program would
be coordinated with any other improvements a homeowner may wish to make on their residence. Residential sound
insulation is typically completed in two days for homes in the 65 dB noise contour and 5 -10 days for homes in the 70
dB contour. Homeowner projects must be done after completion of post - acoustical measurements for the Residential
Sound Insulation program in order to guarantee the integrity of that specific work product. On May 22, 1997, the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the revisions to the Sound Transmission Control
Regulations.
1 1..
GPA/ZTARC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
6. Storm Water Management - Incorporate Public Works Storm Water Permit Management Policies Into
the Land Use and Conservation Elements of the General Plan (GPA).
On July 15,1996, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles (RWQCB -LA) approved a Waste Discharge
Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WDR- NPDES) Storm Water Permit. This Los
Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 96 -054, NPDES No. CA5614001), which the City of El
Segundo is subject to, requires that jurisdiction incorporate watershed and storm water management considerations
in the appropriate Elements of the General Plan. Part III A.3.b of the Permit states that the provisions must be
included when the Elements are significantly rewritten. Although no guidance is provided to define "significantly
rewritten ", Staff felt it was appropriate to provide the revisions as part of the Quarterly General Plan Amendments
which the City is processing. The Permit states that the Elements to be revised may include, Conservation, Open
Space, Land Use, Public Utilities, Infrastructure or other appropriate Elements. Again, the permit provides no guidance
on what other Elements may be appropriate to revise. Staff believes it would be appropriate to incorporate new
policies into the Land Use and Conservation Elements. The proposed policies state as follows: 1) The City shall
establish policies and procedures for watershed and storm water management (Land Use Policy LU7 -1.8); and 2) The
City shall establish policies and procedures for watershed and storm water management (Conservation Element Policy
CN1 -4). On April 24, 1997, the Planning Commission discussed the provisions to incorporate Storm Water
Management policies into new General Plan Policies and agreed with Staff's recommendation.
7. Garage Streetside Setbacks - Revisions to provide a minimum street side yard setback of 20 feet for
garages in R -1 and R -2 Zones are not recommended. (ZTA).
Recently, the City Council (as initiated by Councilwoman Friedkin) expressed concerns regarding the required
streetside setback for garages. The concern centered around the minimum five (5) foot streetside setback, which
creates an inadequate driveway parking space. Vehicles parking in these areas may straddle and block the sidewalk
and possibly extend into the public street. This creates a potentially dangerous and inconvenient situation for
pedestrians, as well as vehicles. Although all new residences must provide a minimum two (2) car, 18 -20 feet wide
and 20 feet deep, fully enclosed garage space, plus one (1) additional space if the dwelling unit exceeds 3,000 square
feet in area, there are may legal non - conforming dwelling units in the City which do not meet these standards.
Driveway areas are often used as "over -flow" off - street parking to accommodate these non - conforming situations, as
well as parking for visitors and convenient parking for the occupants of the dwelling. In order to address the Council's
concern a minimum 20 foot setback from the property line, to accommodate a vehicle without impacting the sidewalk
or street, was discussed by the Council.
This revision could have several impacts on the design of new residences on narrow lots (less that 45 feet in width).
Attached garages with streetside access could not be accommodated, since a width of a 20 foot setback and 20 foot
deep garage, the minimum 5 foot wide side setback would not be provided. The options in this situation would include
a Variance or the garage could be constructed at the front of the lot. Additionally, with a 20 foot streetside setback
a large portion of the rear yard area would be lost. This area would instead become a driveway facing the street.
Detached garages with streetside access could be accommodated on lots which are 40 feet or greater in width, as
the Zoning Code allows detached accessory structures to maintain zero setback on one interior side property line.
The Multi- family Residential (R -3) Zone, Section 20.24.060 D.1., requires a 20 foot setback for parking garages or
covered spaces which face a street. Similar language could be required for the Single- family residential (R -1) and the
Two - family Residential (R -2) Zones.
On April 24, 1997, the majority of the Planning Commission did not recommend a 20 foot street side yard setback for
garages in the R -1 and R -2 Zones. They felt the visual impact of increased driveway areas adjacent to the public street
would be negative. They were also concerned that rear yards would be decreased dramatically in size. Additionally,
they stated that corner lots typically have 2 to 3 times the amount of on- street parking of interior lots and this could
easily accommodate any `overflow" parking requirements. The Commission did request additional information from
Staff regarding the legality of parking vehicles on a sidewalk or blocking a driveway. Staff consulted with the Traffic
Division of the Police Department who indicated that parking a vehicle in front of a driveway or on a sidewalk is a
violation of Sections 22500 e. and f., respectively, of the California Vehicle Code which the Police Department is
authorized to enforce. However, the Police Department did indicate that they generally only enforce these Code
0 067
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
sections on a complaint basis and there historically has not been a problem with violations in the R -1 and R -2 Zones,
although ongoing problems have occurred with multi - family units on Grand and Franklin Avenues.
g. Thrifty - Change land use designation and zoning for a portion of Thrifty and adjacent property at
southeast corner of Standard Street/Grand Avenue from Smoky Hollow Mixed - Use /Small Business
(SB) to Downtown Commercial (C -RS). (GPA & ZC).
Staff requested this change to the General Plan Land Use Designation for a 0.653 acre portion of the Thrifty Drug
Store property at 220 East Grand Avenue (located at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Standard Street), and
for the 0.172 acre Stick & Stein /Laundromat property at 202 and 210 East Grand Avenue (which is adjacent to the
Thrifty Drug Store commercial center), from Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use to Downtown Commercial and the Zoning
classification from Small Business (SB) to Downtown Commercial (C -RS).
Currently, the 1.54 acre Thrifty Drug Store commercial center property has two General Plan Land Use and two Zoning
designations. The northern 0.89 acre portion of the property has a Land Use and Zoning designation of Downtown
Commercial (C -RS) and the remaining 0.653 acres to the south has a Land Use and Zoning designation of Smoky
Hollow Mixed -Use and Small Business, respectively. The Thrifty Drug Store building itself is in the two different land
use Designations. The property at 202/210 East Grand Avenue (Stick & Stein/Laundromat), which is a separate parcel
but shares the same parking lot with the Thrifty Drug Store, has a Land Use and Zoning Designation of Smoky Hollow
Mixed Use and Small Business, respectively. However, there is no record of there being a recorded parking covenant
or joint use parking agreement in place.
Section 20.31.020, (C -RS) of the El Segundo Municipal Code, currently permits retail uses providing sales and
services, financial institutions, billiard -pool rooms and bowling alleys, clubs, governmental buildings, general offices,
medical - dental offices, restaurants, coffee shops, delicatessens and cafes, schools, theaters, union offices, and halls.
Section 20.42.020 (SB) of the El Segundo Municipal Code currently permits manufacturing, light industrial uses,
general offices up to 15,000 square feet per site (in conjunction with industrial activities such as engineering,
warehousing and distribution), automobile service uses, restaurants, coffee shops and cafes, public facilities and
utilities, general offices (up to 40% in conjunction with any other permitted use) and research and development.
The current land uses for these properties are retail, restaurant, and retail service which is consistent with the
proposed Downtown Commercial Land Use Designation and C -RS Zone, with the exception that the Stick & Stein
Saloon, has a City permit for Entertainment and Dancing; and, the C -RS Zone specifically precludes dancing and
entertainment (Section 20.31.020 H.). Therefore, the Stick & Stein Saloon would be a legal non - conforming use since
they have an Entertainment Permit in the C -RS Zone. The SB Zone does not have such a specific exclusion for
entertainment.
The proposed change in Land Use Designation and Zoning for the two properties would increase the permitted Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) for each site. The Smoky Hollow Mixed Use Land Use designation permits a maximum FAR of 0.6,
but the Downtown Commercial Land Use designation permits a maximum FAR of 1.0. The Thrifty Drug Store and
Stick & Stein/Laundromatcurrently have FAR's 0.26 and 0.84, respectively. However, due to the parking requirements
for both retail and restaurant uses, it is not likely that the increase in permitted FAR through the redesignation of the
two properties will result in additional development on the properties. The redesignation would also permit the
development of up to 10 residential unit, pursuant to Section 20.31.030 of the Zoning Code which allows residential
units above commercial development in the C -RS zone. Staff does not believe additional dwelling units would be
developed on the properties in question due to the layout of the buildings and the parking requirements.
The proposed change would be consistent with the actual land uses of the properties and the land uses, Land Use
designations and Zoning of surrounding properties, which are: commercial services and restaurants to the west (C -RS
Zone); a gas station to the east (C -2 Zone); multiple family residential units and retail and services to the north (R -3
and C -RS Zones), and a restaurant, multiple family residential uses (non- conforming), and industrial uses to the south
(SB Zone). Additionally, the layout of the property is oriented toward Grand Avenue and Standard Street and the Grand
Plaza Shopping Center on the west side of Standard Street, which is zoned C -RS. On May 22, 1997, the consensus
of the Planning Commission was to concur with Staffs recommendation to redesignate the Thrifty Drug Store and Stick
& Stein/Laundromatfrom Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use to Downtown Commercial in the General Plan and Zoning Code.
1 1.:
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
9. Drive - thru's - Adopt a new policy in the General Plan to establish regulations for drive -thru restaurants
to minimize impacts to residential uses. (GPA)
The consensus of the Planning Commission with the First Quarter Amendment was to adopt a new General Plan Land
Use Policy, Policy LU-1 -5.9, which states "Develop standard to address the potential impacts of drive -thru restaurants
on residential uses. As previously discussed, the Zone Text Amendment for drive - thru's will be reviewed with the First
Quarter Amendments at tonight's meeting, however this General Plan Amendment (GPA) is included with the Second
Quarter Items in order to avoid using another one of the four GPA's allowed per year.
An Initial Study /Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is required to evaluate the potential impacts which may
be caused by the proposed regulations. Since a Negative Declaration requires a minimum 20 -day public notice and
circulation period, based on the direction and recommendations from the Planning Commission on the General Plan
and Zone Text Amendments and the Zone Map changes, the City proceeded with the required environmental review
process for the proposed Amendments, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City
Council Resolution No. 3805, after the Planning Commission adopted the Resolution with their recommendations. The
Draft Initial Study / Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for EA -408 was circulated for the 20 day public and
agency review period from July 17th to August 4th, 1997, and no comments have been received on the document.
Planning Staff and the City Attorney's office would recommend that the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impacts, which indicates there will be no environmental impacts associated with the items which
make up the Continued second quarter General Plan Amendments, Zone Text Amendments, and Zone Changes (EA-
408).
p:\zoning\ea408\ea4O8.ais
1 1. •
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENT - AUGUST 4, 1997
SHSP PARKING - EXHIBIT 1
Page 1 of 1
Compact parking shall be allowed for office and industrial uses to a maximum of twenty (20 %) percent of
required parking spaces. Parking spaces provided in excess of the required number may be compact
size. Compact parking shall not be allowed for retail uses.
The Planning Commission may modify the required number of parking spaces based on the submittal of a
parking demand study. Additionally, for any use for which the number of parking spaces is not listed, the
Director of Planning and Building Safety or Planning Commission shall specify the required number of
spaces based on a parking demand study. (Ord. 1260).
zoning \ea - 408 \exhibits\offst -pk.cc
El Segundo Zoning Code • Section 20.54 - Off - Street Parking and Loading Spaces Page 246
0 070
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4,1997
PARKING COVENANT - EXHIBIT 2
20.54.080 JOINT USE AND OFF -SITE PARKING FACILITIES.
A. All parking spaces shall be located on the same lot or building site as the use for
which such spaces are required, except within the boundaries of the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan (see Section 20.54.130), provided, that such parking spaces for non-
residential uses may be located on a different lot or lots, all of which are less than
a distance of 300 feet from the use for which they are required. Such distance shall
be measured along a straight line drawn between the nearest point on the premises
devoted to the use served by such parking facilities and the premises providing such
parking facilities. A Prior to the issuance of any building hermits or the bgainning of
the use, whichever occurs first. the covenant as described in Section 20.54.080 B.3.
of this chapter shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorders eftd -nney Ih�
cgienan will include such reasonable conditions and provisions as the Planning
Commission er. Director of Planning and Building Safety or City Attorney_ may
impose.
