No preview available
1998 MAR 03 CC PACKETAGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main 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 -2208. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, March 3,1998 - 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Wernick 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 ORDER OF BUSINESS - Appointment of James Hansen as the City's real 12ropem negotiator for Fire Station No 2 Recommendation - discussion and possible action. CLOSED SESSION: The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code §54950, et sue.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or discussing matters covered under Gov't Code §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators as follows: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956.9(a)) - 1. City of Los Angeles v. County Sanitation Districts, LASC Case No. BC 034185 2. In the Matter of the Application of City of Los Angeles, OAH No. L- 9604014 3. Fenwick v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. BS 044667 0000 03- 03- 98.5pm 4. Hill v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. YC 030986 5. Hughes v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. BC 185210 6. Bruins v. City of El Segundo, County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission, Case Nos 97 -174 and 97 -302. 7. Siadek v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. YC 025264 8. In Re Property at 406 Virginia Street, El Segundo, Inglewood Judicial District of Municipal Court, Case No. ING 96CO1298 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov't Code §54956.9(b): -3- potential cases (no further public statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov't Code §54956.9(c): -3- matters. DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) - Status of recruitment for City Manager position. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR - (Gov't Code §54957.6) - None. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8) - Appointment of and discussions with James Hansen as the City's real property negotiator for Fire Station No. 2. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required) 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 f ne of $250. ADJOURNMENT POSTED: DATE a 9 TIME NAM 00002. 03- 03- 98.5pm 2 AGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main 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 -2208. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 3,1998 - 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution # 4053 Next Ordinance # 1286 CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION - Rev. Timothy Schepman, Saint John's Lutheran Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilwoman Jane Friedkin PRESENTATIONS 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. 00003 A. B. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on this A eg nda by title only. Recommendation - Approval. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS - 1. Continued public hearing on the following proposed (Third Quarter) amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program: 1) Mini - Variances, 2 -I) Detached Accessory Buildings and 2 -II) Accessory Buildings, 3) Residential Wall Heights, 4) Signs, 5) School Parking, 6) Coastal Development Permits, 7) TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights, and 8) Amplified Sound Permits; and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with CEQA. Environmental Assessment EA -419, General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -3, and Zone Text Amendment ZTA 97 -3, third quarter amendments. Applicant: City of El Segundo - (Citywide Amendments) and Hughes Electronics (TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights). Recommendation - 1) Hold Continued Public Hearing; 2) Discussion; 3) Reading of Ordinance by Title only; 4) Introduce Ordinance; 5) Schedule second reading and final adoption of Ordinance on March 17,1998; 6) Continue discussion of Signs and Amplified Sound Permits to April 21,1998; and 7) Other possible action /direction. 2. Continued public hearing on Environmental Assessment EA -401 and Precise Plan Amendment P.P. 96 -1 (Fourth Amendment to P.P. 12 -72) for 2041 Rosecrans Avenue and 831, 870, and 871 South Nash Street, related to the theaters and adjacent retail /office building. The request is to allow the following: 1) Amendment of the Precise Plan land uses to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" 2) Amendment of the Precise Plan development standards to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" and, 3) Amendment of the Precise Plan to provide for minor modifications to the requirements of the Precise Plan by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. These three requests were continued from the February 17, 1998 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. Applicant: Continental Development Corporation Mr. Jerry Saunders. Recommendation: 1) Open Continued public hearing; 2) Council discussion; and, 3) Continue public hearing at applicant's request until April 21, 1998; or, 4) Other possible action. 00In (?I 3. Public Hearing on Environmental Assessment EA- 435 /General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 /Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 70 -3 -A (CUP administratively withdrawn) for property located at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue. The proposed project is a request is for approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet) of the Church's property (to be), from Single - Family (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the land use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The split zoning of the Church's property is the result of a Lot Line Adjustment (recently approved by the Planning and Building Safety Director) between two existing parcels with two different zoning and land use designations (Single- Family and Two - Family Residential). The additional area (23.501 square feet) added to the Church's property, currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage structure and two storage sheds, would be demolished to accommodate additional surface parking for the Church. Applicant: Mr. Andrew Wallet. Property Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (R -2 portion of Parcel 1). Robert and Betty Ann Carr (R -1 portion of Parcel 1). Recommendation - 1) Open public hearing; 2) Discussion; 3) Reading of Ordinance by Title only; 4) Introduce Ordinance; and, 5) Schedule second reading and final adoption of Ordinance on March 17,1998. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - NONE D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - 1. Correspondence from Mark Dean of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Committee regarding California Senator Quentin L. Kopp's (I -San Mateo /San Francisco) recently introduced legislation to restrict airport noise by allowing communities to initiate public hearings on airport noise and instigate formal investigations into noise standard violations and that communities must also be informed of changes in flight paths. Recommendation - that the City of El Segundo City Council write a letter of support to Senator Kopp for his action in this matter. 00005 E. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of business. Warrant Numbers 245514- 245807 on Demand Register Summary Number 18 in total amount of $752,846.64. and Wire Transfers in the amount of $182.963.15. Recommendation - Approve Warrant Demand Register and Authorize staff to release. Ratify: Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or agreements; emergency disbursements and /or adjustments; and wire transfers from 02/11/98 to 02/24/98. 2. City Council meeting minutes of February 12 and February 17, 1998. Recommendation - Approval. 3. Acceptance of the construction of a storm drain in the alley north of El Segundo Boulevard between Virizinia and Whiting Streets final contract amount: $63.640.00). Recommendation - 1) Accept the work as complete. 2) Authorize the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's office. 4. Monthly lease agreement between the City of El Segundo and Emery Air Freight Corporation to lease a portion of City property at 630 South Douglas Street (Annual revenue of $22,620.00). Recommendation - Approve the lease agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. 5. Reject all bids received for Phase I of the construction of a roller hockey rink in Recreation Park and authorize staff to readvertise the project for receipt of construction bids. Recommendation - 1) Reject all bids received on February 17, 1998. 2) Authorize staff to readvertise the project for receipt of construction bids. CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA F. NEW BUSINESS - CITY MANAGER - NONE G. NEW BUSINESS - CITY ATTORNEY Zakaroff Recycling Services - Republic Industries Inc. Proposed Merger. Recommendation - Approve the merger, subject to reimbursement of City's expenses in reviewing the proposed merger. 00006 H. NEW BUSINESS - CITY CLERK - NONE I. NEW BUSINESS - CITY TREASURER - NONE J. NEW BUSINESS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Councilman Gordon - NONE Councilman Weston - NONE Councilwoman Friedkin - NONE Mayor Pro Tem Wernick - Area Code 310 Status Report Recommendation - Discussion and possible action. Mayor Jacobs - NONE 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. MEMORIALS - Adjournment in memory of Jim Alloway (deceased February 23, 1998) CLOSED SESSION The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code Sec. 54960, et seq.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or discussing matters covered under Government Code section 54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators; as follows: Continuation of matters listed on the City Council Agenda for 5:00 p.m., March 3, 1998 under "Closed Session" (if needed). REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required) ADJOURNMENT POSTED: DATE: TIME: NAME: 03- 03 -98.ag 5 0 00x'7 i -4- EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business - Public Hearing Continued public hearing on the following proposed (Third quarter) amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program: 1) Mini - Variances, 2 -1) Detached Accessory Buildings and 2 -11) Accessory Buildings, 3) Residential Wall Heights, 4) Signs, 5) School Parking, 6) Coastal Development Permits, 7) TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights, and 8) Amplified Sound Permits; and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with CEQA. Environmental Assessment EA -419, General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -3 and Zone Text Amendment ZTA 97 -3, third quarter Amendments. Applicant: City of El Segundo - (Citywide Amendments) and Hughes Electronics (TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Hold Continued Public Hearing; 2) Discussion; 3) Reading of Ordinance by Title only; 4) Introduce Ordinance; 5) Schedule second reading and final adoption of Ordinance on March 17, 1998; 6) Continue discussion of Signs and Amplified Sound Permits to April 21, 1998; and, 6) Other possible action /direction. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: On January 3, 1998, a Joint City Council/Planning Commission bus tour /workshop was conducted to view examples of the issues which have given rise to the proposed revisions to the Zoning Code. Then on January 6, 1998, the City Council held a special joint public workshop /hearing to discuss the proposed third quarter General Plan and Zone Text Amendments. (Continued on Page 2.) ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: draft Ordinance No. 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: February 24, 1998 i Bret B. BergMd, IMP, Director of anning and Building Safety James AKEN: Date: -7 p Azon ing \ea419 \ea419 -8. ais f'i 0 GPA/ZTA City Council Staff Report March 3, 1998 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND (CONTINUED): Page 2 The City Attorney requested that the Council hold their discussion and decisions on abandoned signs so that he would have time to review two issues with staff. These issues have, as yet, not been resolved. The Sign Code cannot be adopted without provisions for abandoned signs, as State law requires an inventory and abatement of illegal and abandoned signs within a certain time frame after the adoption of new sign provisions. Staff recommends that the third quarter amendments be approved without the Sign Code revisions, and that the consideration of signs be continued to April 21, 1998. Additionally, Council requested that Planning staff work with the business community and residents impacted by the Amplified Sound Permit regulations and develop consensus on a proposal to revise the regulations. Staff and the Council envisioned possibly a tiered process with time and decibel limits, with flexibility to exceed the standards a certain limited number of times per year. At the February 17, 1998, Council meeting, Council accepted staffs recommendation that the amplified sound permit regulations be pulled from the third quarter packet in order to avoid delaying the completion of the rest of the amendments. Therefore, staff now presents the draft Ordinance for the third quarter amendments for introduction and first reading with all of the revisions directed by City Council, except for Signs and Amplified Sound Permits. These items require further review and will be continued to the April 21, 1998 meeting of the City Council. p:\zoning\ea419\ea419-8.ais G 0 ; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA419, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 97 -3, AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA 97 -3, AMENDING THE EL SEGUNDO GENERAL PLAN, THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 9 AND 20 (PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS AND THE ZONING CODE), AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM. PETITIONED BY THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO (CITYWIDE AMENDMENTS) AND HUGHES ELECTRONICS (TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS). WHEREAS, on December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo adopted a General Plan for the years 1992 -2010; and, WHEREAS, on December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo certified an Environmental Impact Report as a complete and adequate document in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of El Segundo Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration; and, WHEREAS, on November 16, 1993, the City Council did, pursuant to law, adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the amendments to Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (The Zoning Code) and a new Zoning Map, finding that there were no environmental impacts associated with the amendments that were not analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council for the General Plan on December 1, 1992; and, WHEREAS, on November 16, 1993, the City Council did, pursuant to law, adopt Ordinance No. 1212 adopting a new Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (The Zoning Code) and a new Zoning Map; and, WHEREAS, on November 5, 1996, the City Council considered and initiated a Quarterly Zoning Code (text and map) Amendment program similar to the Quarterly General Plan Amendment program already in place; and, WHEREAS, on December 17, 1996, the City Council approved a list of proposed future General Plan Amendments, Zone Text Amendments and Zone Changes and directed Staff and the Planning Commission to initiate processing the proposed amendments; and, WHEREAS, the City may amend all or part of an adopted General Plan to promote the public interest up to four times during any calendar year pursuant to Government Code Section 65358; and, WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -3 is the third amendment processed and proposed for 1997; and, WHEREAS, on February 16, 1996, Hughes Electronics submitted a General Plan Amendment application requesting approval of provisions for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's); and WHEREAS, on February 22 and 29 and March 7 and 14, 1996, the Planning Commission did hold two public workshops and two public hearings, respectively, duly advertised pursuant to law, on the proposed General Plan Amendments to allow provisions for TDR's, and notice of the hearings was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and 00010 WHEREAS, on March 14, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2378 recommending approval of amendments to the General Plan to allow the Transfer of Development Rights (EA -377, GPA 96 -1), but no Zoning Text Amendment was recommended to be adopted to implement the TDR's; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 18, 19, 21, and 22 and April 2, 1996, the City Council did conduct, pursuant to law, duly advertised public hearings on the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Text Amendments related to the TDR's; and, WHEREAS, on March 22, 1996, the City Council did not adopt the General Plan Amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission to allow provisions for TDR's, and directed Staff and the Planning Commission to further study the TDR provisions in both the General Plan and Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, on July 10, 24, August 14, 28, September 11, 25, and October 9, 1997, the Planning Commission did conduct, pursuant to law, duly advertised public hearings on revisions to the General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program, and notice was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2402 on October 9, 1998 recommending approval of the proposed amendments and, WHEREAS, on January 3, 1998, the Planning Commission and City Council did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised public bus tour /workshop on revisions to the General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program, and notice was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law and the joint workshop was continued until January 6, 1998; and, WHEREAS, on November 18, 1997, the City Council did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised public hearing on revisions to the General Plan, Municipal Code, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program, and notice was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law and the public hearing was continued until December 2, January 3, 6, 20, February 3, 17, and March 3, 1998; and, WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons to present testimony or documentary evidence for or against EA419, GPA 97 -3, and ZTA 97 -3, the revisions to the General Plan, Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program; and, WHEREAS, at said hearings the following facts were established: ] . The purpose of the revisions to the General Plan, Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program are to refine and make appropriate adjustments to the development standards and other zoning and General Plan requirements in order to address concerns raised by the community about the future development of the City in furtherance of the general welfare of the City. 3. State law requires that zoning be made consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that after consideration of the above facts and study of proposed Environmental Assessment EA -419, GPA 97 -3, and ZTA 97 -3 the City Council finds as follows: GENERAL PLAN 1. The proposed General Plan, Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program Amendments are consistent with the 1992 General Plan. 3. The General Plan Amendments under GPA 97 -3 are in the public interest and will further the general welfare of the City. oouI: Tile proposed General Plan, Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program Amendments are consistent with the existing Zoning Code. The proposed General Plan, Zoning Code, Municipal Code, and Local Coastal Program Amendments are consistent with the existing certified Local Coastal Program. 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 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 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 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT the City Council approves EA -419, GPA 97 -3, and ZTA 97 -3, and adopts changes to the El Segundo Municipal Code as follows: SECTION 1. Section 20.08.020 of Chapter 20.08, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.08.020 ACCESSORY. "Accessory" means a building, part of a building or structure, or use which is subordinate to, and the use of which is incidental to, that of the main building, structure or use on the same lot. SECTION 2. Section 20.08.505 of Chapter 20.08, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.08.505 KITCHEN. "Kitchen" means any room or portion of a room within a building designated and /or used or intended to be used for the cooking or preparation of food, which may also include a sink, refrigeration, a garbage disposal, and storage. SECTION 3. Section 20.12.040 A. of Chapter 20.12, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 00012 A. Retaining Walls I . Where a retaining wall protects a cut slope below the natural grade, as depicted in Figure 1, the retaining wall may be topped by a fence, wall, or hedge of a height equal to that which would otherwise be permitted at that location. This does not apply to retaining walls which protect a fill slope. 2. Where a retaining wall contains a fill and is not located in any required setback, as depicted in Figure 2, the height of the retaining wall built to retain the fill shall be considered as contributing to the permissible height of a fence, wall or hedge. A protective fence or guard rail, not more than 48 inches in height, may be erected on top of a retaining wall. An "open work fence" means a fence in which the component solid portions are evenly distributed, vertically oriented, and constitute not more than 25% of the total surface area of the fence. 3. A retaining wall located in any required setback, as depicted in Figure 3, may retain a maximum of 3 feet of fill. An open work fence, not more than 48 inches in height, may be erected on top of a retaining wall in a side or rear setback. However, the maximum height of the fence and/or wall above the fill shall be limited to 6 feet. In a required front setback, a 6 inch wall or fence may be erected on top of a wall which retains a maximum of 3 feet. No open work fence, above the maximum 42 inch total height, shall be allowed in the front setback. Figure "bock n"back O %FN WORK RETAINING WALL CONTAINING FILL IN SETBACKS — WLL• RETAINING WALL CONTAINING FILL 48• max open work fence OUTSIDE SETBACKS 6' max. Figure 2 48' max open work fence in aids and rear setbacks only 4 Figure 3 T max. above fill In side and rear setbacks; or 6. max. above 8a In front setback 3' max. retaining SECTION 4. Section 20.20.025 of Chapter 20.20, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.20.025 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. A. Any use customarily incidental to a permitted use; B. Detached accessory buildings and structures, including private garages; C. Playhouses; and, D. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as provided by Chapter 20.72, Administrative Determinations. SECTION 5. Section 20.20.060 of Chapter 20.20, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.20.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. All uses within the R -1 Zone shall comply with the Development Standards contained in this section. A. General Provisions I . As provided by Chapter 20.12, General Provisions; 2. New dwelling units must be internally integrated and connected; and, 3. An addition to, or extension of a dwelling unit, except a garage, must share a common wall and be internally integrated and connected to the existing dwelling unit. B. Height The height of all dwelling units shall not exceed 26 feet and two stories, except as provided in Section 20.20.060 H. The height of all other buildings and detached accessory structures, including detached garages, shall not exceed 14 feet. Average of Highest Gable .......... 2 2 to cm Accessory Dwelling Unit Structure C. Lot Area A minimum of 5,000 square feet. 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 22 feet and no rear yard setback less than 5 feet. 2. Side ,yard: Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet. Detached accessory structures, located in the rear one -third of the lot, are allowed zero setback on one interior side lot line. (.0gIJ 3. Side Yard Reversed Comer: 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. 4. Rear Y : Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet. Detached accessory structures are allowed zero setback on the rear property line. 50' Min. at Rear of Front Yard 5. Exceptions: Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20.20.060 D., the west side yard of 618 W. Oak Avenue, more particularly described as the north 142.5 feet of the south 285 feet of the east 50.265 feet of Lot 14, Block 9, Tract No. 1685, commencing 63 feet south of the front lot line and continuing south a distance of 30 feet, shall be 3 inches in width so long as that certain structure located along that 30 -foot distance which existed on January 11, 1973, remains in existence. Upon the removal or destruction of said building, this property shall no longer be exempt from Section 20.20.060 D. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 20.20.060 D., the south side yard of 724 Penn Street, more particularly described as the south 55 feet of the north 110 feet of Lot 8, Block 92, El Segundo Sheet No. 4, commencing 84 feet east of the front lot line and continuing east a distance of 20 feet, shall be 3 feet in width so long as that certain structure located along that 20 -foot distance which existed on January 11, 1973, remains in existence. Upon the removal or destruction of said building, this property shall no longer be exempt from Section 20.20.060 D. E. Lot Width Every lot created after the effective date of this chapter shall maintain a width of not less than 50 feet at the rear line of the required front yard. However, any lot or parcel of land of record on May 14, 1954, having a street frontage not exceeding 200 feet, may be subdivided into two or more parcels having a width of not less than the average width of the narrowest 20% of the lots fronting on its block. The block is defined as the area on both sides of the street between the nearest intersecting streets. Each parcel must have an area of not less than 5,000 square feet. F. Building Area No minimum requirement. G. Placement of Buildings and Structures 1. The distance between buildings shall be governed by the Uniform Building Code; and, 2. A detached accessory structure in the rear one -third of the lot may be located on the rear and one interior side lot line, unless one of the following conditions exists: a. Where the lot rears upon an alley and the vehicular entrance to the detached accessory structure is from the alley, such detached accessory structure shall be set back a distance measured from the opposite side of the alley that will provide a turning radius as follows: I. 90 degrees -25 feet ii. 75 degrees -21 feet iii. 60 degrees -18 feet iv. 45 degrees -15 feet b. On the rear third of a reversed corner lot a detached accessory structure may be built to the interior lot side line, but no building shall be erected closer than 5 feet to the property line of any abutting lot to the rear. However, if an alley intervenes and the vehicular entrance to the detached accessory building is directly from the street side, a detached accessory building may be built to the rear lot line. H. Lot Coverage All buildings, including detached accessory buildings, shall not cover more than 40% of the lot area. This coverage may be increased to 47% if the height of the structure is limited to 18 feet. If a building exceeds 18 feet in height, the lot coverage shall not exceed 40% under any circumstances. B NB A +B =< 40% A +B =< 47% if bldg. height is if bldg. height is over 18'. 18' or under. 1. Building Wall Modulation Architectural building features, in conformance with Section 20.08.147, must be included to modulate the building walls subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. r 0 0 1 0 Detached Accessory Buildings l . Any detached accessory building or combination of accessory buildings, except the garage, shall not be larger in gross floor area than 600 square feet; 2. Detached accessory buildings shall be limited to one floor; 3. Detached accessory buildings shall not contain a kitchen or kitchen facilities, a bathtub or shower and shall not be used for sleeping purposes or as an "R" Occupancy, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC), except that they may contain a sink and a toilet; 4. Detached accessory buildings shall not be rented or used as a separate dwelling unit; and, Prior to issuance of a building permit for a detached accessory structure, except a garage, the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall require the recording of a covenant to run with the land, which states that the accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit or used in violation of this Section. SECTION 6. Section 20.22.025 of Chapter 20.22, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.22.025 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. A. Any use customarily incidental to a permitted use; B. Detached accessory buildings and structures, including private garages; C. Playhouses; and, D. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as provided by Chapter 20.72, Administrative Determinations. SECTION 7. Section 20.22.060 of Chapter 20.22, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.22.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. All uses in the R -2 Zone shall comply with the Development Standards contained in this section. A. General Provisions 1. As provided by Chapter 20.12, General Provisions; 2. Any use permitted in the R -1 zone, when developed in the R -2 zone, shall be constructed in accordance with R -2 site developments standards and parking requirements; 3. New dwelling units must be internally integrated and connected; and, 4 An addition to, or extension of a dwelling unit, except a garage, must share a common wall and be internally integrated and connected to the existing dwelling unit. B. Height The height of all dwelling units shall not exceed 26 feet and two stories. The height of all other buildings and detached accessory structures, including detached garages, shall not exceed 14 feet. Average of Highest Gable Accessory Dwelling Unit Structure C. Lot Area A minimum of 7,000 square feet. Lots less than 4,000 square feet in area shall be occupied by only 1 dwelling unit, provided all other requirements of this title are met. D. Setbacks I . Front and rear ysaW: 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. 2. Side e yard: 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. 3. 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. Rear Yard: Structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 5 feet. Detached 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. 