1999 JAN 05 CC PACKET - 3Ft SFGUNDO CITY COf iNCIL MEETING DATE: 05 January 1999
AGENDA I YI_M S1 ATFMENT AGENDA HEADING 'pecial Orders of Business - Public Heannc
Proposed amendments to the Zoning Code for residential side yard setbacks for attached garages on 25 -foot wide lots
in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zone, and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Assessment EA -465 and Zone Text Amendment ZTA
98 -7 Applicant City of EI Segundo
COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Hold Public Hearing,
2) Discussion,
3) First reading of Ordinance (by title only),
4) Schedule second reading and Adoption for 19 January 1999, and /or
5) Other possible /direction
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On 20 October 1998, the City Council directed Staff to initiate a "stand alone" Zone Text Amendment to review
modifications to the Zoning Code to consider revising the Zoning Code to permit attached garages in the rear one -third
of 25 -foot wide lots in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zone to have a zero side yard setback on one interior side
lot line (Section 20 20 060 D 2 )
As will be described below, the current Zoning Code requires garages attached to a dwelling unit to be a minimum
distance of three (3) feet from side property lines on 25 -foot wide lots in the Single Family Residential (R -1) Zone The
proposed revision would duplicate the current standard for 25 -foot wide lots in the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone
which permits attached garages to have a zero side yard setback in the rear one -third of the lot
On 10 December 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed the draft modifications to the Zoning
Code, and, adopted Resolution No 2434 (5 -0), recommending approval of the proposed amendments to the City
Council
DISCUSSION
(Continued on next page )
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: !i
A City Council Draft Ordinance No
B Approved Planning Commission Minutes, 10 December 1998
C Zone Text Amendments (as recommended by Planning Commission), dated 05 January 1999
D Planning Commission Resolution No 2434
E Map of Affected R -1 Zone Properties
F Letter from Cheryl Vargo, dated 14 October 1998
G Draft Initial Study /Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ORIGINATED BY
Date 21 December 1998
Date:
,i
270
3
EA -465, ZTA 98 -7 Page 2
City Council Staff Report
05 January 1999
DISCUSSION (Continued)
On 18 June 1996, the City Council adopted Ordinance No 1257 which included a Zone Text Amendment to revise the
required setbacks in the R -2 Zone to allow attached garages to be located on a side property line on 25 -foot wide lots
on the rear one -third of the property The purpose of this amendment was to provide additional design flexibility for
construction on narrow properties This was seen as especially useful, considering that, at that time, the required side
yard setback for residential zones was a minimum of 5 feet, regardless of the width of the lot Previously, garages
attached to the main house had to meet the side setback requirements of the main house (5 feet minimum)
On 20 October 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No 1288, which revised the required side yard setback for
residential properties This amendment eliminated the 5 -foot minimum setback, regardless of lot width, and, returned
the Zoning Code to the pre -1996 minimum setback to 10% of the width of the lot with a minimum of 3 feet to a
maximum of 5 feet Prior to the implementation of these Code amendments in 1996, the 10% side yard setback
standard, with a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 5 feet, had been in place in the Zoning Code for the R -1, R -2,
and R -3 Zone since the first Zoning Code for El Segundo was adopted in 1947
Under the current Zoning Code requirements in the R -1 Zone, a two car garage must be a minimum of 20 feet wide,
even on 25 -foot wide substandard lots It is not possible to build an attached two -car garage on a 25 -foot wide lot and
still maintain the minimum required 3 -foot setbacks on each side of the garage As a result, all garages would have to
be detached from the house in order to meet the setback requirements The proposed amendment would provide relief
from this situation by Allowing a 20 -foot wide garage to have zero setback on one side and five feet on the other side
property line while being attached to a house instead of detached from a house
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment to apply the current R -2 side yard setback exemption for attached garages
to the R -1 Zone and believes it would be beneficial to the overall development of the community The City has 54 R -1
lots with 25 -foot setbacks, which would potentially be affected by the proposed setback revision These are located on
the 400 and 500 blocks of Eucalyptus Drive and were originally created in 1911 Of these 54 lots, 18 are currently
combined into larger 50 -foot wide lots through common ownership of two abutting 25 -foot wide lots Therefore, the
proposed revisions would more directly effect only 36 properties, which are the single 25 -foot wide lots with a single -
family dwelling unit upon them, although the "combined" lots could be re- established by demolishing the existing
structures which straddle the property line
Exhibit 1 includes the redline /strikeout text for the proposed amendments to the R -1 Zone In conclusion, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the proposed modifications to the City Council in order to provide the design
flexibility to the R -1 Zone which is already provided in the R -2 Zone
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study /Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is required to evaluate the potential impacts which may
be caused by the proposed regulations The draft Initial Study /Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts was
prepared, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City Council Resolution No 3805, and,
was available for the 20 day public and agency review period from November 201" to December 10'", 1998, and no
comments were received on the document The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts which indicates there will be no environmental impacts associated with
the project
p \zoning \ea465 \ea465 ais
271
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
NO. EA -465 AND "ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA 98 -7, AMENDING THE
EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS
OF TITLE 20 (TILE ZONING CODE). PETITIONED BY THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO.
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo adopted a General Plan for the ycars 1992 -2010,
and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo certified an Envuonmental 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 Oidmance No 1212
adopting a new Title 19 (Subdivisions) and Title 20 (The Zoning Code) and a new Zoning Map, and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission did conduct, pursuant to law, a duly advertised
public hearing on revisions to the Zoning Code, and notice was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law,
and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No 2434 on December 10, 1998 recommending appi oval of the
proposed amendments, and
WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons to present testimony or documentary evidence for or against
EA -465 and ZTA 98 -7, the revisions to the Zoning Code, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the following facts were established
The purpose of the revisions to the Zoning Code are to refine and make appropriate adjustments to the
development standards and other zoning 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
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 pioposed
Environmental Assessment EA -465 and ZTA 98 -7 the City Council finds as follows
GENERAL PLAN
The proposed Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the 1992 General Plan, as amended
ORDINANCE NO _
APPROVING EA 465, 71`A 98 7
272 PAGE NO i
ZONING CODE
The proposed Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the existing Zoning Code
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
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
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 Budding Safely to file with the appropriate agencies
a Certificate of Fee Exemption and de mmmmis 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
City shall transmit $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 -465 and ZTA 98-
7, and adopts changes to the El Segundo Municipal Code as follows
SECTION 1 Section 20 20 060 D 2 of Chapter 20 20, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows
Side ard Structures shall maintain a minimum setback on each side of the lot of 10
percent of the width of the lot, but shall never be less than 3 feet and need not be
more than 5 feet Detached accessory structures, located In the rear one -third of the
lot, are allowed zero setback on one intenor side lot line Attached garages on 25 foot
wide lots only, located on the rear one -third of the lot, are also allowed zero setback
on one interior side lot line
SECTION 2 This ordinance shall become effective at midnight on the thirtieth (30) day from and after the
final passage and adoption hereof
SECTION 3 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
ORDINANCE NO
APPROVING EA 465, z'rA 98 7
PAGE NO 2
273
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 1999
Mike Gordon, Mayor
ATTEST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
1, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of said City is five, that the foregoing Ordinance No was duly introduced by said
City Council at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of January, 1999, and was duly passed and adopted by said City
Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the day of 1999, and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO POl?M
Mark D Hensley, City Attorney
2 7ri
p \zoning \ea465 \ea465 ord
ORDINANCE NO _
APPROVING EA 465, ZTA N 7
PAGE NO 3
Commissioner Kretzmer stated the size of the project and property demands there
be greater emphasis given on the caretaking aspects.
Vice -Chair Wycoff asked if there is any data on how many caretaker units exist in
Smoky Hollow? Ms Jester stated they are compiling this information for the
census
Ms Jester stated this facility is one of the largest in Smoky Hollow and is different
from other facilities in that it has potential for theft and there is greater public
access
Chairman Crowley stated when a new housing unit is established in town, fees are
assessed such as library, park and school impact fees. Mr Garry stated the police,
fire and library fees would be approximately $240 There would be no school fees
since the project is west of Sepulveda, and the City has not adopted park fees
Vice -Chair Wycoff stated rather than being detrimental, this caretaker facility would
enhance the public's security and safety He asked about the black glass
requirement on the living area? Ms Jester stated they are willing to work with the
applicant, Staff's concern is architectural compatibility Mr Amestoy stated this
would be acceptable
Commissioner Boulgandes asked why units are limited at 500 square feet in Smoky
Hollow? Ms Jester stated the original Smoky Hollow Specific Plan did not have a
limit When they were going through the Zone Text Amendments about 1 1/2 — 2
years ago, Staff suggested that the Commission and Council put a square footage
limit The Council was concerned that they wanted caretaker units to be just an
accessory type of use with smaller facilities
Vice -Chair Wycoff moved to adopt Resolution No 2436, a Resolution of the MOTION
Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo, California, approving
Environmental Assessment EA -450, Variance 98 -2, and Smoky Hollow Site Plan
98 -1 to allow the construction of a 1220 square foot caretaker unit at 1017 East El
Segundo Boulevard Petitioned by Storage USA Commissioner Palmer
seconded Passed 5 -0
Chairman Crowley Presented Item C, EA -465 (Zone Text Amendment ZTA 98 -7) EA -465
Applicant City of El Segundo
Assistant Planner Paul Garry presented the Staff Report as outlined in the Agenda
Packet.
Chairman Crowley stated the following situations are covered in the UBC A roof
on the edge of someone else's lot has to slope away from that lot, no windows and
no openings at all are allowed in the wall that has a 0 setback from the sideyard,
and no shared walls are allowed between two adjacent properties
Vice -Chair Wycoff asked if the walls would be allowed to physically touch'? Ms
Jester stated there would have to be an air gap
12 -1 Omm PC 7 2 7 ,l
Commissioner Palmer asked if there has been any concern from the Fire
Department being able to get a gurney in or out of the lot with respect to the 3 foot
side setback? Mr Garry stated they had the Fire Department address this issue
and were confident they could get around the house from the other side if the
garage was all the way to the side property line
Chairman Crowley opened the public hearing
Liz Garnholz, El Segundo
She stated she spoke to Chief Nielson regarding the gurney clearance, with the
gurney being 22 inches and the side setback at 36 inches, and he felt it was
inadequate
Commissioner Boulgandes stated when moving a gurney, you are usually at the
head and bottom of the gurney, not on the side
Ms Garnholz stated when she bought her home, she chose R -1 because she grew
up in a heavily densely populated area, the Brownstones of Chicago Having the
garage attached to "pastel boxcars" on the 25 foot lots is unsafe and a dead end is
formed. The City of Hawthorne has a 3 5 setback and if you have a detached
garage, it is OK to touch the property line However, if it is attached, the house and
the garage have to line up The City of Manhattan Beach has a 3 foot setback and
if the garage is attached, it has to line up with the house If it is detached, there are
two situations There is either a 3 foot setback lining up at the house or there is no
setback El Segundo seems to be a "pushover" in letting these attached garages
make the 90 degree turn and go to the neighbor's property
She feels R -1 is different from R -2 where you have a little bit of "elbow room"
Jamming a garage next to your neighbor in an R -1 is wrong Neighbors do
numerous things in their garages such as practicing music, sawing, drilling and
working on cars
She asked if there is a block in town that doesn't have an illegal unit when it comes
to R -1 zonmg9 She feels El Segundo fails in providing its citizens with a true R -1
neighborhood
Commissioner Palmer feels her block, the 800 block of Maryland, doesn't have any
illegal units She would prefer the back third of her lot have a garage or structure
facing it rather than a tree which overhangs and shades her yard
Commissioner Boulgandes feels this doesn't increase density and on the other side
there would be more open space It would create no dead space and more privacy
in the back of the lot
Chairman Crowley closed the public hearing
Commissioner Palmer agreed with Commissioner Boulgandes and is favor of the
Resolution
12 -10mm PC 8
2 7b
Vice -Chair Wycoff feels this is a step in the direction toward consistency and equal
treatment
Chairman Crowley stated they are talking about three blocks worth of houses and
all have alleys and must use alley access to get into the garages, with the garages
always being in the back third of the lot
Commissioner Palmer moved to adopt EA -465 Zone Text Amendment ZTA 98 -7 MOTION
Commissioner Boulgandes seconded Passed 5 -0
Ms Jester stated this Item will be forwarded to the City Council for their meeting of
January 5, 1999
Ms Jester stated the Commission received information on the upcoming parade REPORT FROM
this Sunday, December 13, 1998 Please RSVP to the Chamber as soon as DIRECTOR
possible
The Commission also received a copy of the City Council Agenda for this coming
Tuesday, December 15, 1998 The action for the Kings /Lakers Sports Training
Facility is on the Agenda The Zone Text Amendment for Signs, the second
reading, will also be going to the Council There will be a report on the
implementation of the Downtown Task Force recommendations and a proposed
interim Zoning Ordinance to prohibit non -retail and non - restaurant development in
the 300 and 400 blocks of Downtown Main Street as well as on the Ralph's site
The Planning Commission Item requested having the 6 pm meetings instead of 7
pm will also be on the Agenda along with two Alcoholic Beverage Control Licenses,
one for New York Food Company and one for Good Stop Market The Director,
Bret B Bernard, is out of the Country
Commissioner Boulgandes stated Staff did a great fob compiling information for this COMMENTS
meeting. He credited Chairman Crowley for moving through so quickly on a busy FROM THE
Agenda and feels he is doing a great fob He wished Staff, the Commissioners and COMMISSION
the public a safe and sane happy holiday season
Commissioner Palmer is appreciative of the City of El Segundo and the courtesy of
the Police Department. She called in with a complaint and they came out and did a
thorough lob
She is not sure if she can make the parade, but is appreciative of the work that goes
into it and thanked the City for all its benefits She also thanked Chairman Crowley
Commissioner Kretzmer also congratulated Chairman Crowley on the great job of
his leadership
Vice -Chair Wycoff agreed
Chairman Crowley stated they now have a suggestion of another Zoning Text
change for Smoky Hollow concerning the caretaker units and the proportionality of
their size to the proportion of the lot Also, with R -2 there are two different densities
allowed depending on the size of the lot and therefore, someone with a large lot will
simply subdivide the lot to make sure they have several small lots There will never
12 -1 Omm PC 9 277
EA- 465/ZTA 98 -7 Page 1 of 2
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - JANUARY 5, 1999
SIDE YARD SETBACKS - EXHIBIT 1
CHAPTER 20.20 SINGLE- FANIILY RESIDENTIAL (R -1) ZONE
20.20 060 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
D Setbacks
I 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 on each side of the lot of
10 percent of the width of the lot, but shall never be less than 3 feet and need not
be more than 5 feet Detached accessory structures, located in the rear one -third of
the lot, are allowed zero setback on one interior side lot line Attached garages on
5 foot wide lots only, located on the rear one -third of the lot, are also allowed
zero setback on one interior side lot brie.