B. The Planning Commission may authorize, through a discretionary permit procedure,
the joint use of parking facilities under the following conditions:
1. Up to 50% of the parking facilities of a use considered to be primarily a
daytime use may be used to satisfy the parking facilities required by this
chapter for a use considered to be primarily a nighttime use.
2. A covenant as described in Subsection 3 shall be recorded in the office of
the County Recorder, and may include such reasonable conditions as the
Planning Commission may impose.
3. When parking is to be provided off the regularly subdivided lot on which the
structure, or some portion thereof, is located, the owner or lessee of record
of the development site shall furnish satisfactory evidence to the Director of
Planning and Building Safety that he or she owns or has available sufficient
property to provide the minimum off - street parking required by the provisions
of Section 20.54.030. Whether parking is to be provided on property owned
by the applicant or is in another ownership, there shall be recorded in the
office of the county recorder, prior to the issuance of any building permit, a
covenant executed by the owners of such property for the benefit of the City,
in a form approved by the City Attorney, to the effect that the owners will
continue to maintain such parking space so long as such structure,
improvement, or use exists for which the parking is intended. How
ears from the date it first became effective. Such covenant shall also recite
that the title to and right to use the lots upon which the parking space is to be
provided will be subservient to the title to the premises upon which the
structure is to be erected and shall warrant that such lots are not and will not
be made subject to any other covenant or contract for such use without the
prior written consent to the City. In the event the owners of such structure
0 071
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
PARKING COVENANT - EXHIBIT 2
Page 2of2
should thereafter provide parking space equal in area within the same
distance and under the same conditions as to ownership upon a lot other
than the premises made subservient in a prior such covenant, the City will,
upon a written application therefore, accompanied by the filing of a similar
covenant, release such original subservient premises from such prior
covenant, and the owners shall furnish at their own expense such title
reports or other evidence as the City may require to ensure compliance with
the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1245).
zoning\ ea - 408 \exhibitsyoint- us\covenant.pkg
0 072
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
PARKING DEMAND STUDIES - EXHIBIT 3
HERMOSA BEACH
A. A Parking Plan may be approved by the Planning Commission to allow for a reduction in
the number of spaces required. the applicant shall provide the information necessary to
show that adequate parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors, and
employees or when located in a vehicle parking district, the applicant shall propose an in-
lieu fee according to requirements of this chapter.
B. Factors such as the following shall be taken into consideration:
1. Van pools;
2. Bicycles and foot traffic;
3. Common Parking facilities;
4. Varied work shifts;
5. Valet parking;
6. Unique features of the proposed uses;
7. Peak hours of the proposed use as compared with other uses sharing the same
parking facilities especially in the case of small restaurants or snack shops in the
downtown are or in multi tenant buildings;
8. Other methods or reducing parking demand.
C. A covenant with the City a party thereto, may be required limiting the use of the property
and /or designating the method by which the required parking will be provided at the time
that the Planning Commission determines that inadequate parking exists.
D. Fees, application and procedures for parking plans shall be set forth by resolution of the
City Council.
LONG BEACH
The requirement for a use not specifically mentioned in Tables ... shall be the same as for a use
specified which has similar traffic generation characteristics. The Zoning Administrator shall
determine what constitutes traffic generating characteristics. For unique uses the Zoning
Administrator my require a parking demand study. The parking demand study should be
prepared by an independent traffic engineer licensed by the State of California at the developer's
expense and must be submitted to the Director of Planning and Building and the Director of
Public Works for review and approval. Shopping centers of 150,000 square feet or more may
submit a parking demand study, as outlined above, in order to reduce the standard shopping
center ratio.
MANHATTAN BEACH
p 073
EA- 408 1GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 2 of 2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
PARKING DEMAND STUDIES - EXHIBIT 3
B. A use permit may be approved reducing the number of spaces to less than the
number specified in the schedules in Section 10.64.030 provided that the
following findings are made:
1. The parking demand will be less than the requirements in Schedule A
(parking) and B (loading); and
2. The probable tong -term occupancy of the building or structure, based on
its design, will not generate additional parking demand.
In reaching a decision, the Planning Commission shall consider survey data submitted by
an applicant or collected at the applicant's request and expense.
TORRANCE
For any use where the number of parking spaces has not otherwise been designated by the
provisions of this article, one (1) square foot of parking space shall be provided for each square
foot of building space.
p:\zoning\ea408\exhibits\prkstudy\pds.exh
0 074
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 3
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
OUTDOOR DINING ACCESS - EXHIBIT 4
Pedestrian Access Around Outdoor Dining Areas
Chapter 20.31 DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (C -RS) ZONE
20.31.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
All uses within the C -RS Zone shall comply with the Development Standards
contained in this section.
A. General Provisions
1. All uses shall be conducted within a fully enclosed building, except
a. Outdoor restaurants, cafes or seating areas, provided any
Uniform buildina Code (UM; and,
b. Outdoor recreational activities;
2. Required on -site parking shall not be allowed between the use
and /or building and the lot front line upon which said use or
building faces;
3. Prior to approval of any development project, all criteria of the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and trip reduction
criteria, as provided for in Section 20.55 Transportation Systems
management, shall be met; and,
4. Other provisions as required by Chapter 20.12, General
Provisions.
(This change would be duplicated, with slight modifications to match the formatting of each section in
Chapters 20.32, 20.33, 20.34, 20.36, 20.38, 20.40, 20.42, and 20.43)
OR
Chapter 20.31 DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (C -RS) ZONE
20.31.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
All uses within the C -RS Zone shall comply with the Development Standards
contained in this section.
A. General Provisions
1. All uses shall be conducted within a fully enclosed building, except
a. Outdoor restaurants, cafes or seating areas, provided they
comply with the provisions of Section 20.12.190; and,
b. Outdoor recreational activities;
0 075
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
OUTDOOR DINING ACCESS - EXHIBIT 4
Page 2of3
2. Required on -site parking shall not be allowed between the use
and /or building and the lot front line upon which said use or
building faces;
3. Prior to approval of any development project, all criteria of the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and trip reduction
criteria, as provided for in Section 20.55 Transportation Systems
management, shall be met; and,
4. Other provisions as required by Chapter 20.12, General
Provisions.
(This change would also be duplicated, with slight modifications to match the formatting of each section
in Chapters 20.32, 20.33, 20.34, 20.36, 20.38, 20.40, 20.42, and 20.43 and the following section would be
added:)
CHAPTER 20.12 GENERAL PROVISIONS
20.1 ?_.190 OUTDQQB DINING AREAS.
` • ••• • I • 11 •11PIMMUIR03ne • 1 I•
L
5.
n
-�
I
�+ b gu
time.
F.
L ALW
abg
Am
0 076
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
OUTDOOR DINING ACCESS - EXHIBIT 4
q
L
Page 3of3
p:\zoning\ea408\exhibits\walkways\walkway.txt
0 077
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4,1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
Chanter 1 a SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL
APPLICATION 16.42.0 10 PURPOSE. (All redlinadmaje[jal ba added,,,,B=
16.42.020 SCOPE. All references !Q r2eclioorz,,20.58 .... ba
16.42.040 APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS.
W
16.42.050 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
71 DB CNEL TO 75 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.060 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
65 DB CNEL TO 70 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.070 MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THE 71 DB CNEL TO 75 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.080 MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THE 65 DB CNEL TO 70 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.010 PURPOSE.
The purpose of the reaulations in this chapter is to safeguard life, health, property
and public welfare by establishing minimum requirements regulating the design,
construction and modification of buildings for residential occupancy in the
noise impacted vicinity of Los Angeles International Airport. The goat iG t� a hieve
a 45dB CNEL rating gfj. wgr in gDDliggbie n m
ew/ odified residential constructio
These sections are not intended to abridge any safety or health requirements under
any other applicable codes or ordinances.
. - e . • ���
L
(2/5/97)
15- 42cod.597
iii
W
16.42.050 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
71 DB CNEL TO 75 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.060 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
65 DB CNEL TO 70 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.070 MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THE 71 DB CNEL TO 75 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.080 MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THE 65 DB CNEL TO 70 DB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
16.42.010 PURPOSE.
The purpose of the reaulations in this chapter is to safeguard life, health, property
and public welfare by establishing minimum requirements regulating the design,
construction and modification of buildings for residential occupancy in the
noise impacted vicinity of Los Angeles International Airport. The goat iG t� a hieve
a 45dB CNEL rating gfj. wgr in gDDliggbie n m
ew/ odified residential constructio
These sections are not intended to abridge any safety or health requirements under
any other applicable codes or ordinances.
. - e . • ���
L
(2/5/97)
15- 42cod.597
iii
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 2 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
New I
I
New I
• • i • _ l� 1 •_ -1 •-1 • 1• 1
16.42.020 SCOPE.
(2/5/97)
15- 42cod.597
A. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all Group R buildings, as defined
by the Uniform Building Code, within the predicted 65 dB CNEL noise
contour of the Los Anaeles International Airport for the vear 2000.
B. Group R buildings are not allowed to be constructed within an airport CNEL
contour of 75 dB or greater.
C. This chapter is intended to supplement the provisions of the Uniform Building
Code and, in the case of conflict between this chapter and any other
applicable codes, the more restrictive requirements shall be met.
D. The location and boundaries of the predicted. vea 244 , 65 -70 dB CNEL
and 71 -75 dB CNEL Noise Zones are shown and delineated on the Noise
Contour Map of the City, which map is part of this title when adopted by
ordinance passed by the City Council in a manner described by law. 1bg
0 079
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 3 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
16.42.030 GENERAL.
All materials described by measurements herein are standard stock materials.
Therefore, a stud described as a 2 by 4 inch stud is the standard stock equivalent
of the description. The stock sold under that description may, in fact, measure
somewhat less than 2 by 4 inches.
16.42.040 APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS. (The order of para's is chap_ l
(215/97)
16- 42cod.597
Authority to Approve Plans: Authority for approval of all plans and
authority for the granting of all permits rests with the City's Building Official
and his designated representatives. In resolving all disputes involving
building in the City of El Segundo, the finding of the City's Building Official is
final.
• -� ... i- •li - -•�
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 5 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
F
Exemptions from Acoustic Insuiation Reauirements for Buildina
��_rs:....a:....�.. Amt -mriAitinnc nitCratinn.Q nr rAniirs to existlna residential
Post-Construction Acoustic Measurement: All new and modifying
residential construction within the 65 dB CNEL is subject to post -
construction /pre- occupancy acoustic measurement. Habitable rooms not
achieving a CNEL rating of 45 dB or less may preclude building occupancy
until such time as acoustic modification of that room achieves a CNEL rating
of 45 dB.
1L Dearadation of Acoustic Shell: Openings in the shell of a residence which
degrade its ability to achieve an interior CNEL rating of 45 dB or less when
all doors and windows are closed are prohibited. Any access panels, pet
doors, mail delivery drops, air conditioning or other openings must be
designed to maintain a CNEL rating of 45 dB or less in the room to which
they provide access.
L Substitute-Materials: Materials and construction assemblies which achieve
the required STC rating, R rating, or other acceptable criteria may be
substituted for those specified herein when approved by the Building Official.
Deviation from this Standard• Deviation from the standards provided
herein is permissible so long as the plans and materials list are verified to
comply with and achieve the 45 dB CNEL limit for every habitable room
constructed. Only verification by an architect, engineer, or contractor licensed
in the State of California is acceptable.
WKWOM . - • • _ >,
(715/97)
16- 42cod.597
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 6 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
Q
NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE FOLLOWING, PARAGRAPHS 20.58.050 THROUGH
20.58.080, EXCEPT TO MODIFY THE NUMBERS TO THE 16.42 SERIES.