7,000 sf Min. Lot Size Front N i ii 5' S' Min o c 50' Min. at Rear of Front Yard Combined Setback Example: Front + Rear = Combined 20' + 10' = 30' 25' + 5' = 30' 9 r q E. Lot Width Every lot created after the effective date of this chapter shall maintain a width of not less than 50 feet at the rear line of the required front yard. However, any lot or parcel of land of record on May 14, 1954, having a street frontage not exceeding 200 feet, may be subdivided into two or more parcels having a width of not less than the average width of the narrowest 20% of the lots fronting on its block. The block is defined as the area on both sides of the street between the nearest intersecting streets. Each parcel must have an area of not less than 7,000 square feet. F. Building Area No minimum requirement. G. Placement of Buildings and Structures 1. The distance between buildings shall be governed by the Uniform Building Code. 2. A detached accessory structure in the rear one -third of the lot may be located on the rear and one interior side lot line, unless one of the following conditions exists: a. Where the lot rears upon an alley and the vehicular entrance to the detached accessory structure is from the alley, such detached accessory structure shall be set back a distance measured from the opposite side of the alley that will provide a turning radius as follows: I. 90 degrees -25 feet ii. 75 degrees -21 feet iii. 60 degrees -18 feet iv. 45 degrees -15 feet b. On the rear third of a reversed corner lot, a detached accessory structure may be built to the interior lot side line, but no building shall be erected closer than 5 feet to the property line of any abutting lot to the rear. However, if an alley intervenes and the vehicular entrance to the detached accessory building is directly from the street side, a detached accessory building may be built to the rear lot line. H. Building Wall Modulation 1. Lots greater than 4.000 square feet in area: No plane of a building wall facing a property line shall exceed 24 feet in height or length without at least a 2 -foot offset for a minimum length of 6 feet in the wall plane. When expanding or adding onto the height or length of an existing building wall, only the expansion or addition shall not exceed 24 feet without wall modulation. Below is an example of wall modulation for walls up to 30 feet: TOTAL WALL LENGTH OR HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF UNBROKEN WALL PLANE MINIMUM LENGTH OF 2 FOOT OFFSET 24 feet 24 feet 0 feet 25 feet 24 feet 1 feet 26 feet 24 feet 2 feet 27 feet 24 feet 3 feet 28 feet 24 feet 4 feet 10 0 rl .l 9 29 feet 24 feet 5 feet 30 feet 24 feet 6 feet 2' N _ N 2. Lots 4.000 square feet or less in area: Architectural building features must be included to modulate the building walls subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. I. Lot Coverage All buildings, including detached accessory buildings, shall not cover more than 50% of the area of the lot. XB A +B =< 50% J. Detached Accessory Buildings 1. Any detached accessory building or combination of accessory buildings, except the garage, shall not be larger in gross floor area than 600 square feet; 2. Detached accessory buildings shall be limited to one floor; 3. Detached accessory buildings shall not contain a kitchen or kitchen facilities, a bathtub or shower and shall not be used for sleeping purposes or as an "R" Occupancy, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC), except that they may contain a sink and a toilet; 4. Detached accessory buildings shall not be rented or used as a separate dwelling unit; and, 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a detached accessory structure, except a garage, the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall require the recording of a covenant to run with the land, which states that the accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit or used in violation of this Section. r 01 SECTION 8. Section 20.24.025 B. of Chapter 20.24, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: B. Detached accessory buildings and structures, including private garages; SECTION 9. Section 20.24.060 of Chapter 20.24, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.24.060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. A. General Provisions 1. As provided by Chapter 20.12, General Provisions; 2. Any use permitted in the R -1 or R -2 zones, when developed in the R -3 zone, shall be constructed in accordance with R -3 site developments standards and parking requirements; 3. New dwelling units must be internally integrated and connected; and, 4. An addition to, or extension of a dwelling unit, except a garage, must share a common wall and be internally integrated and connected to the existing dwelling unit. B. Lot Area A minimum of 7,000 square feet. C. Height The height of all buildings and structures shall not exceed 26 feet. Average of Highest Gable },: > :• X N t Building D. Setbacks A building or structure may encroach up to 2 feet into a required yard, provided that an equivalent volume is set back from the required yard. This encroachment shall not be allowed in any yard adjacent to a single - family residential zone. 1. Front yard: An average of 20 feet shall be provided, but in no case shall it be less than 15 feet. Should vehicular access be through the front yard and controlled by an entry gate, a minimum of 20 feet shall be provided for a vehicle to temporarily stop outside the gated area prior to entering the project. 2. Side yard facing a side street: 5 feet minimum shall be provided, except if parking garages or covered parking spaces face a street, then the setback shall be 20 feet. 3. Side yard facing an adjacent lot: 5 feet minimum shall be provided. Detached accessory structures, located in the rear one -third of the lot, are allowed zero setback on one interior side lot line. 4. Side Yard. Reversed Comer: 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, 12 ()0021 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 20.24.060 D.2. & 3. above. Front Enclosed 5' 20' Covered d m m _m U) -- Cn -- — Rear Yard: 10 feet minimum shall be provided. Rear Yard: Detached accessory structures are allowed zero setback on the rear property line and on one interior lot side line in the rear one -third of the lot. 7,000 sf Min. Lot Size Front at Rear of Front Yard a. 15' Min b. 20' average c. If entry is gated with wait - 20' Min. E. Lot Width Every lot created after the effective date of this chapter shall maintain a width of not less than 50 feet at the rear line of the required front yard. However, any lot or parcel of land of record on May 14, 1954, having a street frontage not exceeding 200 feet, may be subdivided into two or more parcels having a width of not less than the average width of the narrowest 20% of the lots fronting on its block. The block is defined as the area on both sides of the street between the nearest intersecting streets. Each parcel must have an area of not less than 7,000 square feet. F. Building Area The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be as follows: 13 r 0 022 1. On property of 15,000 square feet or less in size, one unit for every 1,613 square feet of lot area is allowed. A fraction of a lot greater than 1,075 square feet will allow an additional unit. 2. On property greater than 15,000 square feet in size, one unit for every 2,420 square feet of lot area is allowed. A fraction of a lot greater than 1,613 square feet will allow an additional unit. G. Placement of Buildings and Structures 1. The distance between buildings shall be governed by the Uniform Building Code. 2. A detached accessory structure in the rear one -third of the lot may be located on the rear and one interior side lot line, unless one of the following conditions exists: a. Where the lot rears upon an alley and the vehicular entrance to the detached accessory structure is from the alley, such detached accessory structure shall be set back a distance measured from the opposite side of the alley that will provide a turning radius as follows: I. 90 degrees -25 feet ii. 75 degrees -21 feet iii. 60 degrees -18 feet iv. 45 degrees -15 feet b. On the rear third of a reversed corner lot, a detached accessory structure may be built to the interior lot side line, but no building shall be erected closer than 5 feet to the property line of any abutting lot to the rear. However, if an alley intervenes and the vehicular entrance to the detached accessory building is directly from the street side, a detached accessory building may be built to the rear lot line. H. Lot Coverage All buildings, including detached accessory buildings, shall not cover more than 53% of the area of the lot. f I I i B N i A +B =< 53% I. Open Space and Recreation Requirements The following open space and recreational facilities shall be provided: Number Private LO mon Recreational of Units O en Space Space Facilities 14 1. 4 or less units 50 s . ft. /unit 150 s . ft. /unit 24 feet 2. 5 -9 units 50 s . ft. /unit 200 s . ft. /unit 24 feet 3. 10 -20 units 50 s . ft. /unit 250 s . ft. /unit 2 feet 4. 21 -50 units 50 s . ft. /unit 250 s . ft. /unit 50 s . ft. /unit 5. 50 and up 50 s . ft. /unit 250 s . ft. /unit 501q. ft. /unit All required open space and recreational facilities shall be in addition to the required front and street side setbacks. Interior side and rear setbacks may be considered as required open spaces and recreation facilities. Landscaped areas are considered as open space if they are physically or visually accessible to the residents. A landscaped area must be a minimum of 5 feet in both length and width in order to be counted as open space. J. Building Wall Modulation No plane of a building wall facing a property line shall exceed 24 feet in height or length without at least a 2 -foot offset for a minimum length of 6 feet in the wall plane. When expanding or adding onto the height or length of an existing building wall, only the expansion or addition shall not exceed 24 feet without wall modulation. Below is an example of wall modulation for walls up to 30 feet: TOTAL WALL LENGTH OR HEIGHT MAXIMUM LENGTH OF UNBROKEN WALL PLANE MINIMUM LENGTH OF 2 FOOT OFFSET 24 feet 24 feet 0 feet 25 feet 24 feet 1 feet 26 feet 24 feet 2 feet 27 feet 24 feet 3 feet 28 feet 24 feet 4 feet 29 feet 24 feet 5 feet 30 feet 24 feet 6 feet 2' N 15 r I � K. Condominium Conversions Condominiums and stock cooperatives converted from multiple family dwellings shall meet all the requirements for condominiums in effect at the time they were originally constructed. If there were no condominium standards in effect at the time of construction, the conversion shall comply with the condominium standards of Ordinance No. 898, adopted January 20, 1976. L. Detached Accessory Buildings 1. Detached accessory buildings shall not contain a kitchen or kitchen facilities, a bathtub or shower and shall not be used for sleeping purposes; 2. Detached accessory buildings shall not be rented or used as a separate dwelling unit or as an "R" Occupancy, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC), except that they may contain a sink and a toilet; and, 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a detached accessory structure, except a garage, the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall require the recording of a covenant to run with the land, which states that the accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit or used in violation of this Section. SECTION 10. Section 20.33.060 F. of Chapter 20.33, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: F. Building Area The total net floor area of all buildings shall not exceed the total net square footage of the property multiplied by 1.0 or an FAR 1:1. Additional FAR may be granted for properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard only, with approval of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Plan. i C - 3 Zone 1 = 10,000 sf c F.A.R. = 1.0 ° Bldg. Area = 10,000 sf U 100' SECTION 11. Section 20.34.060 F. of Chapter 20.34, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: F. Building Area The total net floor area of all buildings shall not exceed the total net square footage of the property multiplied by 0.8 or an FAR 0.8:1. Additional FAR may be granted for properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard only, with approval of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Plan. 411 nnn�� C 0 Zone d g d N 100' = 10,000 sf F.A.R. = 0.8 Bldg. Area = 8,000 sf SECTION 12. Section 20.36.060 F. of Chapter 20.36, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows. F. Building Area The total net floor area of all buildings shall not exceed the total net square footage of the property multiplied by 1.3 or an FAR 1.3:1. Additional FAR may be granted for properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard only, with approval of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Plan. = 10,000 sf F.A.R. = 1.3 Bldg. Area = 13,000 sf SECTION 13. Section 20.38.060 F. of Chapter 20.38, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: F. Building Area The total net floor area of all buildings shall not exceed the total net square footage of the property multiplied by 1.3 or an FAR 1.3:1. Additional FAR may be granted for properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard only, with approval of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Plan. 17 = 10,000 sf F.A.R. = 1.3 Bldg. Area = 13,000 sf SECTION 14. Section 20.40.060 F. of Chapter 20.40, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: F. Building Area The total net floor area of all buildings, as defined in Chapter 20.08, on any parcel or lot shall not exceed the total square footage of the parcel or lot area multiplied by 0.6, thereby giving a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.6:1. However, additional FAR may be granted by the City upon the preparation and approval of a specific plan, consistent with Section 65450 et.al of the California Government Code, or, for properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard only, with the approval of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Plan. The total net floor area of high and medium bay labs may be multiplied by a factor of 0.5 to determine the allowed net floor area, if an agreement is recorded which ensures that the use and the number of employees is consistent with the definition in 20.08.467. i M - 1 Zone i °o 100' = 10,000 sf F.A.R. = 0.6 Bldg. Area = 6,000 sf SECTION 15. Section 20.45.025 of Chapter 20.45, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.45.025 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES. A. Any use customarily incidental to a permitted use; B. Detached accessory buildings and structures, including private garages; and, C. Other similar use approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as provided by Chapter 20.72, Administrative Determinations. SECTION 16. Section 20.45.060 A. of Chapter 20.45, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: A. General Provisions 1. As provided by Chapter 20.12, General Provisions; 2. New dwelling units must be internally integrated and connected; and, 3 An addition to, or extension of a dwelling unit, except a garage, must share a common wall and be internally integrated and connected to the existing dwelling unit. SECTION 17. Section 20.45.060 E. of Chapter 20.45, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: E. Lot Coverage All buildings, including detached accessory buildings, shall not cover more than 53% of the area of the lot. 18 00027 i A +B +C =<53% SECTION 18. Section 20.45.060 J. of Chapter 20.45, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Detached Accessory Buildings 1. Detached accessory buildings shall not contain a kitchen or kitchen facilities, a bathtub or shower and shall not be used for sleeping purposes; 2. Detached accessory buildings shall not be rented or used as a separate dwelling unit or as an "R" Occupancy, as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC), except that they may contain a sink and a toilet; and, 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit for a detached accessory structure, except a garage, the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall require the recording of a covenant to run with the land, which states that the accessory structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit or used in violation of this Section. SECTION 19. Section 20.54.060 B.(11) of Chapter 20.54, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: (11) Schools, private (a) Pre - school, 1 space for each 1 classroom, plus 1 space for each elementary through employee and faculty member. junior high level: (b) High school level: 7 spaces per classroom plus auditorium or stadium parking requirements. (c) Adult level, college, 1 space for every 50 square feet of gross floor area or 1 business and trade: space for every 3 fixed seats - whichever is greater; or, as modified by a Parking Demand Study. SECTION 20. Chapter 20.64 shall be added to Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 20.64 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. Sections: 20.64.010 PURPOSE AND SCOPE. 19 0 0.02 20.64.020 DEFINITIONS. 20.64.030 PROHIBITIONS. 20.64.040 APPROVAL OF TRANSFERS - PROCEDURE. 20.64.010 PURPOSE AND SCOPE. It is the purpose of this Chapter to facilitate orderly business development and provide for the public benefit without increasing the total NFA permitted under the General Plan. The goal of Transfer of Development Rights is to reduce the impacts of potential increased development on properties west of Sepulveda Boulevard and allow new development east of Sepulveda Boulevard, while minimizing traffic impacts and maximizing the public benefit. This Chapter provides for the transfer of a minimum of 25,000 square feet of Net Floor Area (NFA) between properties under common ownership. Transfers may only occur from properties west of Sepulveda Boulevard, located in the C -3 and C -O Zones, to properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard and located in the C -3, CO, MU -N, and M -I Zones. 20.64.020 DEFINITIONS. The following terms, whenever used in this Chapter, shall apply only to the transfer of development rights procedures as provided for in this Chapter: A. "Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's)" means allowing a property to increase its building square footage above that permitted by the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards by purchasing allowed building square footage from another site. B. "Transfer" means the transfer of the unused allowable NFA of a parcel from a Donor Site(s) to a Receiving Site(s), which is approved in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. C. "Transfer Plan" means a plan that identifies and describes the Donor Site(s), Receiving Site(s), amount of the NFA to be transferred, the proposed uses of the Donor Site(s) and Receiving Site(s), the public benefit of the transfer, and the proposed conditions of approval. D. "Donor Site(s) "means a parcel located west of Sepulveda Boulevard and located within the C -3 or CO Zone from which NFA is being transferred pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. E. "Receiving Site(s)" means a parcel located east of the easterly right -of -way line of Sepulveda Boulevard, which does not abut or take access from Sepulveda Boulevard, and located within the C -3, CO, MU -N, or M -1 Zone that receives NFA from a Donor Site(s) pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter. F. "Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)" means a specific area in the City of El Segundo which has been identified for traffic study and mitigation purposes. 20.64.030 PROHIBITIONS. A. Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter to the contrary, no building permit shall be issued for any project that is inconsistent with the zoning restrictions on the lot, except for FAR restrictions. 20 00029 B. Notwithstanding any provision of this Chapter to the contrary, only properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard, which do not abut or take access from Sepulveda Boulevard, can qualify as Receiving Site(s). 20.64.040 APPROVAL OF TRANSFERS - PROCEDURE. A. Application. Any person(s) who own both the Donor Site(s) and the Receiving Site(s) may apply for a Transfer of NFA by submitting a written application for a Transfer to the City Planning and Building Safety Department that identifies the Donor Site(s), Receiving Site(s), the amount of NFA proposed to be transferred, and the proposed uses of the Donor Site(s) and Receiving Site(s). B. Review by Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall approve, conditionally approve or deny a Transfer Plan. The Planning Commission shall use the following criteria in making its determination: 1. That the Transfer Plan is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purposes of the zone in which the sites are located. 2. That the proposed Transfer Plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, That the proposed Transfer Plan complies with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter; and 4. That the Donor Site(s) and Receiving Site(s) are located within the same Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) as identified in Exhibit A; and That the total square footage of the transfer may not exceed 10% of the total buildout square footage for each zone, as specified in the General Plan Summary of Buildout (Exhibit LU -3); and, 6. That the proposed Transfer Plan recognizes and compensates for potential impacts that could be generated by the proposed Transfer, such as aesthetics, noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, traffic and hazards; and, 7. That the proposed Transfer Plan provides a public benefit such as improved traffic circulation, open space, recreation facilities, landscaping, pedestrian access, or other improvements which benefit the public; and, That the proposed Transfer Plan is consistent with the General Plan. C. Notice and Hearing. Upon filing of an application for a Transfer Plan by a property owner or an applicant with the consent of the owner(s), the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall give public notice, as provided in Chapter 20.90, Procedures for Hearings, Notice and Fees, of the intention to consider at a public hearing the granting of a Transfer Plan. The notice shall be provided for the areas surrounding both the donor and receiving sites. D. Appeal to City Council. The applicant or any person affected by the Planning Commission's decision respecting a Transfer Plan can appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 20.82, Appeal or Review. 21 00030 E. Final Approval. A Transfer Plan approved by Planning Commission and/or City Council shall become final upon the completion of all applicable conditions of approval and the following: Recorded Covenant. A Covenant in a form approved by the City Attorney shall be recorded against the Donor Site(s) and Receiving Site(s) setting forth the details of the Transfer Plan and any conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council. The Covenant shall be executed by all parties that have a legal or equitable interest in the Donor Site(s) or the Receiving Site(s). The Covenant shall reflect that from the date of recording of the covenant that the Donor Site(s) and Receiving Site(s) shall thereafter in perpetuity be burdened by the Covenant and the FAR for the Donor Site(s) and Receiving Site(s) will be set in the Covenant pursuant to the FAR allowed at the time of approval of the Transfer Plan. The Director of Planning and Building Safety may approve the removal of the Covenant from the properties if the Transfer has not been utilized by the Receiving Site(s) and the legal and equitable owners of the property execute a request for removal in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Any modification to an approved Transfer Plan must be submitted to the City for review utilizing the procedures set forth in this Chapter for approval of a Transfer Plan. Recording, modifying or removing a Covenant shall require a title insurance policy as set forth below. 2. Title Insurance. Prior to recording, modifying or removing a Covenant pursuant to Section 20.64.040 E.1. The applicant shall secure a title insurance policy benefiting the City in an amount equal to the value of the NFA being transferred. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with procuring title insurance, including without limitation the cost of appraising the value of the NFA proposed to be transferred. 22 X 0 0 3 1 SECTION 21. Section 20.78.010 of Chapter 20.78, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.78.010 GRANTING. Whenever a strict interpretation of the provisions of this Title or its application to any specific case or situation pertaining to the following items would result in the unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of property, an adjustment may be granted subject to the following restriction and in the manner hereafter provided. Adjustments may be granted to allow: A) A fence, wall or hedge up to a maximum height of eight (8) feet; and, B) Architectural Landscape Features which exceed the standards set forth in Section 20.12.170. SECTION 22. Section 20.78.020 of Chapter 20.78, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.78.020 PROCEDURE. The applicant for an adjustment shall apply in letter form, stating the adjustment desired and explaining that the strict interpretation of this title would result in the unreasonable deprivation of the use or enjoyment of his property. The applicant shall submit the application with the required filing fee to cover the cost of investigation and processing. SECTION 23. Section 20.78.030 of Chapter 20.78, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.78.030 SETTING FOR HEARING. The Director of Planning and Building Safety shall set the matter for public hearing by mailing notice thereof to the applicant and the owners of abutting property by first class mail at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The requested adjustment shall be heard before the Director of Planning and Building Safety or his/her designated representative. SECTION 24. Section 20.78.050 of Chapter 20.78, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.78.050 CONDITIONS. Whenever any adjustment is granted, the Director of Planning and Building Safety or his/her designated representative shall impose such conditions as may be necessary to safeguard the interests of the neighborhood or district, and in all cases shall impose the following conditions: A. That the adjustment shall not become effective until 7 days from the granting thereof has elapsed or, if an appeal is filed or a review called, until final determination has been made on the appeal or review; and, B. That the adjustment shall become null and void if the privileges granted thereunder has not been utilized within 180 days from the effective date thereof. 23 00032 SECTION 25. Section 20.78.060 of Chapter 20.78, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.78.060 HEARING. A determination on an adjustment shall be made by the Director of Planning and Building Safety or his /her designated representative within 10 days after the hearing. SECTION 26. Section 20.78.070 of Chapter 20.78, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 20.78.070 NOTIFICATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW. Copies of the findings and decision of the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall be mailed to each member of the Planning Commission and to the applicant. Written determinations on adjustments, made by the Director of Planning and Building Safety or his /her designated representative, shall be placed as receive and file items on the next available agenda of the Planning Commission. Any Planning Commissioner may request that an item be discussed and a decision on the application be made by the Planning Commission instead of received and filed. No decision of the Director of Planning and Building Safety is final until the decision is received and filed or acted upon by the Planning Commission or upheld on appeal. SECTION 27. Section 20.92.040 A. of Chapter 20.92, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: A. Jurisdiction. Upon receipt of an application for a CDP and prior to permit approval, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the regulations specified in this Chapter, except for minor developments pursuant to Section 20.92.065; SECTION 28. Section 20.92.065 shall be added to Chapter 20.92, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code to read as follows: 20.92.065 WAIVER OF PUBLIC HEARING. A. A Planning Commission public hearing may be waived for minor developments which meet the following criteria: The minor development is consistent with the City's certified Local Coastal Program, including the land use resource protection policies and the zoning standards; and, 2. The minor development requires no discretionary approvals other than a Coastal Development Permit; and, The minor development has no adverse effect either individually or cumulatively on coastal resources or public access to the shoreline or along the coast. B. Additionally, the public hearing may be waived only if all of the following occur: Notice that a public hearing shall be held upon written request by any person is provided to all persons who would otherwise be required to be notified of a public 24 00033 hearing, as provided by Section 20.92.050, as well as any other persons known to be interested in receiving notice; 2. No request for a public hearing is received by the Department of Planning and Building Safety within 15 working days from the date of sending the notice pursuant to Section B.1, above; and, The notice provided in Section B.1, includes a statement that failure by a person to request in writing a public hearing may result in the loss of that person's ability to appeal to the Coastal Commission any action taken by the City of El Segundo on a Coastal Development Permit application. C. The Director of Planning and Building Safety shall be authorized to grant approval of a CDP for minor developments. The Director's determination shall be placed as a receive and file item on the next available agenda of the Planning Commission. SECTION 29. The Land Use designations of the Land Use Element are hereby changed to allow the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to be exceeded for properties east of Sepulveda Boulevard with a Transfer of Development Right's (TDR) Plan. The corresponding changes to the Land Use Element as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are also hereby approved. SECTION 30. Land Use Element Policy LU 5 -4.1 is hereby added to address permitting the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR's). The corresponding changes to the Land Use Element as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are also hereby approved. SECTION 31. This ordinance shall become effective at midnight on the thirtieth (30) day from and after the final passage and adoption hereof. SECTION 32. 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 said City; shall make a note of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall within 15 days after the passage or adoption thereof cause the same to be published or posted in accordance with the law. ATTESTED: Cindy Mortesen City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,1998. W Sandra Jacobs, Mayor of the City of El Segundo, California pAzoning\ea419\ea419.ord 00034 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA HEADING: Special Order of Business - Public Hearing Continued public hearing on Environmental Assessment EA-401 and Precise Plan Amendment P.P. 96 -1 (Fourth Amendment to P.P. 12 -72) for 2041 Rosecrans Avenue and 831, 870, and 871 South Nash Street, related to the theaters and adjacent retail/office building. The request is to allow the following: 1) Amendment of the Precise Plan land uses to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" 2) Amendment of the Precise Plan development standards to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" and, 3) Amendment of the Precise Plan to provide for minor modifications to the requirements of the Precise Plan by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. These three requests were continued from the February 17, 1998 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. Applicant: Continental Development Corporation, Mr. Jerry Saunders. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Open Continued public hearing; 2) Council discussion; and, 3) Continue public hearing at applicant's request until April 21, 1998; or, 4) Other possible action. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: On September 16, 1997, the City Council reviewed and approved (Resolution No. 4034) the applicant's request for the following amendments to Precise Plan 12 -72 (as previously amended by PP 94 -1), for the Pacific Theatre project: 1) an amendment to Condition No. 15 of City Council Resolution No. 3917 related to the parking structure stairway at 870 South Nash Street; 2) an amendment to Condition No. 14 of City Council Resolution No. 3917 related to the parking structure stairway directional signage at 870 South Nash Street; 3) revisions to the approved Traffic Circulation Plan; and, 4) the approval of a Precise Plan Amendment to allow outdoor dining that exceeds 200 square feet for P.F. Chang's China Bistro and other (possible) future restaurants. On September 15, 1997, the Planning Division received a request from the applicant for a continuance of the three remaining items, as listed in the above Agenda Description, until the October 21, 1997 City Council meeting. On that occasion, the applicant requested a further continuance for the Public Hearing on these three items, until the December 16, 1997 regular meeting, in order to provide sufficient time for the applicant to prepare and staff to review the three (3) remaining items of the application. On December 16, 1997, another continuance was again requested until February 3, and on February 3 a further continuance was requested until February 17, 1998. At that meeting the applicant again requested another continuance until tonight's meeting. Presently, more time is still needed by the applicant, so a further (and anticipated last) continuance -- until April 21, 1998 -- is requested. The Planning Commission also continued its discussion of these items, at the request of the applicant, from October 9, December 11, 1997, January 22, February 12, 26, March 12, and (then) anticipated to be continued to April 9, 1998. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: None. .TED: ­7 Date: February 24, 1 Bret B. d, A1 5E Dir ctor o lanning and Building Safety REVIE r7y Date: ►. Morrison, City Manager TAKEN: p: \projects \ea401 \ea401 -7.ais 00035. EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT DA MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA HEADING: Special Order of Business - Public Hearing Public Hearing on Environmental Assessment EA-435/General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 /Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 70 -3 -A (CUP administratively withdrawn) for property located at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue. The proposed project is a request for approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet) of the Church's property (to be), from Single - Family (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the Land Use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The split zoning of the Church's property is the result of a Lot Line Adjustment (recently approved by the Planning and Building Safety Director) between two existing parcels with two different zoning and land use designations, (Single - Family and Two - Family Residential). The additional area (23,501 square feet ) added to the Church's property, currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage structure, and two storage sheds; would be demolished to accommodate additional surface parking for the Church. Applicant: Mr. Andrew Wallet. Property Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (R -2 portion of Parcel 1); and, Robert and Betty Ann Carr (R -1 portion of Parcel 1). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Open public hearing; 2) Discussion; 3) Reading of Ordinance by Title only; 4) Introduce Ordinance; and, 5) Schedule second reading and final adoption of Ordinance on March 17, 1998. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission will be reviewing the above request at the Planning Commission Meeting on Thursday, February 26, 1998. Assuming that the Planning Commission approves the request, the draft Minutes, approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 2407, Staff Report and attachments, a summary of their discussions, concerns, and recommendation related to this request, and a draft City Council Ordinance will be transmitted under separate cover to the City Council on Friday, February 27, 1998. A complete project description and analysis of the proposed project will be included in the material to be transmitted to the City Council on Friday, February 27, 1998. Additionally, on Friday, February 20, 1998, the City Council received the Planning Commission Agenda Packet for February 26, 1998, which included the Planning Commission staff report and attachments. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments, Planning Commission draft Minutes, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2407, draft City Council Ordinance, and City Council Staff Report with summary of Planning Commission discussions. (Transmitted under separate cover). 2. Letter from Mr. Andrew Wallet, dated February 4, 1998. (Transmitted under separate cover). None ORIGINATED: Date: February 25, 1998 Bret B. Bevrard, IC , Direct r of Planning and Building Safety T ?SI p:\projects W 26- 45o\ea- aso\ea- 4aD-O. ais 00 030 2 -23 -1998 3:22PM FROM REALOUEST 213 627 9155 P.1 To: Marlene / E1 Segundo City Hall From: Mark Dean / Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Committee Date: February 23, 1998 Hi Marlene: here's the information we discussed last Friday, for inclusion into the Committees section of the next agenda, Thanks! Mark Dean._ -- 213/538 -065 Item; CA Senator Quentin L, Kopp (I -San Mateo /San Francisco) has recently introduced legislation to restrict airport noise by allowing communities to initiate public hearings on airport noise and instigate formal investigations into noise standard violations. Communities must also be informed of changes in flight paths, as recently happened at LAX. Recommended Action: That the El Segundo City Council writes a letter of support to Senator Kopp for his action in this matter, 00037 Senator Quentin Kopp --- Contact: Jackie Landsman (650) 301 -1721 Feb. 19,1998 Kopp Introduces Bill To Quell Airport Clamor State Senator Quentin L. Kopp (I -San Mateo /San Francisco) introduced legislation today to restrict airport noise by increasing the power of communities in addressing airport noise in their neighborhoods. The legislation allows communities the opportunity to initiate public hearings on airport noise and instigate formal investigations into noise standard violations. The measure further requires that affected neighborhoods be informed of changes in flight paths prior to their execution. Currently, adversely affected communities are informed of such change after they've been effectuated or not at all. "People across the State of California are subject to incredible jet aircraft noise pollution for the 'good! of interstate commerce. The ambiance of affected neighborhoods, however, has been increasingly exploited by money making airports which cater to profit -driven airlines without any conceal for affected communities. Kopp stated, "it is high time those affected are able to demand the opportunity for public discourse on the subject." Kopp's legislation will allow communities to request hearings on such critical issues as increases in late night or early morning flights. "Communities in and around San Francisco International Airport are currently represented by the Airport/Community Roundtable on such issues, but the Roundtable has been obviously ineffective at best and subversive at worst," Kopp stated. The legislation further provides for, at the request of a city or county, the initiation of an investigation into any airport noise violations. "In over 20 years, not one investigation has ever been launched at any airport in California," Kopp exclaimed. "With all the complaints I have received over the years from noise at SFO, I find that incomprehensible." HOME I POLITICAL PULSE4 KXPR/KXJZ I KVIE I CALENDAR I PRESS PASS I NEWS dPIRTONTECEi+ TpWE3M LEABE STEONNYMNEUP I I.INK I UMAKUM ® The Sacramento Bea loft 00038 2/19/98 10:12 AM :� ; F.ELLASIs Senator Quentin Kopp --- Contact: Jackie Landsman (650) 301 -1721 Feb. 19,1998 Kopp Introduces Bill To Quell Airport Clamor State Senator Quentin L. Kopp (I -San Mateo /San Francisco) introduced legislation today to restrict airport noise by increasing the power of communities in addressing airport noise in their neighborhoods. The legislation allows communities the opportunity to initiate public hearings on airport noise and instigate formal investigations into noise standard violations. The measure further requires that affected neighborhoods be informed of changes in flight paths prior to their execution. Currently, adversely affected communities are informed of such change after they've been effectuated or not at all. "People across the State of California are subject to incredible jet aircraft noise pollution for the 'good! of interstate commerce. The ambiance of affected neighborhoods, however, has been increasingly exploited by money making airports which cater to profit -driven airlines without any conceal for affected communities. Kopp stated, "it is high time those affected are able to demand the opportunity for public discourse on the subject." Kopp's legislation will allow communities to request hearings on such critical issues as increases in late night or early morning flights. "Communities in and around San Francisco International Airport are currently represented by the Airport/Community Roundtable on such issues, but the Roundtable has been obviously ineffective at best and subversive at worst," Kopp stated. The legislation further provides for, at the request of a city or county, the initiation of an investigation into any airport noise violations. "In over 20 years, not one investigation has ever been launched at any airport in California," Kopp exclaimed. "With all the complaints I have received over the years from noise at SFO, I find that incomprehensible." HOME I POLITICAL PULSE4 KXPR/KXJZ I KVIE I CALENDAR I PRESS PASS I NEWS dPIRTONTECEi+ TpWE3M LEABE STEONNYMNEUP I I.INK I UMAKUM ® The Sacramento Bea loft 00038 2/19/98 10:12 AM ort Noise Repor. � 3 A biweekly update on litigation, regulations, and technological developments January 23,1998 Volume lo, Number 1 Air Space Change FAA BEGINS POTOMAC PROJECT WITHOUT PUBLIC CONSULTATION By Charles F. Price — Almost a year after the Federal Aviation Administration announced it would start an ambitious outreach effort to involve local communities in all phases of a suggested wholesale redesign of airspace in the Washington - Baltimore region, the agency has now announced it will go ahead with a major element of the redesign despite the fact that no significant consultation with the public has yet occurred. The proposed undertaking is called the Potomac Project. It was unveiled by FAA in early 1997 amid promises that citizens and local officials would be consulted from "the earliest possible stages of the project." Yet on Jan. 6, FAA said it had i unilaterally decided to consolidate regional air traffic control at a single facility to be built in Virginia or Maryland. The news, according to Betty Ann Krahnke, chair of the panel of local govern- ment officials concerned with aircraft noise in the Washina.ton area, "sent shock waves throughout the region." In view of the FAA decision, made without input from local officials, she branded the project "a major threat." Krahnke heads the Committee on Noise Abatement at National and Dulles Airports (CONANDA), an (Continued on P. 2) Newark Int'1 FAA SUSPENDS FLIGHT PATH TEST; " HANDS OVER ARTS DATA TO NJCAAN By Charles F. Price — The Federal Aviation Administration, in a conciliatory move that may finally help ease the decade -long controversy with noise - impacted communities in New York and New Jersey, has suspended a proposed six -month experiment that would have rerouted a quarter of the departures from Newark International Airport over new areas. The decision came under pressure from area politicians in league with anti-noise groups. In making the announcement FAA conceded that until recently noise concerns had not figured as prominently in its decision - making as certain operational factors. The agency- also said it would begin a major review of air routes for the three airports serving the New York City area — Newark International, JFK Interna- tional, and LaGuardia — early this year, this time in consultation with the public. Its purpose is to identify air routes that would have less intrusive noise impacts on communities while also serving the needs of air safety, efficiency, and security. FAA said its decision to conduct a review of regional air routes played no part in its decision to postpone the test of the change in departure procedure at Newark. And, for the first time, FAA has handed over ARTS (Automated Radar Terminal (Continued on p. 4) In This Issue... Potomac Project ... FAA announces that it will con- solidate air traffic control in the Washington - Baltimore region at a single facility. The decision angers local officials who say the FAA promised to consmkAk ?1 on every step . ... /AA, undue►, to lenesqnsimal pressure postpones the test of a new departure procedure at New- ark International and, for the first time, gives ARTS data to a community group - p. 1 Louisville ... The second of two new parallel runways is opened as part of the airport's expansion program - p. 3 Litigation ... A coalition of local and national environ- mental groups files notice of intent to sue Baltimore - Washington International and O'Hare International Airports forirly discharging Copyright © 1998 by Airport Noise Report, Ashburn, Va. 20147 rops o of d concepts for ng Los Angeles International Airport Homestead ... FAA, mr Force decide to do supple- mental EIS on conversion of base to civil airport - p. 6 00039 A e.-Since it has a sweet taste, it is attractive to wildlife alWmpanion animals when spilled on the ground or in str or puddles. Ethylene glycol has been found to be a sign t cause of wildlife and companion animal mortal- ity a man poisonings, according to the press release. Leslie lair, D.V.M., the director of companion animal care at uman Society, said, "Animal deaths from ethylene of are preventable. A good first step is to stop the runof xins from airports. BWI and Chicago's O'Hare ai should begin using the less toxic and equally effe propylene glycol -based deicer as part of their long ran ans to comply with all environmental laws and stand NRDC is a nat , not - for - profit environmental advo- cacy organization, icated to reducing pollution and protecting wildlife ther natural resources. NRDC has over 350,000 mein tionwide. In 1997, NRDC issued a report, Flying Off Cou nvironmental Impacts of America's Airports, wh and that 45 out of 50 of the nation's busiest airports a ated near water bodies. The report concluded that the ve amounts of chemicals used in deicing and other ru operations pose a signifi- cant environmental and healt d. US- Citizens Aviation Watch ecently formed, Chicago -based organization co of numerous airport environmental groups from aroun country. It claims to have "hundreds of thousands" of m rs nationwide. The Humane Society of the Unit es is a national non - profit corporation with over 5 mi members and constituents nationwide organized to p e the humane treatment and welfare of all animals. The ization has in interest in the environmental toxins rel by airports. The Airport Environmental Coalition is a r -profit environmental organization based in Linthicu , with members living immediately downstream of an e vicinity of BWI Airport. The Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare is 401 profit airport environmental and civic organization d cared to protecting the public from the adverse environ mental effects of O'Hare International Airport. It claims have 1.200 members.A Newark, from p. 1 System) flight track data to a consultant for a community group, the New Jersey Coalition Against Aircraft Noise ( NJCAAN). He will use the data with new, more sophisti- cated software to re- evaluate a scheme he proposed earlier to route departures from Newark International over the Atlantic Ocean to gain altitude before turning them back over communities. "The technical data can serve as a starting point for citizens groups to propose alternative air routes that could provide relief from airplane noise for residents of New Jersey and Staten Island[NY]," Rep. Bob Franks, (R -NJ), whose district includes communities impacted by aircraft Noise noise, said Jan. 15 as he made good on his promise to 1 provide NJCAAN with the flight path data. "For the first time, a citizens group has access to the FAA's technical data," Franks said. "This information will enable them to accurately assess the impact of any changes in airplane routes on noise levels in communities." Franks turned over the NJCAAN ARTS data on flights departing Newark International between Dec. 15 and Dec. 30, 1997. "The FAA's willingness to turn over this data to citizens groups marks an important turning point in the history of the airplane -noise issues," Franks said. "It's a positive sign and hopefully signals a new spirit of coopera- tion between the federal agency responsible for airplane routes and the citizens who must live with the consequences of changes in flight patterns." Departure Change Postponed The Newark experiment, which was scheduled to start early in January, would have rerouted 25 percent of the daily flights leaving Newark in an effort to ease noise impacts on primarily residential areas in central New Jersey. Anti-noise advocates from NJCAAN had argued the change would merely shift noise from one group of communities to the other, although FAA officials maintained the areas under the new flight paths were primarily industrial. In announcing the suspension, Frank Hatfield, manager of airspace for FAA's New York region, told The New York Times the agency had withdrawn the plan in order for community groups to evaluate it further. Michael Schatzki, director of the New Jersey Citizens for Environmental Research, a group affiliated with NJCAAN, welcomed the suspension. "We consider it a positive development that they have postponed this experiment," he said in a Times interview, "and hope it is a sign that they will change the way they plan" Schatzki said the change would have amounted to `tinkering that moves the noise from one set of New Jersey towns to another set of New Jersey towns. We are looking for some real relief from the noise and want to stop playing this game of moving the noise around." The FAA's decision to postpone the trial of the change in departure procedure came Dec. 31, 1997, after a two -day meeting with citizens' groups sponsored by New Jersey politicians Sen. Robert G. Torricelli (D -NJ), Reps. Robert D. Franks (R -NJ), and Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, (R -NJ) and Gov. Christine Whitman. Torricelli's concerns seemed to have been particularly persuasive. NJCAAN gave the senator much of the credit for convincing FAA to postpone. And FAA spokesman Jim Peters told the Newark Star - Ledger the agency "decided not to start the procedures until everything is resolved. Very specifically, the senator wanted more information about the noise impact. So we will be working with the Port Authority [of New York and New Jersey] on that end. We'll do what it takes to satisfy the senator's requests." In a prepared statement, Torricelli himself expressed pleasure at the decision to postpone. "The FAA recognized Airport Noise Repoli 0040 ' January 23,1998 5 that there are serious issues surrounding this plan that demand further examination and discussion. It is apparent that the FAA is responsive to community needs and has the best interest of New Jersey residents living near airports in mind." ARTS Data Released Glenn Bales of Geospec, Inc., based in Fountain, CO, serves as NJCAAN's consultant. He told ANR he will use the ARTS data provided by the FAA in conjunction with new software to determine the impact of the proposed departure path change the FAA wants to impose at Newark International, to detemine the change in noise impact that would occur if aircraft were to cut back power on takeoff from the airport, and to reexamine NJCAAN's ocean routing proposal. Bales acknowledged that it is unlikely the FAA would allow power cutbacks on departure from Newark, especially in light of an updated agency advisory circular which bars unique departure procedures for noise abatement purposes, but said the modeling will show "what could be." What will be done is a different matter, he said. Ironically, Bales is a former FAA official who served as FAA's regional airspace manager before Hatfield filled that job. He and Hatfield both now concede that safety and other operational concerns, not noise, were the primary criteria used in picking the air routes used in the FAA's Expanded East Coast Plan, implemented in 1987, which imposed aircraft noise on areas of New York and New Jersey previously free of it. That decision was taken with no public consultation. Four years ago Bales, retained by NJCAAN, proposed a plan that would reroute flights over the Atlantic Ocean on departure from Newark to gain altitude before turning back over land as a way to reduce their noise impact on commu- nities. FAA turned thumbs down on the notion citing safety concerns and contending the plan would be too costly due to changes it would cause in the air routes of other airports. Bales complained that the plan was never correctly evalu- ated and Port Authority officials have since admitted mistakes were made in the modeling they used to evaluate it. Then Gov. Whitman breathed new life into the idea recently when she asked engineers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) to study the ocean routing plan. Now, with state officials weighing in on the side of noise - impacted citizens, FAA appears more amenable to at least considering the ocean- routing approach. The FAA's Peters said the plan will be reconsidered by the agency early in 1998. Bales said he thinks it is significant that FAA released the ARTS data to NJCAAN. Such data has been released at other airports in the course of litigation and under intense political pressure, he said, but noted that the FAA makes it difficult to obtain the data. The airlines were very concerned that ARTS data would be used against them in court, so FAA restricted access to it, he explained. New Software At the two -day meeting resulting in FAA's announcement of the Newark rerouting, Bales demonstrated cutting -edge software which, when combined with FAA's Automated Radar Terminal System (ARTS) data, could refine the NJIT analysis of the ocean- routing scheme. The software was developed by Le Tech Inc., of Alexandria, VA. NJCAAN Executive Director Pamela Barsam -Brown said the new technology "will now allow route designs to be judged on merit. It will minimize, if not eliminate, the fa!se and misleading information which has fueled meritless controversies in the past." The software uses the ARTS data to superimpose air routes on actual geographic and man -made features like highways, roads, and houses. It "makes it possible to show the geographic location of aircraft and noise impacts caused by each flight path on specific homes, hospitals, schools, police stations, and communities," said Barsam- Brown. "The technology will display the flight paths that can offer the most effective noise abatement procedure for a given region "D _ ollw Los Angeles Intl L.A. DROPS TWO CON FOR LAX EXPANSION Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) officials announced Jan. 13 that they have eliminated two of four concepts proposed earlier for expansion of Los Angeles International Airport: the use of Hawthorne Airport for commuter operations and one of two six - runway concepts calling for the development of a new commuter runway in the north- west portion of the airfield. During a meeting of the Board of Airport Commissioners, Commission President Daniel P. Garcia said, "Our decision indicates that the future design of LAX [Los Angeles International Airport] will take a compact, efficient form — capable of handling an increased number of flights with a minimal increase in land -use size. Garcia added: "For LAX to continue to serve as the nation's gateway to Asia - Pacific and Southern California's economic engine, our challenge is to create an airport compatible with surrounding residential and commercial land uses. We believe the two remaining LAX Master Plan concepts still under study will help Los Angeles meet this challenge. The LAX Master Plan will envision an airport that is safer, quieter, more convenient to reach by local transportation, and more cost - effective than today's LAX." LAWA Executive Director John J. Driscoll said that operational analyses by, the Master Plan team and comments from the public during workshops and environmental impact scoping meetings during the past year led to today's decision. He said that the airlines opposed the use of Airport Noise Report u 6 Airport Noise Report Hawthorne Airport for commuter operations because it would add an additional 35 minutes travel time to have passengers transfer there from LAX. The other eliminated concept was one of two proposals calling for two new runways to be added to the existing four. Another concept calling for two new runways was preferable because it was easier from an operational point of view, Driscoll said. The two remaining concepts have several features in common: • Construction of one of two additional runways, which will allow airport operators greater flexibility in scheduling aircraft arrivals and departures for maximum safety, efficiency, and noise reduction; • An automated people -mover system between gates and connecting with parking lots and local transportation services; • Expanded cargo capacity; • A new terminal facility with parallel concourses located to the west of the existing terminals; • A new western entrance to the airport terminal area for passenger convenience and to improve traffic flow; and • A "ring toad" surrounding the airport, linked to the regional transportation network, intended to keep traffic off local and residential streets and better manage traffic flow in and out of LAX. The LAX Master Plan will be presented to the Los Angeles City Council and the Federal Aviation Administra- tion for approval later this year. Within the next several months, the LAX Master Plan team will issue a draft environmental impact document that will assess all the impacts associated with a preferred concept, an alternative concept, and a "no- project" alternative. Ceiling Sought for LAX Operations t a Dec. 12, 1997, Town Hall Meeting on the LAX Master Plan, Los Angeles Councilwoman and other local elected officials from the area s ing AX urged FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to identify the maximum capacity of LAX and other southern California airports, according to a summary of the meeting. There needs to be one representative agency that is responsible for integrating Southern California regional transportation, Galanter said. Sandra Jacobs, mayor of El Segundo, CA, said that in the past, ceilings on airport capacity, as described in environ- mental documents have been ignored as they have been exceeded. Operations at LAX currently exceed by approxi- mately 30 percent the 40 million annual passenger (MAP) limits of the last comprehensive state and federal environ- mental impact reports, she said. She urged the FAA to impose an operational ceiling at LAX that is enforceable. LAWA's Driscoll told the local officials that there is a limit to growth at LAX but said that limit is currently unknown. But he did acknowledge that LAX cannot handle all of the predicted growth in aircraft operations for the Los Angeles area. Other regional airports will take some of the load off of LAX he said. LAWA is spending $13 million at Palmdale Airport to build a cargo apron and upgrade the runways to handle Boeing 747 aircraft. Ontario International Airport will triple in capacity, he said. Two new terminals are being build there now and a third runway will be added. FAA's Garvey said she will examine the possibility of establishing a balanced group to study regional aviation issues so as to develop informed consensus.A AIR FORCE DECIDE T O SUPPLEMENTAL EIS By les F. Price — The U.S. Air Force and the Federal Aviatio dministration have decided to prepare a supple- mental a nmental impact statement (SEIS) on the proposed er to Dade County, FL, of airfield facilities at what was Homestead Air Force Base for use as a civil airport. By agreeing t dertake a new environmental review, FAA and the Air a are responding to concerns by some local officials and ronmental groups that current plans for the projected ci rport involve a greater number of operations than were mplated in an original 1994 EIS and thus will create a r array of noise and other impacts. As stated in an rce news release, "the review [to determine whether to SEIS] was begun in response to questions raised about th tinuing adequacy of the 1994 EIS in light of changin s for the airport." The purpose of the review, a ding to the statement, was to determine whether the p us EIS "adequately addressed the issues currently ass ted with the proposed transfer and development of facili or a one - runway civil airport." Among these issues are projected i es of more than 50 percent in the estimated numbers o mercial and cargo operations; changes in anticipat elopment of the airport itself, such as plans for devoting acreage to commercial use; projected increases in ai employment; additional information about specific facili roposed for the airport, including an aircraft strip and p cility; projected traffic increases to and from the ai and projected decreases in numbers of military ope ns. The Air Force conceded it had hoped the EIS ld prove adequate so that transfer of airport facilities to D County could proceed without delay. But it hired a contra with experience in base closure environmental analysis sist with the review of the earlier work and the contract draft report led to a decision to perform the SEIS. The Air e and FAA concluded that "the potential environmental ues need to be addressed further, including potential mitig n measures, and that the best course of action is to proc immediately with preparation of an SEIS." Specifically, FAA noted that the projected new comm cial operations might increase noise in Biscayne Nationa Airport Noise Report 00,142 m M 2 u ¢ < z J I < O n CL a LL O W 1- a I 0 aD m \ n N N 0 W I.- O 1-;0 o M'CD M to 10 V .o ,Y1 0 .Olh O mNl v1mr- .rMol.poNI'f o'e MI I��Y1 N to1�o YI Yllh N mom m 41LA o aD; p. to 'a 0 O 0101- M' �D G O` ao0 •• O I =mIM N ODIN M ml- O MGM M ^< o! N10 �1'1N ►-' _ ^'N N LL IWgiNNN� NI N'MMNI OiY N! N O'm i SIN 1 I WI.J i WI< j In,F- i I 0 J'F 1 W1 1- LLIZ Oise x!09 I Z H 3 LL W ; •- V 091 ~ i < II !_ IS of ~ 13DOI I N 2 u ZILL Z& II OI 3 3 \ OI .Z, OIZ O F•IZO LL LL; Z W Z �!rcr<L.zri WIW>3 OF- 4.IRI�C <0W12 WZWLLI U.WWIY¢OJ1 -WILLZ 0:w1- LL¢¢1uOtL3 <WILL2<?¢ 3I u3100Z >01 ,I DO o: X W►-IJNZZ ZD,.F- Z11- WI • <¢ •.dr�W¢I ~O W 3 O4.IJIr"Z =.=,.IrJ•.KI -NU Jm LLiN WfYIW� • 3Z 'F-3ZF pD < F OI> U 0 0 JI 3 O WI -i N a s < ... as • N.n< UdHW Z U WII-OWILtLILW W �+IWLL U9 W Z <Y)NIZO0r -(L&FJ <0:L ti N UIN < <!u IL L== U 3 N a J 3 W • a)- I • CID ¢ I • r L ly ,n N ►� M N L I NM MF- 3 ^I o aD ml ^ N f ^ o co 0 0 o Z r to 0000^ .-M YIN •o�ol -< in 'O^ I I < T r .o N o I 3 .m. < CD J U iU. M ! 1 It soWC WIA I i I I IO U ^ I I 1- Z O Z i I • It Z a W IL' Q z Ic • < W LL F C1 H C� F� D O N Y1 Y1 N 1 co .-f IJ1 Y1 tV I •I I VI CI i Oy I! hl T W! w w °s „ w .rn1 w •i A Au A j 4 a r L .. r w a O V 4 {. Y •.ui i Y r-I 9 VrI C c O A K M G A A r N w � U LL O A w 3.1 c O A C. c o z u u !A r 4 . W 7 9. 4 «<+ W L O L V.=%0. 4 r IOL < ►+ r r r+ N a c LL >' Y. O O r r 4 z 4 = u 3 V M x O �HH1 pPa U N Ap H A IH i� c O w I r A i .N I O C A u C 3 O u T u t_ O V 4 L Y Y u 4 L u A 7 P 4 rc A O I. a CL a L O LL ?m'1 4 N w w '4 �d 7 �t O �C N N w w w O Y1 I rw N M1 Y1 4'1 N N N 4 u . c. �4 J A TC A i N Y Y I C �+ O a cC .+ Y A Y •I L .+ N O A c w O •M V1 r A 9. Y f 4 u f. O O Vw 4 ►' r N •� A r u L f O 4 T P A r a c• 4 O 4 T O O C u 3 I U) W 0 u Dc 4 O a 4 N e 4 4 Ir a U 4 u U r C A 4 4 w T > C L 4 P < � M C C PO Wr c O r M u w r C O >^ LL C \ I t I O O'c r .. IC u'a 4 7 C I ■ 4 u A N I O A w p A > N 4 V C C. C U ss *c 4 is =�rua r A 4 u p y f 4 C A O C 4 u •�+ O R 4 U 4 Y 4 4 C U IC A 4 •u+ 3 4 M d V w f a c C 0 L U A � C Ta 0 41 0 t- C 7 4 W O r a A 0 4: 6 '. r x 4 - M U, T v 6 4 r 7 •� a t O 4 C4 U�,V Y CI r A u j CA. Y L A r r. W C C 4 C r r 4 p r U O u r 4 na A L L 4 r 40 z .+ y" Tv C r C A O L ■ 4 7 10. � IL u 0 4 L 4O I II ILL 1 f0 I ^I ^'li I C v W U z L I. W II,- < u o L O a c A • L a 4 r rr 4L a L 3 r; JO M V1 v� 4 r a r � 4 V L W A CO 4. 0� � 7 V V < 4 I • Z LL •• 1 0 C O H W W M < = p O m f�. GO!, 43 hti CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER 02/11/98 THROUGH 02124/98 Date Payee 2/11/98 Healthcomp 2/13/98 Wells Fargo 2/18/98 Healthcomp 2/20/98 IRS 2/20/98 Emp. Dev. Dept. 2/24/98 Federal Reserve DATE OF RATIFICATION: 03/03/98 TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WARE: Amount 1,595.72 20,000.00 1,615.22 135,362.12 24,090.09 300.00 182,963.15 Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by : City Treasurer Fina City Description Weekly eligible claims Fund Workers Comp Account Weekly eligible claims Federal Payroll Taxes P/R # 17 State Payroll Taxes P/R #17 Employee bond purchase P/R # 17 182,963.15 Date nce Direct r << / G /'.tua� Date Mana Date Z Z� Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo. 0, 0 '),1 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL Thursday, February 12,1998 - 7:00 A.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Jacobs at 7:00 A.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Mike Gordon ROLL CALL Mayor Jacobs Mayor ProTem Wernick Councilman Gordon Councilman Weston Councilwoman Friedkin - Present - Absent - Present - Present - Present 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 beha f 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 $25o. NONE CLOSED SESSION: The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code §54950, Lt seq.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under Gov't Code §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators as follows: DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) - Interview of Recruiters for City Manager position. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - Shannon and Associates were retained, by Council consensus, to handle the recruitment for the City Manager position. , 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, nnust so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a nnisdenneanor and punishable by a fine of $250. NONE ADJOURNMENT at 8:53 A.M. to February 17, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk 02- 12 -98.ag !t 1 0 x,1.1 A. MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 17, 1998 - 5:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Jacobs at 5:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tern Nancy Wernick ROLL CALL Mayor Jacobs - Present Mayor ProTem Wernick - Present Councilman Gordon - Present (arrived at 5:10 p.m Councilman Weston - Absent Councilwoman Friedkin - Present 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 n:isdeuneanor and puuiishable by a fine of $250. NONE CLOSED SESSION: The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code §54950, et seq.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under Gov't Code §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators as follows: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956.9(a)) - City of Los Angeles v. County Sanitation Districts, LASC Case No. BC 034185 In the Matter of the Application of City of Los Angeles, OAH No. L- 9604014 Fenwick v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. BS 044667 Mosleh v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. YC 025903 Hill v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. YC 030986 Hargreaves v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. YC 030268, USDC Case No. CV 97- 7979DT Hughes v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. BC 185210 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov't Code §54956.9(b): -2- potential cases (no further public statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov't Code §54956.9(c): -3- matters. DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS - (Gov't Code §54957) - Status of recruitment for City Manager position. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR - (Gov't Code §54957.6) - None. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8) - None. 02- 17- 98.5pm 1 00046 REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required) 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 ine of $250. NONE ADJOURNMENT at 6:55 P.M. Marlene Baker, Minute Secretary a 02- 17- 98.5pm 00047 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Jacobs at 7:00 P.M. INVOCATION - Rev. Alexei Smith, Saint Andrew Russian Greek Catholic Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Mayor Pro Tern Nancy Wernick PRESENTATIONS - 1. Proclamation encouraging the participation of the citizens of El Segundo in the El Segundo - Guaymas Sister City Association and reaffirming the City's commitment to foster the ideals of the Sister City Program. Mayor Pro Tern Wernick read the Proclamation. ROLL CALL Mayor Jacobs Mayor ProTem Wernick Councilman Gordon Councilman Weston Councilwoman Friedkin - Present - Present - Present - Absent - Present 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 $25o. No individuals addressed Council. 1. Request by the Chamber of Commerce for City support, assistance, attendance and waiver of permit fees to bring the Culpepper and Merriweather Circus to El Segundo on Friday, April 10, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on the Junior High School field at 400 Center Street. City Manager Morrison stated that it had been requested that the item be removed from the Agenda. A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS 1. Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on this Agenda by title only. 1 00 048 MOVED by Councilwoman Friedkin and SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tern Wernick to read all ordinances and resolutions on this Agenda by title only. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0 ABSENT: COUNCILMAN WESTON. B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS - 1. Continued public hearing on the following proposed (Third Quarter) amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Local Coastal Program: 1) Mini - Variances, 2 -I) Detached Accessory Buildings and 2 -II) Accessory Buildings, 3) Residential Wall Heights, 4) Signs, 5) School Parking, 6) Coastal Development Permits, 7)TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights, and 8) Amplified Sound Permits; and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with CEQA. Environmental Assessment EA -419, General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -3 and Zone Text Amendment ZTA 97 -3, third quarter amendments. Applicant: City of El Segundo - (Citywide Amendments) and Hughes Electronics (TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights). Mayor Jacobs stated this is the time and place hereto fixed for a continued public hearing on the following proposed (Third Quarter) amendments to the General Plan and Zone Text: 1) Mini - Variances, 2 -I) Detached Accessory Buildings and 2 -II) Accessory Buildings, 3) Residential Wall Heights, 4) Signs, 5) School Parking, 6) Coastal Development Permits, 7) TDR's - Transfer of Development Rights, and 8) Amplified Sound Permits; and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with CEQA. Environmental Assessment EA -419, General Plan Amendment GPA 97 -3 and Zone Text Amendment ZTA 97 -3, Third Quarter Amendments. Applicant: City of El Segundo - (Citywide Amendments) and Hughes Electronics (TDRs - Transfer of Development Rights). She asked if proper notice had been done and if any written communications had been received. Minute Secretary Marlene Baker stated that proper notice had been done and no written communications had been received by the Clerk's office. MOVED by Councilwoman Friedkin and SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tern Wernick to continue the public hearing to March 3,1998,7:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0. ABSENT: COUNCILMAN WESTON. 2. Continued public hearing on Environmental Assessment EA -401 and Precise Plan Amendment P.P. 96 -1 (Fourth Amendment to P.P. 12 -72) for 2041 Rosecrans Avenue and 831, 870, and 871 South Nash Street, related to the theaters and adjacent retail /office building. The request is to allow the following: 1) Amendment of the Precise Plan land uses to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" 2) Amendment of the Precise Plan development standards to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" and, 3) Amendment of the Precise Plan to provide for minor modifications to the requirements of the Precise Plan by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. These three requests were continued from the February 3, 1998 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant. Applicant: Continental Development Corporation, Mr. Jerry Saunders. 2 GO,J49 Mayor Jacobs stated this is the time and place hereto fixed for a Continued public hearing on Environmental Assessment EA -401 and Precise Plan Amendment P.P. 96 -1 (Fourth Amendment to P.P. 12 -72) for 2041 Rosecrans Avenue and 831, 870 & 871 South Nash Street, related to the theaters and adjacent retail /office building. The request is to allow the following: 1) Amendment of the Precise Plan Oland uses to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" 2) Amendment of the Precise Plan development standards to conform with the current code for the underlying zone: the "Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) Zone;" and 3) Amendment of the Precise Plan to provide for minor modifications to the requirements of the Precise Plan by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. These three requests were continued for approximately 30 days from the December 16, 1997 City Council meeting at the request of the applicant and staff. Applicant: Continental Development Corporation, Mr. Jerry Saunders. She asked if proper notice had been done and if any written correspondence had been received. Minute Secretary Baker stated that proper noticing had been done and one written communication had been received by the City and distributed to Council. No individuals addressed Council on this matter. MOVED by Councilwoman Friedkin and SECONDED by Councilman Gordon to continue the public hearing to March 3, 1998 at 7:00 P.M. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE 4/0 ABSENT: COUNCILMAN WESTON. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - An Ordinance of the City of El Segundo amending Chapter 6.21 to include the implementation of the California Accidental Release Prevention Program and provisions for cost recovery. Fiscal Impact: an estimated $40,000 in cost recovery. City Attorney Mark Hensley read the following: ORDINANCE NO. 1285 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 6.21 OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 6.21.040, 6.21.050, 6.21.060, 6.21.070, 6.21.080, AND 6.21.090 TO ESTABLISH A CHEMICAL ACCIDENTAL RELEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM MOVED Councilwoman Friedkin and by SECONDED by Councilman Gordon to adopt Ordinance 1284, amending Title 2, Chapter 6.21 of the El Segundo Municipal Code by adding Sections 6.21.040, 6.21.050, 6.21.060, 6.21.070, 6.21.080, and 6.21.090 to establish a Chemical Accidental Release Prevention Program. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0. ABSENT: COUNCILMAN WESTON. D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - 00050 Wall of Honor Guidelines. MOVED by Councilman Gordon and SECONDED by Councilwoman Friedkin to adopt the Wall of Honor Guidelines, proposed by the sub - committee of the Recreation and Parks Commission and revised by the Council to revise item 16 to read: "Any City employee losing their life in the line of duty will be placed on the Wall of Honor." MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0. ABSENT: COUNCILMAN WESTON. E. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of business. Warrant Numbers 245217- 245513 on Demand Register Summary Number 17 in total amount of $819,081.97, and Wire Transfers in the amount of $956,578.96. 2. City Council meeting minutes of February 3, 1998. Approval of an "Emergency Medical Technician - Paramedic Standing Field Treatment Protocol Agreement." Contract No. 2588 Fiscal impact: None. 4. Letter of support to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for Chevron Products Company proposed use of recycled water in their liquid hydrocarbon (LHC) recovery project. Fiscal impact: None. Adopted Resolution No. 4052, Proclaiming Termination of Local Emergency. MOVED by Councilwoman Friedkin and SECONDED by Councilman Gordon to approve Consent Agenda item numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0. ABSENT: COUNCILMAN WESTON. CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA - None. F. NEW BUSINESS - CITY MANAGER - 1. Presentation of FY97 -98 Mid -Year Budget Review, Revised Long Range Forecast, Budgetary Adjustments, FY 98 -99 Budget Calendar, and Consideration of Permanent Change to the Fiscal Year End from June 30 to September 30 to become effective in 1999. Eunice Kramer, Director of Finance gave a staff report. At the request of Mayor Pro Tern Wernick, Eunice Kramer will provide Council with reports on gross and net business license revenues and sales tax offsets and a comparison of expenditures for the 3 months immediately prior to budget presentation, noting significant 4 G015� EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Acceptance of the construction of a storm drain in the alley north of El Segundo Boulevard between Virginia and Whiting Streets (final contract amount: $63,640.00). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION-F- 1 . Accept the work as complete. 2. Authorize the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's office. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: On October 7, 1997, the City Council awarded a contract for $63,640.00 to Allison Company for the construction of a storm drain in the alley north of El Segundo Boulevard between Virginia and Whiting Streets. DISCUSSION: The work has now been satisfactorily completed by the contractor. The final contract amount is $63,640.00. Staff is recommending City Council acceptance of the work. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Notice of completion. FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget: Capital Improvement Budget: Amount Requested: Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: Account Number: Project Phase: Appropriation Required: Date: 301-400-8205-8379 AccepLance of work No PW- MAR03 -01 (Monday 2/23/98 4:00 PM) f-,, O r} A u v n w i v W NOIAt1A1 BAT 001#00119 11O ■wd _ W < W O i 1 = 707A1A17f ; 7A7 two SAT all G :7M DOW 7N 1AM1r• } am •gl7fAlOd 1•• :7AV ■lt/ :7AY 71dtf1 low 31'a Sid :'JAV 1longl :'Of AINIOn011 •• 7r7A•lY v C c Z W O _j W O a N o r v 00b 55 I A1NA03 17130N• 101 40� 3N110N1NWN 10 A113 Ntt r r u v n w i v W NOIAt1A1 BAT 001#00119 11O ■wd _ W < W O i 1 = 707A1A17f ; 7A7 two SAT all G :7M DOW 7N 1AM1r• } am •gl7fAlOd 1•• :7AV ■lt/ :7AY 71dtf1 low 31'a Sid :'JAV 1longl :'Of AINIOn011 •• 7r7A•lY v C c Z W O _j W O a N o r v 00b 55 Recording Requested by and When Recorded Mail To: City Clerk, City Hall 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT Project Name : Storm Drain in alley north of El Segundo Boulevard between Virginia and Whiting Streets Project No. : PW 95 -3 Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 at seq that: 1. The undersigned is an officer of the owner of the interest stated below in the property hereinafter described. 2. The full name of the owner is: City of El Segundo 3. The full address of the owner is: City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA, 90245 4. The nature of the interest of the owner is: City storm drain 5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the City Engineer on January 27, 1998. The work done was: Repair of storm drain in alley north of El Segundo Boulevard between Virginia and Whiting Streets. 6. On March 3, 1998, the City Council of the City of El Segundo accepted the work of this contract as being complete and directed the recording of this Notice of Completion in the Office of the County Recorder. The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: Allison Company 8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of El Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows: 9. The street address of said property is: Not applicable (public street rights -of -way). Dated: Bellur K. Devaraj City Engineer VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Engineer of the City El Segundo, the declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 1998 at El Segundo, California. Bellur K. Devaraj City Engineer N:WOTICE'STWO -INOC (2/18/98) 0005 6 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Monthly lease agreement between the City of El Segundo and Emery Air Freight Corporation to lease a portion of City property at 630 South Douglas Street. (Annual revenue of $22,620.00). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the lease agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City owns a 1.73 acre property located on the east side of Douglas Street, south of Alaska Avenue, which was acquired by the City for extending Douglas Street. Since 1994, approximately 13,360 square feet of this property has been leased to Eaton Corporation for parking purposes. DISCUSSION: Within the area that is currently unleased, Emery Air Freight Corporation has requested a monthly lease of approximately 20,000 square feet of the City property for parking purposes. Emery has further requested that the lease commence from March 4, 1998. The 13,360 square feet area currently leased by Eaton Corporation has a monthly lease of $1,259.00. Staff is recommending granting the monthly lease requested by Emery Air Freight Corporation for $1,885.00 /month which is equal to the rate per square foot currently being paid by Eaton Corporation. The agreement further provides for an annual adjustment in the monthly rent based on the Consumer Price Index, should the Emery Corporation lease extend beyond February 1, 1999. The City Attorney has reviewed the attached lease agreement and has approved it as to form. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed City of El Segundo - Emery Air Freight Corporation lease agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: Annual revenue of $22,620.00 Operating Budget: Capital Improvement Budget: Amount Requested: Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: Account Number: Project Phase: Appropriation Required: Date: YVV- mAKw.u,d (monaay uwiao y.w pill) coo-5-1 nnnc"I CITY OF EL SEGUNDO EMERY AIR FREIGHT CORPORATION LEASE AGREEMENT THIS LEASE, made this 4th day of March, 1998, by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "LESSOR "), and EMERY AIR FREIGHT CORPORATION (hereafter referred to as "LESSEE "): WITNESSETH: 1. LESSOR does hereby lease to LESSEE and LESSEE does hereby take from LESSOR certain premises located in the City of El Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, consisting of approximately twenty thousand (20,000) square feet being a portion of Lot 22, Tract No. 26557 as shown on map recorded in Book 675, Page 97, in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as shown on attached Exhibit "A ". 2. The Lease shall run from month to month, commencing March 4, 1998, terminable by either party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. At the expiration of the term, or upon any earlier termination of this Lease, LESSEE will quit surrender the premises herein leased, and the parties shall have no further rights or obligations as to each other with respect to said Lease except as set forth herein. 3. For the period commencing March 4, 1998 and continuing thereafter on a monthly basis until terminated, LESSEE shall pay as rent for said premises, the sum NAAGREEMNTEMERYISE (2/25/98) 1 00-,�)5F3 of One Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty -Five Dollars ($1,885.00) per month in lawful money of the United States, payable in advance, on the first business day of each and every month to LESSOR at 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245, unless otherwise directed in writing by LESSOR. In the event this lease commences on any day other than the first of the month, or terminates on any day other than the last of the month, LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR a pro -rata share of the monthly rental based upon actual days of occupancy. 4. The monthly rent shall be adjusted annually commencing February 1, 1999 and annually thereafter, based on the Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles area. 5. LESSEE acknowledges that it has performed its own title search and conducted its own due diligence and has received a copy of the conditions enumerated in that certain deed dated January 11, 1968, by which LESSOR acquired title to the property that is the subject of this Lease, and LESSEE agrees to comply with each and every condition so imposed in said deed during its tenancy on the above - described property. 6. LESSEE agrees that access to the leased premises will be only from Douglas Street. LESSOR and LESSEE agree that the intended purpose of this Lease is to provide additional parking and to mitigate traffic congestion on Douglas Street and Alaska Avenue. No other use is permitted on the property without the express written consent of the LESSOR. LESSEE will be permitted to use existing driveways. No new curb cuts or ramps shall be installed by LESSEE. N:WGREEMNT\EMERY.LSE (2125198) 2 0 0')59 7. LESSEE agrees to maintain the premises in a clean and sanitary condition. LESSEE shall not place or construct any buildings and /or structures on the premises. At the termination of this lease, LESSEE shall return the premises to LESSOR in the same or better condition as the premises were in as the time of commencement of this lease. 8. LESSEE understands that LESSOR has acquired this property primarily for the purpose of extending Douglas Street in the City of El Segundo to cross an existing railroad track, and LESSEE agrees that, in the event LESSOR should require the subject property for such relocation or for any other purpose solely under the LESSOR'S discretion, LESSEE does hereby consent to LESSOR canceling and terminating this Lease upon thirty (30) days written notice addressed to LESSEE. LESSEE agrees to vacate the said premises within the above thirty (30) day period and remove all LESSEE'S installations prior to the termination of the Lease. LESSEE may cancel and terminate lease upon thirty (30) days written notice to the LESSOR. 9. LESSEE shall procure and keep in effect during the term hereof a combined single limit policy of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage liability. LESSEE shall provide LESSOR with a certificate of insurance evidencing such insurance. Said insurance and certificate of insurance shall provide for LESSOR, its officers, agents, and employees to be additional insured but only in respect to the Leased Premises and that LESSOR shall be given (30) days' notice of any material change or cancellation of said insurance coverage, by registered mail. 10. LESSEE shall not have the right to sublet or assign the whole or any N:WGREEMNT\EMERY.LSE (2/25/98) 3 000 part of said premises; provided, however, that LESSEE may do so with the written consent of LESSOR. Any such subletting or assignment shall not relieve LESSEE of any liability or obligation under this Lease. 11. Any notice from LESSOR to LESSEE shall be deemed duly served if mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to LESSEE at: Emery Air Freight Corporation Attention: Legal Department One Lagoon Drive, Suite #400 Redwood City, CA 94065 Any notice from LESSEE to LESSOR shall be deemed duly served if mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to LESSOR at the address set forth in Paragraph 3 hereof. Either party may change its address to which a notice shall be sent by giving written notice of such change to the other party as provided herein. 12. LESSEE recognizes and understands that this Lease may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the LESSEE may be subject to, and is obligated for, the payment of property taxes levied upon such interest. 13. The terms of this Lease shall be binding upon and for the benefit of the parties hereto, their respective successors, representatives and assigns. 14. This lease represents the final agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior written and oral agreements and understandings of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. 15. LESSEE agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the LESSOR and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents and servants from and against all claims, courses of actions, damages, and liabilities of whatever kind or nature, N:WGREEMNT\EMERY.LSE (2/25/98) 4 00061 including without limitation legal fees and costs, arising out of LESSEE'S possession or use of the premises, except in the event arising out of the future negligent acts or wilful misconduct of landlord, its agents or employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Instrument has been duly executed as of the day and year first above written. LESSOR: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA Sandra Jacobs, Mayor City of El Segundo LESSEE: Emery Air Freight Corporation AN Roger Piazza Vice President Title ATTEST: Cindy Mortesen City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley City Attorney N:WGREEMNTIEMERYISE (2/25/98) 5 O`!e t� n n fi, - -- - Segundo FE15 1 1968 AT 8 A.M. O The city of 50 train Street City Hall, 350 RAY E LEE, County, Recorder, -o El Segundo, California 90245 Attention: City Hanager GRANT DEED 0 r r,fe7 Q7 FREE S UTAH CONSTRUCTION k MINING CO., a Delaware corporation, Grantor, hereby grants to THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a Municipal corporation, Grantee, the surface and that portion of the subsurface which lies above a plane 450 feet below the mean low water level of the Pacific Ocean (as said mean low water level is established by U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey bench-marks along the shoreline) of the following described property situate in the City of E1 Segundo, County of Los Angeles,,Stats of California, to wit: ` Lot 22 of Tract No. 26557, in the city of E1 Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map NZ :110.00 SSS� recorded in Book 675, pages 95 to 98 inclusive of Maps, Cr'��' osy�' in the office of the County Recorder of said county. ' tos.• {�cNiaas 'c uNr Said tract being a subdivision of the surface and that portion of the subsurface which lies above a L . ,...• ., :,.r. r. ■- !! lane 450 feet below the mean low water level is - - - -- established by U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey bench It • • • • • • marks along the shoreline.. ri $33.00 $5.50 -.A ALSO EXCEPTING all oil, gas, asphaltum, and other I. `''~ hydrocarbons. and other minerals, whether similar to h ANGELUS:' those herein specified or not, within or that may co" "� �i be produced from said land; provided, however, that �.. } �o .: •n. ,uew.$►n :, the surface of said land shall never be used or '"'""° V"" "" ' the exploration, development, extraction, removal 0 �+ or storage of said oil, gas, asphaltum, and other • �" hydrocarbons and other minerals, and further provided that no installation constructed thereon shall be $4:40 disturbed in any manner in extracting said reserved is is minerals, as reserved in the deed from Standard Oil '•ios - • Company of California, recorded December 20, 1960, ct��, 18g8 as Instrument No. 1622, in Book D -1069, Page 898, coul Official Records. ' ditions and restrictions contained in the Declaration of Restrictions executed by Utah Construction k Mining Co., a Delaware corporation, - dated August 29, 1961, and recorded September 6, 1961, in Book 11 -845. of Official Records of Los Angeles County at page 678, all of which are incorporated herein by reference to said declaration with the effect as though fully set forth herein, and said covenants, con- This Deed is made and accepted upon the covenants, eon- SPECIAL AGENCY - 110 TAX STAT,Frt,1,r"�I• �1TTSS CM MCT. FEB 4 1968 11 00064 B 1 0390 I P G 769 ditions and restrictions shall run with the land and be binding on Grantee, its successors and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this Deed this day of January, 1968. Atti UTAH -CONSTRUCTION & MINING CO. By � '' �.. - '•.••.tom: ce res en 1 CA Or RMA STATE LIFO i County sNotn b ba fof ./�ipe +Ala+ appear _ �Cc /YV wl p. known to me " M�..F n��• . to o the comoratiow tket executed • yeas.► utewtawdtAe�'_'_"►e ty / 4 ��• 2 :+'Gi rf.uF to be tM__.._ �rss' 'k' � • I the uritAtw Iwstrument, and also known to we to iw the persons vAe eseeutsd tt ew .,. ► • `.• - -_ -� -- behalf o/ #WA corporation, and acknadedped to +we that such ration esseuted .y the same, and JurtAer acknowledged to 016 that such corporation executed the within :�.- «.t.' -: = •�- — /nstrument pursuan Its bydews or a resoluttow is Board of virec • _......_._._ my commission 9; Notary Public This is to certify that the interest in the real property conveyed by the within deed to the city of El Segundo, a municipal corporation is hereby accepted by order of the City Council on January 22, i 19 68 , and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. : c Dated January 23, 1968 $ _ y C ty Clerk• of, the City. of El Segundo; California.- (SEAL) 1 'CONTRACT. CITY nc EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Reject all bids received for Phase I of the construction of a roller hockey rink in Recreation Park and authorize staff to readvertise the project for receipt of construction bids. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Reject all bids received on February 17, 1998. 2. Authorize staff to readvertise the project for receipt of construction bids. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The City Council on December 16, 1997, adopted the Master Plan for the roller hockey rink and authorized staff to advertise Phase I of the project for receipt of construction bids. Phase I consisted of construction of a concrete hockey rink slab and included demolition of the existing two (2) volleyball courts, grading and relocation of the existing park landscaping to construct the rink slab. DISCUSSION: (Discussion begins on next page......) ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Staff report to City Council meeting of December 16, 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget: Capital Improvement Budget: Amount Requested: Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: Account Number: Project Phase: Appropriation Required: No Yes $83.000.00 $75,000-00 $67.500.00 Date: 223/98 301 -400- 8202 -8388 Readvertise project Not at this time Page 1 of 2 PW- MAR02.03 (Tuesday 2/24/98 9:00 AM) 00060 DISCUSSION: On February 17, 1998, the City Clerk received and opened the following two (2) bids: Hondo Company $104,130.00 Vido Samarvich $178,200.00 Engineer's Estimate $83,000.00 (based on cost estimated provided by the architect) A third bid by Century Paving, Inc., was submitted to the City Clerk eight (8) minutes after the scheduled bid opening time and has not been opened. Pursuant to discussions with the project architect, the Direction of Recreation and Parks and the In -line Hockey Association, staff recommends rejection of all bids received and readvertising the project. Both the two (2) responsive bids are considerably higher than the architect's estimate and there is a large difference in the two (2) bid amounts. Staff believes that by readvertising the project more favorable bids may be received. Staff is recommending that the City Council reject all bids and authorize staff to readvertise the project. The funds remaining in the project budget are $67,500.00. It appears now that Phase I cannot be constructed within this budget, however may be constructed within the estimated amount of $83,000.00 if favorable bids are received. Staff recommends advertising the project for Phase I and after bid opening, staff will report the bid results with a recommendation to the City Council for the scope of work to be awarded for construction. Page 2 of 2 PW- MAR02.03 (Tuesday 2/24/98 9:00 A 0 r EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 1997 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Adopt plans and specifications for construction of a roller hockey rink in Recreation Park (estimated cost $83,000.00). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Adopt master plan for the roller hockey rink. 2. Authorize staff to advertise Phase I of the plan for receipt of construction bids. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: The adopted 1996-97 Capital Improvement Program includes $75,000.00 for construction of a roller hockey rink in Recreation Park. On January 7, 1997, the City Council authorized staff to retain Purkiss -Rose Architects at a cost of 7,500.00 to develop a master plan for the hockey rink. Pursuant to discussions with the El Segundo In -Line Hockey Association and the City Recreation and Parks Department the architect has developed a master plan for the facility. The master plan has been reviewed and approved by the City Recreation and Parks Commission. DISCUSSION: For construction bidding purposes, the master plan has been divided into the following two (2) phases based on cost estimates provided by the architect. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Reduced master plan drawing. FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget Capital Improvement Budget Amount Requested: Project/Account Budgets ProjectlAccount Balance: Account Number Project Phase: Appropriation Required: (continued on next page......) No Yes $83,000.00 $75,000.00 $67.500.00 Date: 12 -1 -97 301 - 400 -8202 -8388 Adoption of plans and specifications Not at this time ORIGINATED BY _ Dale: lames W Morrison City Manager - ACTION TAKEN: Page 1 of 2 PW- DEC16.03 (Monday 12/8/97 10:00 A41 0 `� �' DISCUSSION: (continued) Phase I (to be included in the bid package) 70'- 8" x 170'- 8" concrete hockey rink: $83,000.00 (Scope of work includes demolition of existing two (2) volleyball courts, grading, relocation of existing landscaping and irrigation systems, concrete footing around rink perimeter, and does not include relocation of the existing baseball batting cages. It is our understanding that these cages will be relocated by the In -Line Hockey Association). Note: The funds remaining in the project budget are $67,500.00. It may be possible that Phase I can be constructed within this amount if favorable bids are received. Staff recommends advertising the project for Phase I and after bid opening, staff will report the bid results with a recommendation to the City Council for the scope of work to be awarded for construction. Phase II (for future implementation predicated upon availability of funds) 1. Concrete walk around rink with retaining wall at south embankment $27,500.00 2. 12' height and 42" height chainlink fence $15,000.00 3. 4- players benches $2,000.00 4. 2- bleachers (50 seats each) 6,000.00 5. Border patrol (dasher boards) $40,000.00 6. Rink surface coating $5,000.00 Both Phases I and II do not include installation of new lighting for the rink. The In -Line Hockey Association has indicated that the existing volleyball court lighting is adequate for night use of the rink. Any necessary adjustments to the existing lighting will be provided by the Recreation and Parks Department. Staff recommends City Council adoption of the master plan and authorization for staff to advertise the Phase I of the project for receipt of construction bids. Page 2of2 1,0,0619 PW- DEC16.03 (Wednesday 12/10/97 9:30 AM) - J Ij �4 �I �I �I i1-10— i .1 r&*!lP.A-P0 S' -e 0 �b d. s� o. 10 II D r E �IIII �IIII -6 • — A - - - - %- A A EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business - City Attorney AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Zakaroff Recycling Services - Republic Industries, Inc. Proposed Merger RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the merger, subject to reimbursement of City's expenses in reviewing the proposed merger. DISCUSSION: In its consideration of consent to the merger, several aspects of the City's solid waste agreements with Zakaroff Services Inc. ( "Zakaroff') should be noted. Section 23.A of the Residential Solid Waste Agreement clearly requires the consent of the City to any merger involving Zakaroff. Similarly, Section 18.A of the Solid Waste Agreement for City facilities requires city consent. Respecting the granting of the City's consent, while such is not to be unreasonably withheld under either Agreement, each of the Agreements provides that the City may impose reasonable conditions to its approval. Additionally, Section 24 of the Residential Agreement provides for the payment of a transfer fee to the City. The transfer fee is to be set by resolution of the City Council. The fee is to cover the City's administrative expenses incurred in reviewing the transfer application; other costs are recoverable, including fees of attorneys and consultants utilized in analyzing the transfer application. While the City Facilities Agreement does not specifically call for a transfer fee, this would be a reasonable condition of City approval. Further, Mark D. Bozajian, President of Zakaroff, has stated the intention that the City's costs and expenses be fully reimbursed. The City Attorney's office has received and reviewed a variety of materials concerning the referenced merger between Zakaroff and RII. These materials have included: (a) 1996 Annual Report to shareholders. (RII's fiscal year ends December 31; hence, 1997 reports are not yet available.) (b) 1996 Annual Report on Form 10 -K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. (c) Quarterly reports on Form 10 -Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 1997, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. (d) Current Report on Form 8 -K, dated November 20, 1997. As disclosed by the foregoing materials, the merger is such that ZSI will be merged with and into a subsidiary of RII, with ZSI being the surviving corporation. Shareholders of ZSI will receive shares of RII in exchange for each of their shares. As a result of the transaction, ZSI will become a wholly -owned subsidiary of RII. (As a part of the merger transaction, two other related companies, Wilshire Disposal Services and Specialized Waste, Inc., will also be acquired as wholly -owned subsidiaries of RII. However, ZSI is the main acquisition target and accounts for approximately 80% of the merger consideration.) 