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 20.060 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
5,000 sf Min
Lot Size
50' Min
at Rear of
Front Yard
Combined Setback Example
Front+ Rear = Combined
22' + 8' = 30'
25' + 5' = 30'
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
278
EA- 465/ZTA 98 -7
DRAFT AMENDMENTS - JANUARY 5, 1999
SIDE YARD SETBACKS - EXHIBIT 1
Page 2 of 2
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
P \zoning \ea465\20 -20 doc
2 7 D
RESOLUTION NO. 2434
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA -465 AND ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT ZTA 98 -7, AMENDING THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL
CODE BY AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 20 (THE ZONING
CODE). PETITIONED BY THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO.
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 cruena 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 December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission did conduct, pursuant to law, duly advertised
public hearings on revisions to the Zoning Code, and notice was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law,
and,
WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons to present testimony or documentary evidence for or against
EA -465 and ZTA 98 -7, the revisions to the Zoning Code, and,
WHEREAS, at said hearings the following facts were established
The purpose of the revisions to the Zoning Code are to refine and make appropriate adjustments to the
development standards and other zoning 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
State law requires that zoning be made consistent with the General Plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after consideration of the above facts and study of proposed
Environmental Assessment EA-465 and ZTA 98 -7 the Planning Commission finds as follows
GENERALPLAN
The proposed Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the 1992 General Plan, as amended
ZONING CODE
The proposed Zoning Code Amendments are consistent with the existing Zoning Code
280
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
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
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 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
mmitms 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 City shall transmit $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 RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission hereby recommends
approval of EA-465 and ZTA 98 -7, and that the City Council adopt changes to the El Segundo Municipal Code as
follows
SECTION 1. Section 20 20 060 D 2 of Chapter 20 20, Title 20, of the El Segundo Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows
Bret
Direcor oYPlantiyfig and
Building Safety and Secretary
of the Planning Commission
of the City of El Segundo,
California
VOTES
Crowley -
Wycoff -
Boulgandes -
Palmer -
Kretzmer -
Side yard Structures shall maintain a minimum setback on each side of the lot of 10
percent of the width of the lot, but shall never be less than 3 feet and need not be more
than 5 feet Detached accessory structures, located in the rear one -third of the lot, are
allowed zero setback on one interior side lot line Attached garages on 25 foot wide
lots only, located on the rear one -third of the lot, are also allowed zero setback on one
interior side lot line
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of December, 1998.
Brian Crowley, Chairman/
of the Planning Commission/
of the City of El Segundo,
California
p \zonmg\ea465 \ea465 res
281
Z
25 -foot Wide R -1 Zone Lots
17 8 17 B 17
BLK 9 BL 88 16 9 BLK 89 16
87 is 10 15 10 15
14 11 14 11 14
13 12 13 12 13
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
he
8
J 9
t6
11
12
13
14
15
tfi
17
18
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
27
20
19
N
❑
K
D
Z
F
y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
J 9
m 10
N
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
AV
1 42 1 24
2 41 2 23
3 40 3 22
4 38 4 21
5 36 5 20
6 37 6 19
rn
F
Y
QJ
O
w
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FII,D
2
w
4'
Q
12
23
13
24
14
25
15
26
16
27
17
29
29
16
9
30
26
31
21
32
22
33
Z
O
W
x
y
25' Wide Properties
Prclbyzn.shp
282
0.09 0 0.09 Miles
pail
SUBTEC
SUBDIVISION TECHNICAL SERVICES
5147 WEST ROSECRANS AVENUE, HAWTHORNE, CA 90250 (310) 644 -3668
October 14, 1998
Ms. Laurie Jester
City of E1 Segundo
350 N. Main Street
E1 Segundo, CA 90245
Re:� Zoning Code Amendment
Oear Laurie:
As part of the City's review of the zoning code, we would like to
request that you consider amending Section 20.20.060D.2. Setbacks
- side yard for the R -1 Zone. We feel that a provision should be
included (similar to the R -2 standards) which permits "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 ".
As we know, these narrow 25' legal lots pose severe design con-
straints on the reasonable development of these parcels. As the
Code is written today, the garage cannot be attached because there
is insufficient lot width to provide the miniumum garage width
with a 3' side yard on both sides.
A zero side yard would allow for greater design flexibility for
the overall improvements on the lot including compensation
elsewhere on the property so as not to result in impacts to
adjoining properties.
This request seems reasonable as these narrow lots are only in one
up cific area of the City and are generally in the vicinity of
grater density lots.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We understand
that you will place this on the next agenda.
Sincerely, ��
666
v!r/G
Cheryl rgo u
CC: Jim Obradovich
203
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY WIDE ZONE TEXT AMENDMENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -465/
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 98 -7
NOVEMBER 20, 1998
Prepared by-
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY
350 MAIN STREET
EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245
284
SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following Zone Text Amendment is proposed Citywide
Attached Garages — Revisions to the required side yard setbacks in the R -1 zones to permit
attached garages with zero setback on 25 foot wide lots.
Amendments to Chapters 20.20 060 of the Zoning Code (Title 20) are proposed to revise the minimum
required side yard setbacks in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zone for garages attached to a dwelling
unit on 25 -foot wide lots only The current Zoning Code requires garages attached to a dwelling unit to be a
minimum distance of three (3) feet from side property lines on 25 -foot wide lots in the Single Family
Residential (R -1) Zone The proposed revision would duplicate the current standard for 25 -foot wide lots in
the Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zone which permits attached garages to have zero side yard setbacks in
the rear one -third of the lot
SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The City of El Segundo is located in the Los Angeles urban area and is considered part of the Airport/South
Bay subregion at the southwestern edge of the Los Angeles coastal basin Downtown Los Angeles is about
20 freeway miles northeast of El Segundo The City itself is 5 46 square miles (3,494 4 acres), with a resident
population, per 1997 estimates, of 16,250 people, with a total of 7,325 dwelling units, and a considerably larger
daytime (employee) population of approximately 56,000
Immediately to the north is Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in the City of Los Angeles. The Los
Angeles residential areas of Playa del Rey and Westchester are located just northerly of the Airport To the
east is Del Aire, which is an island of Los Angeles County, as well as the City of Hawthorne Both areas are
predominantly residential Some commercial uses in the City of Hawthorne line Aviation Boulevard The City
of Manhattan Beach is directly south of El Segundo The Chevron Refinery is located in the southern portion
of El Segundo, between the City's residential areas and the City of Manhattan Beach To the west of El
Segundo is the Pacific Ocean A majority of the coastline is owned by the City of Los Angeles, which operates
two facilities within this area the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant, currently undergoing an expansion, and
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Scattergood Generating Station A small portion of the
coastline, 0 8 miles, is within the El Segundo City limits The Southern California Edison Generating Station
and a coastal portion of the Chevron Refinery are located along this portion of the shoreline The beach area
is publicly owned and accessible
The City of El Segundo has a very strong residential base, which is a mixture of single - family, two - family, and
multi - family residential A majority of the residential area is in single - family use, however, according to the
1990 Census, over one -half of the population lived in multi - family units Almost 66 percent of all residential
acreage, and almost 77 percent of the area located west of Sepulveda Boulevard and north of El Segundo
Boulevard, is in single - family use Total acreage is about 35, or about 10 percent of the City However,
single - family units account for only 47 percent of the housing units in the City The two - family residential
category accounts for only 25 acres, or less than one percent of land in the City Typical densities are 10 to
17 units per acre Nearly one -third of all R -2 zoned sites are in single - family use Multiple family residential
uses include apartment buildings and condominiums Land area devoted to multiple family use accounts for
approximately 105 acres, or three percent of the total land area of the City Densities generally range from
18 to 45 units per acre, in projects up to three and one -half acres As of 1990, multi - family units comprise 53
percent of all residential units available
Near the residential area is Downtown, which includes the Civic Center and provides a strong focal point for
the City Also in this general vicinity is an older industrial area called Smoky Hollow This area contains
mostly older industrial buildings of one or two stories
2
285
There are neighborhood commercial areas scattered throughout the residential areas to serve the residents
of the City In addition, there are some commercial uses east of Sepulveda Boulevard, mostly designed for
the daytime employee population In addition to retail commercial, the City has a growing number of hotel
uses. There are over 1,446 hotel rooms currently available in the City
The area of the City south of EI Segundo Boulevard and west of Sepulveda Boulevard is taken up mostly by
the Chevron Refinery The Refinery occupies approximately one -third of the City The portion of the City east
of Sepulveda Boulevard is a combination of industrial, office, and commercial uses This area contains the
"super block" development, a mixture of office and research and development uses, as well as the U S Air
Force Base
An additional category of land use is public and quasi - public uses These include the U S Air Force Base,
property owned by the City and County, including the City Hall and the Library, as well as the School District
property Two of the District's school sites are not being used In addition, there is one parochial school and
several churches throughout the City The City has excellent open space and recreation facilities, which
exceed the State suggested standards These areas include publicly -owned parks, private parks, a publicly -
owned beach area open for public use, utility rights -of -way that have been used for park and open space
areas, and the Chevron -owned preserve for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly Other uses not discussed above
include railroad rights -of -way, parking lots, streets and alleys
The City of El Segundo is served by the existing network of roadways which is essentially a grid system of
north /south and east/west roadways The primary north /south roadways are Aviation Boulevard, Douglas
Street, Nash Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, Center Street, Main Street, and Vista Del Mar The primary
easUwest streets are Imperial Highway, Imperial Avenue, Maple Avenue, Manposa Avenue, Grand Avenue,
El Segundo Boulevard, and Rosecrans Avenue
The six lane Glenn Anderson Freeway (Interstate 105), built along the City's northern boundary adjacent to
Imperial Highway, opened to the public in October 1993 Exits for the freeway are located at Nash Street and
Sepulveda Boulevard with eastbound entrances at Atwood Way off of Douglas Street and Imperial Avenue
off of Sepulveda Boulevard The freeway terminates at California Street The San Diego Freeway (Interstate
405) is located on the City's eastern boundary, with entrances and exists off of the 1 -105, El Segundo
Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) immediately north provides for
international air traffic
The Century-El Segundo Extension Rail Transit Project (the Metro Green Line) opened in August of 1995
Stations are located at Aviation Boulevard and 116th Street (connecting with the Century Rail Line), Manposa
Avenue at Nash Street, El Segundo Boulevard at Nash Street, Douglas Street near Alaska Avenue, and
ending at Compton /Marine Boulevard in the City of Redondo Beach A future station (Del Norte) is planned
to be located near Douglas Street between the Aviation and Manposa Stations
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Reproduced as Appendix 1 is the City of El Segundo Initial Study and Checklist under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The purpose of the form is to identify and evaluate potential
adverse environmental impacts The checklist consists of background information, a checklist of
environmental impacts, and a determination by the lead agency of the project's potential impacts on the
environment and the type of CEQA document that will be prepared A discussion of the items checked on the
form is located in Section 4.0
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed Zone Text Amendments is minor amendment which will have a less than significant impact
related to Land Use and Aesthetics since the provisions modify existing standards in order to minimize
potential land use incompatibilities, and to minimize potential impacts on aesthetics
3
28u
As further described in the previous project description, the proposed Amendment address all potential
environmental concerns and there is a less than significant impact for the Amendment due to the provisions
which have been incorporated into the Amendment itself
16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed Amendment, as a minor Amendment to the Zoning Code do not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment and will not achieve short -term goals to the disadvantage of long -term
environmental goals There are no foreseeable negative cumulative impacts or any impacts that will have an
adverse affect on human beings, for the reasons previously detailed
SECTION 5.0 SOURCES
None
n
287
P \zomng\ea465 \ae465 isr
BACKGROUND
/ / X0 /
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title. Zone Text Amendments (ZTA)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Segundo
Project # EA- 465 / /ZTA 98 -7
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Paul Garry, Planning and Building Safety Department, (310) 322-
4670, extension 399
4. Project Location. Citywide - City of El Segundo
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of El Segundo, 350 Main St, El Segundo, CA 90245
6. General Plan Designation: Single - Family Residential
7. Zoning: R -1 Zone
8. Description of Project. (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary)
The proposed project includes Zone Text Amendments as initiated by the City Council The proposed
Amendments to the required side yard setbacks modify existing development standards in residential zones
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (Briefly describe the project's surroundings)
The City of El Segundo is located in the Los Angeles urban area and is considered part of the Airport/South
Bay subregion Situated between Los Angeles International Airport to the north, the City of Los Angeles
Hyperion Wastewater and Department of Water and Power Treatment Plants and the Pacific Ocean to the
west, the Chevron refinery and the City of Manhattan Beach to the south, and the City of Hawthorne to the
east
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
None
28�
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Ill. DETERMINATION:
Biological resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Service
Utilities and Service
Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
On the basis of this Initial Study of Environmental Impact, the Planning Commission of the City of El
Segundo finds the following:
X That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared
That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because mitigation measures, as described on an attached sheet, have been added
to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required
That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the impact is "potentially
significant impact' or a "potentially significant unless mitigated " An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant
effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to an earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project
1 November 20, 1998
Bret Be nard, AICP,
Direc or of Planhing and Budding Safety
Secretary of the Planning Commission
City of EI Segundo
281
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets).
3
290
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
1.1-and Use Planning. Would the proposal
a) Conflict with general plan designation or
X
zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
X
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
X
vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e g
X
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
X
established community (include a low- income or
minority community)?
2.Population and Housing. Would the proposal
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
X
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
X
directly or indirectly (e g , through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
X
housing?
3 Geologic Problems Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving
a) Fault rupture?
X
b) Seismic ground shaking?
X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
X
e) Landslides or mudflows?
X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
X
h) Expansive soils?
X
1) Unique geologic or physical features?