16.42.050 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
71 dB CNEL TO 75 dB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
A. EXTERIOR WALLS
New walls that form the exterior portion of habitable rooms shall be
constructed as follows:
1. Studs shall be at least 4 inches in nominal depth;
2. Exterior finish shall be stucco, minimum 7/8" thickness, brick veneer,
masonry, or any siding material allowed by this code. Wood or metal
siding shall be installed over 1/2 -inch solid sheathing;
3. Masonry walls with a surface weight of less than 40 pounds per
square foot will require an interior studwall that is finished as required
by Section 16.42.050A.6;
4. Wall insulation shall be at least R -13 glass fiber or mineral wool and
shall be installed continuously throughout the stud space;
5. Exterior solid sheathing shall be covered with overlapping asphalt
felt; and,
6. Interior wall finish shall be at least 5/8" thick gypsum wallboard or
plaster installed on resilient metal channels that are attached to the
studs horizontally at a maximum spacing of 24 inches.
B. EXTERIOR WINDOWS
1. Openable Windows. All openable windows in the exterior walls of
habitable rooms shall have a laboratory sound transmission class
rating of at least STC 40 dB and shall have an air infiltration rate of
no more than .5 cubic feet per minute when tested according to
ASTM E -283.
2. Fixed Windows. All fixed windows in the exterior walls of habitable
rooms shall have a sound transmission class rating of at least STC
40 dB. This requirement may normally be achieved with 5/8 -inch
laminated glass, with an STC rating of 40 dB, set in non - hardening
glazing materials.
(2215/97)
16- 42cod.597
i
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 7 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
3. Openable and Fixed Windows. The total areas of glazing in rooms
used for sleeping shall not exceed 20% of the floor area.
C. EXTERIOR DOORS
1. Exterior hinged doors to habitable rooms that are directly exposed to
aircraft noise and are facing the source of the noise shall be a door
and edge seal assembly that has a laboratory sound transmission
class of at least STC 40 dB.
2. Exterior hinged doors to habitable rooms that are not directly
exposed to aircraft noise and do not face the source of the noise
shall have a minimum STC rating of 35 dB.
3. Sliding glass doors at habitable rooms shall not be allowed in walls
that are directly exposed to aircraft noise and are facing the source
of noise.
D. ROOF /CEILING CONSTRUCTION
Roof rafters shall have a minimum slope of 4:12 and shall be covered
on their top surface with a minimum 1/2 -inch solid sheathing and any
roof covering allowed by this code.
2. Attic insulation shall be batt or blown -in glass fiber or mineral wool
with a minimum R -30 rating applied between the ceiling joists.
3. Attic ventilation shall be:
a. Gable vents or vents that penetrate the roof surface that are
fitted with transfer ducts at least 6 feet in length that are
insulating flexible ducting or metal ducts containing internal
1 -inch thick coated fiberglass sound absorbing duct liner.
Each duct shall have a lined 90- degree bend in the duct so
that there is no direct line -of -sight from the exterior through
the duct into the attic, or
b. Noise control louver vents, or
C. Eave vents that are located under the eave overhang.
4. Ceilings that are directly below an attic shall be finished with gypsum
board or plaster that is at least 5/8 -inch thick. Ceiling materials shall
be mounted on resilient channels.
5. Skylights shall penetrate the ceiling by means of a completely
enclosed light well that extends from the roof opening to the ceiling
opening. A secondary openable glazing panel shall be mounted at
the ceiling line and shall be glazed with at least 3/16 -inch plastic,
tempered or laminated glass.
E. FLOORS
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 8 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
The floor of the lowest habitable rooms shall be concrete slab on grade.
Wood framed floors for habitable rooms will be allowed when they are
directly above another habitable room, a basement, garage, workshop, utility
room or other non - habitable room which is completely enclosed with wall,
door, or window materials allowed by this chapter.
F. VENTILATION
1. A ventilation system shall be provided that will provide at least the
minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements of this code
in each habitable room without opening any window, door or other
opening to the exterior. All concealed ductwork shall be insulated
flexible glass fiber ducting that is at least 10 feet long between the
supply fan plenum and any room supply grill.
2. Kitchen cooktop vent hoods shall be the non - ducted recirculating
type with no ducted connection to the exterior.
G. FIREPLACES
Each fireplace shall be fitted with a damper at the top of the chimney that is
operated from the firebox and shall have non - combustible doors across the
front of the firebox.
H. WALL AND CEILING OPENINGS
Openings in exterior walls, doors and ceilings of habitable rooms are
prohibited unless allowed by this chapter. Prohibited openings include:
1. Animal access doors;
2. Mailboxes; and,
3. Unit air conditioners
16.42.060 BUILDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE
65 dB CNEL TO 70 dB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
A. EXTERIOR WALLS
New walls that form the exterior portion of habitable rooms shall be
constructed as follows:
1. Studs shall be at least 4 inches in nominal depth;
2. Exterior finish shall be stucco, minimum 7/8" thickness, brick veneer,
masonry, or any siding material allowed by this code. Wood or metal
siding shall be installed over 1/2 -inch solid sheathing;
3. Masonry walls with a surface weight of less than 40 pounds per
rolml
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -22C 97 -2 Page 9 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
square foot will require an interior studwall that is finished as required
by Section 16.42.050A.6;
4. Wall insulation shall be at least R -13 glass fiber or mineral wool and
shall be installed continuously throughout the study space;
5. Exterior solid sheathing shall be covered with overlapping asphalt
felt; and,
6. Interior wall finish shall be at least 5/8" thick gypsum wallboard or
plaster.
B. EXTERIOR WINDOWS
1. Openable Windows. All openable windows in the exterior walls of
habitable rooms shall have a laboratory sound transmission class
rating of at least STC 35 dB and shall have an air infiltration rate of
no more than .5 cubic feet per minute when tested according to
ASTM E -283.
2. Fixed Windows. All fixed windows in the exterior walls of habitable
rooms shall be at least 1/4 -inch thick and shall be set in
non - hardening glazing materials.
3. The total area of glazing in rooms used for sleeping shall not exceed
20% of the floor area.
C. EXTERIOR DOORS
1. Exterior hinged doors to habitable rooms that are directly exposed to
aircraft noise and are facing the source of the noise shall be a door
and edge seal assembly that has a laboratory sound transmission
class of at least STC 35 dB.
2. Exterior hinged doors to habitable rooms that are not directly
exposed to aircraft noise and do not face the source of the noise
shall have a minimum STC rating of 30 dB.
3. Sliding glass doors at habitable rooms shall have glass that is
1/4 -inch thick.
D. ROOF /CEILING CONSTRUCTION
1. Roof rafters shall have a minimum slope of 4:12 and shall be covered
on their top surface with 1/2 -inch solid sheathing and any roof
covering allowed by this chapter.
2. Attic insulation shall be batt or blown -in glass fiber or mineral wool
with a minimum R -30 rating applied between the ceiling joists.
3. Attic ventilation shall be:
a. Gable vents or vents that penetrate the roof surface that are
fitted with transfer ducts at least 6 feet in length that are
insulating flexible ducting or metal ducts containing internal
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/TTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 10 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
1 -inch thick coated fiberglass sound absorbing duct liner.
Each duct shall have a lined 90- degree bend in the duct so
that there is no direct line -of -sight from the exterior through
the duct into the attic, or
b. Noise control louver vents, or
C. Eave vents that are located under the eave overhang.
4. Ceilings that are directly below an attic shall be finished with gypsum
board or plaster that is at least 5/8 -inch thick. Ceiling materials shall
be mounted on resilient channels.
5. Skylights shall penetrate the ceiling by means of a completely
enclosed light well that extends from the roof opening to the ceiling
opening. A secondary openable glazing panel shall be mounted at
the ceiling line and shall be glazed with at least 3/16 -inch plastic,
tempered or laminated glass.
E. FLOORS
The floor of the lowest habitable rooms shall be concrete slab on grade or
wood framed floors.
F. VENTILATION
1. A ventilation system shall be provided that will provide at least the
minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements of this code
in each habitable room without opening any window, door or other
opening to the exterior. All concealed ductwork shall be insulated
flexible glass fiber ducting that is at least 10 feet long between the
supply fan plenum and any room supply grill.
2. Kitchen cooktop vent hoods shall be the non - ducted recirculating
type with no ducted connection to the exterior.
G. FIREPLACES
Each fireplace shall be fitted with a damper at the top of the chimney that is
operated from the firebox and shall have non - combustible doors across the
front of the firebox.
H. WALL AND CEILING OPENINGS
Openings in exterior walls, doors and ceilings of habitable rooms are
prohibited unless allowed by this chapter. Prohibited openings include:
1. Animal access doors;
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
0 087
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 11 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
2. Mailboxes; and,
3. Unit air conditioners.
16.42.070 MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THE 71 dB CNEL TO 75 dB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
A. EXTERIOR WALLS
Exterior walls of habitable rooms that are directly exposed to aircraft noise
shall be modified as follows:
1. Wood frame walls with exterior wood siding or other lightweight
exterior finish shall be provided with a secondary interior stud wall
that is supported at the ceiling and the floor and is separated from
the surface of the interior wall by at least
1/2 -inch. The exposed surface of the secondary wall shall be finished
with 5/8 -inch gypsum wallboard or plaster;
2. Wood frame walls with an exterior finish of stucco, brick veneer or
other similar materials and with an interior finish that is less than
1/2 -inch thick shall be provided with an additional interior layer of 5/8-
inch gypsum wallboard;
3. Wood frame walls with an exterior finish of stucco, brick veneer or
other similar heavy materials and with interior finish that is at least
1/2 -inch thick do not require modification; and,
4. Walls that are constructed principally of load bearing masonry will not
require modifications.
B. EXTERIOR WINDOWS
1. Openable Windows in habitable rooms shall be replaced with an
openable window that has a laboratory sound transmission class
rating of at least STC 40 dB and shall have an air infiltration rate of
no more than .5 cubic feet per minute when tested according to
ASTM E -283.
2. Fixed windows in habitable rooms that face the source of aircraft
noise shall be modified by one of the following methods:
a. Replace the existing window with a window that has an
acoustic rating of at least STC 40 dB; or
b. Replace the existing window with 5/8" laminated glass that
has an acoustic rating of STC 40 dB; and,
C. Add secondary removable glazing at the interior or exterior of
the existing window. The secondary glazing shall be at least
1/4 -inch float glass or laminated glass.
3. Fixed windows in habitable rooms that do not face the source of
aircraft noise shall be replaced with 3/8 -inch laminated glass that has
`! ' • •
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 12 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
an acoustic rating of at least STC 36 dB.
4. The joint between the wall opening and the new windows required in
16.42.070 B.1. and 6.2.a. shall be continuously filled with glass fiber
insulation and the exterior cover trim shall be continuously caulked
to seal the joint.
5. Fixed glass shall be set in non - hardening glazing materials.
C. EXTERIOR DOORS
Exterior hinged doors to habitable rooms that are directly exposed to
aircraft noise shall be replaced with a door and seals that have a
laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least
STC 40 dB. A new rabetted frame shall be provided for each new
door to replace the existing frame.
2. Exterior hinged doors to habitable rooms that are not directly
exposed to aircraft noise shall be replaced with a door and seals that
have a laboratory sound transmission class rating of at least STC 35
dB.
3. Access doors from a garage to a habitable room shall be replaced
with a door and seals that have an STC rating of at least 30 dB.
4. Sliding glass doors in habitable rooms shall be fitted with a
secondary sliding glass door installed on the exterior of the existing
door and trimmed on all exposed sides with wood rim that is at least
2 inches thick (nominal). Joints between the new door and the wall
shall be continuously caulked.
5. The joint between the wall opening and the new door frame required
in Section 16.42.070 13.1. and 2. shall be continuously filled with
glass fiber insulation and the exterior cover trim shall be continuously
caulked to seal the joint.
D. ROOFS
1. Accessible attics shall be insulated to achieve a minimum R -30
insulation value.
2. Attic vents shall be modified as follows:
a. Gable vents or vents that penetrate the roof surface shall be
provided with noise control louver vents that meet the noise
reduction levels shown in Table 35 -A or transfer ducts that
are at least 6 feet in length. The ducts shall be of flexible
insulated ducting with a bend so that there is no direct
line -of -sight from the exterior through the duct into the attic.
b. Eave vents do not require modification.