1 00071 The materials provided have not revealed any matters of record which are of concern with respect to the soundness or viability of the merged company. It would appear that the financial condition of each company is improved as a result of the merger. Detailed information concerning pending litigation and proceedings and matters involving environmental issues was also received and reviewed. Again, this information does not reveal any matters which are of particular concern with respect to the merged company. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Letter dated February 10, 1998 from Republic Industries. Letter from Burke, Williams & Sorensen to City Manager dated February 19, 1998. FISCAL IMPACT: (Check one) Operating Budget: -0- Capital Improv. Budget: Amount Requested: Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: Date: Account Number: Project Phase: Appropriation Required - Yes_ No_ ORIGINATED: , uate: y, City Attoi Mark D. H February 23, 1998 REVIEWED BY: Date: James W. Morrison, City Manager February 25, 1997 ACTION TAKEN: POJ 00072 REPUBLIC I INDUSTRIES February 10, 1998 Mr. James Morrison City Manager City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Morrison: VINCENT C. TAORMINA Regional Vice President Western Region (USA) RECEIVED FEB 12 1998 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE At the request of Mark D. Bozajian, President of Zakaroff Services ( "Zakaroff'), I am writing this letter to allay any concerns the City may have regarding the pending merger between Republic Industries, Inc. ( "RII") and Zakaroff. I am the Regional Vice President for RII for the Western United States. As such, after the merger, Zakaroff will continue to operate within the region I oversee. I can assure you and the City of El Segundo that the most important aspect of our merger with Zakaroff is that the excellent service you have grown accustomed to continues, "as is ", with no modifications. This holds true from the drivers all the way up to the top management of Zakaroff. Mark Bozajian will continue to run Zakaroff in his capacity of President. I have full confidence in his abilities to make all management decisions regarding the Zakaroff operation. Mark's professional reputation and track record in our industry was a key element in RII's desire to merge with Zakaroff. The only difference will be that Mark and Zakaroff will have the availability of certain financial, operational and technical resources it may not have had in the past. These points were raised by Mark in his February 6, 1998 letter to the City which I endorsed wholeheartedly. This merger can only be a positive for the City of El Segundo, and it is for this reason I believe Zakaroff chose RII as its partner. Lastly, it should be emphasized that at this time Zakaroff will continue to operate as a separate corporation under the RII umbrella, therefore, there will be no name change nor any change to the structure of the El Segundo program. I hope this letter provides the additional assurances you are seeking regarding your service relationship with Zakaroff and the post- merger operating structure. Please contact me if you should have any additional questions or if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Vincent C. Taormina Republic Industries, Inc. • P0. Box 309, 1131 N. Blue Gum Street • Anaheim, CA 92815 • Phone (714) 238 -3300 • Fax (714) 759 -951) 0 1 7 3 LAW OFFICES BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE 611 WEST SIXTH STREET, SUITE 2500 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE 3200 PARK CENTER DRIVE 2310 PONDEROSA DRIVE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-3102 SUITE 750 SUITE 1 Tel: (213) 236 -0600 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 -7149 CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 93010 -4747 Tel: (7141546-6669 Tel: (806) 987 -3468 Fax: (213) 236 -2700 Fax: 0141 765 -5648 Fax: (806) 482 -9834 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL: 213- 236 -2717 OUR FILE NO. 00111 -001 February 19, 1998 Mr. James Morrison City Manager City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Re: Zakaroff Services, Inc. /Republic Industries, Inc. Merger Dear Mr. Morrison: In connection with the above - referenced merger, Rufus Young and I have received and reviewed a variety of materials concerning Republic Industries, Inc. ( "RII "). These materials have included the following, copies of which are enclosed: (a) 1996 Annual Report to shareholders. (RII's fiscal year ends December 31; hence, 1997 reports are not yet available.) (b) 1996 Annual Report on Form 10 -K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. (c) Quarterly reports on Form 10 -Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 1997, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. (d) Current Report on Form 8 -K, dated November 20, 1997. (e) Agreement of Merger. (Due to the non - public nature of this Agreement, it was reviewed at our offices, but copies were not kept.) (f) Letters of February 12 and February 16, 1998, from Mark Bozajian to Rufus Young. As disclosed by the foregoing materials, the merger is such that Zakaroff Services, Inc. ( "ZSI ") will be merged with and into a subsidiary of RII, with ZSI being the surviving corporation. Shareholders of ZSI will receive shares of RII in exchange for each of their shares. LAX2:200383.1 00074 James Morrison, City Manager February 19, 1998 Page 2 As a result of the transaction, ZSI will become a wholly -owned subsidiary of RII. (As a part of the merger transaction, two other related companies, Wilshire Disposal Services and Specialized Waste, Inc., will also be acquired as wholly -owned subsidiaries of RII. However, ZSI is the main acquisition target and accounts for approximately 80% of the merger consideration.) Our review of the materials provided has not revealed any matters which we would consider to be of concern with respect to the soundness or viability of RII or the merged company. RII is a diversified holding company engaged primarily in the businesses of auto retailing, auto rental and waste disposal services. RII's electronic security division was sold in October 1997. After restating its financial statements to account for this as discontinued operations, revenues of $10.3 billion were reported for the year ended December 31, 1997. This was up from reported revenues of $6.1 billion in 1996. It would appear that the financial condition of each company is not impaired as a result of the merger. We assume that the Finance Department of the City is in a position to provide additional information and analysis in this regard. We also received and reviewed information concerning pending litigation and proceedings and matters involving environmental issues. Again, this information does not reveal any matters which we would consider to be of particular concern with respect to RII or the merged company. We have met with Mark Bozajian, President of ZSI. He has been both cooperative and timely in providing requested information. Pursuant to an employment agreement (reviewed as part of the Merger Agreement), he will continue as President of ZSI following the merger. He has represented to us that management and service personnel will remain essentially unchanged following the merger. This has also been confirmed by Vincent Taormina in his February 10 letter to you. Respecting the granting of the City's consent, each of the City's agreements with ZSI (residential and City facilities) specifies that such is not to be unreasonably withheld. However, under each agreement, the City may impose reasonable conditions to its approval. The residential agreement further specifies that a transfer fee is to be paid. The transfer fee is to be set by resolution of the City Council. The fee is to cover the City's administrative expenses incurred in reviewing the transfer application, and other costs are recoverable, including fees of attorneys and consultants utilized in analyzing the transfer application. While the City facilities agreement does not specifically require a fee, such would be a reasonable condition of LAX2:200383.1 o v7 5 James Morrison, City Manager February 19, 1998 Page 3 approval. Mr. Bozajian orally confirmed ZSI's intent to fully reimburse the City for its expenses in this regard. We note further that we represent another city with a Zakaroff franchise and will divide our time spent on common matters between the two cities. We will be happy to discuss this matter with you. In this regard, please contact the undersigned or Rufus Young of this office. Very truly yours, NEIL F. YEAGER Of BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP cc: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney Rufus C. Young, Jr., Esq. LAX2:200383.1 00076 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGEN MEETING DATE: March 3, 1998 AGENDA HEADING: Special Order of Business - Public Hearing Public Hearing on Environmental Assessment EA -435, General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1, Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 70 -3 -A (CUP administratively withdrawn) for property located at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue. The proposed project is a request for approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet) of the Church's property (to be) from Single - Family (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the Land Use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The split zoning of the Church's property is the result of a Lot Line Adjustment (recently approved by the Planning and Building Safety Director }between two existing parcels with two different zoning and land use designations (Single - Family and Two - Family Residential). The additional area (23,501 square feet) added to the Church's property, currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage structure, and two storage sheds; would be demolished to accommodate additional surface parking for the Church. Applicant: Mr. Andrew Wallet. Property Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (R -2 portion of Parcel 1); and Robert and Betty Ann Carr (R -1 portion of Parcel 1). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Open public hearing; 2) Discussion; 3) Reading of Ordinance by Title only; 4) Introduce Ordinance; and, 5) Schedule second reading and final adoption of Ordinance on March 17, 1998. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Planning Division received the above referenced applications on February 2, 1998. The applications request City Council approval of Environmental Assessment EA -435, adopting a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts, and adopting amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map. DISCUSSION: (Continued on next page...) ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. (Adopted) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2407. 2. (Draft) Planning Commission Minutes; February 26, 1998. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments; February 26, 1998. 3. (Draft) City Council Ordinance No. 4. Letter from Mr. Andrew Wallet, dated February 4, 1998. FISCAL IMPACT: None ORIGINATED: Date: March 2, 1998 � 13, ror-_ Bret B. Bernard, P, Director of Planning and Building Safety REVIEWED BY: Date: AKEN: p:\projects\426-450\ea-435\ea-430-4.ais EA4351GPA 98 -12C 98 -1 City Council Staff Report March 3, 1998 DISCUSSION: On February 26, 1998, the Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing, reviewed the facts and findings related to Environmental Assessment EA -435, General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 and Zone Change 98 -1 and adopted Resolution No. 2407, recommending that the City Council approve EA -435, GPA 98 -1 and ZC 98 -1. At the February 26, 1998, Planning Commission Public Hearing, the major issue raised by a member of the public and several Planning Commission members, related to allowing a parking lot in a Single- Family Residential (R -1) neighborhood, which could aesthetically have negative impacts on the surrounding R -1 properties. The property owners across from the Church indicated that they did not want a parking lot in a residential area. Two members of the Planning Commission originally agreed with the neighbors' concerns that a parking lot was not an appropriate or desirable use in a residential neighborhood. However, after discussion the majority of the Commission voted to recommend to the City Council to allow the GPA and ZC. The Commission recommended that the parking lot be landscaped with shade trees, shrubs and ground cover in the front setback to make the lot appear as much as possible as a residential use, and screen the view of the lot. Additionally, landscaping throughout the parking lot and within the side and rear setbacks was required. Security fencing around the parking lot was also required to be provided. A more complete project description, analysis, and background information, is included in the accompanying Planning Commission Staff Report and its attachments, which were previously distributed to the City Council on February 20 and 24, 1998; and, are again included as an attachment to this Report. p:\projects\426-450\ea-435\ea-435-4.ais RESOLUTION NO. 2407 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE (ZC 98 -1) AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 98 -1) FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1215 AND 1217 - 1227 EAST MARIPOSA AVENUE AND CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA435. PETITIONED BY ANDREW WALLET. WHEREAS, an application has been received from Mr. Andrew Wallet, requesting approval of an Environmental Assessment, a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to allow a zone change from R -1 to R -2 and land use designation change from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential of a portion of the property located at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment (EA435), including a draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the proposed use, has been prepared and circulated to all interested parties and staff, for review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application and supporting evidence with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines and the City of El Segundo Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Resolution No. 3805); and, WHEREAS, on February 26, 1998, the Planning Commission did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised public hearing on such matter in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 350 Main Street, and notice of the public hearing was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and, WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons present to speak for or against the findings of Environmental Assessment EA -435, Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1; and, WHEREAS, at said hearing the following facts were established: The project site has two different land use and zoning designations. The land use designation of the project site is Single - Family and Two - Family Residential and the zoning classification is Single - Family (R -1) and Two - Family (R -2) Residential. 2. The overall size of the project site consists of 1.427 acres (62,164 square feet), of which the R -1 portion (subject to the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment) is 242.08' (deep) x 15. The Planning Commission will file a quitclaim removing the deed restriction listed above in Item No. 14, subject to proof of a recorded Certificate of Compliance, or other document acceptable to the City of El Segundo, relating to the lot line adjustment between the properties at 1215 and 1217 -1229 East Mariposa Avenue (EA -431 and SUB 97 -4). 16. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with State guidelines and local requirements, a draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for inter - departmental and public review. No significant adverse impacts were identified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after considering the above facts and study of proposed Environmental Assessment EA435, Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1, the Planning Commission makes the following findings and recommends the City Council approve a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment, and certify the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts: ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT 1. The Draft Initial Study was made available 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 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 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, 3. That the Planning Commission thereby recommends that the City Council authorize and direct 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 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. 1. That the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy LU 3 -1.1, which restricts the re- zoning of R -1 zoned areas to higher intensity uses, since any potential future use of the project site will be less intensive than the current existing use (5 dwelling units); and, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA February 26, 1998 Chairman Crowley called the regular meeting of the El Segundo Planning Commission to order at 7:05 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California. Vice -Chair Wycoff led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PRESENT: O'HEARN, PALMER, BOULGARIDES, WYCOFF, CROWLEY. The February 12, 1998 minutes were presented. Commissioner Palmer moved to accept the minutes of February 12 , 1998. Chairman O'Hearn seconded. Passed 4 -0 -1 with Vice -Chair Wycoff abstaining. Staff had presented to the Commission a letter from Andrew Wallet. Chairman Crowley presented Environmental Assessment EA- 435 /General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 /Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 70 -3 -A (CUP Administratively Withdrawn). Address: 1215 (Parcel 1) and 1217- 1229 (Parcel 2) East Mariposa Avenue. Applicant: Mr. Andrew Wallet. Chairman Crowley stated he will not be participating in the discussion since his home is close by, and he may have a conflict of interest. Ms. Greffon stated they originally noticed this project for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to the original CUP which approved the Church, and later on it had been determined that they didn't need to amend the Conditional Use Permit. Also, they noticed the project as being an EA -431 because they were planning to process the entire application along with the lot line adjustment, but later on they split the two projects, since the lot line adjustment is not subject to Planning Commission approval. Therefore, staff just has the zone change and the General Plan Amendment before the Commission tonight. Ms. Greffon presented the staff report, maps and overheads as outlined in the agenda packet. Vice - Chairman Wycoff opened the Public Hearing. Andrew Wallet, Applicant The church is proposing to have surface parking. The property only recently became available for sale. The church is going to place a green zone, a buffer per the Code, in terms of the front of the parking with trees and shrubbery. As far as the dividing line between the church and the remaining R -1, which is 1229 East Mariposa, there will be a wall. He is the purchaser of 1229 East Mariposa and will be the owner adjoining the Church. The Church has 58 existing parking spaces. The building was built initially to shoehorn even more parking at the time because that was a concern by the City. On Sunday, they are full in terms of the parking lot and there is overflow parking on Mariposa Avenue and Nevada Street. They feel the parking lot won't create anymore traffic. It will allow the members to get parking off the street. 02- 26- 98.min WE':, CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE TO FLAG ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDER WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS EA -435 Commissioner Palmer asked what the west to east distance is that is designated to become parking. Ms. Greffon stated 97.08 feet. The remaining original portion of Parcel 2 would be at 66 feet wide which still meets the City's subdivision requirements for lot width. Vice -Chair Wycoff asked about the back building on Parcel 2, which shows on the map as shop /studio. Mr. Wallet stated this was a typo. It is a garage. Commissioner Palmer asked about the depth of the property. Director Bernard stated the internal width from property line to property line without the easement is 242 feet and with the 5 foot easement it is 247 feet. Commissioner Boulgarides asked what Mr. Wallet's capacity was in representing the church.. Mr. Wallet stated they are in escrow with the Carr's, who are the sellers of the property, and Mr. Wallet is the purchaser of 1229, which stays R -1 for his own residence, and the Church is purchasing the other parcel. He is representing the church also and is a member. The church is not going to develop this property for anything other than a parking lot. Director Bernard stated currently there are six units on the property and it is intended by the applicant that there be only one unit, with the remaining portion to be a parking lot, and if for any future reason the parking lot were removed, there can only be three units which is still three less than the current use which is six units on an R -1 Zone. The City gains in that there are less residential units in the future than are there now. Ed Eno, 1224 E. Mariposa He and his family have lived at their property for twenty years which is directly across the street from the proposed parking lot. They feel the parking lot will not be a positive impact on the property values in the area. They have often seen people parking on the street with the parking lot empty on Sunday morning. They feel an additional parking lot is not needed and will have a negative impact. The neighborhood currently bears the traffic from the elementary school and in the future the junior high traffic will be added. He asked that this parking lot not be added in their neighborhood. Andrew Wallet (Return) The church has about 300 members in town and on Sunday approximately 200 at services. People get in the habit of parking on Mariposa because the parking lot is difficult to park and get in and out. He feels there are a fair amount of people in the community who are members of the church who have used the property for twenty years and it does not have a negative impact in the neighborhood. If there is more parking, it doesn't mean there will be more traffic. Commissioner Palmer asked staff to review the requirements for landscaping. Ms. Jester stated staff would recommend the commercial standards be used. There are three criteria: the vehicular use area, building perimeter, and property perimeter. In the vehicular use area, it is required to landscape 5% of the total vehicular use area and provide one tree per 3,000 square feet of vehicular use area. Building perimeter does not apply because there would not be a building. Property perimeter requires the entire setback areas to be landscaped but the parking can encroach 50% into those landscaped setbacks as long as the minimum 5 foot setback is maintained. Also, there must be trees on the street frontage with one shade tree for every 25 feet of street frontage. These are the landscape standards for all the commercial and industrial zones. The R -2 landscape requirements just say that landscaping is required in the front yard and street side setbacks. It isn't appropriate for 02- 26- 98.min Q this type of use. Staff suggested through the conditions of approval that the commercial standards be required. For the Parking zone, only 5% of the vehicular use area must be landscaped. Commissioner Boulgarides asked why R -2 was chosen (why a residential parking lot). Ms. Greffon stated the Parking zone allows parking structures subject to approval of a CUP. Mr. Altmayer stated they are creating a situation where the zones are consistent with each other, and with the surrounding neighborhoods. A parking lot is allowed in this area because it is an accessory use to the church. If they decide to move, the City doesn't have any advantage in leaving it as a Parking zone. Mr. Bernard stated the underlining zoning for the Church is currently Two - Family Residential (R -2). If the Church leaves in the future, it will revert to an R -2. Now it is currently R -1, but going back to the trade off, the future use would have two dwelling units there, but currently there are six dwelling units. It is a good situation with the number of units and the General Plan and Zoning. Commissioner O'Hearn stated he went through the Zoning Code and General Plan and feels that it is in the concept that there needs to be a single zone for a given location. It will give a lower density residential land use on that particular lot and if it is properly conditioned, it won't become an eyesore. He feels staff is correct in their analysis. Commissioner Palmer asked about subdivision. Director Bernard stated any subdivision requires Commission approval. There must be access to each subdivision also. Commissioner Boulgarides asked about noticing. Ms. Greffon stated they noticed an 800- 900 foot radius, more than what the requirement which is 300 feet. Mr. Eno stated he found out from a neighbor. Commissioner Boulgarides stated he is a lower density but feels he wouldn't want a parking lot across the street from his house in the interest of lower density. He feels churches are good neighbors, however. Vice -Chair Wycoff stated he likes the idea of going to a lower density and re- zoning makes the entire use consistent. He is concerned about the appearance. The parking lots in this City are not attractive. He isn't worried about the traffic, since the same amount of members will be attending. Andrew Wallet (Return) He stated he has a copy of the proposed parking layout where the architect drew what is intended for landscaping in the parking lot. It is planned to allow a lot of landscaping in the front. Vice -Chair Wycoff stated he would like to see 4 trees in this area. Ms. Greffon stated they can also use the setbacks for the R -2 Zone. They can condition it and not allow the encroachment into the setback and leave the setback all landscaped. Director Bernard stated staff can work with the applicant, as the Commission wants the landscaping to have the appearance of a residential area from the front. The current appearance can be approved upon. Fred Horton He has been a resident since 1971. The front of the church has nice landscaping. Approaching from the west, there are a nice tree, flowers, and shrubs. The church is not an eyesore. 02- 26- 98.min Gail Eno She has been in El Segundo since 1958 and has seen a lot of changes. There isn't U anybody in the City that owns property that would like to see five single family residences: torn down and a parking lot built. People don't live in parking lots. The City is a small community and it's the people who live here that make the community nice. It's not ' pavement. There are other areas in town that can use more parking. Commissioner O'Hearn asked how many curb cuts are along there now. Director Bernard stated at least two. Commissioner O'Hearn moved that they recommend to the City Council approval of the GPA and ZC and that they approve the resolution. Vice -Chair Wycoff seconded. Commissioner O'Hearn and Vice -Chair Wycoff were for the decision while Commissioner Boulgarides is against. Commissioner Palmer was undecided. Commissioner Palmer feels that losing a sense of residential is a problem and she is not in favor of it. Commissioner Boulgarides is also not in favor of the parking lot. Mr. Altmayer stated if Commissioner Palmer opposes, there would be no official Planning Commission recommendation to Council. It will go to Council for the GPA and Zone Change in any case. If it's a 2 -2 vote, it fails for lack of action. Mr. Altmayer further stated that since this is a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment, the decision is not appealable to Council, but that Council has the final decision, which Public Hearing has been noticed for Tuesday, March 3, 1998. Andrew Wallet He stated only one person showed up in opposition. Notice went out to more than the statutory requirements. People don't have to show up to show their approval. Director Bernard suggested that the Commission give staff direction to implement the instructions regarding landscaping in a form of a minute order when the permit comes to staff. Commissioner Palmer stated from the standpoint of not having a lot of community MOTION opposition and they are talking about additional landscaping requirements, she established her vote as a pro -vote. Motion passed 3 -1. Director Bernard confirmed that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2407, recommending approval of the GPA and ZC. Also a separate action by the Commission is a minute order to implement the landscaping requirements, as instructed, including a minimum of 4 shade trees in the front and other landscaping to make it appear as much as possible as a residential use, screening the lot from view. Also, the applicant will be instructed to require security fencing for the entire parking lot. Vice -Chair Wycoff asked if the Commission can look at the landscaping plan before it goes through. Director Bernard stated that they can as long as it doesn't hold up the processing of the application. Director Bernard stated this item has already been noticed by City Council and will be heard by them this Tuesday evening, March 3, 1998. The Commission took a break. 02- 26- 98.min 4 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE MEETING DATE: February 26, 1998 TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission 3 FROM: Bret B. Bernard, Director of Planning and Building Safety] b� THROUGH: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner STAFF PLANNER: Naima Greffon, Planning Technician \16 b� ' SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA-435 Zone Change ZC 98 -1 General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment CUP 70-3-A (.Administratively withdrawn) Address: 1215 -1227 (Parcel 1) East Mariposa Avenue Applican : Mr. Andrew Wallet Property Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Parcel 1); and Robert and Betty Ann Carr (Portion {R-11 of Parcel 1) REQUEST The applicant is requesting an approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet or 97.08' x 242.08') of the Church's property from Single - Family Residential (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the Land Use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential for the purpose of using the area for additional surface parking for the Church. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2407 (to be distributed separately prior to the meeting), recommending that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment EA -435, Zone Change 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment 98 -1; and, find that there are no potential environmental impacts created by the project. BACKGROUND The R -1 portion of the project site, at 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue, has a recorded deed restriction (dated December 7, 1955), which prohibits subdividing the property into smaller lots or parcels. This restriction was a result of a ruling of the Planning Commission (October 10, 1955), in order to allow the construction of three (3) additional dwelling units on the property. Furthermore, according to the Planning Commission minutes, the removal of the deed restriction is subject to Planning Commission approval, which can only be released by an execution of a quitclaim. However, since the dwelling units on this portion of the project site will be demolished as proposed by the applicant and conditioned by the recently approved Lot Line Adjustment, the deed restriction will no longer be necessary. Additionally, on October 28, 1970, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 727 approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a church at 1215 East Mariposa Avenue (R -2 portion of the project site) with a chapel to seat 290 persons, classrooms, a meeting hall and other facilities, along with 61 off - street parking spaces. The Church was conditioned to dedicate to the City (thru the CUP approval) 5 feet along Mariposa Avenue for future street widening purposes (with a reversible clause after a period of 25 years). This street dedication was recorded on January 4, 1971. Furthermore, the shape of the project site became uneven (in depth) as the lot line adjustment approval (February 12, 1998) added additional land to the Church's property which was not part of the original conditional use permit approval. The R -2 portion of the Church's property is 237.08' (deep) by 163.08' (wide) and the R -1 portion is 242.08' (deep) by 97.08' (wide). The 5 foot difference is the required street dedication as described earlier. A condition to dedicate 5 feet from the project site (R -1 portion) is recommended as a condition of approval. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a request for approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet) of the Church's property from the Single - Family Residential (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the Land Use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The split zoning of the Church's property is the result of a Lot Line Adjustment (recently approved by the Planning and Building Safety Director in accordance with Chapter 19.16 of the Zoning Code) between two existing parcels with two different zoning and land use designation (Single - Family and Two - Family Residential). The additional area (23,501 square feet) added to the Church's property, is currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage building, and two storage sheds, that would be demolished (as part of the Lot Line Adjustment approval) to accommodate additional surface parking for the Church. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site consists of a newly adjusted parcel with two (2) different zoning designation, Single - Family (R -1) and Two - Family Residential (R -2), which are consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Single- Family and Two - Family Residential. The R -2 portion of the site is currently developed with a church and supporting paved surface parking; and the R -1 portion is developed with five (5) detached one -story dwelling units, one garage structure, two storage sheds and some landscaping. SURROUNDING AREA The project site is located within a residential environment and is adjacent to an elementary school immediately to the north and west and single - family residences to the east and south across Mariposa Avenue. Local jurisdictions near the site include the City of Los Angeles located north of Imperial Highway, the City of Manhattan Beach located south of Rosecrans Avenue, and the City of Hawthorne located east of Aviation Boulevard. The immediate surrounding land uses and zoning designations are as follows: LAND USE ZONE North: School Public Facilities (PF) South: Residential Single - Family Residential (R -1) East: Residential Single - Family Residential (R -1) West: School Public Facilities (PF) VIRONMENTAL REVIEW A draft Initial Study was prepared by City staff for the project to evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts related to the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. No significant adverse environmental impacts were identified, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is proposed. The draft Initial Study has been circulated for City inter - departmental review and comments, as required by City Council Resolution No. 3805 and State CEQA guidelines, as well as to the surrounding neighboring cities. A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts has been prepared. A final Initial Study will be prepared by Staff based on any mitigation measures that might be recommended by the Planning Commission and required by the City Council. INTER - DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS The project applications and plans were circulated to all City Departments for their comments. The Economic Development, Police, Fire, Library, Finance, Recreation and Parks Departments and Building Safety Division had no comments on the project. The Public Works Department recommended that a 5 foot (deep) strip along Mariposa Avenue for the R -1 portion of the project site, be dedicated to the City for future street widening. The City Manager questioned if the original conditional use permit which approved the Church needed to be amended and if more than two units can be allowed once the re- zoning is allowed. In response to the City Manager's first concern, an amendment of the original CUP which approved the Church is not required with these applications, as the City Attorney determined that the future surface parking lot is an ancillary use to the Church, and not an expansion. The second concern has been addressed in the Code Considerations and Analysis Section of this staff report. •B • • General Plan and Zoning The General Plan Land Use designations for the project site are Single - Family and Two - Family Residential. These designations allow one (1) single - family home on one legal lot at a maximum density of eight (8) dwellings units per acre (with a minimum lot size for new lots of 5,000 square feet); and two (2) residences on one legal lot, at a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre (with a minimum lot size for new lots of 7,000 square feet), respectively. The project site is zoned R -1 and R -2 (Single - Family and Two - Family Residential) which permit single - family and two- family residences, respectively. Churches are permitted uses subject to approval of a conditional use permit in the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone, and are not allowed in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zone. As previously discussed, the land uses surrounding the project site consist of an elementary school and residences. The scope of the project is not expected to produce significant impacts in the pattern or scale of existing development on the project site or in the general area of the project. The proposed project will instead eliminate an existing non - conforming use on the property (per virtue of density), since the existing density on the project site is higher (5 instead of 2 units) than what the Zoning Code and General Plan allow. Additionally, if the R -1 portion of the project site is subdivided in the future after it is re -zoned to R -2 (with approval of both a subdivision and a lot line adjustment), only a maximum of four (4) dwelling units would be allowed (2 units on each lot). Furthermore, if the Church were to expand in the future, that expansion would require an amendment of the original conditional use permit (CUP) which approved the construction of the Church. Thus, any future development of the proposed project site would bring the property more into compliance with the requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Code of the City, and reduce the existing number of housing units by only one. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with General Plan Land Use Policy LU3 -1.1, which restricts the re- zoning of R -1 zoned areas to higher intensity uses since, as described earlier, any potential future use of the project site will be less intensive than the current existing use. Conditions of approval to ensure compliance with the original CUP approval, or amendment of the CUP should the use change or expand, will be incorporated into Resolution No. 2407. Staff believe, the immediate loss of 5 dwelling units is not significant considering the City's housing stock of 7,190 housing units as of 1990 census, therefore the proposed amendments are in conformance with the Objectives, Goals and Policies of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Lastly, even though the Church is not expanding, the provision of additional available parking spaces (future) on the project site may slightly increase vehicle trips by attracting more members to the Church. However, as discussed earlier any expansion of the Church would require an amendment to the conditional use permit, which originally approved the construction of the Church and environmental review for any potential impacts would be assessed and evaluated at that time. Therefore, the proposed project will not have significant impacts and no mitigation beyond the standard City regulations is required. EXHIBITS A. (Draft) Resolution No. 2407 (to be distributed separately prior to meeting) B. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 10, 1955 C. Deed restriction recorded December 7, 1955 D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 727 E. Lot Line Adjustment approval, dated February 12, 1998 F. Initial Study, dated February 6, 1998 (previously distributed) G. Applications H. Amended General Plan Sections (to be distributed separately prior to meeting) Prepared by: Naima Greffon Planning Technician Reviewed by: Laurie B. Jestev Senior Planner Approved by: Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Building Safety p:\projects\426- 450 \ea- 435\ea- 435.sr Very truly yours, /8/ NEVA M. ELSEY Neva M. Elsey City Clerk." General discussion ensued.and it was oved by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Warnock, that a lette be written to the City Council stating the facts concerning the actions the C Aeromet. omission had taken in the matter of ORAL Mr.,'John M. Dieter, Presi nt of Aeromet, addressed the COMMUNICATIONS Commission and stated that It seemed contradictory that a'man is asked to make insta tions before inspections AEROMET - /and that on completion of nec s JOHN M. DIETER incurred considerable expense e � installations turned do OFF operation is turned doi+n; that he wished to know how such a sequence of operations could be in line with good business procedure, and rthers could he file an appeal. Whereupon it was suggested that the matteir be taken up with the City Council inasmuch as Council withdrew its approval�ot the descaling process at/its regular meeting held on September 28, 19 J. E. Ham' Mr. Jim Hunt of 212 East Maple Avenue, E Se the Commission stating that he planned to utguin s addressed for two duplexes, offered for sale by the City, and place them on two lots located at the southwest corner of Holly Avenue and Concord St\ ro et, being Lots 14 and 15 of Block 45, Tract No. 2667, and zoned for R-3 use. The property considered consists of the front half of these lots, each being 50 feet wide and separated as a matter of record. After careful deliberation, it was agreed that one duplex only could be -utilized because of the required set - backs. UNFINISHED Mr. Dan Weaver of Treasure Homes Inc. appeared BUSINESS of Mr. and Mrs. Leo W. Schaefer with respect their property a" 1227 Mariposa Avenue, and stated that when LOT 9, BLOCK 115 ever a document or affidavit was properly recorded in the LEA W. SCHAEFER office of the County Recorder stating that either the present owner or future owners of the property would not - sell it off in portions or subdivide, said document would be in effect and would put a cloud on the title of said property; that said title could only ,)e cleared b a release from the present or any future planni by executing a quitclaim a . --plate Commission =anted a lot ng Consultant Brtsis Whitnall pre - � tvsurre�� of the unusual usualhtopo area raphy ofethety u�.ee�n��epartment submitted �" o i discussion ensued I li a S I i N and Mr. Weaver stated he would draw up a plot plan along the lines of that presented by the Planning Consultant; further, Chairman Allen would confer with the City Attorney with reference to the drawing up of the afore - mentioned document. MASTER PLAN The matter of the report to the Recreation Commi.sa:kon OF RECREATION was discussed and a Staff Report in the form of &'letter was read, whereupon it was moved by Commissioner Bider, seconded by Commissioner Warnock, that said letter be sent to the Recreation Commission, as follows: / \"Recreation Commission City Hall El\Segundo, California / Gentlemen: ; With reference to your request f6r a report from this Body upon plans being considered bi your Commission for that area bouVed in part by Sheldon Avenues Pine Avenue and Eucalyptus Drive, such report being )required of this Commission according to State Law, the facts as they appear in our records indicate that the recreation port n of the Master Plan of the City of El Segundo designates t4s site as a part of the proposed system on the ground that it is/well-located with reference to population distribution,and access. Therefore, consummation of your plan would make a material contribution towaids realizing the City's plans for recreation. So far as thq' internal \plans for recreational facilities are concerned, that resents a matter primarily the prerogative and/responsibilitk.of the Recreation Commission to decide. The or4y exception to these considerations of internal design 4�5 that the Planning\Commission points out the importance of p�oviding the maximum amount of off - street parking consistent with developing the recreational facilities themselves. Respectfully submitted, /a/ \L. A. Allen Chairman,\ Planning Commission" On roll call the foregoing motion carried by the following vote: \ Ayes: Commissioners Allen, Binder, Hanson, Thompson, and Warnock; N64s: Commissioners - None; Aioaen1: Commissioners - None. X3W BUSINESS Chairman Allen stated that we now will consider \the letter / from Mr. Udall, City Administrative Officer, relative to the matter of off - street and on- street parking facilities for: 1)\City of E1 Segundo Civic Center at Main and Holly Streets; 2) Grand Avenue between M..; ., 1. N. r• hls O 1� c' Y N at J DN � W3 pQ Z I L n w OW x ass V ;. AW l� v I' �I 11, Z w Q O n. oL Q N Z d O r N _.^ 2 V ' � �h �Qu, �, if o SCALE: 1 " =50' LNG D\A e�pNN c n 3 o 0 U b 0 z LU m 0 n N w U U 1 c� N X w PLAT MAP LOT 9,13LOCK 115 OF EL SEGUNDO TRACT IN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 20, PAGE 114 AND 115 OF MAPS. SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEM, J%m - 5 - VI �pos�1 PLANNING DIVIS104' N 89'58'55' W 32V6' U 5' SPAT a0z LAGr PARCEL 1 LINE PROPERTY LINE — RESIDENCE TO V RESIDENCE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED a p STORAGE SHEDS N TO BE REMOVED N N GROSS AREA= 62,377 SF NET AREA= 62,164 SF EXIST. COVERAGE= 18 874S PROPOSED COVERAGE= 13,537SF G9w+fl. 5' PUBLIC STREET PER INST. NO. 1708 DATED 1/4/71.— R IDEI 0 B R MO\ LiEn Li U U Q ,�-- RTI BE N MOVE w 66.00' 6.5' 19' GARAGE i TO REMAIN 1640 SF o i0 PA( CEL 2 N GROSS AREA = 16,3075 NET AREA = 15,977 SF i EXIST. COVERAGE _ 4,461 SF i PROPOSED COVERAGE= 4,146 SF 3' GE AG pFl I TO RA F` U rn ¢ to Aw —VI z I Lk RESIDENCE = TO BE o z REMOVED Q f N c� z � X N x W REMAI I666SF " Aw —VI z I Lk r Tn m o Q N U ; RESIDENCE o TO REMAIN N o 1840 SF 10' w o °o i o ` 5' PUBLIC STREET PER INST. 1, N 89.58'55' W 163.08' 356.16' c0 1 NO. 39276 DATED 6/30/53. N --- VA-- 1------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N UV A POSA N V EU V�Y/E 6A' q61001 J.N. 97 -36 JANUARY 1.1998 epF A . Ak NO. nZ p 18713 EXPIRATION JUNE 30,2001 �lE OF CA1-1F z 66.00' c e n I c cq 166.05' c W � x �C�IIIlIlIlC��IlIl �o�IlIl��Il ENGI EERS W 0. 2440 South Hacienda Blvd., Suite 124 LMftcienda Heights, Calif. 91745 0 i e (818) 369 -6787 / Fax (818) 968 -2185 &4�* 4 qlw�wq KE H A. WILCH R.C.E. 18713 DATE .1.0 I. rw :j .4K m or cuimam 7, ? T01 city of III sfidmc) Ac" M6 -RiLt"r OPf-rtY 0� 6j, -7 The undertip0d, aid jo Val 1y' in the City or. r-1 Beturldo ? Ps lot jon.,.*h4rebv7,--z' per map record*d in Book Pa . . - I- ... morder.'hereby agree -,.to the-,reaord'big.ioe:A -A lre ler lots -ior, part. county re the Lforosaid rso&, a The above colidit -s ra%Ad v since With -thil-City,0f;. permit and in oompli ruling set -forth:L& a Wilding, it wan approved � by.. "th i it muod Xor the acnittruotion.,rof::t2irge'-friiiii'' and fuiiure 0 in 6-%4 '-th at L vwntioned propertyipr ps 3. in. tlifll t ths',tpro: v into "All*r PLroolse -.7 'A Iso. 'g s .;-rATF, nr r.Al.lFnRNIA ... . ............................... On. 111tv of btt Spmb.er J..05G ........ i ......... .. . .......... . .... lerforrit ml,, file 01111rralitnell. and lor said C011MY and State, pervot►allY APTIVATtil low It ...'itilmnLul . ...... wid .. . ...... .............. .... 1.11 ................ ........................... . ........... - Llvllwn I" fill, its 1w ilto permin A. wll~ ........ In 166 wl him inairtinten, and vit-knovilmIgrol thAt f'.11v'Y O'clill-11 live Pamir. my Its"It 411.1 "ITAPI SCSI. (sea .. ...... 1.4-v r ; w.. Mr r imr.k%iom nrai*1. W28- I 3z AM '55 it A CORD §1 - iN tOUIITALI�, ,;w 1 a ►.� K nn L o &I ' V ° � G © m C � v m K 9 > cwt tom- �- m f+- 0 Z to G -� m b `s ct o d 0 o .s p- 0 o 0 C4.- 0 o C6 a d c0 ct- o rn • 0 �- Z p cC • ° a b ct cI` � r� • 'T K C D � r d 0 m O wa G cl- " O CI- 0 v r Ct- ¢. m ct- o o m P5c� 0-1 a C+ C ca ® i.�� �- c'`' PD CD h 44 1 a ►.� K nn L o O ° � G 0 '� 0 ::s � v m K 9 � cwt �ct �- m f+- 0 Z to G o o .s p- 0 o 0 C4.- 0 o C6 a d c0 rn • •a �- p�� w� G � r� � r wa G C a o 0 ct 0 o C+l a ¢ r cm M' Z to G o Cl .s 0 o C6 c0 rn N p ct- C- C Crt O CD c - �+ o o ~• P- *I o a ea CD y rS O p in a r'` ~ m b 0 % ¢ �+ O O � �+ n7 O a ci- ci O v C-2 pp t-+ O •d O `+ `4 CM a °QC+ i- � cs cc © o Q CD K pp- d K a N oP, OGq On 0 = 00 0 0 ® O Os . K G pw.r pt$ & W.0 a p rn.a 0 17.6 O C ct a c� s� c4' o 02 0 C - ro G eQ G eo os o o p s o h� ►�s�„► I-a m c!' �4:7, m .. I n c!' '-G a cn H a t�3 ho ,p �H C�! r d ct 0 fi a r M' o Cl .s 0 o -s c0 rn • cn H a t�3 ho ,p �H -W w'a[�ph��.lJa RESOLUTION NO. 727 829 R10 lot Z¢I Q�r 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING, WITH CONDITIONS, THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECEIVED FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER -DAY SAINTS, TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH WITH CHAPEL TO SEAT 290 PERSONS, CLASSROOMS, MEETING ' HALL AND OTHER FACILITIES, ALONG WITH 61 OFF - STREET PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1215 EAST MARIPOSA AVENUE. WHEREAS, an application was received on September 24, 1970 from the Corporation of the First Presidency, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, local representative, Bishop Paul R. Vidmar, for a conditional use permit to construct a church with a chapel to seat 290 persons, classrooms, meeting hall and other facilities, along with 61 off - street parking spaces on the site as part of the complex, on property commonly known as 1215 East Mariposa Avenue, more particularly described as follows: Lot No. 8, Block No. 115 of E1 Segundo, as per map recorded in Book 20, Page 114 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder, Los Angeles, California; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, pursuant to law, hold a duly advertised public hearing on such matter in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 350 Main Street, in the City of E1 Segundo on October 28, 1970; and WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons to present testimony or documentary evidence both for and against the proposed request; and ' WHEREAS, Bishop Paul R. Vidmar spoke in favor of the request and no other person offered to speak; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that as a result of said hearing, the following facts were established: ►. r G fir, 830 R10 1. The subject property is zoned R -2, Two - Family Residential, which permits churches subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. 2. The property has been cleared of the existing house and all existing trees have been removed. ' 3. The six foot high masonry wall along Mariposa Avenue has been removed. 4. Across the street south, the property contains well kept, single - family residences on R -1 zoned property. 5. To the west and north is located Center Street Elementary School property which is zoned R -2. 6. To the east, the subject property abuts a single - family residence and three units which were constructed on the rear of property zoned R -1. 7. This request for a conditional use permit has been previously approved by the Planning Commission on May 8, 1968, by Resolution No. 686. Under Section 20.96.020 EXPIRATION., of the 'E1 Segundo Municipal Code," rehearing of the condi- tional use permit is required. Reference is also made to Resolution No. 708 approving (on July 23, 1969) a request from the required off - street parking spaces. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that as a result of said hearing, the commission finds as follows: 1. The purpose of a conditional use permit as defined in Section 20.74.050 of the "E1 Segundo Municipal Code," reads as follows: "(1) To assure that the degree of compatibility and the purpose of this chapter shall be maintained with respect to the particular use on the particular site and in consideration of other existing and potential uses within the general area in which such use is proposed to be located. "(2) To recognize and compensate for variations and degree of technological processes and equipment as related to the factors of noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors and hazards." 2. It was felt that the proposed use would be compatible with the requirements as outlined in Section 20.74.050 of the "E1 Segundo Municipal Code." 3. Good planning dictates a church and other uses, i.e., schools, fire and police stations, should be located near or in the area where they perform services for the people. AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that in view of the above facts and findings, and pursuant to Section 20.74.050 of the "E1 Segundo OL 831 R10 Municipal Code," the Planning Commission hereby grants the request from the Corporation of the First Presidency, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, for a conditional use permit to construct a church with a chapel to seat 290 persons, classrooms, ' meeting hall and other facilities, along with 61 off - street parking spaces on the site as part of the complex, on property commonly known as 1215 East Mariposa Avenue, subject to the following conditions: V-C Lt,% 1. The church dedicate to the City five feet along Mariposa Avenue for future street widening purposes with a rever- sionary clause for a period of 25 years. 2. The six foot fence be retained between the school property and the subject property. 3. Vehicular traffic be required to enter the property from the east driveway and exit from the west driveway. 4. The existing six foot fence along the east property line be reduced to conform to City requirements for front yards, if ' such fence is the church's responsibility. 5. 'Section 20.96.020 EXPIRATION. Any permit or variance granted by the planning commission becomes null and void if not exercised within the time specified in the permit or variance or, if no date is specified, within one year from the date of approval of the permit or variance." (Excerpt from "E1 Segundo Municipal Code. ") AND FURTHER RESOLVED, according to the City Code, within ten days following the adoption of this resolution, the secretary of the Planning Commission shall mail a copy of this resolution to the applicant at the address shown on the application and any other person requesting a copy of same. The decision of the Planning Commission as set forth in this resolution shall become final and effective ten calendar days after the date of notifica- tion to the applicant granting the conditional use permit request unless within such ten- calendar -day period, an appeal, in writing, with an accompanying appeal fee of $25.00 is filed with the City Council by an opponent. 1 1 832 R10 FINALLY RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the City Council for its information as prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of October, 1970. or an, irman of he Planning Co s ion of the City of E1 Segundo; California Ernest B. Reid -Director of Planning City of E1 Segundo, California 99 page 1 of 2 February 12, 1998 Mr. Andrew M. Wallet 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1000 w!. 7- Los Angeles, CA 90025 RE: Environmental Assessment EA-431 and Subdivision SUB 97-4 Lot Line Adjustment Address: 1215 and 1217-1229 East Mariposa Avenue Dear Mr. Wallet: I am pleased to inform you that your application for a Lot Line Adjustment at 1215 and 1217-1229 East Mariposa Avenue has been conditionally approved as of today's date, February 12, 1998. As you already know, pursuant to Sections 19.16.040 and 19.16.050 of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC), conditions of approval may be imposed on Lot Line Adjustment requests to conform to local ordinances and to facilitate the relocation of existing utilities, infrastructure, or easements. The conditions are presented in the Project Staff Report, dated February 12, 1998 (enclosed), and reflect Staff's analysis of the project. Please note that if you wish to appeal this decision, including any of the requisite conditions, the appeal period for this project expires on February 23, 1998; and, if no appeal is filed, the approval becomes effective and final the following day. Furthermore, once the approval becomes effective, you must submit a request for a Certificate of Compliance with the City of El Segundo (blank form is enclosed). Please make sure that all documents for recordation (Lot Line Adjustment maps, legal descriptions of all new parcels and easements) are letter-sized (8.5" x 11 "), and stamped and dated by a State licensed surveyor or engineer. A full-scale set of stamped maps is also required, for our project file. Also, once you receive approval of the Certificate of Compliance, a new grant deed must be recorded with the Los Angeles County Clerk and a copy of that recorded document must be fumished to us. Rlanning and Bufiding Satery Department 350 Maw Street. El Segundo, California 90245-0989 Pnorye,1310) 322-4670 FAX (310) 322-4167 Li page 2 of 2 Thank you for your patience and cooperation throughout this process. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the project planner, Naima Greffon, myself, or any other Planning Division staff member at (310) 322 -4670, extension number 405. Sincerely, x44 , 5 Bret V. B mar AICP Director of Planning and Building Safety xc: Jim Morrison, City Manager Mark Hensley, City Attorney Tom Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Property Owner (Parcel 1) Robert R. Carr & Betty Ann Carr, Trustees (Parcel 2) EA -431 File EA- 431.act City of E/ Segundo INTRA- DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Date: February 12, 1998 TO: Bret B. Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety THROUGH: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner FROM: Greffon Naima, Planning Technician jv SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA -431/ Subdivision 97-4/ Lot Line -Adjustment -. Add_ ress: 1215 (Parcel 1) and 1217 -1229 (Parcel 2) E. Mariposa Ave. Andrew Wallet Drn Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Parcel 1); and Robert and Betty Ann Carr (Parcel 2) The applicant is requesting approval for a Lot Line Adjustment between two (2) existing parcels, located at 1215 East Mariposa Avenue (church) in the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and 1217- 1229 East Mariposa Avenue (residences) in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zone. Staff recommends that, pursuant to the procedure outlined in the El Segundo Municipal Code, the Director of Planning and Building Safety approve Environmental Assessment EA -431 and Subdivision SUB 97-4 (Lot Line Adjustment), subject to the conditions contained within this report. The project site consists of two (2) existing legally created lots: Parcel 1 is approximately 38,663 square feet (.887 acres), and Parcel 2 is approximately 39,478 square feet (.90 acres). Additionally, Parcel 1 is currently developed with a church totaling 13,537 square feet of building area and covering approximately 35% of the lot. Parcel 2 is also developed and consists of five (5) detached one -story dwelling units (of which three have a one -space garage each, attached to the residences); one (1) detached two -story single - family residence; three (3) separate detached garages; and two (2) separate detached sheds, totaling 10,355 square feet of building area and covering 26.22% of the lot. Parcel 1 is accessed from 2 driveways and Parcel 2 is accessed from 3 driveways, all off of Mariposa Avenue. Parcel 2 has a recorded deed restriction (dated December 7,1955) which prohibits subdividing the property Into smaller lots or parcels. This restriction was a result of a ruling of the Planning Commission (October 10, 1955), in order to allow the construction of three (3) additional dwellings on the property. The project site is surrounded by the following uses: Center Street Elementary School playgrounds to the north and south; and single - family residences to the east and south across from Mariposa Avenue. The immediate surrounding land uses and zoning designations are as follows: North: School South: Residential East: Residential West: School •k Public Facilities (PF) Single - Family Residential (R -1) Single - Family Residential (R -1) Public Facilities (PF) The applicant is proposing to adjust the lot line between the two existing parcels, with net parcel sizes of 62,164 square feet (1.427 acres) for Parcel 1; and 15,977 square feet (.366 acres) for Parcel 2. The boundary line of the R -1 and R -2 Zones would remain as the existing side property line, so the adjustment in the lot lines would result in the creation of split zoning (R -1 and R -2) for Parcel 1. Both parcels would show a decrease in lot coverage: Parcel 1 to 21.77% (from 35 %) and Parcel 2 to 25.9% (from 26.22 %). The proposal includes the demolition of the existing five (5) one - story dwelling units and attached garages; one (1) garage structure; and two (2) storage sheds from Parcel 2, totaling 6,209 square feet. The additional area (23,501.13 square feet) added to Parcel 1 would be used in the future for additional surface parking for the church. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15305 (a), as a Class 5 project (Minor lot line adjustment not resulting in the creation of any new parcel). INTER- DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS The project application and map were circulated to all City Departments /Divisions for their comments. The Departments /Divisions had no comments on the project. The Subdivision Map Act, Section 66412 (d), and Chapter 19.16 of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC), allow lot line adjustments between existing adjacent parcels where land is taken from one parcel and added to an adjacent parcel, if a greater number of parcels is not created. The proposed lot line adjustment would increase the size of Parcel 1 and decrease the size of Parcel 2, and would not result in the creation of any new parcels. Additionally, according to Sections 19.16.040 and 19. 16.050 of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC), in the evaluation of a lot line adjustment, the Director of Planning and Building Safety shall limit the review to a determination of whether or not the new parcels will conform to existing local ordinances. Conditions may only be imposed to require that the lots conform to local ordinances. The proposed parcels would measure as follow; Parcel 1- 62,164 sq.ft., 163.08 ft. x 237.08 ft. (R -2 2 zone portion) and 97.08 ft. x 242.08 fL (R -1 gone pordon); and Parcel 2- 15,977 sq.ft., 66 ft. x 242.08 ft (R -1). The following standards apply too newly created parcels In the R -1 and R -2 Zones: R -1 R -2 P. arcel I Min. lot size 5,000 SF 7,000 SF 23,501 SF 38,663 SF 62,164 SF 15,977SF Min. lot width 50 ft. 50 ft. 97.08 ft. 163.08 ft. 260.16 ft. 66 ft. Max. lot cov. , _ 40% & 47%. 50% 21.77% 25.9% Min. side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. 113.08 ft. 10.3 ft. As previously stated in the "Site Description" section, Parcels 1 and 2 currently are accessed from two (2) end three (3) driveways, respectively. The approval of the Lot Line Adjustment will change the driveway distribution for both parcels; three driveways will be contained within Parcel 1; one (1) driveway will be contained within Parcel 2; and lastly one (1) driveway will be contained between the two parcels (1 and 2). Therefore the approval should be subject to the removal or relocation of the driveway, curbcut and gutter that is located between the two parcels, or a joint access agreement would need to be recorded. Lastly, as the above Matrix shows, the proposed Lot Line Adjustment will conform with the development standards of the respective zoning designations of R -1 and R -2. Currently, the Zoning Code allows single - family and two- family residences in R -1 and R -2 as permitted uses, respectively. Churches are permitted uses subject to approval of a conditional use permit in the R -2 Zone, but are not allowed in the R -1 Zone. However, the proposed use of a parking lot on the R -1 portion of Parcel 1 (Church's property), which will have a split zoning (if approved), would not comply with the requirements of the Zoning Code for the R -1 Zone. Therefore, the applicant should be required to apply for a General Plan Amendment and subsequently a Zone Change, should the R -1 portion of Parcel 1 be used for additional parking for the Church, or for any other use not permitted in the R -1 Zone. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. All documents for recordation (Lot Line Adjustment Map, Legal Description) shall be stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor or civil engineer. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, the existing five (5) one -story dwelling units and attached garages; one (1) garage structure (located along the proposed new property line); -and the two (2) storage sheds, must be removed from the property. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance, the curbcut and driveway located between Parcels 1 and 2 must be removed or relocated and the curb, gutter and sidewalk restored to City specifications or a joint access agreement must be recorded. The removal and relocation 3 or agreement are subject to approval by the Planning and Building Safety Director, and the Director of Public Works. 