X
3
290
4
291
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
4 Water. Would the proposal result in
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
X
or the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
X
hazards such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration
X
of surface water quality (e g , temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
X
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
X
of water movements?
f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either
X
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capacity?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
X
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
5.Air Quality. Would the proposal
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
X
an existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
X
or cause any changes in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
X
6.Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal
result in
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e g ,
X
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e g , farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
X
nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
X
4
291
292
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
X
bicyclists?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
X
7.Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in
impacts to
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
X
habitats (including, but not limited to, plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e g , heritage
X
trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e g ,
X
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc )?
d) Wetland habitat (e g , marsh, riparian and
X
vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
X
8.Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the
proposal
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
X
plans?
b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and
X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
X
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
9 Hazards. Would the proposal involve
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
X
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency
X
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
X
health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
X
potential health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
X
brush, grass, or trees?
10. Noise. Would the proposal result in
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
X
292
291
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X
11. Public Services. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas
a) Fire protection?
X
b) Police protection9
X
c) Schools?
X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
e) Other governmental services?
X
12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities
a) Power or natural gasp
X
b) Communications systems9
X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
X
facilities'
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e) Storm water drainage?
X
f) Solid waste disposals
X
g) Local or regional water supplies?
X
13. Aesthetics. Would the proposal
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
X
c) Create light or glare?
X
14 Cultural Resources Would the proposal
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
X
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
X
c) Affect historical resources?
X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
X
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
291
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section
15063(c)(3)(D) In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets
No Earlier analyses used.
7 294
p \zoning \ea465 \ea465 isc
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Unless
Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
X
the potential impact area?
15. Recreation. Would the proposal
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
X
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
X
16. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade
X
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or
prehistory
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve
X
short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term,
environmental goals
c) Does the project have impacts that are
X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in conjunction
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects )
d) Does the project have environmental effects
X
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section
15063(c)(3)(D) In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets
No Earlier analyses used.
7 294
p \zoning \ea465 \ea465 isc
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 5 January 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING. Special Orders of Business - Public Hearin
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Public Hearing on a request to amend the General Plan and Zoning Map to change the Land Use designation from
Downtown Commercial to Multi-Family Residential, and change the Zoning from Downtown Commercial (CRS) to
Multi- Family Residential (R -3), for five (5) 25' parcels that total 17,500 square feet (125' x 140'), for the future
construction of condominiums Location 360 Richmond Street Applicant James R Obradovich, 233 Main Street, El
Segundo, California. Property owner. Delia Kenny
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Hold Public Hearing,
2) Discussion,
3) Uphold Recommendation of the Planning Commission,
4) First reading of Ordinance, (by title only),
5) Schedule Second reading and adoption of Ordinance for 19 January 1999, and /or,
6) Other possible action /direction
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission first heard the item on 22 October 1998, and considered testimony from the public and
applicant which supported the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The Planning Commission then
Continued the meeting to 10 December 1998, in order to consider the report of the City Council appointed Downtown
Task Force At its meeting of 10 December 1998, the Planning Commission discussion again considered the public
testimony and the impact of the Downtown Task Force report on this specific site
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendments would alter the Land Use Designation and Zoning of five (5) parcels on the southeast
corner of Richmond Street and Holly Avenue from Downtown Commercial (CR -S) to Multi -Family Residential (R -3)
The preliminary site plan submitted with the Amendment application indicates future construction of a ten- (10) unit
residential condominium on the site
(Continued on page 2)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1 Draft Ordinance No
2 Planning Commission Staff Reports 22 October 1998 and 10 December 1998
3 Adopted Minutes of Planning Commission meetings of 22 October 1998 and 10 December 1998
4 Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No 2435
5 Fiscal Analysis
FISCAL IMPACT:
See discussion
ORIGINATED: Date: 23 December 1998
tt
Bret B Bernard, AIC . Direct r of Planning and Budding Safetv
M Aar vClty Manager /
TAKEN•
2 9 `1
/_��P /9JP
EA -447 GPA 98 -22C 98 -2
City Council Staff Report
January 5, 1999
(Continued from page 1)
page 2
At its meeting of 22 October 1998, the Planning Commission discussion revealed concern with the timing of the
application and the report of the City Council Downtown Task Force The Planning Commission voted to Continue the
public hearing to await the results of the Downtown Visioning report At its continued public hearing of December 10th
the Planning Commission expressed concerned with the duration of time necessary for the preparation of a plan or
overlay district for the Downtown, and the lack of direction for Mr Obradovich in terms of a decision on the requested
application In addition, testimony generally supported the proposed project
The Planning Commission voted 5 0 to approve the request for an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Map
to accommodate Multi - Family residential development on the site and directed Staff to prepare a Resolution
recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2, and
Zone Change 98 -2 In the Staff Reports prepared for the Planning Commission, concern is expressed with the timing
of the current application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change and the Downtown Visioning process
The City Council Downtown Task Force report identified areas in the Downtown that are of particular interest
Subsequent City Council discussions then refined the area in which further study should take place Along with the
300 and 400 blocks of Main Street, the 300 block of Richmond Street was felt by the City Council to be important to
the Downtown study area The vacant Ralphs' site is currently under study for future development potential as a
possible visitor serving use (bed and breakfast) The study has not been completed Unknown at this time, is the scope
of recommendations that would be suggested for this type of a visitor serving use In addition, the City Council has
not determined the methodology and design it feels is necessary for a study of the entire Downtown District
Attached are previously prepared Planning Commission Staff Reports of 22 October and 10 December 1998, and,
Resolution 2435 adopted by the Planning Commission at its adjourned meeting of 21 December 1998, which provide
more detailed analysis of the project
A fiscal analysis was prepared for the proposed development using two (2) scenarios One analysis was completed
using the density of the development proposal. Multi - family residential development on the 17,500 square foot parcel
would generate, over 5 -year period revenues of $20,701 with total public agency cost of $73,595 for the same period,
for a negative flow of <$52,894> The second scenario assumed a mixed -use development of 50% square footage
split between office and retail A mixed use development, as permitted under the current Zoning, on the same parcel
would generate, over 5 -year period revenues of $22,381, with a total public agency cost of $7,495 for the same period,
for a positive flow of $14,886
p \zoning \ea447\ccsr
296
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -447, ZONE
CHANGE 98 -2, AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98 -2, THEREBY
CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND APPROVING THE CHANGE IN ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATION
FROM DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (CR-S) ZONE TO MULTI - FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AT 360 RICHMOND STREET. PETITIONED BY: JAMES R.
OBRADOVICH.
WHEREAS, on June 30, 1998, an application was received from James R Obradovich
requesting approval of an Environmental Assessment, Zone Change and General Plan
Amendment from CR -S /Downtown Commercial to R -3 /Multi - Family Residential to allow the future
construction of a 10 unit condominium at the southeast corner of Holly Avenue and Richmond
Street, and
WHEREAS, an inter - departmental correspondence has been prepared and circulated
along with all the applications and preliminary plans for the future 10 unit condominium for inter-
departmental comments, and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment (EA -447), including a Draft Initial Study and
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the proposed General Plan Amendment and
Zoning Change, has been prepared and circulated to all interested parties, Staff, and affected
public agencies for review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed Environmental Assessment EA-447
and the 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 3805), and
WHEREAS, on October 22 and December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission did hold,
pursuant to law, duly advertised public hearings on such matter and notice of the public hearings
was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law, and
WHEREAS, at said hearings opportunity was given to all persons to present testimony or
documentary evidence for or against the findings of Environmental Assessment EA -447, General
Plan Amendment 98 -2, and Zone Change 98 -2, and
WHEREAS, at it's meetings of October 22, 1988, the Planning Commission opened the
public hearing, took testimony and continued the public hearing, and
ORDINANCE NO
APPROVING EA -447, AC 98 -2
360 RICHMOND STREET
JAMES R OBRADOVICH
PAGE NO 1
297
WHEREAS, at It's meeting of December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission took
testimony at the continued public hearing, and reviewed and considered the recommendations of
the City Council pursuant to the Report from the Downtown Task Force, as appointed by the City
Council and directed staff to prepare a resolution recommending approval of the protect to the City
Council, and
WHEREAS, on December 21, 1998, at an adjourned meeting, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No 2435 recommending approval of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change and Negative Declaration, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission Is concerned with the future development of the
Downtown and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2
in light of the City Council's efforts to revitalize the Downtown District, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that development of a residential use is
appropriate and fits Into the frame work of the City Council's Downtown revitalization efforts, and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 1999, 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 -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change
98 -2, and
WHEREAS, at said hearings the following facts were established
The site is within the Downtown Commercial District, and is zoned Downtown Commercial
— (CR -S)
The site is located at the northwest corner at the edge of the Downtown Commercial
District on Richmond Street and Holly Avenue.
The site is currently vacant, and the City's historic records indicate no previous
development proposed or ever existed on the site
4 This particular parcel is unique within the Downtown area due to its perimeter location and
lack of previous or current development
5 Testimony supported proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2
based in part on the Increase In population generated by Multi- family (R -3) development
which would assist in sustaining the viability of the Downtown District
QRDINANCE NO
APPROVING EA -447, AC 98 -2
360 RICHMOND STREET
JAMES R OBRADOVICH
PAGE NO 2
298
6. Multi- family (R -3) development In close proximity to the Downtown Is an Incentive to urban
dwellers
Hlstoncal City records Indicate that there has been no Interest In commercial development
on the site
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for Multi- family
residential development similar to the existing condominiums on the north side of Holly
Avenue
The following land uses surround the site to the south Is an apartment building, to the east
Is an alley which would buffer the proposed residential use from the adjacent commercial
land use, R -3 Zoning and Land Use Is located to the north across Holly Avenue and to the
northwest across Holly Avenue Is R -1 Zoning and Land Use The proposed General Plan
Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 Is consistent with these land uses
10 The Individual site Is not specifically part of the proposed Initial City Council Action Plan as
discussed by the City Council on December 1, 1998
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that after consideration of the above facts and
study of proposed Environmental Assessment EA -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2, and Zone
Change 98 -2, the Council makes the following findings and In so doing, approves the proposed
protect
A
4
5
General Findings
The proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 are not in conflict
with the Downtown Action Plan preliminary directed by the City Council on December 1,
1998 pursuant to the November 17, 1998, Downtown Task Force recommendations
The Intervening uses (apartment building and surface parking lot) between the vacant
Ralph's site and the subject site and the alley to the east effectively buffers the proposed
Multi- Family (R -3) residential use from Impacts of the Downtown retail and service uses
That Multi- family housing In close proximity to the Downtown Is a benefit since the greater
number of people In Multi- family (R -3) residential development generally support business
within walking distance of their residence
Past efforts to attract commercial /retail /service development to the site have been
unsuccessful due to the perimeter location of the site within the Downtown District
Increased density of residential development In this area Is consistent with the ad joining
Multi- family (R -3) development directly to the north across Holly Avenue
299
ORDINANCE NO
APPROVING EA -447, AC 98 -2
360 RICHMOND STREET
JAMES R OBRADOVICH
PAGE NO 3
6 This particular parcel Is unique within the Downtown area due to Its perimeter location and
lack of previous or current development
B Environmental Findings
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 protect 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 protect will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends, because the protect is In a built -out urban environment, and
That the City Council authorizes and directs the Director of Planning and Budding Safety to
file with the appropriate agencies a Certificate of Fee Exemption and de minimis finding
pursuant to AB 3158 and the California Code of Regulation Within ten (10) days of the
approval of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts, the applicant shall
transmit $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 hereby approves
Environmental Assessment EA -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2, and Zone Change 98 -2,
subject to the following condition
The applicant shall Indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless the City, Is elected and
appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims,
actions, causes of action, proceedings, or suits which challenge or attach the validity of the
City's approval of Environmental Assessment EA -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2,
and Zone Change 98 -2
SECTION 1 This ordinance shall become effective at midnight on the thirtieth (30) day
from and after the final passage and adoption hereof
SECTION 2 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 hereof 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 posed In accordance with the law
ORDINANCE NO
APPROVING EA -447, AC 98 -2
360 RICHMOND STREET
JAMES R OBRADOVICH
PAGE NO 4
300
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 1999
Mike Gordon, Mayor
ATTEST
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of said City is five, that the foregoing Ordinance No _
was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the 5'" day of January,
1999, and was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor,
and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the _ day of
1999, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mark D Hensley, City Attorney
301
ORDINANCE NO
APPROVING EA -447, AC 98 -2
360 RICHMOND STREET
JAMES R OBRADOVICH
PAGE NO 5
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
MEETING DATE: October 22, 1998
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Bret B Bernard, Alcp, Director of Planning and Building Safety i
THROUGH: Laurie B Jester, Senior Planner
STAFF
PLANNER: Sandra Massa- Lavitt, Protect Planner l Cj
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA -447. General Plan Amendment 98 -2. and
Zone Change 98 -2
Address: 360 Richmond Street (Southeast corner of Holly
Avenue and Richmond Street)
Applicant: James R. Obradovich
Property Owner: Delia Kenny
REQUEST
The application is a request to amend the General Plan and Zoning Map to change the Land
Use designation from Downtown Commercial to Multi - Family Residential, and change the
Zoning from Downtown Commercial (CRS) to Multi -Family Residential (R -3), for a 17,500
square foot (125' x 140') vacant lot The site has no previous development history The
proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2, Zone Change 98 -2, and EA-447 are necessary to
consider land uses other than the Downtown Commercial now designated for the site The
requested change would facilitate the future construction of condominiums pursuant to Section
20 24 et seq of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) A tentative tract map for the future
condominium development will be submitted for Planning Commission review at a later date if
the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is approved The Planning Commission will
make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposal
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, discuss the
proposed protect and continue the request for General Plan Amendment 98 -2, Zone Change
98 -2 and EA 447 until the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1998
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amendments would alter the Land Use Designation and Zoning of five (5) small
parcels on Richmond Street from Downtown Commercial to Multi -Family Residential The
preliminary site plan submitted with the Amendment application is for construction of a ten- (10)
unit residential condominium on the site The issues related to the application are discussed
below
1 r �0 2
3�
The 17,500 square foot vacant is located at the southeast corner of Richmond Street and Holly
Avenue, divided into five (5) 25 foot wide by 140 foot deep lots fronting on Richmond Street It is
vacant, approximately square shaped, with no approved uses on the site A review of City
records indicated no prior development on the site. The site slopes down approximately 14 feet
from east to west, and mature eucalyptus trees border the site along Holly Avenue and
Richmond Street There are no sidewalks on Richmond Street or Holly Avenue abutting the
subject property The rear of the lot (easterly boundary) is common with the 20 foot wide alley
that serves the surrounding commercial district
The site has been use as a parking area for the shops that front Main Street and the adjacent
apartment building to the south
SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is located within the northwest
portion of the City of El Segundo, with Multi- family Residential (R -3) development to the north
and northwest, and Downtown Commercial (C -RS) surrounding the site on three (3) sides (west,
east, and south) The site has access off an alley to the east, which would provide access for a
future residential development
The site is currently vacant, the land slopes down from east to west, is unpaved, contains no
geologic features, and is nearly square in shape The adjacent land uses immediately east of the
site across the alley are a mix of office, retail, and restaurant uses The use directly to the west
across Richmond Street is a church /pre - school facility Across Holly Avenue, to the north is a
Multi- Family Residential (R -3) neighborhood, more specifically a condominium development,
with its access off the alley to the rear of the site To the northwest of the project site are older
apartments and duplexes, also in the R -3 Zone. Immediately south of the site is a vintage
apartment budding, (previously a boarding house). A surface parking lot and commercial uses
continue to the south along Richmond Street The primary occupancy of the commercially zoned
and used property on this block of Richmond Street was operated by Ralph's grocery store,
which is now vacant
Land Use Zone
North: Condominiums
Multi - Family Residential (R -3)
South: Apartment building
Downtown Commercial (C -RS)
East: Main Street business, alley
Downtown Commercial (C -RS)
West: Church /pre- school
Downtown Commercial (C -RS)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study /Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is required to evaluate the
potential impacts that may be caused by the proposed amendments Based on the information
found in the Initial Study, there is no anticipated impacts associated with General Plan
Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 A Negative Declaration requires a minimum 20 -day
public notice and circulation period, October 28, 1998, is the final day for comment on the Initial
Study
303
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
The project Initial Study and Negative Declaration is currently being circulated for comments. No
comments have been received at this time, however any comments received from the
Departments will be distributed prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
PURPOSE AND ANALYSIS
The City of El Segundo General Plan designates the vacant parcel as Downtown Commercial
Its intent "is to provide an integrated community serving commercial area downtown" and provide
for the needs of the residents. Community serving retail and community serving office uses are
permitted The Downtown Commercial designation limits residential uses to 10 units per acre
above commercial uses on the first floor. The application presented for your review would
change the General Plan designation to allow for strictly multi - family residential development at
27 dwelling units per acre. The entire block has a General Plan Designation of Downtown
Commercial.