3. Roofs with a slope of 2:12 or less and open beam ceilings shall be
modified only if bearing walls are adequate to support the additional
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
Page 13 of 18
load stresses:
a. Existing roof covering shall be removed to expose sheathing.
b. 2 x 6 rafters at 24- inches on center shall be installed directly
above the existing roof construction and supported by
existing bearing walls, shall be insulated with
R -19 fiberglass batts, and shall be covered with 1/2 -inch
plywood sheathing.
C. New roofing shall be installed on the new construction that
can be adequately supported by the new framing and existing
bearing walls.
E. FLOORS
Vent openings to underfloor areas of wood framed floors shall be
provided with acoustic vent baffles that meet noise reduction levels
shown in Table 35 -A. Vent baffles shall be fitted with 1/4 -inch mesh
screen.
Octave Band
Center Frequency, Hz
125
250
500
1,000
2,000
4,000
Sound Transmission
Loss. dB
4
5
6
9
10
12
2. Underfloor access doors shall be non - vented plywood or other
weatherproof material.
F. VENTILATION
A ventilation system shall be provided that will provide at least the
minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements of this code
in each habitable room without opening any window, door or other
opening to the exterior. All concealed ductwork shall be insulated
flexible glass fiber ducting that is at least 10 feet long between the
supply fan plenum and any room supply grill. Exposed ductwork may
0 090
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 14 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
be sheet metal with 1 -inch
fiberglass duct liner and shall have a bend in the duct to avoid direct
line -of -sight through the duct.
2. Kitchen cooktop vent hoods shall be replaced with non - ducted
recirculating vent hoods with no ducted connection to the exterior.
G. FIREPLACES
Each fireplace shall be fitted with a damper at the top of the chimney that is
operated from the firebox and shall have non - combustible doors across the
front of the firebox.
H. WALL AND CEILING OPENINGS
Openings in exterior walls doors and ceilings of habitable rooms that are not
allowed by this chapter shall be sealed with materials that are similar to
adjacent wall construction. Openings to be sealed include:
1. Animal access doors;
2. Mailboxes; and,
3. Unit air conditioners.
16.42.080 MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THE 65 dB CNEL TO 70 dB CNEL NOISE ZONE.
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
A. EXTERIOR WALLS
Exterior walls in this noise zone do not require modification.
B. EXTERIOR WINDOWS
1. Openable wood frame windows in habitable rooms facing aircraft
noise shall be replaced with new openable windows that have a
minimum laboratory sound transmission class of at least STC 35 dB
if the existing window has:
a. Missing or insecure glazing putty or other glazing materials,
or
b. Broken or cracked glass, or
C. An operating sash not securely supported in its frame or not
closed tightly against the frame.
2. Openable wood frame windows that do not require replacement by
Section 16.42.080A and that face aircraft noise shall be fitted with a
secondary window that has an STC rating of at least 25 dB. The
0 091
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 15 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
(z2/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
secondary window may be mounted at the exterior or interior of the
existing and shall be completely trimmed and caulked in place.
3. Openable metal frame windows in habitable rooms facing aircraft
noise shall be replaced with new openable windows that have a
minimum laboratory sound transmission class of at least STC 35 dB
if the existing window has:
a. Jalousie louvered glass sash, or
b. Missing or insecure glazing putty or other glazing materials,
or
C. Broken or cracked glass, or
d. An operating sash not securely supported in its frame or not
closed tightly against the frame.
4. Openable metal frame windows in habitable rooms facing aircraft
noise that do not require replacement by 16.42.080 B.3. shall be
fitted with a secondary window that has an STC rating of at least 25
dB. The secondary window may be mounted at the exterior or
interior of the existing window and shall be completely trimmed and
caulked in place.
5. Fixed windows in habitable rooms facing aircraft noise shall be
glazed with 1/4 -inch glass unless they are part of an acoustic window
assembly.
6. Openable windows in habitable rooms that do not face aircraft noise
shall be modified as follows:
a. Jalousie louvered glass windows shall be replaced with
windows that have a laboratory sound transmission class of
at least STC 30 dB.
b. Windows that are not jalousie shall be fitted with a secondary
window that has an STC rating of at least 25 dB.
7. Fixed glass windows in habitable rooms that do not face aircraft
noise shall not require modification.
C. EXTERIOR DOORS
Exterior doors in habitable rooms that are directly exposed to aircraft
noise shall be modified as follows:
a. Hollow core or lightweight doors and doors with glazed
openings shall be replaced with doors that have a minimum
laboratory sound transmission class of at least STC 35 dB.
b. Solid core or heavy panel doors that weigh at least 4 lbs. per
sq. ft. or more shall be fitted with a drop seal at the sill and
vinyl bulb seals at the jambs and head.
2. Exterior doors in habitable rooms that are not directly exposed to
aircraft noise shall be modified as follows:
a. Hollow core or lightweight doors and doors with glazed
0 09?
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 16 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
openings shall be replaced with doors that have a minimum
laboratory sound transmission class of at least STC 30 dB.
b. Solid core or heavy panel doors that weigh at least 4 Ibs per
sq. ft. or more shall be provided with weather - stripping at the
sill, head and jambs.
3. Access doors from a garage to a habitable room shall be replaced
with a door and seals that have an STC rating of at least 30 dB.
4. Sliding glass doors in this noise zone do not require modification.
D. ROOFS
1. Accessible attics shall be insulated to achieve a minimum R -30
insulation value.
2. Attic vents shall be modified as follows:
a. Gable vents or vents that penetrate the roof surface shall be
provided with noise control louver vents that meet the noise
reduction levels shown in Table 35 -A or transfer ducts that
are at least 6 feet in length. The ducts shall be of flexible
insulated ducting with a bend so that there is no direct
line -of -sight from the exterior through the duct into the attic.
b. Eave vents do not require modification.
3. Roofs with a slope of 2:12 or less and open beam ceilings shall be
modified only if bearing walls are adequate to support the additional
load stresses:
a. Existing roof covering shall be removed to expose sheathing.
b. 2 x 6 rafters at 24- inches on center shall be installed directly
above the existing roof construction and supported by
existing bearing walls, shall be insulated with R -19 fiberglass
batts, and shall be covered with 1/2 -inch plywood sheathing.
C. New roofing shall be installed on the new construction that
can be adequately supported by the new framing and existing
bearing walls.
E. FLOORS
Floors in this noise zone do not require modification.
F. VENTILATION
A ventilation system shall be provided that will provide at least the
minimum air circulation and fresh air supply requirements of this code
in each habitable room without opening any window, door or other
opening to the exterior. All concealed ductwork shall be insulated
flexible glass fiber ducting that is at least 10 feet long between the
supply fan plenum and any room supply grill. Exposed ductwork may
be sheet metal with 1 -inch fiberglass duct liner and shall have a bend
in the duct to avoid direct line -of -sight through the duct.
0 093
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 17 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
2. Kitchen cooktop vent hoods shall be replaced with non - ducted
recirculating vent hoods with no ducted connection to the exterior.
G. FIREPLACES
Each fireplace shall be fitted with a damper at the top of the chimney that is
operated from the firebox and shall have non - combustible doors across the
front of the firebox.
H. WALL AND CEILING OPENINGS
Openings in exterior walls doors and ceilings of habitable rooms not allowed
by this chapter shall be sealed with materials similar to adjacent wall
construction. Openings to be sealed include:
1. Animal access doors;
2. Mailboxes; and,
3. Unit air conditioners.
(2115/97)
16- 42cod.597 0 094
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 18 of 18
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4,1997
SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL - EXHIBIT 5
(22/5/97)
16- 42cod.597
AI � �
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 1
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4,1997
STORM WATER - EXHIBIT 6
.• i �• .l• • • -• _ • �. l-� • • 11 am
Il- l- I'll "!
zoning \ea - 408\ exhibits \storm - wtr\storm- wtr.wpd
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
GARAGE STREETSIDE SETBACKS - EXHIBIT 7
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - R -1 ZONE
20.20.060
D. Setbacks
1. wont and rear yard: The combined total of setbacks for the front and rear yard
shall be at least 30 feet, with no front yard setback less than 22 feet and no rear yard
setback less than 5 feet.
21
Side yard facing an adjacent lot: Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of
5 feet. Accessory structures, located in the rear one -third of the lot, are allowed zero
setback on one interior side lot line.
64, Side Yard Reversed Corner: Reversed corner lots shall have the following side
yard with a triangular area described as follows: One angle shall be formed by the
rear and street side property lines, and the sides of this angle shall be 15 feet in
length, measured along the rear and street side property lines. The third side of this
triangle shall be a straight line connecting the two other lines at their endpoints. This
triangular side yard setback area shall be in addition to the other side yard setback
requirements described in 20.20.060 D.2. above.
45, Rear Yard: Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet. Accessory
structures are allowed zero setback on the rear property line.
TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - R -2 ZONE
20.22.060
D. Setbacks
1. Front and rear yard: The combined total of setbacks for the front and rear yard
shall be at least 30 feet, with no front yard setback less than 20 feet and no rear
yard setback less than 5 feet.
I
£. a
Side yard facina an adiac o : Structures shall maintain a minimum setback
of 5 feet. Any detached accessory structures, and attached garages on 25 foot
wide lots only, located on the rear one -third of the lot, are allowed zero setback on
one interior side lot line.
0 097
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 2 of 2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
GARAGE STREETSIDE SETBACKS - EXHIBIT 7
3._4 Side Yard Reversed Corner: Reversed corner lots shall have the following side
yard with a triangular area described as follows: One angle shall be formed by the
rear and street side property lines, and the sides of this angle shall be 15 feet in
length, measured along the rear and street side property lines. The third side of this
triangle shall be a straight line connecting the two other lines at their endpoints. This
triangular side yard setback area shall be in addition to the other side yard setback
requirements described in 20.22.060 D.2. above.
4.5 Rear Yard: Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet. Accessory
structures are allowed zero setback on the rear property line. A dwelling unit
above a garage where the vehicular entrance is from an alley shall maintain a
minimum 1 foot setback.
zoning \ea - 408 \exhibits\setback\setback.grg
A
r
a�
rn
c�
a
(n
OC
U
0
0m
a� U)
cn —
o0
V- C
E o
U) 0
ti
O�
r
N �
Q iS
Ui
N2FW-
0 IL
QWR
IL
QY =
Na snldAivon3
O
i
W
W
z y
Lm
J
u.
V 6 cL a
X11a
U �
3 C
y
Z
r N M O a-, 0
G w w w a
0 099
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 2 of 7
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
THRIFTY PROPERTY - EXHIBIT 8
LAND USE ELEMENT
Proposed Land Use Plan
The following is a discussion of the 1992 Land Use Plan, which indicates future land uses for the
entire City. For ease of discussion, the City is divided into four quadrants and the proposed land use
designations within that quadrant are discussed. To know what is allowed under each designation,
please reference the land use definitions listed above.
Northwest Quadrant
The northwest quadrant of the City has the most varied mix of uses within the City. All of the City's
residential units, the Downtown area, the Civic Center, and the older industrial area of Smoky
Hollow, are located in this quadrant. The 1992 Plan retains the three residential designations found
on the old Plan: single - family, two - family, and multi - family, plus a new designation of Planned
Residential Development. The Plan shows 357.2 acres of single - family, 57.4 acres of two - family,
119.4 acres of multi - family and 5.7 acres of planned residential development. This includes the re-
designation of Imperial Avenue School, which is no longer used for educational purposes, from
public facility to planned residential development. The total number of dwelling units projected by
the Plan is 7-4 4 One of the major goals of the 1992 Plan is to preserve the residential
neighborhoods.
The Smoky Hollow area, which houses many of the City's older industrial uses, has been designated
Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use, in recognition of the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. The Specific
Plan allows a combination of industrial, retail, office, and residential uses. The Smoky Hollow area
is approximately 222 93r acres.