4. The R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zoned portion of proposed Parcel 1 (Church's property) must be re- designated in the General Plan as Two - Family Residential and re-zoned to Two- Family Residential (R -2) in order to use it as additional parking for the Church, or for any other use not permitted in the Single- Family Residential (R -1) Zone. A. Applications B. Proposed Parcel Map C. Site Plan Prepared by: tjAINA C <acFPA — Naima Greffon Planning Technician Reviewed and Approved by: �I Laurie B. Jeste' Senior Planner 4 P:Projects\EA -431 \EA- 431.SR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 322 -4670 FAX (310) 322 -4167 'UJ _ ,. APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMf-NT LiL PROJECT NO. CS PA `l t3- I L ---- -� c�a — 435. c, 9��� PLA« I du Di�I'UN I a e: o The Applicant: AN bRt Ki W,40 l Wlil SaKIc MoWtea- 'B "A • St 1000. LA o) 4 ? 7 — g878 --• Name Address Phone (Check One) Owner Lessee Agent Property Owner: Name Address Phone Property Situated at: 1 �-1S g ,A,� ► a.1-) - 1z 2 -7. L Lla& he So _ 40e Nv-e . (Exact legal description. Provide attachment if necessary) General Location: vA hr 14CQ e between Ce p zt and c.a z S� Address or Street/ Avenue Street/ Avenue Street/ Avenue Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Si N le -'Farm 6 aHd two - JFQh^'L-1 �e %. °tea 1. Describe the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redesignation that is requested with this application. rr, d a. �, \1L Lczu. d V k rno v� si 0 6 �P- - RLV-*� l Z w o - T"-Ix VI^ 7 Re. s-► a , '�'a p 2. Does public necessity require the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redesignation? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding properties as well as the subject property) 17e- Ca�ro�n+�b�ef J j�iyq A"( ,i l7 c1 Rfe Wee oda�r��l�w.t' �;r! �:�lu� +.- /rlr�y �P��J. C�ir�►�/�'k.+�10�'� DPI /y%.r,/1 /✓x.14 �M...- N f/�!/ �� /rlfd��✓. Vii! i✓i,��4�1�✓J•tlG Q��C�'�fel7T�1 1 /ccl ✓t � 3. Is the property involved in the proposed land use redesignation and/or amendment more suitable and consistent with the purposes, objectives, goals and policies, of the applicable General Plan Elements than the present designation? (Answer completely. Give all reasons for your answer and specifically cite applicable General Plan sections.) �st zl�'`. - r ^M ��.,Ay p / u.��s ii 4119- Cr/ly�i»tir•+f, `✓ � i(�c dit7.t %h'!, .f end` � �iR�� �y �J/vS u,N+! G✓ri, H /� cr � � Ic • y ,:� Q/M . 4. Would the use(s) permitted by the proposed land use redesignation and /or amendment be detrimental in any way to the surrounding pro perties? (Explain reasons supporting your answers.) Nt - A17 r1y J. J,/ /i i bC �wlr, iMJ � � , /% ^r4hf /1JQ�fi1AW *1 4i�: 4e /a�J, i�� �r rvriv ✓•erI K; fir,•.+ 5. Are there any deed or other restrictions concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? If so, give expiration date of the restrictions and attach a copy of the restrictions. / � " / , 1 . �4 ir, ,'� /�iAt�✓ /�' r. . "Ort; ,w nr: .(S �/�C rte.. y G �1V- .,+44 _ /1?iiC Qchl:. r .4 e-- L' Mir /!M, Grm sirt.r N^ .' ,� �i r✓ `Li- 6. Explain how the proposed redesignation and/or amendment would be integrated, internally consistent and compatible with all of the Elements of the General Plan, as a whole. (Cite specific applicable General Plan sections.) nR . /hA�le�Y�t p jJ.ii , .,e /���� lo�tl vJ'.' , fit ✓ ✓Cr / ° °�/ ��/e �►„i /)A�Cn� � C1✓ Cd1'%S /S ,�i✓/ h J !� uy- CC•�.� �re� ,fait✓ 4.�J0 /u,'� /iJ, /�A/� ,•14 ( /„� ' W; ��.� %�/ ee.'u✓ -c/ OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly swom depose and say that 1/We am the OWNER of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation(s) of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss. Signature 2 ,19 Date On this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State AGENT AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize to act for me in all matters relevant to this application. I understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence. Owner's Signature AGENT AFFIDAVIT being duly sworn depose and say that I/W e am the AGENT of the property involved in this application and that Itwe have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our kgpwledge an belief. ,19 9� Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss. rya On this c' day of F z h y '19 ,before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared d 1^n6 14 tact I/ I known to me to be the person whose name /S subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same. WITNES a"IR �W . f1 16 c / tell, .. Comm. i 1136766 �l�f ods N • NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA N Notary Public in and for saN bounty and State 1 L Los Aouks Comm Procedures for filing application File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division. Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public. 2. Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division. 3. Pay filing fee. K 4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing. 5. Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his/her request. 6. There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal. GPA.APP Planning Staff: Date received log, 46 E.A. 4 ;� S Signature ne . C. a;;- �P r-� .4 77, G.P.A. 4 � - f revised 09/04/97 2 A; .'4�F'1558 16' 3�i P4GE 0; �. is the property involved In the proposed land use redo +» not tr+e aPD eca►d�e Oan•raitP an E em�rnw than consistent with the purposos. obiocmves, pasts and Pn it* present g=aignation? (AngWor c Ompletoiv. iilve all reason8 ter your antwsr and specifically alto applicable Genera! Plan sections.) A. WOYId titer N��(�1 Mai" '�A �Y WN :rdrwawri land uaa redosienadon and/or amendment be detrimental in any way W the surrounding propertiors4 (t:xpluin reasons supporting your answers.) 5• Are there any dead or other restrictions eencenminp the type and class of uses on the property inveivedl If so, give expiration date of the restrictions and attach a copy of me restrictions. 6 Explain how the proposed redesignaton anWer amonament would b. Integrated. internally oensistent and compatible with all of the Elements of the General plan, as a whole. (Clto spocitm applicable laonoral Plan sections,) sfa,� �� 4�An Q%i W t) iir}rvr ;i w Mr v ai ON a am the OVMNR of the property Involved In this appligstion and that Ilwe haJ. iar4zAd myself (ourselves) with the rules and requi0on(s) of the City of El Segundo with respect to prejiaril jilinq this application and that the foregoln9 statements heroin contained and the Information on deettmllnts'' tilvosna attached hereto are In su iadVgVii due t t� i7wi rwr�a► ur r r Wlun W wrrwr. *MAa�eow .1P Signature Wa te STATE OF I I IF®AMMt'►, ) M c5 tw-,,,_, � C - Z D FEB 91998 , PLANNING DIVISION IJ - , 11 �,! . 7- - ��� ��� tp � , before me the undo iQned Notary Public m►s b day of c c ,c r known :n and for said County and State, personalty appea#tld Subscribe to the w.thln to me to be the person whose name tr+atrur*e�t, and aelev o me that ha /she executed ttw llama. WITNESS my me N a Pub lic In and for void Ceuhty and State Igxpuai WV. 13, OW AGENT AUTHORIZATION i hereby authorize 24 to) CIff"to act for me in all matters relevant to this application. 1 understand that tnls rs�r7 wit► oe the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all Information and correspondence. x 'Dwners SlpnAtu» 60& E 4& Y Apo, ' "� 7,trf7�''fll C.Qi4C '•.,, wjii AUNT AFFIDAVIT ' ` r being duly sworn depose and ray that IMG or" the ACSNT of the propony involved in this appiicxtlo1) end that Ilwe have familiarized myself (Ouraelwa) w�tn the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the _ - .l.,,T- .::::..� :.., .::_�_i�nrw►rIx :inrYtl-ii t'dlsrix - s�t�i�srftiprTharreTR'!'1�7n�R Y i0r1g0!fl9 atowmar4 w Tiefwm We 1101I MW a$ow taw IG ...., ......._.. _. (ecpacm truss and correct to the best of my/our 0M0wled90 and belief. _ Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ) County of Los Angeles )u. On this _ day of __ _ _ l V , botoro me. the undersigned Notary, Public in and for said County and State, personalty appeared known to me to 00 the person whose name subscnlye to the within nstrument, and acknowledged to me that h6 /sho executed the same. WITNESS My h -OMd *nd Cft'-21 4401. Notary Public in and for uld County and State Presedums for filing application r.iv Mpp•� iiuii pPopilijr Gir�ii}+i�ieu iii W* y��!w -1 � a n Fiai!ia�ib uiv�bwi�_ w7�y��aiii�i v1 use vim��i, v�iw1-0, lessee, and/or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public. 2 Applicant Shall provide all Information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division. 3. Play flung fee. C- 3 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CH PROJECT NO. GA - 43S"1 &PA 93— 1 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 322 -4670 E FED - c The Applicant: AuDtZI 1rJ WAllei' Illll SaKtb- Ylbnica. 81,14 {loon LA. 477— YY 78 Name Address Phone (Check One) Owner Lessee Agent /sec -/ Prope Owner: /tr�i�OL 7"-�£ �uv�f�y'd` ��CS✓ G /rT'd�v?'`��/' 44Y ���%,��+✓ 0� ?rte i1,(�,.1/�N✓ Name Address Phone 4SE��'- 4- /,�L'T" %' C! � 1;?Ir -1,? 27 Property Situated at: (Exact legal description. Provide attachment if necessary) gj_CC 4 General Location: ��% between Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue Existing Zoning: Request: Under the provisions of Title 20, Section 20.86 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Zone Change for the above described property. 1. Does public necessity require the proposed change? Is there a real need in the community for more of the types of uses permitted by the Zone requested that can be accommodated in the areas already for such zones? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding property as well as the property proposed to be reclassified tie C� ✓�� 041 �.�u�f d �y wed e-4 ✓kr #je,�.��� �; Cr.►.�F /t /�.arr,/ y C,;,•�� � ado allow Cr ja, �—:t� .fc �r r / 7 Gi ✓�'��il `i ✓rCLi/llrl 7�C G%// ��, Sri �0 j� f� r hJ /c'✓�a ���} r4 Wk --ir o/�i(, —Kti �,�,rG�j Ain/ /,I.r/YG.�� G✓� � t ��i/ U� ✓,L Si /y CNr ��,! i N� !✓' 1 ' 2. Is the property involved in the proposed reclassification more suitable for the purposes permitted in the proposed zone than for the purposes permitted in the present classification? (Answer completely; give all reasons for your answer.) �/��. —;�O ���..;.NJe � �,a uia�f �S ��r!- G'��,n,�f �r�•' arm `�r'.�C Cv/2,at Wi/ �I'�'C' ✓i,�� �rrli S''�+�dl•� �irrvlq 3. Would the uses permitted by the proposed zone, change be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reasons supporting your answers.) �_lirsJ�� lJ/�vB, 'n. �►'✓ Mcympe-s (12,1,1 n? �►�►/�,.51 /,��,i ;n ,,t,,,,r= e✓ 1, j ...yr -�' JGh /1� yc Coil ..tf :�lJ(//' /✓Gi�Ita %1I L✓�l �t �L,, d i 4. What were the original deed restrictions, if any, concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? Give expiration date of these restrictions. (You may attach a copy of these restrictions, after properly underscoring the portions that are in answer to this question.) t '/ /Id'/? tc '% r /! �'" Q i On/ ic N Id ( A�1Lfi /Yli4 --.t. •.. �-�/�1/ %'� ,° /I �nw ! /i, OC� C A lkkJ Y f 4 WA l' /M6r 4,717 C'y' -wM"v W, r. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly sworn dispose and say that I/We am the OWNER of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. ,19 Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss. On this day of , 19 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 2 Notary Public in and for said County and state AGENT AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize to act for me in all matters relevant to this application. I understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence. Owner's Signature AGENT AFFIDAVIT d /41,4V Z i being duly sworn dispose and say that I/We am the AGENT of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowle Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss. On this �' -�� day of b roa , 19 _, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared s' �L ' known to me to be the person whose name k' __-) subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same. WITNESS my hand a al SHAARON C. CRAIG l GAG 'f't Comm. N 1136166 to Notary Pub c in and f "rid County and state NOTARY PUBLIC • CALIFORNIA 0 Procedures for filing application 1. File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division. Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public. 2. Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division. 3. Pay filing fee. 4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing. Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his/her request. 6. There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal. ZC.APP Planning Staff: Date received Signature to. �• �� `� 3 E.A. 4 Z.C. 4 -I J •�._ wr•.•wh•a/l �b/NO�t111f �►liirl rRnrQ sU {laiilr (VI 111 1 Vr�� P~ !!NSA i 1A NIb 2. (i trio properly If {volvOd 111 a 1. y.11..t.r Bad - - - -. Vw V --r •• _ ..�otef ..... ►.•..flr►�nnn7 ( Antiwar completely; flW0 all MI _� t Ihar1 Inr t�lY GUrppape pYRT71tUf1� 111 111V F♦I V.r-. •• vim__•.. w.-... . I • . reasons for yvwr wi/awat'.) y J L. �hz - .o^wwLLA awns ehanea •w wwh:......+•n: ... .. -4_�1 -� �winl�in riaa Ilawtl iwr�.:7'::.•.• ,sr •': "7 ♦r' -- �� -:- ••• www►:wti ..A/lr Ar►•Y/afl.t 1)rl)IIMIt//w \ •1 w•••.w�s�i:. .err.- •. 1♦ • ..... —c.9 �J �1 1 PLa«: ,1qG DiVISAN What were the original Coed restrictions, 11 any, concerning the type and class of uses on the properly 1- ..�•.._�•► :'.I. .w II1 ♦\/IYeV l V.r� w-nl r m-vom wwa.n vf tha•.a ►a_s•h.tl• lA. R ._! . � YAll MAV 1tTAf!h A onnV 07' _- pitxitinti mrot i. fhlle Huse /bf..1 SlaN NiRE OWNER,a AFFivw'vil wO// e 61IF J►AA%I L /�tOl %�.0 `� p�qi� YYir iwCrlTr Giiiji•.C� i:i:v �wV .:7i::.•�. . a►n the CWN9M of the property involved it / if af.INli\;at;vrl illt{t1 tflat I/we nave famlllarmea myself (oureelv0s)'wltfl - _ �_ =�_ �_ � _- - ��� - �• �- - ...... .. ..�. . -__ -_• •- - -G ��. __J tlr���. Ilf. a!\w1�A���AM awW Mlwt �� !orepolms etaterner►tp heroin oentainod snip 1hm1 information on deeumento v,•KI Mll Vial OLUMIwtj lvvvvW arV 1rt all reapocto true and correct to the uvat vi Ir1y /v4r.Anywll3QE.erWLgQWWl. g An: slpnaa,re pa: CTATE OF .r•,r�1..lan�. M Ir1` ...,, w :: ::: _ s _ - j ::_ 1' �: � n ". _ e '• • _ � iiat6:arr�a Tarr the i.ia :+nopp`- m-'aa, i4om; a .wa:w :. ^ 1{ v i. n anr/ fnr aalA MII/1fv and �taH norunf1r11V AAM IIrA 1! r.1... -�.� it \n r w K�.LL. K•.. t. �C1lt- IlNYWI9l iF,J W-- :�T..—Z _ .. .. i -T _ _ . - �. - _� . •L �. �w Mw •.JAN {M IMA�w •rMa/N And acknowledged to me that + xecutod Ito saute. _`- --�L'= " - •- -._ ...... -- - .. _ kgmrv�W 10 In and for said Cw" and state i4_ JJ s 3 WNW)=* a LinswAn aril►Oefwrlb M Expins NOV. 11• MW 2. 3 4. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY INITIAL STUDY APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE 350 Main Street Ell Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 322 -4670 FAX (310) 322 -4167 one number of current property owner. A W7 1- ✓arks C tJ,(iti 0-1 G4TY/ /%.4i G41.✓yP c ,w4ft(f 47- (Note: Property Owners signature is required on Page 4.) � ' .1� /% Address of project: /-zf- ���7 . -1-1 -l—A Assessor's Block and Lot No.: / 3% - 0,7,1 :d'tv rl- of 17 Name, address, and telephone number of applicant, including name of person to be contacted concernii,inn,,,��� hi project if different from Pro Owner):__ / 4✓,01,Al r' ✓�����E� �r�`�1 s� ~��� '41144 - (� Property or Aw4lcl.►' K- sev.'r 3.1y4, (Note: Applicant's signature is required on Page 4.) List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state, and federal agencies: 5. Existing zoning district: r- , 4- 6. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is ailed): � � . i; ..�- i B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use additional sheets as necessary. 1. Site size: R -I o, �.v �. d4:k L -2 !�.3.0�� x d�� t✓� 2. Total square footage of building(s) or sre(s): 3. Number of floors of construction: -`' 4. Amount of on -site parking provided: EXltT.A/a c1 ,03 ��M� /jrrl� 5. Proposed scheduling: �JE+ aw7f /�N�►1 Q i �`% ,l1� -r,�P A���� 6. Associated projects and relationship to larger project or series of projects: 7. It residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale price or rents, and type of household size expected. N/ 4 8. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of building area, and nature of loading facilities provided. N f A Project No. EA � A-- CPO `16 -1 1 -?-C- 98 -1 C. A 9. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and nature of loading facilities. ry 10. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated odc�andy, nature of loading r facilities provided and community benefit to be derived from the project. ` N1 14 11. If the project requires a variance, conditional use permit or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. 1. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. 2. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Brief explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets, or refer to previous responses to Items #18 and 19. YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geological substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geological or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the the site? 2 E 3. 4 5. YES MAYBE NO f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earth- i quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? _ _ AM. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ Y b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ _ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ Z WATER. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — _ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? _ — c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ , d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ y e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ yy _ L f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ _ i. Exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? _ _ PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflom and aquatic plants? _ >1 _ L• b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ Y- c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ _ _y_ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ _ ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? Y 3 4 YES MAYBE NO b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? — — �- c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? — — h d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? — — g, )NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? — - b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — — 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? — 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal: a. Result in the substantial alteration of the present or planned use of the project area, or any land outside the project area? — — b. Require a variance, conditional use orPeezzoni�' - c. Conflict with the General Plan? — — d. Serve to encourage development of presently underdeveloped areas or intensify development of already developed areas? — — g. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any non - renewable natural resource? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? — — 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density - or growth rate of the human population of an area? — — 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? — — -� 13. TRANSPORTATIOWCIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — — b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation? — — d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — — !� e. Alterations to waterboume, rail or air traffic? — — 4 f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or sub- stantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 18. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 19. AESTHETICS/SHADOWS. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b. The creation of substantial shadows on the site or adjacent properties? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a significant prehistoric or historic archeological site? 5 YES MAYBE NO -Z' Y YES MAYBE NO b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? — — c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? — — d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? — — OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, (We) am (are) the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application; I (we) have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application; and the information on all documents and all plans is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. Owner's Signature Owner's Signature OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION Date Date I hereby authorized to act for me in all matters relevant to this application. I understand that this person will be the primary contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence. Owner's Signature APPLICANT AFFIDAVIT Date I ( ) -�i✓�% 1�✓ /�J, UC/ am (are) the APPLICANT (S) of the property involved in this application; I (we) have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application; and the information on all documents and all plans is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. Z/0/ 4�41 Applicant's Signature Date Applicant's Signature Date FOR PLANNING DIVISION USE ONLY 13 Copies of Plans Fee/Deposit Received $ 300' Notification Map Date Filed: O t9,) D 19–Ja ,Z sets of Property Owner Labels _� Received By: ki A i M -A G e'r f'F,, r� 2 sets of Envelopes with Postage i Required Supplemental Info Sheets C 1. 2. 3. YES MAYBE NO MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlffe 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 short-tens, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long -term impacts will endure well into the future). — — c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the envi- ronment is significant). — — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause sub- stantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? — — 1 pISCi rSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (See attached sheets for narrative description of Environmental Impacts - Initial Study). RECOMMENDATION On the basis of this Initial Study of Environmental Impact, staff recommends the following: That the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should 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 in the attached Initial Study, have been added to the project and, therefore, a NEGATIVE DECLARATION should be prepared. That the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT should be required. That the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and a FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, addressing the items and concerns indicated in the attached Initial Study, should be required. ~ ,"- % Signature: Date: � For Director of,Planning and Building Safety City of El Segundo RevisedOW97 intist -3.gst h] TO: ,� n^_X ('� City of El Segundo INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Circulation Date: February 09, 1998 „ r TO: Jim Morrison, City Manager i ' Jim Fauk, Director of Recreation and Parks Tim Grimmond, Chief of Police n t' Jim Hansen, Director of Economic Development Eunice Kramer, Finance Director Jake Nielson, Fire Chief Barbara Pearson, Library Director Pi > WING >�Gj DI vIv Ed Schroder, Public Works Director Ron Darville, Senior Plans Examiner FROM: Bret B. Bernard, Director of Planning and Building Safety THROUGH: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner STAFF PLANNER: Naima Greffon, Planning Technician N SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA-435. Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 Address; 1215 (Parcel 1) and 1217 -1229 (Parcel 2) East Mariposa Avenue Applicant: Mr. Andrew Wallet Propedy Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Parcel 1); and Robert and Betty Ann Carr (Parcel 2) The proposed project is a request for approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet) of the Church's property from Single - Family Residential (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the Land Use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The split zoning of the Church's property is the result of a Lot Line Adjustment (recently administratively approved by the Planning and Building Safety Director) between two existing parcels with two different zoning and land use designation (Single - Family and Two - Family Residential). The additional area (23,501 square feet) added to the Church's property, currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage structure, and two storage sheds; would be demolished to accommodate additional surface parking for the Church. The property to the north and west of the subject site is zoned Public Facilities (PF), and the properties to the east and south (across from Mariposa Avenue) are zoned Single - Family Residential (R -1). Please check one of the following boxes after reviewing the attached material and respond as to the proposed projects potential for environmental impact in your area of responsibility. Project review comments not pertaining to environmental impact should also be submitted separately at this time. Please return the Draft Initial Study and plans with all comments by Friday. February 13, 1998. Contact Naima Greffon at extension 405, if you have any questions on the project. r, DEPARTMENT FINDINGS: concur with Draft Initial Study with findings as submitted. substantially concur with Initial Study findings and request additional language be added as described below. requesi additional contact and information before we can make adequate determination. See 'e�rarynents�'below. have concerhs4about projects potential environmental impact as described below and request ,W Jan Vf.Wepartmental meeting before proceeding with review. COMMENT � -�-Q,,r � TY� ►.��o,/�-'�' o v� � i ewe 1."� S u GLO-� M �•a. -\� °+^ �e O �}- o V et 112 c- -0.� Reviewed By: &61J CITY EN6,1NEY(L Signature and Title Encl.: Initial Study and Applications 2 o9 1-191,96 Date p:\ projects 4426- 450\ee- 435\ea- 435.IDC 3 � City of El Segundo �1 INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Circulation Date: February 09, 1998 TO: Jim Morrison, City Manager Jim Fauk, Director of Recreation and Parks Tim Grimmond, Chief of Police Jim Hansen, Director of Economic Development Eunice Kramer, Finance Director Jake Nielson, Fire Chief Barbara Pearson, Library Director Ed Schroder, Public Works Director Ron Darville, Senior Plans Examiner FROM: Bret B. Bernard, Director of Planning and Building Safety THROUGH: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner STAFF PLANNER: Naima Greffon, Planning Technician N �' SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA-435 Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1 Address-, 1215 (Parcel 1) and 1217 -1229 (Parcel 2) East Mariposa Avenue Applicant: Mr. Andrew Wallet Prosy Owners: Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Parcel 1); and Robert and Betty Ann Carr (Parcel 2) The proposed project is a request for approval to change the Zoning and Land Use designation for a portion (23,501 square feet) of the Church's property from Single - Family Residential (R -1) to Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone and the Land Use designation from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The split zoning of the Church's property is the result of a Lot Line Adjustment (recently administratively approved by the Planning and Building Safety Director) between two existing parcels with two different zoning and land use designation (Single - Family and Two - Family Residential). The additional area (23,501 square feet) added to the Church's property, currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage structure, and two storage sheds; would be demolished to accommodate additional surface parking for the Church. The property to the north and west of the subject site is zoned Public Facilities (PF), and the properties to the east and south (across from Mariposa Avenue) are zoned Single - Family Residential (R -1). Please check one of the following boxes after reviewing the attached material and respond as to the proposed projects potential for environmental impact in your area of responsibility. Project review comments not pertaining to environmental impact should also be submitted separately at this time. Please return the Draft Initial Study and plans with all comments by Friday. February 13, 1998. Contact Naima Greffon at extension 405, if you have any questions on the project. DEPARTMENT FINDINGS: concur with Draft Initial Study with findings as submitted. substantially concur with Initial Study findings and request additional language be added as described below. request additional contact and information before we can make adequate determination. See comments below. _ have concerns about projects potential environmental impact as described below and request an interdepartmental meeting before proceeding with review. f 47 Z �Rrcd ,3 1�04vi iewed By nature and Title�7� Encl.: Initial Study and Applications q u s*.ti Date P* VrojectsW26- 4501ea- 4361ea- 435.IDC CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Meeting Date: February 26, 1998 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Bret B. Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety THROUGH: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner STAFF PLANNER: Paul Garry, Assistant Planner 6 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA-428 and Precise Plan Amendment 97- 3 (First Amendment to PP 4 -77) and Subdivision 97 -3 1920 -2000 East Imperial Highway APPLICANT: Hughes Aircraft Company The applicant has again requested a Continuance of the public hearing for this item scheduled for February 26, 1998. The public hearing, has been rescheduled for March 12, 1998. P \: projects 4426- 450\ea428\ea428.sr6 1 roif ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA 98 -1 AND ZONE CHANGE ZC 98 -1 FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AT 1215 AND 1217 - 1227 EAST MARIPOSA AVENUE AND CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -435. PETITIONED BY ANDREW WALLET. WHEREAS, on December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo adopted a General Plan for the years 1992- 2010; and, WHEREAS, on December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo certified an Environmental Impact Report as a complete and adequate document in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of El Segundo Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration; and, WHEREAS, on November 16, 1993, the City Council did, pursuant to law, adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the amendments to Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (The Zoning Code) and a new Zoning Map, finding that there were no environmental impacts associated with the amendments that were not analyzed in the Master Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council for the General Plan on December 1, 1992; and, WHEREAS, on November 16, 1993, the City Council did, pursuant to law, adopted Ordinance No. 1212 adopting a new Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (The Zoning Code) and a new Zoning Map; and, WHEREAS, an application has been received from Mr. Andrew Wallet, requesting approval of an Environmental Assessment, a Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to allow a zone change from R -1 to R -2 and land use designation change from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential of a portion of the property located at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment (EA -435), including a draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the proposed use, has been prepared and circulated to all interested parties and staff, for review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application and supporting evidence with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines and the City of El Segundo Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Resolution No. 3805); and, WHEREAS, on February 26, 1998, the Planning Commission did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised public hearing on such matter in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 350 Main Street, and notice of the public hearing was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2407 on February 26, 1998 recommending approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, on March 3, 1998, the City Council did hold, pursuant to law, a duly advertised public hearing on such matter in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 350 Main Street, and notice of the public hearing was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and, WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons present to speak for or against the findings of Environmental Assessment EA -435, Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1; and, WHEREAS, at said hearings the following facts were established: 1. The project site has two different land use and zoning designations. The land use designation of the project site is Single - Family and Two - Family Residential and the zoning classification is Single - Family (R -1) and Two - Family (R -2) Residential. 2. The overall size of the project site consists of 1.427 acres (62,164 square feet), of which the R -1 portion (subject to the Zone Change and General Plan Amendment) is 242.08' (deepl x 97.08' {widel (23,501 square feet), and the R -2 portion is 237.08' (deep) x 163.08' (wide) (38,663 square feet). 3. On February 12, 1998, a Lot Line Adjustment (EA -431 and SUB 97 -4) between two legally created parcels located at 1215 and 1217 -1229 East Mariposa Avenue, was approved in conformance with the City's Subdivision requirements by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. 4. The R -1 portion of the project site is currently developed with five (5) one -story dwelling units, one garage building, and two (2) storage sheds, which would be demolished. 5. The R -2 portion of the project site is developed with a Church and supporting surface parking. 