The Zone change request would modify the Zoning on the site, consistent with the proposed
General Plan Amendment. It would become zoned Multi -Family Residential (R -3) which allows
up to 27 dwelling units to the acre The building area of a particular parcel determines the
number of units allowed Section 20.24 060 F defines the conditions under which the density is
calculated as follows
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
2 On property greater than 15,000 square feet in size, one unit for every 2,420
square feet of lot area is allowed ....
The applicant, by dividing the parcels into two separate lots maximizes the allowable density. A
preliminary site plan submitted with the application indicates ten (10) condominiums on the five
(5)- combined parcels totaling 17,500 square feet The applicant will take advantage of the
maximum density by creating two (2) parcels of equal size (less than 15,000 square feet) to
accommodate five (5) condominiums on each lot The lot line on the site plan illustrates the
subdivision into two (2) lots with five (5) condominiums each. Had the applicant used sub - section
(2) (above) as a single parcel of 17,500 square feet the site would accommodate seven (7)
units.
The five (5) parcels will be combined and re- subdivided into two (2) parcels of equal size, each
of which would meet the minimum requirements for R -3 lots
Minimum lot size* 7,000 square feet per lot
Proposed lot size: 8,750 square feet per lot
Minimum lot width* 50'
Proposed lot width. 62.50
In part, the purpose of the Downtown Commercial (C -RS) Zone states: "Regulations are
designed to stabilize and protect the commercial retail- service character of the downtown area,
and to create a favorable environment for pedestrian circulation and access. Principle uses are,
therefore, restricted to commercial retail - service uses, and certain essential and complimentary
304
uses as permitted under the conditional use permit."
Simultaneous with the requested Amendments is the recent vacating of Ralph's Grocery store
and the establishment of a Downtown Task Force by the City Council The Task Force is
evaluating the condition of the entire Downtown District The purpose of the effort is to maintain
and enhance the Downtown as a viable commercial retail- service area
The current application and request for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change takes
place in a small area of the overall Downtown review The larger issue of the viability and health
of the Downtown is under discussion by the Task Force.
There are several scenarios that may result from the discussions and recommendations of the
Downtown group, ranging from.
1. No action
2 Modification of the Downtown business district boundaries
3 New zoning regulations
4 Re -enter the Main Street program
5. Development of a Specific Plan for the Downtown
In addition to the potential outcomes of the Downtown Task Force, the City Council is
considering using a portion of the site as parking for general use of the public conducting
business in the Downtown, and a property appraisal has been prepared The appraisal has not
yet been reviewed by the City Council The parking area is intended to be limited to a 20 foot
depth, the length of the lot (140') as a narrow strip along the alley Should the City Council
initiate purchase of a portion of the site for parking, the site plan for the condominiums would
need to be modified as access is currently provided via the alley, as required by the Zoning
Code
There are many issues that could be involved in an analysis of the appropriateness of multi-
family residential as a substitute for commercial uses in an area that is surrounded on three (3)
sides by similar commercial land uses. These issues include, what impacts would a residential
use endure due to the proximity of commercial uses, would a high - density residential use be
compatible with the adjacent land uses, what are the fiscal impact of residential development
versus commercial development, the sustainability of commercial at the north end of the
Downtown Commercial District, and the compelling need for housing in the community These
factors have been, and will continue to be, discussed by the Downtown Task Force
Under ordinary circumstances, an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Code involves an
analysis of the benefits and constraints of such an amendment In light of the discussions of the
Task Force and the unknown outcome of the group, the usual analysis becomes problematic
A portion of the collective consideration is the vacant Ralph's building and associated parking
lot While facing Grand Avenue, it occupies approximately 60% of this segment of Richmond
Street The remainder of the block is occupied by a surface parking lot for the former Bank of
America, a non - conforming apartment building, and the vacant parcel in question
In response to an overall concern for the Downtown and the subsequent vacating of the Ralph's
building, the Task Force is taking the opportunity to evaluate the Downtown (Main
Street/Richmond Street) it's land uses, business mix, and overall strengthening of Main and
Richmond Streets The types of land uses being discussed by the Task Force as potentially
4 305
appropriate for this area of north Richmond Street, from Grand Avenue to Holly Avenue are
mixed uses that may include bed/breakfast inns, small hotels, mixed retail /office and residential
uses.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the Task Force is to develop a plan to stimulate the Downtown. The parcel under
consideration for amendments is an integral part of the vision for the Downtown It is for these
reasons that the staff makes the recommendation to continue the item until the Task Force
establishes a recommendation to the City Council for a direction for the Downtown commercial
district, and the City Council provides input and direction on their recommendation.
The Task Force is anticipated to provide a report to the City Council on November 17, 1998, at
which time the City Council is expected to take action and provide direction to staff
EXHIBITS
A. Project Applications
B. Inter - Departmental Comments
C Initial Study /Negative Declaration
D Plans
Prepared by
/VW
Sandra Massa -Lavitt
Project Planner
Reviewed by
L urie B Jester
Senior Planner
306
Reviewed and Approved as to form by
— )—, F, — ,
Chrls Chele en
Assistant City Attorney
Approved by
Bret B Bar rd, AiC
Direct r of lammn and Building Safety,
and Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of El Segundo, California
P \planning \projects \ea- 447\pcsr
6 3 � 7
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
MEETING DATE: December 10, 1998
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Bret B Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety b
5
THROUGH: Laurie B Jester, Senior Planner VFA
STAFF 3
PLANNER: Sandra Massa - Lavitt, Project Plannerbpd'L
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2. and
Zone Change 98 -2
Address: 360 Richmond Street (Southeast corner of Holly
Avenue and Richmond Street)
Applicant: James R. Obradovich
Property Owner: Della Kenny
REQUEST
The application is a request to amend the General Plan and Zoning Map to change the Land
Use designation from Downtown Commercial to Multi - Family Residential, and change the
Zoning from Downtown Commercial (CRS) to Multi- Family Residential (R -3), for a 17,500 square
foot (125' x 140') vacant lot The site has no apparent previous development history The
proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2, Zone Change 98 -2, and EA -447 are necessary to
consider land uses other than the Downtown Commercial now designated for the site The
requested change would facilitate the future construction of condominiums pursuant to Section
20.24 et.seq. of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) A Tentative Tract map for the future
condominium development will be submitted for Planning Commission review at a later date if
the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is approved Given the process requested for a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, the Planning Commission will need to make a
recommendation to the City Council on the proposal.
There are three potential actions, which the Planning Commission may take this, evening
Continue General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 to January 14, 1998, which
is the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting after the City Council meeting of
December 15, 1998, or,
2 The Planning Commission may choose to adopt a Resolution recommending that the City
Council Deny General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 The applicant will then
have the option of filing an appeal of the denial to the City Council, or refiling a new
application at a later date, although a formal appeal is not required as the Planning
Commission Resolution will be forwarded to the City Council for action A Resolution of
denial would be prepared for the next Planning Commission meeting, or,
308
3. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend that the City Council approve General
Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 A Resolution of approval would be prepared
for the next Planning Commission meeting
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take action of recommendation Number 1, to
Continue the item until its next regular meeting
BACKGROUND
SURROUNDING AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is located within the northwest
portion of the City of El Segundo, with Multi - family Residential (R -3) development to the north
and northwest, and Downtown Commercial (C -RS) surrounding the site on three (3) sides (west,
east, and south) The site has access off an alley to the east, which would provide access for a
future residential development
The site is currently vacant and has been historically undeveloped, the land slopes down from
east to west, is unpaved, contain no geologic features, and is nearly square in shape. The
adjacent land uses immediately east of the site across the alley are a mix of office, retail, and
restaurant uses The use directly to the west across Richmond Street is a church /pre - school
facility Across Holly Avenue, to the north is a Multi-Family Residential (R -3) neighborhood, more
specifically a condominium development, with its access off the alley to the rear of the site To
the northwest of the project site are older apartments and duplexes, also in the R -3 Zone
Immediately south of the site is a vintage apartment budding, (previously a boarding house) A
surface parking lot and commercial uses continue to the south along Richmond Street The
primary occupancy of the commercially zoned and used property on this block of Richmond
Street was operated by Ralph's grocery store (located further south of the subject site), which is
now vacant
Land Use Zone
North: Condominiums
Multi -Family Residential (R -3)
South: Apartment building
Downtown Commercial (C -RS)
East: Main Street businesses, alley
Downtown Commercial (C -RS)
West: Church /pre - school
Downtown Commercial (C -RS)
The Zone change request would modify the Zoning on the site, consistent with the proposed
General Plan Amendment. It would become zoned Multi - Family Residential (R -3) which allows
up to 27 dwelling units to the acre The budding area of a particular parcel determines the
number of units allowed Section 20 24 060 F defines the conditions under which the density is
calculated as follows
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
2. On property greater than 15,000 square feet in size, one unit for every 2,420
square feet of lot area is allowed
309
The applicant, by dividing the parcels into two separate lots maximizes the allowable density A
preliminary site plan submitted with the application indicates ten (10) condominiums on the five
(5)- combined parcels totaling 17,500 square feet. The applicant has indicated that he will take
advantage of the maximum density by creating two (2) parcels of equal size (less than 15,000
square feet) to accommodate five (5) condominiums on each lot The lot line on the site plan
illustrates the subdivision into two (2) lots with five (5) condominiums each Had the applicant
used sub - section (2) (above) as a single parcel of 17,500 square feet, the site would
accommodate seven (7) units.
At the Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1998, the applications were Continued
pending the outcome of the direction from the City Council on the Downtown Task Force Report,
instigated to conceptualize options for revitilizing the City's Downtown Commercial area (within
which the subject property is located) The informal direction provided by the City Council at its
meeting of November 17, 1998 was to allow the Staff and the public to understand the overall
scope of the issue and begin developing information necessary to further define the City
Council's efforts for the Downtown Commercial District
The City Council provided direction to Staff to proceed with pursuing several issues identified in
the Report The City Council articulated the following points they would like to see accomplished
based on the recommendations from the Task Force Report
1 Commission a study on the viability of a bed and breakfast concept for the Ralph's site
(subject block).
2. Develop an action plan to implement a development plan and new uses for the City Hall
Plaza, including design concepts
3 Institute a Farmers Market.
4 Consider adopting a 6 -month moratorium on professional office businesses in the
Downtown area
The use of the Ralph's site was uppermost on the list of the City Council's concerns, including
the uses along all of Richmond Street between Grand and Holly, which includes the subject site
The Council preliminarily directed Staff to look at future development of the entire block and
whole Downtown, a piecemeal approach was not recommended.
As such, the City Council also instructed Staff to investigate the preparation of a Specific Plan or
Zoning Overlay District for the Downtown Of which, the Staff has provided the City Manager with
preliminary information on the potential cost, timing, and scope for such a document The City
Councils' continued concern with the viability of the Downtown is reflected in their determination
that work be accomplished quickly in order to avoid delay to the business community while the
Study is underway
At it's subsequent meeting of December 1, 1998, the City Council discussed the Downtown,
more specifically, an Interim Zoning Ordinance (Moratorium Ordinance) to prohibit office uses on
the first floor in the 300 and 400 block of Main Street and the former Ralph's site The City
Council is expected to clarify its overall direction on the remainder of the Downtown, and in this
case, the remainder of Richmond Street north to Holly Avenue in it's coming meetings
A Staff Report will be presented to the City Council at it's meeting of December 15, 1998, in
order for the City Council to provide formal direction to the Staff to continue with the next step in
310
the revditdization effort for the Downtown. It is hoped for and anticipated that some indication, be
it specific or general, will be provided for this site.
In response to discussion by the applicant and others at the Planning Commission's previous
meeting, the applicant raised the issue of the project being on the perimeter of residentially
zoned property and the non - conforming apartment budding adjacent to the site to the south This
issue relates to the types of land uses that exist on the block and surrounding property The
surrounding land uses are clearly commercial in nature, except for the non - conforming
apartment building The question remains, is it appropriate to bring solely residential uses into
the commercial district where none exists While few if any noise complaints are received from
the non - conforming apartment building, it is clear that they must endure commercial noise
activity throughout the day and evening.