The 301 -acre Downtown area is designated as Downtown Commercial, where existing uses are
already of a community- serving nature. There are also 7.1 acres designated for Neighborhood
Commercial uses along Grand and Imperial Avenues and at Mariposa and Center Streets. These
have been designated only where there are existing neighborhood- serving commercial uses.
The public schools, private schools, Civic Center, Library, and other public uses are all shown as
Public Facilities. In addition, each of the existing public parks are designated as such. The open
space areas under utility transmission corridors and the preserve for the Blue Butterfly are designated
as open space.
The areas designated for parking on the Plan include public- and privately -owned lots which are
necessary to serve existing businesses and the Downtown area.
The southwest corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Imperial Avenue is designated Corporate Office
0 100
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
THRIFTY PROPERTY - EXHIBIT 8
Page 3of7
(17.8 ac) allowing a mix of office uses, similar to what exists there now, with retail in the lobby.
There are General Commercial uses indicated along Sepulveda Boulevard, where there are existing
commercial uses including the Hacienda Hotel. There is also one General Commercial area along
Imperial Avenue, where the Crown Sterling Suites Hotel now exists.
General Plan • Land Use Element Pages 3 -8, 3 -9
HOUSING ELEMENT
Summary of Existing Conditions Report
Demand for Housing
The 1990 Census identified the City of El Segundo population to be 15,223. El Segundo's residents
are predominately white (85 percent) with the largest portion of the population in the 35 to 64 -year
age bracket (38 percent). El Segundo's estimated median age is 33. Family households are still a
majority in El Segundo (56 percent) as opposed to single or unrelated households, although trends
indicate a reversal in family households as a majority. Only 3.8 percent of the households were
considered overcrowded, largely due to the number of housing units with three, four, five, or more
rooms (89 percent).
The City of El Segundo was estimated to have 77,533 jobs in 1987, according to the report prepared
by Donnelly Marketing. The majority of these jobs were identified to be in the manufacturing
industry (59.54 percent), which includes the large number of aerospace - related jobs.
The 1990 Census counted 7,190 housing units within El Segundo. In comparing jobs to housing,
the demand for housing generated by the 77,533 jobs has escalated housing prices in the City which
has affected the median income in El Segundo (in 1989, estimated to be $43,975 according to
National Decision Systems). The 1988 SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment identified 6,795
existing households in the City of El Segundo, of which 25.8 percent were considered low income
or earning less than 80 percent of the Los Angeles County median income.
In the 1980's the population for El Segundo increased by 10.7 percent, illustrating a reversal of the
1970's trend during which the population fell by 12 percent. SCAG has forecasted that the
population will increase by 0.96 percent annually through the year 2010. This SCAG forecast would
bring the City population to approximately 18,160 persons, thus requiring 8,540 dwelling units by
the year 2010. To accommodate this need, the City would have to add an additional 1,350 units over
the next 19 years to the existing housing stock.
0 101
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
THRIFTY PROPERTY - EXHIBIT 8
Page 4of7
Based on the City's 1992 Land Use Element, it has been calculated that the City would reach
residential build out at 2,0A 5-,664 units. This figure includes vacant residential land and
underdeveloped land (property with less than 50 percent of its allowable density), which creates a
net increase of 4$,4 4-74 units. Under the 1985 General Plan, buildout was calculated at 7,735 units.
As required by State guidelines, other sites that may be suitable for residential development have
been identified. The El Segundo Planning Department conducted a survey of vacant,
underdeveloped, and recyclable land within the City. This survey, indicated in Exhibit H -1,
illustrates acreage and land use designations of the properties.
In January 1990, the El Segundo Air Force Base was scheduled for closure due to the lack of
affordable housing for military personnel in the South Bay region. Previously, the Air Force was
considering El Segundo as an option for the location of 250 townhouse -style units. However,
recently the Air Force has been negotiating instead to build new housing in San Pedro at the Fort
McArthur military site. The City Council has supported the concept of subsidizing market rents,
through a Joint Powers Association (JPA), for military personnel employed at the Air Force Base
in El Segundo until housing can be built to accommodate them.
The 1988 Smoky Hollow Specific Plan identified 13.02 acres as suitable for medium density
residential. This site is currently occupied by existing light industrial uses. One residential project
known as Grand Tropez has been developed providing 88 units. The remaining available 9.4 acres,
which could be developed for residential, would provide 169 units based on the General Plan
density. Existing infrastructure which serves the existing light industrial uses within the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan area would be adequate to serve residential uses.
Based on the 1992 Land Use Element for the City of El Segundo, it is not feasible for the City to
obtain its SCAG 2010 projection of 1,350 additional units over the next 19 years. Buildout has been
identified at the addition of 4$4 4:�4 units to a total buildout of 114 7;664 units. It can be
estimated, based on the Planning Department log book, that applications for 302 units were
submitted or approved from January 1989 through February of 1991. Based upon
construction/demolition estimates for those two years, it can be estimated that a net increase in
housing of 25 to 60 units can be expected annually for the next two years. Based on historical trends,
which indicate the City typically adds an estimated 40 units a year to its housing stock, the City
would reach its buildout of 7. 674 3;664 units in the year 2003. The current growth rate and the
limited number of units available under the 1992 Land Use Element buildout calculation illustrates
that it is not reasonable or obtainable to reach the SCAG 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) projection of 1,148 additional units by 1994.
General Plan • Housing Element Pages 5 -3, 5 -4, 5 -6
0 102
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 5 of 7
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4,1997
THRIFTY PROPERTY- EXHIBIT 8
1992 General Plan
Summary of Existing Trends Buildout
Acres
DwelUng Units
Square Footage
Land Use Category
357.2
2,858
—
Single - Family Residential
Two -Family Residential
57.4
934
—
Planned Residential
5.7
65
—
Multi- Family Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Downtown Commercial
119.3
7.1
31.23$*
3,379
851
96 -961
—
100,000
1,237,000
General Commercial
44.3
—
1,930,000
Corporate Office
Smoky Hollow
211.2
92.4944
—
257
12,351,000
1,986,000
Urban Mixed Use
349.6
—
19,797,000
Parking
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
15.8
356.1
1,086.8
—
—
—
—
18,529,000
2
—
Public Facilities
94.1
—
Federal Government
90.6
—
—
Open Space
85.0
—
—
Parks
47.6
--
Streets & Railroad R.O.W.
442.6
—'
Totals
39494.4
7,674 = 464
55,930,000
Population Projection
17,266 1-,244
r Existing construction such as ttw market, and recently constructed. renovated commwciW centers and legal non - conforming
rconverted to mixed commesrclalhesidentlal uses and these buwdrW are expected to rremain for the Ute plan the Plan -
2 be Station, Air
s The heavy k4ustrial shown on this plan incktdes to Chevron Refinery, Sou m Capfo ��d rather O� buildings and are
Products and AIGed Chemical fadubes. These laoftes have prooesskg equipment
expected to remain for ttw We of to Plan. Therefore, no estimated busking square footage Is shown.
Souros: City of El Segundo Planning Department and The Lightfoot Planning Group
SERA, pLAN AmaWMEM (GPA 95 -1)
2696
C I T Y OF EL S E G U N D O GENERAL PLAN
1992 General Plan exhibit
Summary of
Existing Trends Buildout o i obU-3
3 -15
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 6 of 7
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4,1997
THRIFTY PROPERTY- EXHIBIT 8
20.46.050 APPENDIX A -- BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION.
The BrickyardMest Trade Center contains the area within the following boundaries:
Southern Boundary: The centerline of El Segundo Boulevard from the point of intersection of the
western border of Sepulveda Boulevard right -of -way extended at the east, to the point of intersection
of the centerline of Standard Street at the west.
Western Boundary: The centerline of Standard Street from the centerline of El Segundo
Boulevard to the south, northerly to the intersection of Franklin Avenue in an easterly direction to
the intersection of the centerline of the alley between Standard Street and Eucalyptus Drive; along
the centerline of said alley in a northerly direction to the intersection of the centerline of the alley
paralleling, and approximately 150 feet south of Grand Avenue.
As part of the Zone Change 88 -3, the western boundary was expanded to include the following area:
The centerline of the alley between Standard Street and Main Street from the centerline of
El Segundo Boulevard to the south, northerly to the intersection of the centerline of Franklin
Avenue; along the centerline of Franklin Avenue in an easterly direction to the intersection
of the centerline of Standard Street; along the centerline of said street in a northerly direction
350 feet; thence east to the existing boundary.
Northern Boundary: The centerline of said alley in an easterly direction to the intersection of the
centerline of Arena Street; along the centerline of Arena Street in a southerly direction to the
intersection of the centerline of Franklin Street; along the centerline of Franklin Street in an easterly
direction to the western boundary of vacated Bungalow Drive extended; along the western boundary
of vacated Bungalow Drive extended in a northerly direction 95 feet to the southern boundary lot line
of the public retention basin; along the southern boundary lot line of the public retention basin in an
easterly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Center Street; along the centerline of Center
Street in a northerly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Grand Avenue; along the
centerline of Grand Avenue in an easterly direction to the extended property line between lots 13
and 44 on the north side of Grand Avenue between Center Street and Nevada Street; along the said
property line in a northerly direction for approximately 70 feet to the El Segundo Junior High School
boundary; along the El Segundo Junior High School boundary in an easterly direction to the
intersection of the centerline of Nevada Street; along the centerline of Nevada Street in a northerly
direction to the termination of the street at the southern boundary of El Segundo Junior High School
0 104
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
THRIFTY PROPERTY- EXHIBIT 8
Page 7 of 7
(approximately 70 feet); along the southern boundary of the El Segundo Junior High School in an
easterly direction to the southeastern corner of the property (approximately 350 feet); along the
eastern border of the property in a northerly direction to the intersection of the northern boundary
of the Southern Pacific Railroad right -of -way; along the northern boundary of the Southern Pacific
Railroad right -of -way in a southeasterly direction to the intersection of the northern boundary of
vacated Holly Avenue (approximately 125 feet); along the northern boundary of vacated Holly
Avenue in an easterly direction to the intersection of western boundary of California Street
(approximately 175 feet); along the western boundary of California Street in a southerly direction to
the intersection of the centerline of Holly Avenue; along the centerline of Holly Avenue in an easterly
direction to the intersection of the western boundary of the Southern California Edison powerline
easement; along the western boundary of the Southern California Edison powerline easement to
the intersection of the northern boundary of Grand Avenue; along the northern boundary of Grand
Avenue in an easterly direction to the intersection of the eastern boundary of the Southern California
Edison powerline easement; along the eastern boundary of the Southern California Edison
powerline easement in a northwesterly direction to the intersection of the centerline of Illinois Street;
along the centerline of Illinois Street in a northerly direction to the intersection of the centerline of
Holly Avenue; along the centerline of Holly Avenue in an easterly direction to the intersection of the
centerline of Indiana Street.
Mon. Alm-TIT-1115011 "1, 0 1
•19 T i �3 �1 L Z• P 11 L C l
0 105
EA- 408 /GPA 97 -2/ZTA 97 -2/ZC 97 -2 Page 1 of 1
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - AUGUST 4, 1997
DRIVE -THRUS - EXHIBIT 9
Policy LU1 -5.9
Develop standards to address the potential impacts of drive -thru restaurants on residential uses.
General Plan Land Use Element Page 3 -21
ea -408 \exh1b1ts \d rive.cc
0 106
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY WIDE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENTS AND ZONE MAP CHANGES
(SECOND QUARTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -408/
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -2/
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 97 -2/
ZONE CHANGE 97 -2
JUNE 18, 1997
Prepared by:
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY
350 MAIN STREET
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
11
0 107
SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following General Plan Amendments, Zone Text Amendments and Zone Changes are proposed Citywide:
1. SHSP Parking - Revise 10% parking reduction in Smoky Hollow Zones (ZTA).
The current provisions in the parking section of the Zoning Code (Section 20.54.030 B., Page 246) allow the
Planning Commission to approve a maximum 10% parking reduction for properties located in Smoky Hollow
(SB, MM, GAC and MDR Zones). Other existing provisions (Section 20.54.030, B., Page 246) allow the
Planning Commission to modify the required number of parking spaces in my zone, based on the submittal
of a Parking Demand Study. In order to provide equity and consistency for all properties in all zones, the
provisions which allow the 10% maximum parking reduction in Smoky Hollow are proposed to be eliminated.