6. The future proposed use of the R -1 portion of the project site is a surface parking lot for the Church. 7. The surrounding areas to the north and west are developed with an elementary school, and to the east and south across Mariposa Avenue are single - family residences. The property to the north and west is zoned Public Facilities (PF), and to the east and south are zoned Single - Family Residential (R -1). 8. Section 20.22.040 (B) of the R -2 zone allows churches as permitted uses subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Churches are not permitted uses in the R -1 zone. 9. The use of the R -1 portion of the project site is currently legal non - conforming per virtue of density. 10. The existing use of the Church is not proposed to be expanded. 11. The project site (R -1 and R -2 portions) has an uneven shape, as the lot line adjustment added land to the Church's property (R -2), which was not part of the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. 12. On October 28, 1970, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 727 approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the construction of a church at 1215 East Mariposa Avenue (R -2 portion of the project site) with a chapel to seat 290 persons, classrooms, a meeting hall and other facilities, along with 61 off - street parking spaces. 13. Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 727 required a five (5) foot dedication along Mariposa Avenue for future street widening, which dedication was recorded on January 4, 1971. 14. The R -1 portion of the project site has a recorded deed restriction (dated December 7, 1955), which prohibits subdividing the property into smaller lots or parcels. The removal of the deed restriction is subject to Planning Commission approval. 15. The Planning Commission will file a quitclaim removing the deed restriction listed above in Item No. 14, subject to proof of a recorded Certificate of Compliance, or other document acceptable to the City of El Segundo, relating to the lot line adjustment between the properties at 1215 and 1217 -1229 East Mariposa Avenue (EA -431 and SUB 97 -4). 16. The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with State guidelines and local requirements, a draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for inter - departmental and public review. No significant adverse impacts were identified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that after considering the above facts and study of proposed Environmental Assessment EA -435, Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1, the City Council makes the following findings: Vol am I Me 03 1 OR I V3 NMNWSM� I . The Draft Initial Study was made available 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 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and, 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 authorize and direct 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 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. L"JQJ0J7,-"J"- That the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy LU 3 -1.1, which restricts the re- zoning of R -1 zoned areas to higher intensity uses, since any potential future use of the project site will be less intensive than the current existing use (5 dwelling units); and, The proposed project is consistent with the Objectives, Goals and Policies of the City's Housing Element. a. �. c- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Council hereby approves Environmental Assessment EA -435, Zone Change ZC 98 -1 and General Plan Amendment GPA 98 -1, subject to the following conditions and adopt changes to the El Segundo Municipal Code as follows: SECTION 1. The General Plan Land Use Map is hereby changed to reflect the change for the portion of the project site at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue from Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The corresponding changes to the Land Use Map as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are also hereby approved. SECTION 2. The 1992 General Plan Summary of Existing Trends Buildout (Exhibit LU -3) of the Land Use Element is hereby amended to reflect the change for the portion of the project site at 1215 and 1217- 1227 East Mariposa Avenue from the Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The corresponding changes to the Land Use Element as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are also hereby approved. SECTION 3. The current Zoning Map is hereby amended to reflect the change for a portion of the project site at 1215 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue from Single - Family Residential Zone to Two - Family Residential Zone. The corresponding changes to the Zoning Map as set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, are also hereby approved. SECTION 4. The 1992 General Plan Lands Suitable for Residential Development (Exhibit H -1) of the Housing Element is hereby amended to reflect the change for the portion of the project site at 1225 and 1217 -1227 East Mariposa Avenue from the Single - Family to Two - Family Residential. The corresponding changes to the Housing Element as set forth in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herin by this reference, are also hereby approved. SECTION 5. The following conditions shall be required: a. A five (5) foot (deep) strip along Mariposa Avenue shall be dedicated to the City for future street widening. The street dedication shall be recorded prior to issuance of any Permit for the parking lot or other improvement on the site, or ninety (90) days after final approval of these applications. b. The future parking lot, or any other future use of the property, must comply with all conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (Planning Commission No. 727, dated October 28, 1970) and/or Conditions attached to issued City Permits. Prior to any change in use that is not in conformance with the CUP approval, the property owner must amend the original CUP which approved the Church. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall become effective at midnight on the thirtieth (30) day from and after the final passage and adoption hereof. SECTION 7. 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 said City; shall make a note of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted; and shall within 15 days after the passage or adoption thereof cause the same to be published or posted in accordance with the law. DRAFT PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this_ day of 1998. Cindy Mortesen City Clerk (SEALI) Mark Hensley City Attorney Sandra Jacobs, Mayor of the City of El Segundo, California p:\proj ect \426- 450 \ea -43 5 \ea -43 5. ord Zj a� c W � City Council Ordinance No. Exhibit A Mariposa Ave. cv ca Z c 0 F. O CU 0 a- 1992 General Plan Summary of Existing Trends Buildout Land Use Category Acres Single - Family Residential 356.6-357,Z- Two- Family Residential 58 -.5414 Planned Residential 5.7 Multi - Family Residential 119.3 Neighborhood Commercial 7.1 Downtown Commercial 31.2 General Commercial 44.3 Corporate Office 211.2 Smoky Hollow 94.1 Urban Mixed -Use North 279.0 Urban Mixed -Use South 70.6 Parking 15.8 Light Industrial 356.1 Heavy Industrial • 1,086.8 Public Facilities 91.7 Federal Government 90.6 Open Space 83.7 Parks 50.0 Street & Railroad R.O.W. 442.6 3,494.4 T—#Mle Projection Dwelling Units 5 u __room 2,853 -Z•JB$- - -- 938 —934— --- 65 --- 3,379 --- 851 100,000 961 1,237,000 1,930,000 12,351,000 268 2,019,454 ___ 15,799,212 3,997,936 18,529,000 2 7,684 705- 55,963,602 17,266 iv;2(& 1 Existing construction such as the market, and recently constructed. renovated connwrcial centers and WSW nonfonforming residential uses at densities that are currently higher than allowed by th end use designations this plan will not realistically be converted to mixed connrrciaYresidential uses and two buildings are expected to remain for the fife of the Plan• 2 TM heavy industrial shown on this plan includes the Ct»vron Refinery. Southern Cafifomia Edison Generation Station, Air Products and ustr CMmical facilities. These faplitiK have Processing 9qsJP� and tanks rather than buildings and are expected to amain for the fife of the Plan. Therefore. n0 estimated building square footage is shown. Source; City of El Segundo Planning Depertrnent and The Lightfoot Planning Group Amendrnerrts: Ord. 1209. GPA 93. 1,11/2193: Ord. 1244. GPA 95.1.2/6/96; Ord- 1272. GPA 97- 1.6117/97 Ord. 1279. GPA 97-2.10,7197 PLAN CITY OF EL SEGUNDO GENERAL 1992 General Plan exhibit Summary of Existing Trends Buildout Lu-3 5 Exhibit B Rj a� NO" City Council Ordinance No. Exhibit C Mariposa Ave. rr;j c� c� a z c� 0 r Lands Suitable for Residential Development Land Use Designation Vacant Acres Underdeveloped Acres Recyclable Acres Net Potential New Units Single - Family 1.3 0.0 0.0 10 Two - Family 0.3 14.9 --g;$ _63_. 65 Planned Residential 0.0 0.0 5.7 65 Multi - Family 0.6 23.4 6.2 168 Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use 0.0 0.0 10.0 180 Grand Total 2.2 38.3 2i.9 22.4 -486- 488 Net Potential Units equals total new units less those lost through intensification of underdeveloped land (i.e., R -1 to R -2 or R -3) and recycling of residential land to non- residential uses (i.e., R -3 to Commercial). Source: The Lightfoot Planning Group Amendments: Ord. 1209, GPA 93-1, 11/2/93; Ord. 1244, GPA 95-1, 2/6/96, Ord. 1272, GPA 97 -1, 6/17/97 r— CITY OF Land Exhibit D EL SEGUNDO * GENERAL PLAN Suitable for Residential Development 1 5 -5 exhibit H -1 To: qty f & eS'eyu�►uto Inter - Departmental Correspondence February 12, 1998 All City Council Members & City Manager (Through Channels) From: Gary D. Ganibi, Administrative Analyst II /Telephone Administrator Subject: 310 AREA CODE STATUS REPORT & RECOMMENDATION Per request, this memorandum was written as an update to our 310 AREA CODE situation. The following relief plans will be submitted the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) this week from the California- Nevada Code Administration (CNCA), representing the telecommunication industry's support: 1) GEOGRAPHIC SPLIT / ALTERNATIVE 1A (see attached information): a) Split line begins at the Pacific Ocean & travels east on W. Imperial Avenue. At Sepulveda Blvd., it runs east on Imperial Hwy.. It drops down to W. 115th Street at Aviation (still eastbound), then southbound on S. Crenshaw Blvd. At W. El Segundo Blvd, it jogs along the now 213 area code boundary to the 562 boundary. b) The 310 area code remains north of the geographic split line with the new area code to the south. The affected communities targeted for the new area code are: A small part of Hawthorne, the majority of Hawthorne, and all of El Segundo, Lawndale, Gardena, Compton, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Lomita, Carson, Lynwood, Wilmington, San Pedro, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, a small portion of Long Beach and Catalina Island. 2) OVERLAY PLAN / ALTERNATIVE #4: a) The overlay retains the same geography as the current 310 area. The new area code is placed over the same geographic area. b) All calling in or to an overlaid area require 11 digit dialing (1+ area code + phone number). This includes all outgoing calls, even within the same overlay. c) The CPUC requires that Service Provider Local Number Portability (L.NP) be established prior to the use of an overlay. LNP is technology that enables a customer to change local service providers without having to change telephone numbers and is expected to begin by the 2nd Quarter of 1998. The above listed geographic split is detrimental to all Cities in the South Bay. The overlay is the lesser of two evils and will disadvantage all new customers ( business & residential). A coordinated effort by the South Bay Cities to lobby the CPUC is highly recommended. 00077 STATUS REPORT ON 310 AREA CODE RELIEF (MBRUARY 11, 1998) Two plazas for 310 area code relief will be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by the California/Nevada Code Administration within the next week. The plans are as follows: Alternative 1A Geographic split along Imperial Highway, with cities and communities north of Imperial retaining 310 and cities and communities south of Imperial receiving the new area code. Alternative 4. Overlay. All current business and residential customers retain 310. New telephone service orders will receive new area code. The CPUC is expected to make a decision by July or August of this year. Changes Will become effective in July of 1999 with a permissive dialing period of approximately 6 months and mandatory dialing beginning in January or February 2000. Comments or concerns on the above may be submitted in writing directly to the CPUC at the following address: CALIFORNIA. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Telecommunications Division., 3'd Flool- 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 # ## 00078 AREA CODE RELIEF FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Telecommunications service providers, in California, request prefixes from the California Code Administration. California Code Administration assigns new prefixes, monitors the usage of prefixes within an area code, and forecasts when an area code will most likely exhaust and a new area code will be required. California Code Administration regularly apprises the industry of the status of the various area codes within California so that the industry can plan relief well in advance of the actual area code exhaust. California state law requires that the public be informed, in writing, 24 months prior to the actual implementation of a new area code. Who Decides Who Receives The New Area Code? The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) makes the final decision on area code relief and determines what area will retain the existing area code and be given the new area code. The CPUC relies on the telecommunications industry to manage the utilization of area codes in California and to submit plans to the CPUC when additional area code relief is required. Area code relief begins with the determination by the telecommunications industry and California Code Administration, working in unison, that a particular area code will run out of prefixes in approximately three years. The area code relief process begins with a telecommunications industry group, comprised of more than 30 companies, who attend planning meetings to identify viable solutions. When developing and evaluating area code relief plans, industry representatives are required to follow regulations established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the CPUC, as well as the telecommunications industry guidelines. The industry is also constrained to follow rate area boundaries. After feasible alternatives are developed, meetings are held with government representatives and the public to gain the benefit from their experience and knowledge. The industry then meets to consider all factors and strives to reach consensus on the best plan for the area as a whole. The plan, with the Industry's recommendation, is then submitted to the CPUC. If the Industry is unable to reach consensus on a relief plan then the results are submitted to the CPUC. November 1997 00,979 O GJ � •T ' O Y 2" • O �.. b e d • _ O O � Ma S W Q i • A N Q s: � e g. . .rr UCL. C14 Z W • �•Y• � Z >n CO ~ cr J o t° � b S W C' C �' m W .A rI O o CD Z W �'•• C "i ...i • o E = w 0 w cr a Q U Q W °8 W m >- m Z Q Q t U x .... • ..^'� . . cc UA M w $ e W I � co i i w • Q e O W • w - • O �.. b e d • _ ' s 0 co d c 0 v 0 w as C a m � tl) } N W CC) > 3� LLI w m CL a� ZQ oz !y Z (D Z F- U) 3 m Z U> LU N ao Qzz o LLU D O Q W J CD z O O � Ma S W Q i • A N Q s: � e g. . Q Q ' s 0 co d c 0 v 0 w as C a m � tl) } N W CC) > 3� LLI w m CL a� ZQ oz !y Z (D Z F- U) 3 m Z U> LU N ao Qzz o LLU D O Q W J CD z �On�� d m es a i • A N Q � C � Q Q Z W A � Z >n CO ~ cr J o t° CL Q N Z m W iB U A O o CD Z W U m = w 0 w cr a Q U Q W °8 W m >- m Z Q Q t U �On�� d m es a I M.rr•. saollvada Blvd 401t� Ot /IS AqMs n4 i Lart+ort 3 or-or i I W a � 1a J Q a o W � IO W Z Q 005_1 ist < I s BWgabw s < I 111 W W W < W L.omY LL W W W st Aloha s < w W tYP4+a Or a y W E u >I W > mi in 1� st W L cdlmr 5< 3 Y ° $ Is L v al/llo�g st rn 3 > vaMar st i I E Mart Av < I i i I W a � 1a J Q a o W � IO W Z Q 005_1 8YT Av I � � � w ' 5 Birn AV I ^. AND i Griv+tl•i M S Mentsi Av S F•rroni Mena Or i RWWW Av S UM AV Trove M Carden M E ypor v s I • "v i1MJ o S Buterd Av y $ A a S Feft A 5 3 S y o INN in 1, -1 MAbi M c I I � _W :'� U.I c � < Q Miner a HI d � � J N N N_ • iil ° U ¢I to O £I �I I A m !n AV ° I Z tC: io C W Rd ( i N DF I I N Ceuelis St =i U N INN in 1, -1 s � H 3 3 FA $ s of a s§ �I gill l 3 � ; N Avueen Bbd DJWRd 1S uwN LBCW 3 1 S•arve" Bbd i a � I ! Wdmw St IW ; q Nlnc& S j r_ ii I � I �� � 1�inaat 9t N• IW! I i Stl I ' I � I W yyil i > BW19 lc i ` • I < iIOM � • I � W W WI a W' I�nri 3 c U. > Wi ZI W � nM7n I W St i f Anna S d N W J, � a V UJI a Z Z Gaai Cif J uj O a3 W J Z' � w J � a < W Z U O O U m O � U < W I Z < T yevow, MAbi M a HI [TIT 3 3 £I �I I 3IJLWM ' i AV �S �+Rldn W Rd DF I N Ceuelis St s � H 3 3 FA $ s of a s§ �I gill l 3 � ; N Avueen Bbd DJWRd 1S uwN LBCW 3 1 S•arve" Bbd i a � I ! Wdmw St IW ; q Nlnc& S j r_ ii I � I �� � 1�inaat 9t N• IW! I i Stl I ' I � I W yyil i > BW19 lc i ` • I < iIOM � • I � W W WI a W' I�nri 3 c U. > Wi ZI W � nM7n I W St i f Anna S d N W J, � a V UJI a Z Z Gaai Cif J uj O a3 W J Z' � w J � a < W Z U O O U m O � U < W I Z < T yevow, 9 n Haltdald w N i Av '', � I I OeNnrtlAv I vi a � S Saba A I r3 i 5 I /letwd s AV w IS s e >E Lf ereT A , S V1�a1arN s 9 MaMSRan � � I MAMm% R 5 M Andteaa PI %s Andter a PI Av a s loam pt aM AV I AV _ m A� YD NJ N v Ua 3 N.ea 5 SpnMO AV SO4Mro AV v S A � 1 D ' YMloa AV 1 Clunera AV W! Chnetooh« ; • 3 1 srnrs Av y Z 5 �" N' V Q p O W = Chabon AV I I ^ U `> /may Gene AV 0 S Deny Av 1 t I W o N N =1 o 3 Clanetmlc AV � rn I W i 1 AvI 3 ! 14 rnb*A* Av S I I kanwtl A� � I I RaWle AV 1 'Ywk AVi Af I I + I i Avi 1 I /b A v I M I _I I yl wl i Grnnaea AV N Manor Or ! 5 Manor PII i W I Ranwne AV C 0 m jQ w `Tntm AV euAtypan Av m I t Q0 L cr ^ I W N e1 ' AV atwv a 7 c I� 11.1 cr 0003 AV N Daleude AV AV OU4"O 1 1 I I I • I �� 1 s LJerrtoll Av 1 Aw Onm AV ' 1 IJ ` i 1 I I j i I 5 Yukm Av � j N I AM''�ds I I 51 _ S Prom AV I s ywk AV fi I S Oupm AV F«r $ s I e I S Freenmp AvI b ; AV ymirl ;I v Star MN V 10T ; ; AV waW V S Bean AV s Bam AV —wvm—.o s S Manap AV . S F» s S FrmcrA AV S TMO A. ..Jnean Av ... 'T z S O � m W I", c cc E v~i J L) a N O_I C � � a at �O 0 1O �o o. — Linda Johnson 1305D East Grand Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 March 2, 1998 El Segundo City Council 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Council Members: I am writing to express my concern about the parking lot to be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints on Mariposa. The Latter Day Saints have been a wonderful influence in the community for many years. They are truly an ass et to the community and their appreciation of the family and home is truly respected et my family and, I believe, the community. Therefore, I am requesting the Church and the City Council reconsider the construction of the parking lot and retain the five family homes on Mariposa. Has the church considered other solutions such as using the Center Street School parking lot on the corner of Mariposa and Center Street? While I can sympathize with the dilemma that the Church and it's members are facing, it is family homes that are the care of our community and an aspect that makes El Segundo a very ery special in the South Bay. We all appreciate having neighbors, tree lined streets and children playing in the yards and I don't believe a parking lot would be an asset to the community or the residents on Mariposa. I hope the Church will consider an alternative solution. Sincerely, d�Gyy� Linda Johnson ;n NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the public hearing: 1. CONTINUED public hearing on the following proposed (Third Quarter) amendments to the El Segundo Zoning Code and El Segundo Municipal Code: Signs and Amplified Sound Permits; and Environmental Assessment EA -419A, Zone Text Amendment ZTA 97 -3A, Third Quarter Amendments (Remaining Items). Applicant: City of El Segundo. is continued to APRIL 21, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Posted: Time: By: Phctd.3dq NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1286, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Continued public hearing on the following proposed (Third Quarter) amendments to the General Plan and Zone Text: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA -419, GENERAL PLAN AMEND- MENT GPA 97 -3, AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA 97 -3, AMENDING THE EL SEGUNDO GENERAL PLAN, THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 9 AND 20, (PEACE, SAFETY AND MORALS AND THE ZONING CODE), AND THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM, PETITIONED BY THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO (CITYWIDE AMENDMENTS) AND HUGHES ELECTRONICS (TRANS- FER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS). IS CONTINUED TO , 1998, AT 7 :00 P.M. Posted Date: -g- i r Posted Time: o /�v Posted By: f 0 SUITE 1000 11111 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025 -3344 ANDREW M.WALLET ATTORNEY AT LAW February 4, 1998 Bret B. Bernard Director of Department of Planning & Building Safety City of El Segundo 350 Main Street E1 Segundo, CA 90245 0 .1 FEB 91 i TELEPHONE (310) 477 -8878 FACSIMILE (310) 477 -6869 Re: Lot Line Adjustment Project No. EA -431 Address: 1215; 1217 -1229 East Mariposa Avenue, E1 Segundo Dear Mr. Bernard: I am documenting by way of this letter the facts surrounding the above mentioned lot line adjustment and the hardship and attendant damages experienced by myself (Buyer of 1229 E. Mariposa), the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (owner of 1215 East Mariposa Avenue and Buyer of the five units) and Mr. and Mrs. Carr (owners and Sellers of 1217 -1229 East Mariposa Avenue). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has had its building at the 1215 East Mariposa Avenue location for decades. For virtually all of that time parking has been a problem. On any given Sunday and at other meeting times, Church members are forced to park in front of the single family residences along Mariposa and Nevada Streets. For many obvious reasons, additional parking will alleviate the long standing parking problems. The Carr's property has not been on the market for over 20 years. The opportunity to purchase the adjoining property was seen as a solution to alleviate the parking problem. ,, Brett B. Bernard February 4, 1998 Re: Project No. EA -431 1215; 1217 -1229 E. Mariposa Page 2 Additionally, the Church has and always will be a "good neighbor" to the community. At the request of Center Street School, the Church has allowed a gate to be put into the back fence of its existing lot and the school district has built a stairway on its property which allows school personnel to utilize the Church's parking lot during school hours. I am aware also that parents in the community do pull on and off of the Church's parking lot to drop off and pick -up their children. On any given school day, the Church's parking lot is full. The Church is happy to cooperate with the school and provide additional parking for them for free. Acquisition of the subject property and the intended additional parking will afford additional benefit to Center Street School. Representing the Church and on my own behalf, I contacted Mr. and Mrs. Carr's agent. After much negotiation we were able to negotiate an agreeable purchase arrangement wherein the Church would purchase a portion of the property consisting of the 5 rental units with the intent to demolish said units and utilize the space for parking. The portion of the property consisting of the main residence commonly known as 1229 would be purchased by myself and my wife. The transaction was accepted in August of 1997. The main contingency of the deal provided for approval by the City of E1 Segundo for the above mentioned intended use by the Church and myself respectively. The City approval contingency period ran to January 26, 1998. It was contemplated that there was more than enough time allowed to satisfy the City approval contingency. Escrow is set tp close February 26, 1998. I have reviewed my records and on August 28, 1997, I called the City Planning Department and spoke with Mr. Paul Garry. I explained in detail the project and intended use for parking, etc. My notes indicate that I spoke with Mr. Garry about procedures for a conditional use permit, zoning and the lot split, etc. That same day, I spoke with the Church's architect Brett B. Bernard February 4, 1998 Re: Project No. EA -431 1215; 1217 -1229 E. Mariposa Page 3 regarding the conditional use, contacted the engineer to begin processing applications. On August 29, 1997, I met Mr. Garry at the Planning Department with the intent of picking up the various applications to begin the process. We discussed in detail the intended use of the Carr's property. We reviewed various maps, City Zoning Guidelines, etc. At this meeting, Mr. Garry indicated that he believed a conditional use permit and zoning change would not be necessary and that a lot line adjustment would be the only procedure necessary. He mentioned that he wanted to consult with the City Attorney's Office and his supervisor, Laurie Jester. I recall distinctly telling Mr. Garry that we could not have delays or errors and we needed to make perfectly sure that the lot line adjustment, as he suggested, was the correct way to proceed. On September 5, 1997, I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Garry, wherein he informed me that he did speak with the City Attorney's Office about the zoning issues in connection with the Church's R -2 zone and the Carr's R -1 zone, the parking use, the lot split, etc. Mr. Garry informed me that the City Attorney as well as his supervisor, Laurie Jester, indicated to him that the lot line adjustment would be an appropriate way to proceed and that the intended use for parking would not require a zone change, etc. That same day, I had a conference with the Church's architect informing him of the lot line adjustment procedure and instruction to begin preparation of the documents for the application. On September 9, 1997, I had a meeting with Mr. Garry, wherein we reviewed a copy of title documents I received, specifically a deed restriction to hold the parcel as one parcel which was the result of the City's requirement in 1955. Mr. • 0 Brett B. Bernard February 4, 1998 Re: Project No. EA -431 1215; 1217 -1229 E. Mariposa Page 4 Garry pulled the book containing the minutes of that meeting and we both reviewed the minutes which did not indicate any reason or shed any light on the reason for the deed restriction. After further discussion, Mr. Garry indicated that the City would release that requirement inasmuch as the five rental units were to be demolished. The Church's architect and engineer proceeded to gather and prepare the documents necessary for the lot line adjustment and they in turn spoke with Mr. Garry to guide them in the preparation of documents. Additionally, Mr. Garry indicated to them that it would be wise to prepare proposed parking plans in order to have a complete package. On November 14, 1997, the Church's architect, Mr. Kornwall, the Church's engineer, Mr. Wilch, and myself met with Mr. Garry for the purpose of filing the lot line adjustment application and to make sure all documents were complete. Mr. Garry reviewed the documentation and indicated he needed some additional calculations which were provided by Mr. Wilch at that time. The parking map was also included and filed that day. I personally paid for the application fees. Mr. Garry indicated that City approval would take approximately one month. We did discuss the time frames involved with our escrow and felt confident, based upon representations made by Mr. Garry, that we would have the lot line adjustment approval in December, 1997. Sometime during the second week of December 1997, I called Mr. Garry in an attempt to get a status of our application. Much to my surprise, Mr.-Garry indicated that he had to check to see who was handling the application. I indicated to him that I assumed that he would be handling the application inasmuch as he did all of the research and was familiar with the project. Mr. Garry indicated that Ms. Greffon had been assigned the application and that she was out of the office for approximately 2 weeks. I followed -up in late December and it wasn't until early January wherein Ms. Greffon indicated Brett B. Bernard February 4, 1998 Re: Project No. EA -431 1215; 1217 -1229 E. Mariposa Page 5 X that she was first in a position to review the application. She had no background information. I did indicate to her that we had already lost a month of processing time and that time was of the essence due to the upcoming contingency deadline for City approval of January 26, 1998 in our escrow. Ms. Greffon indicated that she would speak with Mr. Garry and move the application along as fast as possible. For the next several weeks I had multiple conversations with Ms. Greffon about the status of the application and its progress. On or about January 27, 1998, Ms. Greffon informed me that the City could not approved the intended use of the property for parking pursuant to a lot line adjustment application procedure. She indicated that a zone change would be necessary. Of course, I informed her of the previous instructions I had received by Mr. Garry and the fact that this would create a severe hardship for all parties involved in the transaction. On January 28, 1998, I spoke with you about the facts and instructions upon which we relied to our detriment. You reiterated that although the City was at fault concerning the lot line adjustment procedure in connection with the parking, nevertheless a zone change and general plan amendment was necessary. You indicated that you would talk to the City attorney in an attempt to alleviate the problem. A meeting was arranged between you, Mr. Hensley, the City Attorney, Perry Boylard on behalf of the LDS Church and myself. At the January 30, 1998, meeting I elaborated on the facts upon which we relied on the City;s instruction to proceed along with the lot line adjustment only. I elaborated on the fact that the transaction is set to close on February 26, 1998, that the contingency for City approval had expired, that the Church and myself had expended thousands of dollars in connection with environmental reports, inspections, engineers, architect, etc. Additionally, I stated that the Carr's tenants were beginning to move out of the property as a result of the i� Brett B. Bernard February 4, 1998 Re: Project No. EA -431 1215; 1217 -1229 E. Mariposa Page 6 impending escrow closing date and that the Carr's were losing several thousand dollars a month in rent. I also indicated that my family was and is in a position of having to move out of the house we are in as a result of the Buyer of said house needing to move in at the end of February. I now find myself in the unenviable position of having to find a place for my family, i.e. wife and 5 children, pending the resolve of the transaction. Mr. Carr's real estate agent indicates that another tenant has given notice to vacate. Inasmuch as the required zone change and general plan amendment will delay this transaction yet another sixty days or more, the Carr's will experience further damage through loss of rental income. In order to extend our escrow with Mr. and Mrs. Carr, it will become necessary for us to release funds through escrow to them to help mitigate damage and negotiate the extension of escrow. I have been communicating with Ms. Greffon who is diligently trying to expedite the processing of the zone change and general plan amendment. Ms. Greffon indicated that publication will be effected February 5, 1998; I have contacted Chicago Title Company to provide me with a of list names of property owners in a 300 foot radius of the property along with labels. Ms. Greffon indicated that the City will provide envelopes and postage and of course will mail the notices to the property owners. Ms. Greffon indicated that the filing fees for the above mentioned applications can total between two and three thousand dollars. I am requesting that the City waive any additional fees in an effort toward mitigating our damages and the hardship we're experiencing. Please let me know if the City will waive all filing fees. E0 Brett B. Bernard February 4, 1998 Re: Project No. EA -431 1215; 1217 -1229 E. Mariposa Page 7 It is my understanding from Ms. applications are tentatively scheduled to planning commission on February 26, 1998. Commission approves same, the matter will Council for the first reading on March 3, reading on March 17, 1998. Assuming the the applications a thirty (30) day appeal X Greffon that the be heard by the Assuming the Planning then go to the City 1998 and the second :ity Council approves period applies. Assuming all goes according to plan, we could close escrow sometime in late April 1998. I appreciate that you and Mr. Hensley have indicated that the City will do everything it can, within the limits of the law, to expedite the process. As stated above, I am setting forth the facts and the hardship experienced, which I hope will be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and City Council in their consideration of this project. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. AMW:scc enclosures CC: Perry Bolyard Ken Wilch Kent Kornwall Very truly yours, /'� U� � . /51a� ANDREW M. WALLET