Another issue raised by the applicant is the increase in the number of people to the Downtown
should this site develop with residential uses thereby benefiting the Commercial District with new
patrons. In a development of 10 units, it may be estimated that at a ratio of 2 3 persons per
condominium household, the populations increase for the City /Downtown would be
approximately twenty -three (23) people Should the entire remaining commercial uses on the
block convert to residential, the overall increase in population may reach 75 people While this is
an increase in the population of the City, it is in reality, only a portion of what it may take to
revitalize the Downtown
CONCLUSION
The City Council has endeavored to take a pro - active approach to bettering the conditions of the
Downtown, with that, the Staff has scheduled discussion for the City Council to provide formal
direction to the Staff on the actions necessary to improve and address the issues in the
Downtown
There are many issues that could be involved in an analysis of the appropriateness of multi-
family residential as 'a substitute for commercial uses in an area that is surrounded on three (3)
sides by similar commercial land uses These issues include what impacts would a residential
use endure due to the proximity of commercial uses Would a high - density residential use be
compatible with the adjacent land uses, what are the fiscal impacts of residential development
versus commercial development, the sustainability of commercial at the north end of the
Downtown Commercial District, and the compelling need for housing in the community9
In light of the requested General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, there have been other
property owners along this portion of Richmond Street who have expressed interest in obtaining
a similar approval for residential development It is apparent that an overall study on the viability
of Richmond Street and its relationship to the Downtown is important to the Downtown as a
whole It would be, perhaps, premature to separate the property from the remainder of a Study
for the overall revitalization effort
The Planning Commission is considering a totally discretionary action, which means that the
Planning Commission and City Council are under no obligation to approve the request for a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change The compilation of information and subsequent
discussion is necessary to reach an informed decision All of the facts may not as yet be
available In addition, because of the discretionary nature of the application the permit -
streamlining act does not apply and therefore there is no required deadline for the Planning
Commission or City Council to take action on the project
4 1 311
Having said that, the City remains sensitive to the needs of the development and business
community and would like to respond in an informed manner to the applicant However, the City
should and is looking at the larger issues involving the entire Downtown The site is an important
component to the Downtown, a premature decision to allow development would impact the
Commercial District for the next 30 to 50 years It is for these reasons that the Staff recommends
Continuing the item until firm direction is received from the City Council
EXHIBITS
1) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1998
2) Final Recommendation /Report from the Downtown Task Force – dated November 9, 1998
3) Draft City Council Minutes – November 17, 1998
Prepared by.
—4 1�;VM
San r Mas a -L t
Proje Pla er
Reviewed by
Reviewed and A to form by
Chris'oeletien
Assistcint City Attdrney
Approved by
Direbtor df Plavfning and Building Safety,
and Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of El Segundo, California
P \p1anning \protects \ea- 447contpc
312
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA
October 22, 1998 (7 :00 p.m. Meeting)
Chairman Crowley called the regular meeting of the El Segundo Planning
Commission to order at 7 00 pm in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo
City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California
PRESENT KRETZMER, WYCOFF, CROWLEY, PALMER AND BOULGARIDES
Chairman Crowley presented Item \A of New Business, Environmental Assessment
EA -459, Subdivison SUB 98 -7, Tentative Parcel Map No 25242 — Two Lot
Subdivision Address, 505 West Valm Avenue. Applicant Ms Terri Stewart,
Lanco Engineering Property Owner. Herzog, Hickey & Herzog, Inc.
Lauren Sprankle presented the Staff
Chairman Crowley asked if the height of)
requirements and does that depend on
does it violate the visibility triangle for th
where the driveway used to be located
driveway for the new proposed home on
won't be in violation
as outlined in the Agenda Packet.
wall violates any of the visibility triangle
,re the driveways go on the lot Also,
roperty to the rear? Ms Jester stated
re would be a violation. However, the
It lot will be on the opposite side and it
> Jester stated there was a misunderstandiNg on the applicant's part of the Code
equirements The plans that they submitted howed existing grade and then the
walls going 6' above existing grade They actua y pulled two wall permits The first
one was for a 3' retaining wall Later on, they p led a permit for a 6' wall on top of
the 3' and called out the grade as existing, where 4 was actually grade after 3' of fill.
They didn't realize they had to go back to pre -exi ing grade as the Code requires
In some areas the wall is 9' and they'll reduce it to ' and request approval for an 8'
wall through the adjustment process
Since the applicant has already submitted their plans t�Plan Check and they will be
ready to have their permits issued shortly after the ap oval if granted, there is little
risk and no need to have a Vesting Map,
Commissioner Palmer asked about the 18" tree? Ms Tester stated it is on the
northwest side and has been removed \
Commissioner Palmer asked about the damaged sidewalk Ms. Jester stated the
applicant is responsible for this and there will be curb and utter repair since they
are putting in a new driveway
Ryan Herzog, Herzog, Hickey & Herzog, Inc.
The tree was an existing Orange Tree and they couldn't relocat it The sidewalk
had pre - existing damage With the driveway approach, they will c mpletely relocate
e sidewalk \
3I3
10 -22min PC 1
ROLL CALL
EA -459
PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS
They were too aggressive tow kirl
new landscaped area will be p1N1
currently there A beautiful ne
develop the property to meet all
square feet per home and they
bedrooms and three baths
Chairman Crowley stated there is
application meets the basic requwr
cleaning the lot. They apologize for this A nice
in and they will be demolishing the house that is
project will be put in place of it They want to
Hgwrements of the City. There is less than 3,000
ill be two -story dwellings They will have four
nt lot square footage and frontage and the
of a lot split
Commissioner Kretzmer is concerne with the impact of the neighborhood
regarding street parking with two houses emg put in place of one
Commissioner Boulgandes stated legally tlQe split can be done and sees nothing to
prevent the approval of it. \
Commissioner Palmer wanted to know w at the basic requirements are for
landscaping for an R -1 lot Ms. Jester stated t e Zoning Code requires landscaping
being provided, which could be a combination of hardscape and softscape, in the
front yard and street side setbacks.
Commissioner Palmer would like to see another I inch tree put in place of the one
being removed. Commissioner Kretzmer agre He would like to see the
applicant volunteer another tree.
Mr Herzog stated they will be putting in beautiful landscaping including trees He
can't promise another 18 inch tree \
Ms. Jester stated there was a 16 inch and 18 inch tree kemoved Boxed size trees
are usually what are put in place, including 36, 48, and box size A 48 inch box
tree would run around $750 to $1000
Mr. Herzog stated he will volunteer to put in two 48 inch fox trees, one for each
home \
Commissioner Palmer moved to accept Environmental Assessment EA -459,
Subdivision SUB 98 -7 Tentative Parcel Map No 25242 — o Lot Subdivision
Commissioner Kretzmer seconded Passed 5 -0
Chairman Crowley presented Item C, New Business, Environm ntal Assessment
EA -427, General Plan Amendment 97 -04 and Zone Change -03 — Aviation
Specific Plan Address, Northwest corner of Aviation Boulevard nd Rosecrans
Avenue Applicant- Everest Storage. Property Owner- Southern C I orrna Edison.
This Item has been requested to be continued to the next meeting on November 12,
1998 at 6.00 pm
Commissioner Palmer moved to continue this Item. Vice -Chair Wycoff
Passed 5 -0
314
10 -22nun PC
MOTION
EA -427
MOTION
Chairman Crowley presented Item B, New Business, Environmental Assessment EA -447
V447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 Address: 360
Hichmond Street (Southeast corner of Richmond Street and Holly Avenue)
Applicant James R Obradovich Property Owner: Della Kenny
Ms Massa -Lawtt presented the Staff Report as outlined in the Agenda Packet
Director Bernard stated this was not an easy recommendation to make and they
have had an excellent working relationship with the proponent of the project, Ms
Cheryl Vargo, as well as Mr Obradovich. He and/or Ms Jester attended all the
Downtown Task Force meetings and sessions, with several members of the Task
Force in the audience The use of condominiums on this site was one of the
options that were provided for this site. The job of the Task Force was to provide
ideas It was a visioning process This report will be going to the City Council
November 17, 1998 It is for that reason that staff has recommended a continuance
of this item The Task Force held a concluding session a week ago Monday which
talked about the entire block as having access between Richmond Street and Main
Street One of the ideas for this was the potential for mixed use on this site with
regard to residential along with retail One thing that was looked at was retail on the
lower floor of the building with residential above
Ms Jester stated the current zoning and land use designation on the property,
downtown commercial, does allow residential above, commercial on the lower floor
One (1) residential unit per lot is allowed by code
tieryi Vargo, representing Jim Obradovich
This property has been vacant forever, Mr. Obradovich is the first person who has
had an escrow on the property since the Kenny's have owned it The applicant felt
there was a possibility of residential zoning This property is on the parameter of
the downtown commercial zone, properties immediately to the north and northeast
are zoned R -3 and is a transition area. The property to the west is a church and a
preschool which are found in a residential neighborhood The request being made
is compatible with the existing land uses Also, there is the non - conforming use to
the south The property is separated from the downtown strip on Main by a 20 foot
alley and those businesses turn their back to this property They don't feel there
would be an impact from the commercial and the high density residential use would
be compatible with other uses because it is an appropriate transitional use between
commercial and other residential uses.
The appropriate use of a fiscal impact is something that the staff didn't have the
opportunity to complete The downtown fiscally does not contribute in a great
extent to the viability to the City of El Segundo The City needs more residential
The 1990 census showed that the population is approximately 15, 200 people In
the seven years since then, the population in 1997 was 16, 200 people. In that
same time period, there has been the addition of only 128 residential units added to
the City In the last 4 5 years, there has only been 15 housing units added to the
City There is a need for housing in the City The population of the City will
continue to grow. The City does not have enough land.
315
10 -22mm PC 3
Commissioner Palmer feels it would be premature on their part to make a quick
decision tonight when they are lust in the process of trying to come up with a new
vision
Ms. Vargo stated they want to see the vital downtown as well since this property is
so close They feel this will be a good part of the revitalization
Jim Obradovich
He feels Director Bernard covered most everything that was being suggested.
These were things that could happen on the property He is only going to invest in
something that he will get a return on Because of the height restrictions in that
area and the neighbors across the street to house a residential /commercial City, he
feels they would object to that more than anything else as being unsightly
John Bagwell, 408 Richmond Street #8
He stated their unit is very similar to what is being talked about They are right
behind a number of restaurants and businesses, and would welcome residential use
for a number of reasons The current use is a dirt parking lot and is a nuisance
They don't want to see a huge building being put up. What is being proposed would
fit the neighborhood and would add to the value. Also, this would create shoppers
for the downtown
Gordon Stevens, 515 California Street
He is a commercial broker for downtown El Segundo and has been involved in this
effort for 30 years. He owns property on Main Street as well as manage 13 other
tenant properties in El Segundo. At one time, he was the Executive Director and
Manager of the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce at which time he was the
shepard to the University of Southern California's Architectural Program when they
adopted downtown El Segundo as a semester project They came up with several
plans and came to some of the same conclusions that the task force is reaching
This piece of property has not been developed and won't because of the history of
what is happening up and down the street They have 24,000 square feet of
leasable commercial space on the corner of Main and Grand and have never been
100% occupied at anytime. He has never seen more than 75% occupancy back to
1980 He gets an inquiry once a week on another hamburger place or video place
and they aren't needed The mixed use concept certainly comes to the forefront
with USC and Newman Properties, Inc who is the largest developer of retail
commercial shopping centers in the world. Mr Newman came to town as a favor to
Chevron Land Company to look at the downtown area and he came to the same
conclusion There is not enough population base to feed the kind of stores that the
public would like They're a service area. This proposal gives the Planning
Commission an opportunity to do some planning The task force seems to be
bypassing the Commission Mr. Obradovich has an escrow problem.
Mr. Stevens recommends that the Commission accepts the Staff Report and
recommendation to continue the hearing and suggest that the City see Mr
Obradovich's escrow extended He feels there is an extension available They are
10 -22mm PC 4 316
erested in this property and would give Mrs. Kenny the biggest return for her
investment They would also like to protect Mr. Obradovich as much as they can
He has a big interest in what happens up and down the street
Director Bernard stated it wasn't the intent of the mayor or Council to bypass the
Planning Department with the task force They just wanted to pull together people
in the business and residential community and take a quick shot look at it and bring
it back to the Council and come back with some direction to staff and the
Commission
Kurt Brown, 361 Main Street
He is here to support Mr Obradovich's project, and owns the budding across the
street on Holly CRS Zoned property is difficult to develop and there isn't a need for
it. You can't build now what you could years ago Rea's Hardware is going out of
business, 446 Main Street has been vacant for approximately one year, 347 and
349 Main Street have been vacant for approximately three months, It took about
two years to sell the Bike Shop at 131 Main Street Richmond and Franklin has
been for sale for about ten years, Ralph's is also closed He feels making this
property on Richmond and Holly into a condominium zone would be outstanding for
downtown El Segundo.
Ken Scofield, 323 Richmond Street
echos the comments made by Kurt and Gordon Stevens in terms of a CRS
cone These properties have sat vacant for many years with no buyers He has an
issue with the overall concept throughout the entire block. On either side, there is a
CRS Zone. There are other properties that could be affected He suggests that the
entire block needs to be looked at, not just the one parcel
Cheryl Vargo (Return)
This corner is not a commercial corner. On the Holly side there is a bus stop with
no parking at all They can't predict what the committee will do, but she would like
to urge the Commission to approve their request
Chairman Crowley stated the south side could be activated as CRS Zone. Would
the people living in the condos be impacted? There is CRS on three sides, with the
residential only on one side.
Ms. Vargo stated there are disclosure statements required to be made as to what
the zoning of adjacent properties is as well as land uses and the potential for them
to be something other than what they are consistent with their zoning designation.
The people would have knowledge of the zoning A lot of people buy these
properties for the proximity to the commercial uses.