Instead the existing provisions which allow the parking space modification with submittal of a Parking Demand
Study are proposed to apply to all zones, including Smoky Hollow.
2. Parking Covenant - Revise off -site parking covenant requirements to provide a maximum time
limit for the covenant (ZTA).
The City Attorney has requested revisions to the Off -Site Covenant requirements in order to provide a time
limit for the Covenant. Under Section 20.54.080 of the Zoning code, property owners may enter into joint use
and off -site parking facilities agreements under certain situations. These agreements are then recorded as
covenant against the property. The proposed revisions to this section would make several minor changes.
First, the new language added to subsection B would make it clear that the covenant created by the
agreement would terminate no later than ninety years after the agreement becomes effective. Under the rule
of perpetuities, certain covenants and agreements are invalid unless they terminate either within ninety years
after they are created of within twenty -one years after the death of a person alive when the covenant or
agreement was first created. By making this revision, the agreements to be created pursuant to Section
20.54.080 would not be held invalid based on the rule against perpetuities.
Second, the change in subsection A clarifies that the covenant created by the joint use and off -site parking
facilities agreement must be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits or the beginning of the use,
which ever occurs first. Third, the second change to subsection A clarifies that the City Attorney may also
require that certain conditions and provisions be included in a joint use or off -site parking facilities agreement.
3. Storm Water - Incorporate Public Works Storm Water Permit Management Policies (GPA).
On July 15, 1996 the Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles (RWQCB -LA) approved a Waste
Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WDR- NPDES) Storm Water
Permit. This Los Angeles County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 96 -054, NPDES No. CA5614001),
which the City of El Segundo is subject to, requires that jurisdiction incorporate watershed and storm water
management considerations in the appropriate Elements of the General Plan. Part III A.3.b of the permit
states that the provisions must be included when the Elements are significantly rewritten. Although no
guidance is provided to define "significantly rewritten ", Staff felt it was appropriate to provide the revisions as
part of the Quarterly General Plan Amendments which the City is processing. The permit states that the
Elements to be revised may include, Conservation, Open Space, Land Use, Public Utilities, Infrastructure or
other appropriate Elements. Again, the permit provides no guidance on what other Elements may be
appropriate to revise. Staff believes it would be appropriate to incorporate new policies into the Land Use and
Conservation Elements. The proposed policies state as follows: 1) The City shall establish policies and
procedures for watershed and storm water management (Land Use Policy LU7 -1.8); and 2) The City shall
establish policies and procedures for watershed and storm water management (Conservation Element Policy
CN1 -4).
4
0 1C8
4. Outdoor Dining Access - Create standard for pedestrian access for outdoor dining in private
walkways (ZTA).
On August 17, 1996, the City Council adopted a Zone Text Amendment which included revisions to the
requirements for outdoor dining. As a result, the Zoning Code now requires a Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor dining when the outdoor dining area exceeds 200 square feet or 20% of the indoor dining area of a
restaurant. Outdoor dining areas below the size threshold are considered a permitted use. Through the
Conditional Use Permit process, larger outdoor dining facilities can be reviewed and conditions placed which
require pedestrian access around the outdoor dining areas to be protected. Without requirements in the
Zoning Code for the smaller permitted outdoor dining areas, it is difficult to ensure safe pedestrian access is
maintained around these outdoor dining areas.
Therefore, Planning Staff have proposed modifications to the Zoning Code to introduce minimum
requirements to ensure adequate access around outdoor dining areas. Staff proposes to use the standard
in Title 24, the California handicap accessibility standards and the Uniform Building Code (UBC), to insure that
a minimum 48 -inch wide pathway is maintain around an outdoor dining area. This is particularly important
when existing restaurants are in a strip mall, which would typically have a walkway between the shop front and
the parking lot, request to place a small seating area in front of their establishment. A minimum 48 -inch
walkway width will ensure that pedestrians will be able to travel safely along the walkway and not be forced
to walk in the parking lot to get around an outdoor seating area.
The Public Works Department has recently approved several outdoor seating areas which encroach into the
public right -of -way (eg, Stuft Pizza and Scoops Ice Cream). The business owners entered into agreements
with the City to operate the outdoor seating under specific conditions. These conditions include maintaining
six (6) foot wide clear sidewalk for pedestrian use, and other conditions to ensure the outdoor seating areas
are operated in a safe and clean manner. Planning Staff has developed two different approaches to ensure
pedestrian accessibility around outdoor dining areas. The first of these is to just include the minimum
pedestrian walkway width into the site development standards of each zone in which outdoor dining is
permitted. This approach would not impose any other requirements on operating an outdoor dining area. The
second approach is to incorporate many of the conditions placed on outdoor dining areas which encroach into
the public right -of -way, into the Zoning Code to be used as general standards for outdoor dining areas on
private property. Several of these condition do just simply reiterate other City requirements and serve as
notices to the business operator, such as requiring amplified sound permits and City approval to sell alcohol.
These are required even if they were not to be listed in this new section of the Zoning Code. However, the City
is considering these requirements in addition to the accessibility standards to ensure outdoor dining areas are
operated and maintained in a responsible manner.
5. Sound Transmission Control - Move Sound Transmission Control regulations to Title 16 of
the El Segundo Municipal Code and revise standards (ZTA).
Several changes are proposed for Chapter 20.58 of the Zoning Code, at the suggestion of City Staff, including
relocating it from Title 20, the Zoning Code, to Title 16, the Buildings and Structures Code. The regulations
contained pertain to the specifics of residential construction more than to the broader guidance of the Zoning
Code, and Sound Transmission Control is enforced by the City's Building Safety Division (which enforces Title
16), not the Planning Division (which enforces Title 20). The following outlines the proposed revisions.
1. Section 16.42.010 PURPOSE has been expanded to include that the objective of residential
insulation, where required, is to achieve an interior noise level of 45dB or lower.
2. Section 16.42.015 DEFINITIONS was added to provide definitions for the acoustic terms, since the
absence of these definitions have caused some confusion to users. Most of these definitions are
currently included in the Zoning Code and they have been updated. Two new definitions are added
to emphasize the differences between Expansions (definition 3.) and Remodels (definition 5).
K
0 109
3. Paragraph D of Section 16.42.020, SCOPE, has been expanded to explain why the Noise Contour
Map of the City uses Year 2000 predicted contours, rather than past or present contours. Emphasis
on the Code's use of the predicted noise contours for the year 2000 as the boundary for applicability
of the Sound Transmission Control Code is made here and elsewhere. It should be noted that if the
predicted contour is accurate there will be a reduction of approximately 45% in the number of El
Segundo residences currently within the LAX noise impact area.
4. Section 16.42.040, APPLICATION TO EXISTING BUILDINGS, has been modified with bold titles to
make use of the Chapter easier. The sub - sections of this Section have been reorganized to provide
a smoother flow of concepts. Following sub - section A., the parameters which mandate acoustic
insulation are provided followed by descriptions of those conditions which exempt residential
construction from being insulated. The Section has also been expanded to include the four situations
wherein acoustic insulation would be mandatory in El Segundo. Sub - sections B., C., and D. include
additional description to clarify the differences between remodels, generally the modification of the
interior of an existing structure without significant increase to the structure's square footage; room
additions; and residential expansions which include multiple room additions which add to the
structure's total square footage. The four situations in which the homeowner /developer must
acoustically insulate include the following:
A. Paragraph C: When the value of a residential remodel reaches 75% of the assessed value
of the existing home the homeowner /developer must acoustically insulate (The
homeowner /developer may use the assessed value recorded with the county or a current
assessment made by a licensed property appraiser);
B.. Paragraph D: When a Habitable, Separable, Full room is added which increases the total
square footage of the home;
C. Paragraph E: When the addition is over 500 square feet; and
D. Paragraph E & G: When the addition is to be made to a home that has already been
insulated using public funds.
5. Section 16.42.045, APPLICATION TO NEW BUILDINGS, was not previously addressed although this
Chapter deals with both new and existing projects.
No changes have been made to what used to be Sections 20.58.050 through 20.58.080 aside from changing
all references from 20.58 to 16.42. The addition of acoustic treatment will normally add 3 - 12 % to the cost
of the addition, renovation, or expansion project. The regulations provided in this Chapter pertain specifically
to single family residential units. Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building Code specifies more stringent acoustical
mitigation in multi - family residential construction.
Specifically, to address concerns regarding the requirement that remodels that are 75% or greater in cost of
the existing assessed value of the residence will require insulation, the following are the two goals and
associated methodologies used in the development of this Code:
1. Goal: Reduce health risks, improve the quality of life of residents and prevent the
degradation of housing stock within the higher LAX noise impact contours, those
above 70dB.
Methodology: Establish Municipal Code requirements, for single family housing stock within the
70dB CNEL noise contour, that include acoustically upgrading existing stock as it is
modified and require new stock to include acoustic mitigation features. This is the
same approach used by all jurisdictions to provide improved energy conservation,
fire and earthquake safety features and health protection through improved Building,
2
0 110
Electrical and Plumbing Codes. (The Uniform Building Code has already established
more stringent acoustic requirements for multi - family residential construction than
what we are recommending for single family construction here). This is also
consistent with the zoning provisions which require that any new construction meet
current codes, and when old structures are voluntarily removed, they lose their non-
conforming status.
2. Goal: Achieve a balance between the demand for acoustic insulation in single family
residential construction and the fiscal impact on families.
Methodology: The predicted 65dB CNEL contour for the year 2000 falls close to the existing 70dB
CNEL noise contour. By using the year 2000 noise contours we are able to exempt
all residents living in lesser impacted homes, essentially those in the current 65 -
70dB noise contour. Further, only significant residential modifications require
acoustic insulation, including the following:
A. Habitable room additions that can and would normally be separable from the
rest of the house by use of a door.
B. Large scale modifications such as a complete remodel of the interior of an
existing structure, the addition of multiple rooms in a new wing, or a second
story addition. Modifications to existing residences which exceed 75% of
the value of the existing home are defined as "large scale ".
C. Any addition of greater than 500 square feet.
D. New construction.
E. Any modification or addition to a home that has been acoustically treated
through a program funded in part or in whole by the public.
As an example of how these regulations would apply, there are very few homes in El Segundo which have
fire insurance policies for less than $75,000, the cost of replacement of the structure. The proposed 75% rule
would mandate that someone remodeling or expanding an existing residence valued at $75,000 insulate the
entire structure acoustically, if the value of that remodel or expansion is equal to or greater than $56,250. A
typical 698 square foot expansion costs $56,250 according to the City's Building Valuation Guide. The cost
of insulating such a "large scale" improvement is approximately 6% of the total value of the construction. In
the example given, typical acoustic insulation would cost approximately $3,375. The acoustic treatment would
consist, at a minimum, of double paned windows, solid core exterior doors, and attic insulation.
Acoustic improvements through the Residential Sound Insulation Program can be coordinated with any other
improvements a homeowner may wish to make on their residence. Residential sound insulation is typically
completed in two days for homes in the 65 dB noise contour and 5 -10 days for homes in the 70 dB contour.
Homeowner projects must be done after completion of post - acoustical measurements for the Residential
Sound Insulation program in order to guarantee the integrity of that specific work product.
6. Parkina Demand Studies - Revise requirements for Parking Demand Studies (ZTA).
On December 17, 1997, the City Council authorized Staff to proceed with amendments to the Zoning Code
in order to revise the provisions of the Zoning Code related to Parking Demand Studies. The Planning
Commission has already reviewed a portion of the regulations regarding the maximum parking reduction
which may be granted in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area. The Commission as part of the first quarter
Zone Text Amendments recommended to the City Council that the 10% maximum reduction in required
5
0 111
parking which could be granted in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area, with the approval of a Parking
Demand Study by the Planning Commission, be eliminated.
The current standard for the rest of the City (Section 20.54.030 B.) allows the Planning Commission to modify
the required number of parking spaces based on the submittal of a Parking Demand Study. There is no limit
on the percentage reduction, that can be granted by the Planning Commission. Therefore it is up to the
Planning Commissions judgement to determine if a modification is appropriate and the size of the reduction.
In fact, a Parking Demand Study could conclude that increased parking over Code requirements should be
provided and the Planning Commission also has the authority to use this Code section to require that
additional parking be provided. Additionally, for any use for which there is no established number of required
spaces in the Zoning Code, the Director of Planning and Building Safety or the Planning Commission can
require a Parking Demand Study to specify what the required parking should be for a particular use.
The purpose of allowing the submission of a Parking Demand Study is to give a prospective developer or
business the opportunity to prove that their particular business operation does not need the number of parking
spaces required by code and that they should be permitted to provide some lesser number of spaces;
although as mentioned above, a greater number may be required. An example of this is when Instorage, a
mini - warehouse at 1017 East El Segundo Boulevard, applied for a variance to rent a portion of their required
parking for long term vehicle storage. A Parking Demand Study concluded only a fraction of the required
number of spaces were necessary to serve the employees and patrons of the facility. Based on the Study, the
Planning Commission granted the Variance.
One concern raised by the City Council (Liam Weston) about allowing Parking Demand Studies is that the City
has developed a number of uses for which the required number of parking spaces is established. Developers
and businesses should simply comply with the required parking regulations and not be able to reduce that
number. Another implication of allowing reduced parking through a Parking Demand Study, discussed by the
City Council, is the potential for a new tenant to occupy a building which may have less than sufficient parking
for that new use because the building was constructed with less than the number of parking spaces required
by code based on an approved Parking Demand Study for the original tenant.
Planning Staff has researched the requirements for several other Cities in the South Bay and found that the
Cities of Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach have provisions for using Parking Demand Studies to reduce
the number of required parking spaces. The City of Long Beach has a provision for establishing the required
parking for uses not specified in the Zoning Code using a Parking Demand Study; while the City of Torrance
has a default rate of approximately one space for every 152 square feet of building area for any use not
specifically listed in their Zoning Code.
The City may choose to expand upon the current requirements for preparation of a Parking Demand Study
as other Cities have done, but these requirements may not be appropriate in all cases. For very small
businesses with a limited number of employees and visitors, a Parking Demand Study prepared by licensed
Traffic Engineer may be overly onerous and unnecessary. In these cases, a count of actual parking spaces
utilized, or anticipated to be utilized, based on the company's business operations, could be sufficient to
determine parking demand.
7. Garage Streetside Setbacks - Revisions to provide a minimum street side yard setback of 20
feet for garages in R -1 and R -2 Zones (ZTA).
Recently, the City Council (as initiated by Councilwoman Friedkin) expressed concerns regarding the required
streetside setback for garages. The concern centered around the minimum five (5) foot streetside setback,
which creates an inadequate driveway parking space. Vehicles parking in these areas may straddle and block
the sidewalk and possibly extend into the public street. This creates a potentially dangerous and inconvenient
situation for pedestrians, as well as vehicles. Although all new residences must provide a minimum two (2)
car, 18 -20 feet wide and 20 feet deep, fully enclosed garage space, plus one (1) additional space if the
dwelling unit exceeds 3,000 square feet in area, there are may legal non - conforming dwelling units in the City
0
0 112
which do not meet these standards. Driveway areas are often used as "over- flow" off - street parking to
accommodate these non - conforming situations, as well as parking for visitors and convenient parking for the
occupants of the dwelling. In order to address the Council's concern a minimum 20 foot setback from the
property line, to accommodate a vehicle without impacting the sidewalk or street, was discussed by the
Council.
This revision could have several impacts on the design of new residences on narrow lots (less that 45 feet
in width). Attached garages with streetside access could not be accommodated, since a width of a 20 foot
setback and 20 foot deep garage, the minimum 5 foot wide side setback would not be provided. The options
in this situation would include a Variance or the garage could be constructed at the front of the lot.
Additionally, with a 20 foot streetside setback a large portion of the rear yard area would be lost. This area
would instead become a driveway facing the street. Detached garages with streetside access could be
accommodated on lots which are 40 feet or greater in width, as the Zoning Code allows detached accessory
structures to maintain zero setback on one interior side property line.
The Multi- family Residential (R -3) Zone, Section 20.24.060 D.1., requires a 20 foot setback for parking
garages or covered spaces which face a street. Similar language could be required for the Single- family
residential (R -1) Zone and the Two - family Residential (R -2) Zone.
8. Thrifty - Change land use designation and zoning for a portion of Thrifty and adjacent property
at southeast corner of Standard Street/Grand Avenue from Smoky Hollow Mixed - Use /Small
Business (SB) to Downtown Commercial (C -RS). (GPA & ZC).
Staff requested this change to the General Plan Land Use Designation for a 0.653 acre portion of the Thrifty
Drug Store property at 220 East Grand Avenue (located at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and
Standard Street), and for the 0.172 acre Stick & Stein /Laundromat property at 202 and 210 East Grand
Avenue (which is adjacent to the Thrifty Drug Store commercial center), from Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use to
Downtown Commercial and the Zoning classification from Small Business (SB) to Downtown Commercial (C-
RS).
Currently, the 1.54 acre Thrifty Drug Store commercial center property has two General Plan Land Use and
two Zoning designations. The northern 0.89 acre portion of the property has a Land Use and Zoning
designation of Downtown Commercial (C -RS) and the remaining 0.653 acres to the south has a Land Use
and Zoning designation of Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use and Small Business, respectively. The Thrifty Drug Store
building itself is in the two different land use Designations. The property at 202/210 East Grand Avenue (Stick
& Stein/Laundromat), which is a separate parcel but shares the same parking lot with the Thrifty Drug Store,
has a Land Use and Zoning Designation of Smoky Hollow Mixed Use and Small Business, respectively.
However, there is no record of there being a recorded parking covenant or joint use parking agreement in
place.
Section 20.31.020, (C -RS) of the El Segundo Municipal Code, currently permits retail uses providing sales
and services, financial institutions, billiard -pool rooms and bowling alleys, clubs, governmental buildings,
general offices, medical - dental offices, restaurants, coffee shops, delicatessens and cafes, schools, theaters,
union offices, and halls. Section 20.42.020 (SB) of the El Segundo Municipal Code currently permits
manufacturing, light industrial uses, general offices up to 15,000 square feet per site (in conjunction with
industrial activities such as engineering, warehousing and distribution), automobile service uses, restaurants,
coffee shops and cafes, public facilities and utilities, general offices (up to 40% in conjunction with any other
permitted use) and research and development.
The current land uses for these properties are retail, restaurant, and retail service which is consistent with the
proposed Downtown Commercial Land Use Designation and C -RS Zone, with the exception that the Stick &
Stein Saloon, has a City permit for Entertainment and Dancing; and, the C -RS Zone specifically precludes
dancing and entertainment (Section 20.31.020 H.). Therefore, the Stick & Stein Saloon would be a legal non-
7
0 113
conforming use since they have an Entertainment Permit in the C -RS Zone. The SB Zone does not have such
a specific exclusion for entertainment.
The proposed change in Land Use Designation and Zoning for the two properties would increase the
permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for each site. The Smoky Hollow Mixed Use Land Use designation permits
a maximum FAR of 0.6, but the Downtown Commercial Land Use designation permits a maximum FAR of
1.0. The Thrifty Drug Store and Stick & Stein/Laundromat currently have FAR's 0.26 and 0.84, respectively.
However, due to the parking requirements for both retail and restaurant uses, it is not likely that the increase
in permitted FAR through the redesignation of the two properties will result in additional development on the
properties. The redesignation would also permit the development of up to 10 residential unit, pursuant to
Section 20.31.030 of the Zoning Code which allows residential units above commercial development in the
C -RS zone. Staff does not believe additional dwelling units would be developed on the properties in question
due to the layout of the buildings and the parking requirements.
The proposed change would be consistent with the actual land uses of the properties and the land uses, Land
Use designations and Zoning of surrounding properties, which are: commercial services and restaurants to
the west (C -RS Zone); a gas station to the east (C -2 Zone); multiple family residential units and retail and
services to the north (R -3 and C -RS Zones), and a restaurant, multiple family residential uses (non-
conforming), and industrial uses to the south (SB Zone). Additionally, the layout of the property is oriented
toward Grand Avenue and Standard Street and the Grand Plaza Shopping Center on the west side of
Standard Street, which is zoned C -RS.
SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The City of El Segundo is located in the Los Angeles urban area and is considered part of the Airport/South
Bay subregion at the southwestern edge of the Los Angeles coastal basin. Downtown Los Angeles is about
20 freeway miles northeast of El Segundo. The City itself is 5.46 square miles (3,494.4 acres), with a resident
population, per 1995 estimates, of 15,853 people, with a total of 7,190 dwelling units, and a considerably larger
daytime (employee) population of approximately 56,000.
Immediately to the north is Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the City of Los Angeles. The Los
Angeles residential areas of Playa del Rey and Westchester are located just northerly of the Airport. To the
east is Del Aire, which is an island of Los Angeles County, as well as the City of Hawthorne. Both areas are
predominantly residential. Some commercial uses in the City of Hawthorne line Aviation Boulevard. The City
of Manhattan Beach is directly south of El Segundo. The Chevron Refinery is located in the southern portion
of El Segundo, between the City's residential areas and the City of Manhattan Beach. To the west of El
Segundo is the Pacific Ocean. A majority of the coastline is owned by the City of Los Angeles, which operates
two facilities within this area: the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant, currently undergoing an expansion, and
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Scattergood Generating Station. A small portion of the
coastline, 0.8 miles, is within the El Segundo City limits. The Southern California Edison Generating Station
and a coastal portion of the Chevron Refinery are located along this portion of the shoreline. The beach area
is publicly owned and accessible.
The City of El Segundo has a very strong residential base, which is a mixture of single - family, two - family, and
multi - family residential. A majority of the residential area is in single - family use; however, according to the
1990 Census, over one -half of the population lived in multi - family units. Almost 66 percent of all residential
acreage, and almost 77 percent of the area located west of Sepulveda Boulevard and north of El Segundo
Boulevard, is in single - family use. Total acreage is about 687, or nearly 15 percent of the City. However,
single - family units account for only 47 percent of the housing units in the City. The two - family residential
category accounts for only 25 acres, or less than one percent of land in the City. Typical densities are 10 to
17 units per acre. Nearly one -third of all R -2 zoned sites are in single - family use. Multiple family residential
uses include apartment buildings and condominiums. Land area devoted to multiple family use accounts for
approximately 105 acres, or three percent of the total land area of the City. Densities generally range from
0
0 114
18 to 45 units per acre, in projects up to three and one -half acres. As of 1990, multi - family units comprise 53
percent of all residential units available.
Near the residential area is Downtown, which includes the Civic Center and provides a strong focal point for
the City. Also in this general vicinity is an older industrial area called Smoky Hollow. This area contains
mostly older industrial buildings of one or two stories.
There are neighborhood commercial areas scattered throughout the residential areas to serve the residents
of the City. In addition, there are some commercial uses east of Sepulveda Boulevard, mostly designed for
the daytime employee population. In addition to retail commercial, the City has a growing number of hotel
uses. There are over 1,446 hotel rooms currently available in the City.
The area of the City south of El Segundo Boulevard and west of Sepulveda Boulevard is taken up mostly by
the Chevron Refinery. The Refinery occupies approximately one -third of the City. The portion of the City east
of Sepulveda Boulevard is a combination of industrial, office, and commercial uses. This area contains the
$$super block" development, a mixture of office and research and development uses, as well as the U.S. Air
Force Base.