Chairman Crowley stated they have to take the long term view and he would like to
hear the task force input He would like to continue this Item
10 -22mm PC
Commissioner Kretzmer likes the project and is keenly aware of the situation that
Mr Obradovich faces Whatever will be built, will be there for many years and he is
not prepared to make a decision tonight and would also like to see the task force's
input He thanked everyone who spoke tonight
Commissioner Boulgarides agrees He is not in favor with high density housing but
this could be a good spot for it. He would like to see more public involved He feels
the Commission should have been automatically included in the task force The
Commission is in constraint with the Brown Act. He also does not want to rush into
any decision on this
Commissioner Palmer stated this may be the best and highest use Downtown
needs additional foot traffic and this could help the existing businesses She also
appreciated all who came down with their input.
Vice -Chair Wycoff stated this property has always been a dirt lot and would like to
see it put to a better use He is also in favor of waiting to hear the task force's
report There are some beautiful Eucalyptus trees in the area. It would have been
nice if the task force invited the Planning Commission's input
Chairman Crowley stated the paper was well prepared that was presented More
R -3 would be better nearer to downtown than elsewhere in general.
Gordon Stevens (Return)
He would like to see a letter from Director Bernard, the Chairman or the Mayor
written or some kind of commitment from the City in support of Mr Obradovich's
escrow being extending with a timeline.
Commissioner Kretzmer stated for future projects if may not be a good idea to write
a letter for an owner of private property. There is a public record here tonight that
can be utilized
A copy of the tape is adequate and is available from community cable
Director Bernard stated if a definitive action were taken tonight, it would be taken to
City Council on November 17 Possibly by year's end, early January would be the
timeline
Chairman Crowley moved to continue this item to December 10, 1998 Vice -Chair
Wycoff seconded Passed 5 -0
Chairm Crowley presented New Business, EA -403A (Pre- approved sites for
major wires communication facilities) Address• Various Applicant: City of El
Segundo Prapqrty Owner. City of El Segundo/El Segundo Unified School
District/West Basin icipal Water District/Los Angeles County
Director Bernard presented th-6`6taff Report.
Commissioner Palmer moved to con this item to November 12, 1998.
Commissioner Kretzmer seconded Passed 5
31&
10 -22min PC
MOTION
EA -403A
MOTION
Director Bernard tated again it was not an easy decision made regarding the
aneral Plan men ment and Zone Change for the Downtown Regarding the
Council directed 60- task force for the Downtown Visioning, it was not meant to
ignore the efforts and re onsibilities of the Commission. It was to get a first look, a
broad overview, of the 09,wntown, take that to City Council, then the Planning
Commission will potentially come very involved in recommending specifics for
implementing that vision
The Commission should have receiNd the Active Application list.
Commissioner Boulgarides thanked stallor their good work.
Commissioner Palmer appreciated the applicant volunteering the trees
Vice -Chair Wycoff liked the new Zoning Map pu \anothdensity hamber of Commerce
and Planning Division,
Chairman Crowley stated the Zoning Text sae one density for R -3
property that is 15,000 square feet or greater annsity for 15,000 square
feet or less They see the case w here the appliod chunk of land and if
they choose to subdivide, they can use the hnumber There is a
loophole They need to find a way to close the
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Boulgandes mo d to adjourn the
meeting at 9 30 pm to an adjourned meeting on November 12, 1 8 at 6 00 pm
)mmissioner Palmer seconded Passed 5 -0
PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1998
Brefl. B�rnarOICP
Dire for of Plaa{{mng and
Building Safety, and Secretary
Of the Planning Commission
City of El Segundo, California
10 -22mm PC
Brian Crowley, Chairman U
of the Planning Commission
City of El Segundo, California
31 9
REPORT
FROM THE
DIRECTOR
COMMISSION'S
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Crowl explained that the area where the visibility mangle is on the
corners would be mpinged, and the additional height would not be allowed It
would be kept at a inch height Ms Jester will provide some photographs of the
area to Ms Garnholz f the area
Ms Garnholz also askeX what is the definition and landscape requirements for a
front yard? Chai'Man C wley stated it could be hardscape and softscape She
asked about vehicle parkin in the front yard Ms Jester stated the Zoning Code
and Municipal Code prohibi\ris g on grass or any landscaping The request in
Item D of the Consent Caleo be able to put a parking pad in the front yard
The current Zoning Code shere is alley access, a driveway in front will be
prohibited, however the conh the Municipal Code Staffs recommendation
is not to be able to have veirking in the front if you have alley access
Ms Jester stated there was a suppl ental packet distributed to the Commission
for EA -450 and will be discussed when Xie Item comes up later in the Agenda
Chairman Crowley presented Item A of C tinued Business, EA -427, General Plan
Amendment 97 -04 and Zone Change 97- 3 — Aviation Specific Plan, Northwest
corner of Aviation Boulevard and Rosecrans venue Applicant Everest Storage
Property Owner Southern California Edison
Staff is requesting this Item be continued to the nuary 28, 1999 Meeting There
are some public street extension plans for Dougla Street that are underway in the
Public Works Department and the design has not be n finalized as of yet They are
expected to be finalized in January and then the maxi um boundary of the right -of-
way can be defined as well as its location in the proper
Chairman Crowley opened the public hearing
Commissioner Boulgandes moved to continue the public Aaring to January 28,
1999 Commissioner Kretzmer seconded Passed 5 -0 \
Chairman Crowley presented Item B, EA -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and
Zone Change 98 -2 at 360 Richmond Street (Southeast corner of Richmond Street
and Holly Avenue) Applicant James R Obradovich Property Owner Della
Kenny
Protect Planner Sandra Massa- Lavitt presented the Staff Report as outlined in the
Agenda Packet
Commissioner Palmer stated if this Item is continued, there would not be the
necessity for additional fees when the applicant resubmits If it is denied, the
applicant would have to pay the fees again
Commissioner Boulgandes stated their third alternative would be to approve this
Item
320
12 -1Omm PC
DRAFT
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
EA -427
-"irel "0 "
EA -447
Commissioner Palmer asked about the recommendations that came from the Task
Force Ms Jester stated Council asked Staff to possibly develop a Specific Plan for
the Downtown There would be meetings held with the public, Planning
Commission, the Downtown Task Force and the community to get everyone's input
and examples from other cities The time frame for completion would be
approximately a year The Council will be discussing this in more detail and
providing more direction on December 15, 1998
Commissioner Kretzmer asked if there have been any specific objections raised to
the building of this kind of project on this particular site? Ms Jester stated no
Commissioner Boulgandes stated the project is consistent with the Downtown Plan
and seems like an appropriate use and fits into the framework of trying to revitalize
the Downtown
Ms Jester stated if this Item is approved or denied by the Planning Commission, it
will automatically go to the Council Mr Cheleden stated it would have to be
brought back to the Planning Commission to approve a Resolution
Chairman Crowley opened the public hearing
Cheryl Vargo, Representing Jim Obradovich
They filed their application for this request on June 30, 1998 and were not informed
about the formation of a Task Force until they were well within their process
Shortly after, Mr Obradovich paid a fee to expedite the application for the
Environmental Assessment and are anxious for the Commission to approve the
project It is an appropriate use for the site, is not precedent setting and is currently
a vacant lot Anyone who buys in the area will not have an undue impact to them
because of their proximate commercial uses Because of its location, it will not
impact the financial feasibility of the Downtown zone
Because there is no commercial use currently at the location, she feels the Fiscal
Analysis of Residential versus Commercial is not necessary They have already
paid the City $750 to do this evaluation, and they still don't have it finalized
Ms Jester stated staff has prepared the Fiscal Impact Analysis and the information
provided to them from the applicant was incomplete Ms Vargo thought the issued
had been clarified and there was a misunderstanding The circumstances of
continuing this Item is placing an extreme hardship on the applicant
Jim Obradovich, Applicant
If the Item is extended he could possibly lose the property He extended the
escrow, but sooner or later this will stop He would like the project to proceed
John Bagwell, 408 Richmond Street, #8, El Segundo
He and his neighbors would like something done with the lot and more compatible
with their location Residential would be the most appropriate Currently, the area
321
12 -10mm PC
is dust sitting, causing problems with trash and old cars being left there The protect
would also create more customers for Downtown
Chairman Crowley closed the public hearing
Chairman Crowley stated they have to look at the balance between residential and
commercial The commercial needs to be distributed throughout the residential for
closer proximity for the residents If other properties along Richmond want to do the
same thing, they have to come to the Commission for a General Plan Amendment
and a Zoning Amendment
Commissioners Palmer and Boulgandes agreed a decision needs to be made and
this project should be approved
Commissioner Kretzmer feels the protect is very consistent with the Downtown
vision, with the exception of not having ground floor retail He feels something
needs to be done with the lot and the protect is appropriate to the area and would
be a welcome addition He strongly suggested that the Commission recommends
approval of the protect to the City Council
Vice -Chair Wycoff stated these requests should not be taken lightly because they
change the General Plan which reflects the City's vision for the future He feels this
request is in line with the Downtown vision and provides an opportunity for the City
Council to get input from the Commission
Chairman Crowley is also in favor of approving this protect
Commissioner Boulgandes moved to approve EA -447 and Commissioner Palmer
seconded Passed 5 -0
Ms Jester suggested a special adjourned meeting to adopt a Resolution to expedite
this Item to the City Council for their meeting of January 5, 1999 The Commission
agreed on December 21, 1998 at 6 00 pm
Chairman Crowley presented Ne Business, Item A, EA -467, Development
Agreement 98 -2, Conditional Use Per it No 98 -8 and Parking Demand Study No
98 -3 (Amendments to DA 98 -1, CU o 98 -2 and PDS 98 -1) Address 555
North Nash Street (Project Area 4) A plicant and Property Owner L A Ice
Venture Company, LLC (Ted Fikre)
Contract Planner Emmanuel Ursu presented t(le Staff Report as outlined in the
Agenda Packet \
Chairman Crowley opened the public hearing
Ted Fikre, L.A. Ice Venture Company
The original uses they intended back in April have not changed They have
discovered that the Lakers needed more space for their train Ng facilities than what
was anticipated The WNBA franchise for the Sparks will se the facility (as
originally proposed) during the summer months and this will not c )Vrlap with the
12 -1 Omm PC 4 322
MOTION
EA -467
RESOLUTION NO. 2435
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -447, ZONE CHANGE 98 -2, AND GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT 98 -2, THEREBY CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND APPROVING THE CHANGE IN ZONING AND
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (CRS)
ZONE /DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL TO MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R -3)
ZONE/MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AT 360 RICHMOND STREET. PETITIONED BY:
JAMES R. OBRADOVICH.
WHEREAS, on June 30, 1998, an application was received from James R. Obradowch requesting
approval of an Environmental Assessment, Zone Change and General Plan Amendment from
CR -S /Downtown Commercial to R -3 /Multi - Family Residential to allow the future construction of a
10 unit condominium at the southeast corner of Holly Avenue and Richmond Street; and,
WHEREAS, an inter- Departmental correspondence has been prepared and circulated along with
all the applications and preliminary plans for the future 10 unit condominium for inter- Departmental
comments, and,
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment (EA -447), including a Draft Initial Study and Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Change, has been prepared and circulated to all interested parties, Staff, and affected public
agencies for review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law, and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed Environmental Assessment EA -447 and the
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 3805), and,
WHEREAS, on October 22 and December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission did hold, pursuant
to law, duly advertised public hearings on such matter and notice of the public hearings was given
in the time, form and manner prescribed by law, and,
WHEREAS, at said hearings opportunity was given to all persons to present testimony or
documentary evidence for or against the findings of Environmental Assessment EA -447, General
Plan Amendment 98 -2, and Zone Change 98 -2, and,
WHEREAS, at it's meetings of October 22, 1988, the Planning Commission opened the public
hearing, took testimony and continued the public hearing, and,
WHEREAS, at it's meeting of December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission took testimony at
the continued public hearing, and reviewed and considered the recommendations of the City
3 <�
Council pursuant to the Report from the Downtown Task Force, as appointed by the City Council,
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is concerned with the future development of the Downtown
and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 in light of
the City Council's efforts to revitalize the Downtown District, and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes that development of a residential use is
appropriate and fits into the frame work of the City Council's Downtown revitalization efforts; and,
WHEREAS, at said hearings the following facts were established
1 The site is within the Downtown Commercial District, and is zoned Downtown Commercial —
(CR -S).
2 The site is located at the northwest comer at the edge of the Downtown Commercial District
on Richmond Street and Holly Avenue.
3 The site is currently vacant, and the City's historic records indicate no previous development
proposed or ever existed on the site
4. This particular parcel is unique within the Downtown area due to its perimeter location and
lack of previous or current development
5. Testimony supported proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 based
in part on the increase in population generated by Multi -family (R -3) development which would
assist in sustaining the viability of the Downtown District.
6 Multi -family (R -3) development in close proximity to the Downtown is an incentive to urban
dwellers
7 Historical City records indicate that there has been no interest in commercial development on
the site
8 The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change would allow for Multi - family
residential development similar to the existing condominiums on the north side of Holly
Avenue
9. The following land uses surround the site to the south is an apartment building; to the east is
an alley which would buffer the proposed residential use from the adjacent commercial land
use, R -3 Zoning and Land Use is located to the north across Holly Avenue and to the
northwest across Holly Avenue is R -1 Zoning and Land Use. The proposed General Plan
Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 is consistent with these land uses.
10 The individual site is not specifically part of the proposed Initial City Council Action Plan as
discussed by the City Council on December 1, 1998
3241
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after consideration of the above facts and study of
proposed Environmental Assessment EA -447, General Plan Amendment 98 -2, and Zone Change
98 -2, the Planning Commission makes the following findings and in so doing, recommends that
the City Council approve the proposed project- ,
The proposed General Plan Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2 are not in conflict
with the Downtown Action Plan preliminary directed by the City Council on December 1,
1998 pursuant to the November 17, 1998, Downtown Task Force recommendations.
The intervening uses (apartment building and surface parking lot) between the vacant
Ralph's site and the subject site and the alley to the east effectively buffers the proposed
Multi- Family (R -3) residential use from impacts of the Downtown retail and service uses
3. That Multi - family housing in close proximity to the Downtown is a benefit since the greater
number of people in Multi - family (R -3) residential development generally support business
within walking distance of their residence
Past efforts to attract commercial /retail /service development to the site have been
unsuccessful due to the perimeter location of the site within the Downtown District
5 Increased density of residential development in this area is consistent with the adjoining
Multi - family (R -3) development directly to the north across Holly Avenue
This particular parcel is unique within the Downtown area due to its perimeter location and
lack of previous or current development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment EA -447, General Plan
Amendment 98 -2, and Zone Change 98 -2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that according to the El Segundo Municipal Code, the Secretary of
the Planning Commission shall mail a copy of this Resolution to the applicant at the address
shown on the application and to any other person requesting a copy The decision of the Planning
Commission as set forth in this Resolution shall become final and effective ten (10) calendar days
after the date of the Planning Commission action unless within such ten (10) calendar day period
an appeal in writing is filed with the City Council
325
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of December 1998.