An additional category of land use is public and quasi - public uses. These include the U.S. Air Force Base;
property owned by the City and County, including the City Hall and the Library; as well as the School District
property. Two of the District's school sites are not being used, one is vacant and the other is being leased
to the L.A. Raiders as a training camp. In addition, there is one parochial school and several churches
throughout the City. The City has excellent open space and recreation facilities, which exceed the State
suggested standards. These areas include publicly -owned parks, private parks, a publicly -owned beach area
open for public use, utility rights -of -way that have been used for park and open space areas, and the Chevron -
owned preserve for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly. Other uses not discussed above include railroad rights -of-
way, parking lots, streets and alleys.
The City of El Segundo is served by the existing network of roadways which is essentially a grid system of
north /south and east/west roadways. The primary north /south roadways are Aviation Boulevard, Douglas
Street, Nash Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, Center Street, Main Street, and Vista Del Mar. The primary
east/west streets are Imperial Highway, Imperial Avenue, Maple Avenue, Mariposa Avenue, Grand Avenue,
El Segundo Boulevard, and Rosecrans Avenue.
The six lane Glenn Anderson Freeway (Interstate 105), built along the City's northern boundary adjacent to
Imperial Highway, opened to the public in October 1993. Exits for the freeway are located at Nash Street and
Sepulveda Boulevard with eastbound entrances at Atwood Way off of Douglas Street and Imperial Avenue
off of Sepulveda Boulevard. The freeway terminates at California Street. The San Diego Freeway (Interstate
405) is located on the City's eastern boundary, with entrances and exists off of the 1 -105, El Segundo
Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue. Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) immediately north provides for
international air traffic.
The Century-El Segundo Extension Rail Transit Project (the Metro Green Line) opened in August of 1995.
Stations are located at Aviation Boulevard and 116th Street (connecting with the Century Rail Line), Mariposa
Avenue at Nash Street, El Segundo Boulevard at Nash Street, Douglas Street near Alaska Avenue, and
ending at Compton /Marine Boulevard in the City of Redondo Beach. A future station (Del Norte) will be
located near Douglas Street between the Aviation and Mariposa Stations.
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Reproduced as Appendix 1 is the City of El Segundo Initial Study and Checklist under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA). The purpose of the form is to identify and evaluate potential
adverse environmental impacts. The checklist consists of background information, a checklist of
environmental impacts, and a determination by the lead agency of the project's potential impacts on the
0
0 115
environment and the type of CEQA document that will be prepared. A discussion of the items checked on the
form is located in Section 4.0.
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The first three (1 -3) proposed General Plan and Zone Text Amendments are only minor text changes for
consistency with current City Policies, practices and existing conditions, or consistency within the text itself,
or with State Law, and therefore they will have no foreseeable environmental impacts, in any of the categories.
The next amendment (4) will have a less than significant impact related to Land Use, Noise, Hazards, Public
Services and, Aesthetics since the provisions create standards which currently do not exist in order to
minimize potential land use incompatibilities, minimize potential impacts from hazardous materials and noise,
reduce potential impacts to public services and minimize any potential aesthetic impacts.
The next three Amendments (5 -7) simply provide more up -to -date Code language and, as discussed under
the project descriptions, will have no foreseeable environmental impacts in any of the categories. The final
Amendment (8) will have a less than significant impact related to Land Use, Population and Housing, Hazards,
Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Recreation. As discussed in the project description, the
proposed land use and zoning designation is compatible with the uses on the property and compatible with
the surrounding lands uses, thereby minimizing existing land use incompatibilities. As further described in the
previous project descriptions, the proposed Amendments address all potential environmental concerns and
there is a less than significant impact for all of the Amendments due to the provisions which have been
incorporated into the Amendments themselves.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Amendments, as minor Amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code and Zoning Map do
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and will not achieve short-term goals to the
disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. There are no foreseeable negative cumulative impacts or
any impacts that will have an adverse affect on human beings, for the reasons previously detailed.
SECTION 5.0 SOURCES
1. Initial Study/ Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, Environmental Assessment EA -405,
General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -1, Zone Text Amendment 97 -1, and Zone Change 97 -1.
10
PAzoning \ea408\ae408.isr
0 116
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 4,1997
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Public workshop on the following possible amendments to the El Segundo Zoning Code: 1) Architectural Building
Features, and 2) Planning Commission Appeals.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Open Public Workshop;
2) Discussion;
3) Direct Staff to include items on Zone Text Amendment quarterly schedule for Planning Commission review;
and /or
4) Other possible action /direction.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On June 17, 1997, Mayor Pro Tern Nancy Wernick requested that the Council discuss the City's Architectural Building
Feature requirements in residential zones. On July 1, 1997, The Council agreed to include the item on tonight's special
joint Public Hearing/Workshop for discussion and possible action.
On June 3, 1997, the Mayor Pro Tern Nancy Wernick placed the discussion of Planning Commission Appeals on the
City Council Agenda (under New Business and Reports -City Council Members) for discussion and possible action.
This item was continued to June 17, 1997, and then scheduled for tonight's special joint Public Hearing/Workshop on
July 1, 1997.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Agenda Item for June 17, 1997 City Council Meeting.
2. Appeal Fee Survey.
FISCAL IMPACT:
(Check one) Operating Budget: Capital Improv. Budget:
None. Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance: Date:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required - Yes_ No_
ORIGINATED: Date: 29 July 1997
Bret B Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety
REVIEW Lorrison, Date:
Manager
XCTIOU TAKEN:
0 117
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
DISCUSSION:
Staff has prepared some background information for the two above reference items to help facilitate the Council's
discussion of the two topics:
1. Architectural Building Features
Section 20.20.060 I. of the El Segundo Zoning Code requires that Architectural Building Features must be included
on new construction to modulate building walls in the Single - Family Residential (R -1 ) Zone, subject to the Approval
of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. Architectural Building Features is defined in Section 20.08.147 as:
"Architectural building feature" means a balcony, column, door, eave, roof, soffit, window or
window trim, shutters or other similar three - dimensional permanent exterior element of a
building or structure that may not create interior floor area, that provides relief from large flat wall
planes, breaks up building wall mass, and lends to the overall form, context and appearance of the
building or structure. (Emphasis added).
This requirement has been in effect since June 18, 1996. Prior to this, new construction was required to provide
"Building Wall Modulation" which required that a building wall plane must be offset by a minimum of 2 feet for every
24 feet of length or height. Architectural Building Features was adopted to be a less restrictive means of accomplishing
the goal of encouraging the break -up of large flat walls and discouraging box -like designs. The rigidity of the Building
Wall Modulation standard was criticized by some for requiring artificial breaks in building walls that sometimes
hindered the design of rooms in houses while not accomplishing the goal of improving variation in wall design.
Architectural Building Features is intended to provide greater flexibility for designers and architects when new
construction is proposed.
Staff has reviewed a number of new houses and additions to existing houses under the new Architectural Building
Feature standard. A number of property owners have expressed concern that there is insufficient guidance in the
definition of Architectural Building Features to know the type or amount of features which should be included in a
design in order to get approval. The relatively subjective nature of this Code requirement has sometimes led to
disagreements between staff and property owners with regard to how designs meet the letter and the intent of the
Architectural Building Features definition. One such disputed portion of the definition is whether or not a window is a
"three - dimensional" (Emphasis added) element on a wall plane. Staff has interpreted the definition to mean that a
window which does not extend out or is not set back from the wall plane does not meet the intent of breaking up flat
wall planes. Also, Staff has interpreted the Code to apply to new construction only. An addition to an existing house
would only have to provide Architectural Building Features to the new area of construction, not to the existing house
even if a new wall is an extension of an existing wall.
There are several different options that Staff has discussed which could help clarify the use of Architectural Building
Features. These include:
1. Revising the standard to provide more direction on what types of features and the number of features which
would meet the intent of the Code to provide three - dimensional permanent exterior elements on a building.
2. Create new threshold standards for when such features are required. An example of this would be when the
size of an addition is a certain percentage of the existing house, or a minimum square footage, or when the
addition is located in a certain portion of the property which might be visible from neighboring properties or
from the street.
3. An Architectural Review Board could be created to review Architectural Building Features. This would transfer
approval of the subjective nature of the standard to a body appointed by the City Council.
Staff requests that the Council provide direction on the appropriate course of action to address the concerns raised
by the Council, Staff, property owners and architects regarding Architectural Building Features.
0 118
GPA/ZTA/ZC
City Council Staff Report
August 4, 1997
Attached is the Agenda Item Mayor Pro Tern Nancy Wernick placed on the June 17, 1997 City Council agenda for
discussion of Planning Commission appeals and the waiver of appeal fees under certain circumstances. The Agenda
Item requested a discussion of permitting appeal fees to be waived when a petition was received requesting an appeal,
requiring an automatic appeal if the Planning Commission action required the City to enter into a binding agreement,
or requiring an automatic appeal if the Planning Commission action affected a significant portion of the community.
Currently, an appeal fee is required for any member of the public or the applicant to appeal a decision of the Planning
Commission. The appeal fee is based on the type and size of the project which was the subject of the Planning
Commission action. For single - family residential projects with less than 10 units and multi - family projects with less than
6 units the appeal fee is $170.00. The appeal fee is $235.00 for residential projects larger than this and
commercial/industrial projects less than 15,000 square feet in size. The Appeal fee for commercial /industrial project
larger than 15,000 square feet is $460.00. These appeal fees were established by the City Council in Resolution No.
3617 on December 20, 1989. The City does allow for the refund of the full amount of the appeal fee if the appeal is
successful, thereby overturning a Planning Commission decision.
In an effort to facilitate the discussion of these issues, Staff researched the appeal procedures of seven (7) nearby
cities. A summary of these fees is attached. Briefly, Staff is not aware of any other City which has procedures for
appeals by petition to eliminate the appeal fee, or automatic appeals when the City has to enter a binding agreement
on a project or having the appeal based on the area which is impacted by the project. Three of the survey cities do
allow for refunds of appeals upon a request from the appellant and approval by the Council.
Staff requests that the Council provide direction on any proposed amendments to the Zoning Code or fee structure
related to the discussion of Planning Commission appeals.
p:\zoning\8-4-97.ais
0 119
City of El Segundo
Inter Departmental Correspondence
June 11, 1997
To: City Council
From: Nancy Wernick, Mayor Pro Tem
Subject: Agenda Item for June 17, 1997 meeting (held over from June 3, 1997 meeting)
AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Discussion about Planning Commission appeals, waiver of fees if
appellants meet certain criteria, and related matters.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Discussion and possible direction to staff and/or
Planning Commission.
Possible suggestions for consideration by Council include:
(1) A resolution to permit appeals of Planning Commission actions to the City
Council by submission of a verified petition in lieu of the fee otherwise requested.
(2) A resolution to provide for the automatic appeal to the City Council of any
Planning Commission decision which would require the City to enter into a
binding agreement as a result.
(3) Decide by area that is affected.
0 120
CITY I APPEAL FEE
El Segundo We do n.QJ (presently) waive appeal fees.
However, If the appeal is upheld, the appeal
fee is refunded to the applicant. El
Segundo currently charges either $460,
$235 or $170 depending on the project size.
Hawthorne They do not waive appeal fees. The resident
will pay the appeal fee, and then may ask
council to refund the appeal $ after the decision
has been made. The appeal fee is 3/4 the
amount of the application fee.
Hermosa Beach They do = waive appeal fees. If a resident
(City Clerk) can prove that paying the appeal fee is a
hardship, the City Council may vote to waive
their appeal fee. Appeal fee is approximately
$400.00 (includes posting, public hearing ad,
etc.)
Long Beach If it is an approved project, anyone within the
(Bob) 300 -500 foot radius may appeal with no fee.
Otherwise the fee is $1050.
Manhattan Beach They do = waive appeal fees. Appeal fee is
(Dan Mareno) $414.
Rancho Palos Verdes They do 1:1Qt waive appeal fees. A fee waiver
(Dave) request may be submitted to the City Council
and they have the authority to approve. Minor
application appeal fee - $700, Major appeal fee
- $940. (City Council unwritten policy: if appeal
is upheld, fee is returned)
Redondo Beach They do = waive appeal fees. Appeal fee is
(Bill Meeker) $100.
Santa Monica They do = waive appeal fees. Appeal fee is
(Bruce) 1$103.
mischappeal -$.ref
0 121