4 / r
Bret er ard, icP, Director
of Planning and wlding Safety; and,
Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of El Segundo, California
VOTES
Crowley -
Wycoff -
Bouigartdes -
Palmer -
Kretzmer -
Brian Crowley, Chairman
of the Planning Commiss
of the City of El Segundo, California
p \protects \ea - 447 \peres
32u
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
REPORT NUMBER
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - -USE Residential
1 0 DATE ANALYSIS PREPARED October 21, 1998
2 0 PROJECT NAME 10 -unit Condominium
3 0 YEAR PROJECT FIRST OCCUPIED 1999
4 0 POPULATION /EMPLOYMENT --
NEW RESIDENT POPULATION - -TOTAL
NEW PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT - -TOTAL
5 0 DEVELOPMENT VALUE ESTIMATE ($000)- -
LAND VALUE
TOTAL VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT VALUE ($000)
6 0 REVENUE GENERATION ($000) --
PROPERTY TAX .
SALES AND USE TAX
BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE
FRANCHISE TAX
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
STATE SUBVENTIONS
ONE - TIME FEES --
FIRE
POLICE
LIBRARY
TRAFFIC
TOTAL
7 0 CITY COSTS OF SERVICES ($000) --
POLICE
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING SAFETY
LIBRARY
PARKS AND RECREATION
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
TOTAL
23
0
700
1,120
1,820
TOTAL
--- -------- ------------
1999
----
2000
--- ------ ------------
2001
------
2002
------ --
2003
----------'
61
12
12
12
12
13
31
06
06
06
06
06
00
00
00
00
00
00
13
03
03
03
03
03
00
00
00
00
00
00
68
13
13
14
14
14
21
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
17
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
05
05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
03
03
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-° ---
217
-----
78
-----
34
-----
35
-----
35
-----
36
229
43
44
46
47
48
121
23
23
24
25
26
124
23
24
25
25
26
12
02
02
02
03
03
53
10
10
11
11
11
176
33
34
35
36
37
88
17
17
18
18
19
-------
803
- ----
151
-----
156
-----
160
- ----
165
-----
170
8 0 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($000)
(58 5) (7 4)
(12 2)
(12 6)
(13 0)
(13 4)
9 0 CUMULATIVE FISCAL IMPACT($000)
(7 4)
(19 5)
(32 1)
(45 1)
(58 5)
n n -
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO `
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
REPORT NUMBER
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED vs EXISTINNG DEVELOPMENT
1 0 DATE ANALYSIS PREPARED
October 21, 1998
48
07
2 0 PROJECT NAME
10 -unit Condominium
26
(1 4)
PUBLIC WORKS
1 9
26
MARGINAL
BUILDING SAFETY
EXISTING
PROPOSED
FISCAL
LIBRARY
CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT
3 0 ANNUAL REVENUES ($000) --
----------
-----------
........
PROPERTY TAX
11
13
01
SALES AND USE TAX
200
06
(19 3)
BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE
21
00
(21)
FRANCHISE TAX
10
03
(0 7)
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
00
00
00
STATE SUBVENTIONS
00
14
14
TOTAL
-------
242
-------
36
-------
(20 7)
4 0 ANNUAL COSTS ($000) --
POLICE
41
48
07
FIRE
40
26
(1 4)
PUBLIC WORKS
1 9
26
08
BUILDING SAFETY
09
03
(0 6)
LIBRARY
01
1 1
1 1
PARKS AND RECREATION
04
37
33
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
14
19
05
VACANT LAND (ALL COSTS INCLUDED)
00
.......
N/A
-------
00
-- ° °-
TOTAL
126
170
43
5 0 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($000)
--------------------- --- ------- --------------
----------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------- ---- --- ------
----------------------------------------------------
116
- - - - - -- ----
-- --------------
- - - - - -- - -- -----------
--------------
(13 4)
-- -- -------- - - -
- --
-- - - -
-- - - -
(25 0)
- -- - - - - - --
- -- - - - - - --
- -- - - - - - --
- -- -- --- --
3'-IP,
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT'
Muetl Use 0 0 0 0 TOTAL
.REVENUES.
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE
1 771 875
1,771 875
1 771 875
1 771 875
1 771 B75
8 859 375
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
1134
1134
1134
1134
1134
5670
TOTAL POINT OF SALE REVENUE
18,375
18 375
18 375
18 375
18 375
16 375
RESIDENTIAL REVENUE
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE
18375
18375
18375
18375
18375
91,875
TOTAL BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE
1,975
1975
1,975
1975
1,975
9875
FRANCHISE TAX - ELECTRICITY
29408
29408
29408
29408
29408
147,039
FRANCHISETAX NATURALGAS
480
480
480
460
480
2,401
TOTAL FRANCHISE TAX
897
897
897
897
897
4483
TOTAL TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
0
0
0
0
0
0
STATE SUBVENTIONS FINES 8 FORFEI
0
0
0
0
0
0
STATE SUBVENTIONS MOTOR VEHICLE
0
0
0
0
0
0
STATE SUBVENTIONS - CIGARETTE
0
0
0
0
0
0
STATE SUBVENTIONS - GASOLINE
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL STATE SUBVENTIONS
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL EXISTING DEVELOPMENT REVEL
22361
22381
22381
22381
22361
111903
a COSTS +
TOTAL VACANT LAND COSTS
0
0
RESIDENTIAL POPULATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL LIBRARY COSTS
49
49
49
49
49
243
TOTAL PARKS 8 RECREATION COSTS
343
343
343
343
343
1 716
PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSACTION 1
1610
1,610
1610
1610
1610
8050
PUBLIC WORKS - TRANSACTION 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS COSTS
1,610
1 610
1 610
1 610
1,610
8050
POLICE/CAPITA TRANSACTION
3553
3553
3553
3553
3,553
17763
POLICE/CAPITA TRANSACTION 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL POLICE COSTS
3,553
3553
3,553
3553
3553
17,763
FIRF/CAPITA -TRANSACTION 1
0
3460
3460
3460
3460
13,839
FIRE/CAPITA - TRANSACTION 2
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL FIRE COSTS
0
3460
3460
3460
3460
13,839
BUILDING SAFETY TRANSACTION 1
748
748
748
748
748
3,741
BUILDINGSAFETY TRANSACTION2
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL BUILDING SAFETY COSTS
74B
748
748
748
748
3741
GENERAL GOVERNMENT - TRANSACTIC
1193
1,193
1193
1,193
1193
5964
GENERAL GOVERNMENT - TRANSACTIC
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT COSTS
1193
1,193
1193
1,193
1193
5964
TOTAL EXISTING DEVELOPMENT COST'.
7,495
10955
10955
10955
10955
51,316
329
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS '
REPORT NUMBER
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT - -USE Residential
1 0 DATE ANALYSIS PREPARED October 21, 1998
2 0 PROJECT NAME. Residential
3 0 YEAR PROJECT FIRST OCCUPIED 1999
4 0 POPULATION/EMPLOYMENT --
NEW RESIDENT POPULATION- -TOTAL
NEW PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT - -TOTAL
5 0 DEVELOPMENT VALUE ESTIMATE ($000)- -
LAND VALUE
TOTAL VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT VALUE ($000)
6 0 REVENUE GENERATION ($000) --
PROPERTY TAX
SALES AND USE TAX
BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE
FRANCHISE TAX
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
STATE SUBVENTIONS
ONE - TIME FEES --
FIRE
POLICE
LIBRARY
TRAFFIC
TOTAL
7 0 CITY COSTS OF SERVICES ($000) --
POLICE
FIRE .
PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING SAFETY
LIBRARY .
PARKS AND RECREATION
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
TOTAL
23
0
700
1,120
1,820
TOTAL
----------- --------
1999
----- ------------
2000
------------
2001
------------
2002
-------------
2003
61
12
12
12
12
13
31
06
06
06
06
06
00
00
00
00
00
00
13
03
03
03
03
03
00
00
00
00
00
00
68
13
13
14
14
14
21
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
17
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
05
05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
--- ---
215
-----
75
- °--
34
-----
35
- °--
35
-- --
36
229
43
44
46
47
48
121
23
23
24
25
26
124
23
24
25
25
26
12
02
02
02
03
03
53
10
10
11
11
11
176
33
34
35
36
37
88
17
17
18
18
19
--- °--
803
-----
151
-----
156
-----
160
-----
165
----'
170
------------- -- ---- ----- ----- -- -- - - --
-------------------------------------
8 0 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($000)
-- -------- - - - - -- ----
- --- --- --- - - ---- ---------
(58 8) (7 6)
--- --
(12 2)
- - - - -- -
- - - - -- -
(12 6)
- - -- -- -
- - - - -- -
(13 0)
- - - - --
- - - - --
(13 4)
9 0 CUMULATIVE FISCAL IMPACT($000)
(7 6)
(19 8)
(32 4)
(45 4)
(58 8)
330
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS '
REPORT NUMBER
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED vs EXISTINNG DEVELOPMENT
1 0 DATE ANALYSIS PREPARED
2 0 PROJECT NAME
3 0 ANNUAL REVENUES ($000) --
PROPERTY TAX
SALES AND USE TAX
BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEE
FRANCHISE TAX
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
STATE SUBVENTIONS
TOTAL
4 0 ANNUAL COSTS ($000) --
October 21, 1998
Residential
MARGINAL
EXISTING PROPOSED FISCAL
CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
---------- ----------- --------
04 13 08
00 06 06
00 00 00
00 03 03
00 00 00
00 14 14
------- ------- -----
04 36 31
POLICE
00
48
48
FIRE
00
26
26
PUBLIC WORKS
00
26
26
BUILDING SAFETY
00
03
03
LIBRARY
00
1 1
1 1
PARKS AND RECREATION
00
37
37
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
00
19
19
VACANT LAND (ALL COSTS INCLUDED)
04
N/A
(0 4)
TOTAL
---• - --
04
-------
170
- ------
166
5 0 NET FISCAL IMPACT ($000)
00
(13 4)
(13 4)
331
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 05 January 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Order of Business - Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Public hearing on the proposed projects and budget for allocation of the 1999 -2000 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds 1999 -2000 Proposed Total CDBG budget $142,230 (Proposed Community Development
Commission CDBG Allocation- $100,859, Proposed General Fund monies - $41,371)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTON:
1) Hold public hearing,
2) Discussion,
3) Consider proposed projects and budget, and direct Staff accordingly,
4) Authorize the Director of Planning and Building Safety to execute agreements with the Community
Development Commission, and,
5) Authorize the Director of Planning and Building Safety to execute agreements in excess of $10,000 with all
sub - recipients receiving CDBG funds
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
Each year, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are allocated to cities by the Federal Housing and
Urban Development Department (HUD) and administered through the Los Angeles County Community Development
Commission (CDC) Participating cities receive funding based upon the total number of cities participating in the
Countys program, and a city's commitment to provide housing, economic, social service, and community development
opportunities which principally benefit persons of low and moderate income levels
DISCUSSION:
Since 1986, the City of El Segundo has annually participated in the Los Angeles Urban County's CDBG Program In
order to continue its participation in the upcoming 1999 -2000 program year, which begins on 01 July 1999 and ends
on 30 June 2000, the City of El Segundo must prepare and submit its proposed CDBG project descriptions to the
Community Development Commission by 01 February 1999, for review and approval
(Continued on next page)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
ORIGINATED:
REVIEWED BY:
ACTION TAKEN:
(Check one) Operating Budget:CDBG /Gen.Fund Capital Improv
Amount Requested: $100,859 / $41,371
Project/Account Budget: $100.859 / $41.371
ProjecVAccount Balance: Date 1/5/99
Account Number- CDBG - Fund 111 / Gen. Fund - 001
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required - Yes_ No X
332
Date- 18 December 1998
Date.
ZZ�
5
DISCUSSION: (Continued)
Pursuant to Federal requirements, notice of this public hearing was posted in various public buildings within the City
Federal requirements also mandate that as part of the hearing, the Council and public be informed of the range of
eligible housing and community development activities that may be funded under the CDBG program Interested
persons may obtain a copy of the Federal eligibility guidelines, available at the City of El Segundo's Planning and
Building Safety Department, from 7 30 a m to 5 30 p m Monday through Friday
Description of Current Year's Activities (Fiscal Year 1998 -1999)
The 1998 -1999 CDBG allocation for the City of El Segundo was $111,744 The 1998 -1999 CDBG program year has
seen an important programmatic change that directly impacted the City of El Segundo's allocation of CDBG funds
Effective in 1998 -1999, the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission strictly enforced the Federal
guidelines limiting CDBG expenditures on public service protects to 15% of a City's total allocation For the City of El
Segundo, which traditionally devotes approximately 50% (or $56,500 for Fiscal Year 1998 - 1999), of its total annual
allocation to fund three public service protects (Home Delivered Meals, Senior In -Home Care, and Juvenile Diversion),
the public service cap resulted in a significant reduction in public service expenditures For the 1998 -1999 CDBG
program year, a maximum of $16,760 could be cumulatively expended on all three public service activities Thus, in
order to maintain existing levels of service, a supplemental source of funds was required On 20 January 1998, the El
Segundo City Council recognized the need to continue the three public service protects, and authorized the use of
General Funds to supplement the shortfall of CDBG monies
The remaining 1998 -1999 CDBG allocation of $94,984 funded two housing improvement protects (Minor Home Repair
($42,000) and Residential Sound Insulation ($41,814)) and the general administration of the CDBG program ($11,170,
please note the Community Development Commission also establishes a maximum expenditure rate on the
administration of the CDBG program to 10% of a City's total annual allocation)
The following protect descriptions identify the City's CDBG activities for the 1998 -1999 program year These protects
were approved by the City Council during a public hearing on 20 January 1998
1)
Provides approximately 4,500 meals to low and moderate income elderly and severely handicapped persons
during the course of the program year Additional revenues of approximately $9,000 in donations are
anticipated, which increases the total budget to $25,000
2) Senior In -Home Care Total Budget $24,500 (CDBG — $7,000, General Fund - $17,500)
Approximately 100 confined senior citizens and severely handicapped persons receive in -home medical,
physical, and /or emotional care assistance
3) Juvenile Diversion Proiect Total Budget $16.000 (CDBG — $2.260. General Fund - $13,740)
This protect provides children and adolescents, who are victims of physical and /or emotional abuse, counseling
and referral services Approximately thirty youths receive services
4) Minor Home Repair Total Budget (CDBG only) $42,000
The Minor Home Repair protect provides financial assistance to qualified low and moderate income, single -
family, owner - occupied homeowners to make necessary minor home improvements No- interest, deferred
loans up to $5,000 may be approved for minor home improvements Additionally, grants up to a maximum of
$1,500 are available to severely disabled homeowners who require handicap improvements Approximately
six loans and two grants, will be funded
5) Residential Sound Insulation (RSI) Total Budget (CDBG only) $41,814
The RSI program provides grants to eligible low and moderate - income single - family detached homeowners to
obtain home insulation against airport noise CDBG funds pay all or a portion of the homeowner's twenty
percent (20 %) share of the program cost Eighty percent (80 %) of the cost is paid by the Federal Aviation
Administration Approximately seven to nine grants will be funded
333
6) Administration $11170
To provide overall CDBG program administration and implementation of all CDBG funded activities
TOTAL CDBG BUDGET 1998 -1999 $111,744
TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET $ 39,740
Proposed 1999 -2000 CDBG Proiects and Budget
The proposed 1999 -2000 CDBG allocation for the City of El Segundo is $100,859 This is approximately 9 75% less
than the City's allocation during the previous program year Please note that this CDBG allocation is a planning estimate
only, the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission (CDC) does not receive the final appropriation from
HUD until Spring 1999 The City's final CDBG allocation may be more or less than the planning estimate Generally,
however, the final allocation is within ten percent of the estimate provided
The 1999 -2000 CDBG program year must operate within the 15% public service limit as mandated by the Federal
regulations Fifteen percent of the City's total annual CDBG allocation for 1999 -2000 equals approximately $15,129
Thus, a maximum of $15,129 in CDBG funds may be cumulatively expended on all public service projects Since the
City of El Segundo typically devotes a total of $56,500 (or 56% for 1999 -2000) annually to its CDBG public service
projects, supplemental funds totaling $36,371 must be identified in order to maintain existing service levels
If supplemental funds (i e , General Funds) are not approved, at least two of the three current public service projects
must be eliminated, or operated for only a two -month period These scenarios would pose an undue hardship on all
current service recipients Home Delivered Meals, Senior In -Home Care, and Juvenile Diversion collectively provide
critical, life- enhancing assistance to those residents of greatest need Most notably, the Home Delivered Meals Program
has served this community for more than twelve years and, has made a valuable contribution to the City's commitment
to improving the lives of its residents Two part-time City Staff (funded with CDBG monies) are required to operate and
administer the Home Delivered Meals and Senior In -Home Care projects Without these two part-time Staff members
to implement and coordinate these programs, along with volunteers, neither project could operate
Thus, it is strongly recommended that the 1999 -2000 CDBG public service projects be supplemented with an alternative
funding source, such as City General Funds, as the City Council approved for the 1998 -1999 Budget Year This ensures
the City's commitment to maintain the existing level of public services The current 1998 -1999 operating budget for all
three public service projects is a total of $56,500 (Home Delivered Meals - $16,000, Senior In -Home Care - $24,500,
and, Juvenile Diversion - $16,000), or $36,371 over the proposed 1999 -2000 public service funding level of $15,129
Last year, with the approval of the City Council, the City of El Segundo entered into three- year agreements with each
of the public service providers (Daniel Freeman Memorial Hospital, Just Right Help, II, Inc , and the South Bay Youth
Project), effective 01 July 1997 through 30 June 2000 Although each agreement contains a cancellation clause, this
information is presented for your consideration
Finally, it is recommended that the City Council support the continuation of the Minor Home Repair Project, the
Residential Sound Insulation Project and the CDBG General Administration Project during the upcoming 1999 -2000
Program Year A complete list of the proposed CDBG 1999 -2000 projects and budgets are
General Fund
Total Budget CDBG Allocation Supplement
Home Delivered
Meals (Public Service) $16,000 $5,043 $10,957
Senior In -Home
Care (Public Service) $24,500 $5,043 $19,457
334
Juvenile Diversion
(Public Service)
Minor Home Repair
Residential Sound
Insulation
Administration
(max 10 %)
TOTAL
General Fund
Total Budaet CDBG Allocation Supplement
$16,000 $5,043 $10,957
$37,825 $37,825 0
$37,825 $37,825 0
$10,080 $10,080 0
$142,230 $100,859
$41,371
In addition to the 1999 -2000 allocation, unspent funds from previous program years' closed -out projects totaling $85,900
are available for reallocation to new or continuing construction related projects, such as Minor Home Repair and
Residential Sound Insulation Increasing the budget for these projects will allow for additional home improvement
loans, and /or RSI grants to be funded Alternatively, the City Council may establish new, eligible CDBG projects An
example may be a project that assists the City's compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) CDBG funds
can be used for the removal of architectural barriers as a public improvement activity Staff contacted other appropriate
Departments (i e , Public Works) to ascertain if they were interested in implementing CDBG- funded projects No
eligible projects were identified at this time
If alternative projects are not selected at this time, all remaining CDBG funds are placed in a "contingency' account
which can be accessed at any time during the course of the 1999 -2000 program year to fund eligible CDBG projects
Any unexpended funds at the end of the program year are not lost, they are "rolled over' into the next budget year for
reprogramming (public service projects, such as Home Delivered Meals, Senior In -Home Care, and Juvenile Diversion,
are excluded from these reallocated funds) Thus, the unexpended funds of $85,900, plus the estimated $100,859,
results in a potential total CDBG program budget of $186,759
335
0
Cdbg99
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: January 5, 1999
AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Implementation of the Downtown Task Force recommendations (Fiscal Impact $145,000)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Consider modified Action Plan, implementation costs and direct staff accordingly
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On December 16, 1998, the City Council considered an Action Plan developed by staff to implement portions
of the Downtown Task Force's report entitled "Developing A Vision For Downtown El Segundo" Following
discussion, the City Council directed staff to modify the draft Action Plan and return with cost estimates and
funding sources on January 5, 1999
DISCUSSION.
See page 2
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Capital Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested.
Protect/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
Downtown Revitalization - $75.000.
Civic Center Plaza Improvements - $225.000
N/A Date:
ORIGINATED: Date:
."
i-'X-'
BY:
ACTION TAKEN::
Date: � ' a� /y
33r�
0
Page 2
Modified Action Plan
Task: Civic Center Plaza Design /Development The City will host a design charette in an effort to
maximize creativity and public participation in the redesign of the Plaza A project coordinator will be retained
to facilitate the process which will include design competition between three firms The three proposals will
be reviewed extensively by the public A "design fair" will be held in the Plaza where the public will be invited
to review and "voice their opinion" on their favorite proposal In addition, the Task Force will review the plans
and make a recommendation to the City for final action
Action An RFP will be prepared by staff for distribution in January to select an individual /firm to coordinate
and facilitate the design charette process The project coordinator will select three architectural /design firms
to participate in the charette
Cost: $30,000 The budget for the project coordinator is recommended to beset at $5,000 The cost for the
architects participating in the charette will be $5,000 per firm or $15,000 (total)
Funding Source. Existing FY 1998 -99 budget approved by the City Council (of $225,000)
Task: Downtown Events Programming In order to provide creative, diverse and high quality programs
throughout the year, the City will retain an events coordinator /facilitator The events under consideration
include both existing and new programs This function is intended to compliment existing events (such as the
Richmond Street Fair, Main Street Cruise, and Holiday Parade) by coordinating new promotional programs
around their existing schedules New events, such as seasonal sidewalk sales, art fairs, and entertainment,
will be designed to attract local and nearby residents to the downtown year around This will increase the
awareness level of the downtown's shops and services which will directly benefit local residents, merchants,
and property owners Working with the events coordinator /facilitator, the Task Force will develop a list of the
new programs which will be reviewed and approved by the City Council
The farmer's market project will be one of the key downtown events but, operated independently of this
function The Department of Recreation & Parks is coordinating the initial program development stage
Action. Staff will prepare and distribute an RFP by early February with the intent of retaining a professional
events coordinator /facilitator
Cost: $20,000
Funding Source: Existing FY 1998 -99 budget approved by the City Council
Task: Retail Recruitment In an effort to place highly desired retail businesses in selected locations, a
retail recruitment firm will be retained The firm selected will have proven success in placing businesses as
part of successful downtown revitalization programs, working closely with downtown property owners It is
anticipated that the City Council will be provided with frequent reports on the progress of the retail recruiter
Action, An RFP will be prepared and distributed by staff by January 15, 1999, to develop a candidate list
of consultants Staff will interview the most highly qualified firms and make a recommendation to the City
Council for final action
Cost- $35,000
Funding Source: Existing FY 1998 -99 budget approved by the City Council
337
Page 3
Task: Specific Plan In an effort to develop the most comprehensive foundation for revitalizing the
downtown, a Specific Plan (and EIR) is necessary This will provide a more in -depth analysis of the downtown
and the ability to include development and design standards, streetscape and infrastructure land uses, and
needed public improvements into an organized document The Specific Plan will be developed by staff to
reduce costs, but with substantial assistance from a design consultant Traffic circulation information will be
provided (as much as possible) from the ongoing Circulation Element Update project
Action: Direct staff to prepare a Specific Plan and proceed with the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
necessary consulting services
Cost: $60,000 (An additional $20,000, if required, may be allocated from the 1999 -2000 budget)
Funding Source: $40,000 from salary and benefit savings from the existing FY 1998 -1999 Planning and
Budding Safety budget, $15,000 from the Public Works Traffic Mitigation Fund, and, $5,000 from the FY 1998-
1999 El Segundo Downtown Revitalization fund An additional $20,000, if required to complete the Specific
Plan, may be allocated during the 1999 -2000 City budget process
Total Costs: $145,000
338
O O S m D T A 0 m— 00 y
D m , T N o X o O 0 0-4
.11
m 0 M L m Z m
O N :� O
O = o OT n ~
g
m 0 �l
?L 3 c ma44 o bia m e 7 gA
m m o S c 5 z °? m s
�o$m °^� 0 4 m 8�°.+oo8w'SNw'£S& �N4. m 7i a av��88�g
@ C ¢
n �m 3' OCr C "a m n
N y
i� O O O� C 6 P O omA r!!lD��� T(y] iS �R� >O N
O 3 O r�R m N ymm_1�mC my C_D)b D�xO q x D z
\ �C N N p m m m y 22m -iia AyD��' .l1 ym�TTll Z-1 mm
m�gmRN Z� Ayg$HSng�`�p�y
Amma; Nymm� Dlp p- m_iAXo
g69 0 m O _ m mr)m mZ ayyyC mm Z M M
m m '� ' S. A N NN C ZSZcym � y�8 p A C
¢�Y ° m ya -+yy $mm m0 zpmA Og AC1m Z
> > m m¢ p y A N m Z n z y x m 0
;A�$o m o NZZzSm m C) Ts��c�zo
v m m sp m a y00 m S y m o w z 0 9Z Z ba p z
A 10 N Y 2 a O O Z p O T y 0
o z y
y
N a m y O
O m m A m T
$ .�. a T C
g &. < : N o
n Ir s o
g '
a
3 3 N m
m m w -°. N
pupb�
M O Oi tail 1 (O °l N N H+ H H r r+ Ol N
A
p p o
0 m
A A M
H H y
m m
p >p
H r
2
O i Z
2 c
0
A of
339
f
N O
OIM
�N
m
N �
Z
c
0
7
0 o x
M m A n
0
y
°A
� o x
o
m
Val
m.
zcCEn
l
M
ap
6
0
m
00
T
gg -p1 3
0
�3 mo
° myTsm
a m
�iS °ga
dcrzB0
mgsa�
m �
m c
am g
8 np�
m `
Q m
a o
n
e
8
d
0
n
a
i
R
u
„ o
Om
N
m
33
$a
S�
� m
a =
B �
oo�
�m
A
m
0
2
m
d
a
3'
m
N
qC
N
6
i
2
m
z
m
0
c
sly
D
r
O
2
3
M
N
0
b
9
c
n
a
3
8
_
m
m
,i
O�
C>
z
Q
o
oz 0
o T
yO
Z A
° o OS
= m
�m
O
W
m
vi
Ir
d
3
0
0
T
d
m
N
S
0
yn
m
'm
N pzpz A�A�jjr i (T1�ti s A�A myp i� r7r
m Dm 0 71 m S c m 3 D O
O O y A y �y O D AD m T O O 2 y pp
2 < y y 9 8 A m D
y N y C C s ZA yO
z Z ~ m p
C C S X C y o 0 D o C m m O T -m m m Z O O -°z z AA
O O M O o z z r
y D
y
T
C Z G
A r o y
T n N
In m C
T Z
0
N
tppT�� ++ O O O fJ N W tgTi
76 is Er a a'm i° 8 76
340
App
Z
N
g
-i
m
O
T
v
A
0
N
,T
�O
N O
sN
M
c
z
C
O
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
12/09/1998 THROUGH 12/24/98
Date
12/9/98
12/10/98
12/10/98
12/10/98
12/11/98
12/11/98
12/14/98
12/17/98
12/18/98
12/18/98
12/23/98
12/23/98
12/24/98
12/24/98
Payee Amount
Health Comp
IRS
Employment Development
West Basin H2O
IRS
Employment Development
Employee Bond Purchases
Health Comp
Wells Fargo
Employee Bond Purchases
IRS
Employment Development
Health Comp
Wells Fargo
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 01105/99
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE:
Certified as to the accur y of t v ransfers by
City Treasurer
Finance Director_�1d+
City Manager c tt ,�k
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo
2,80883
1,231 58
6744
830,937 00
148,019 44
29,957 59
20000
1,43895
28,000 00
30000
133,634 59
25,777 49
281 20
20,000 00
1,222,654 11
Description
Weekly eligible claims 12/04
Federal Payroll Taxes Holiday /Sick
State Payroll Taxes Holiday /Sick
Water
Federal Payroll Taxes PR12
State Payroll Taxes PR12
Employee Bond PR12
Weekly eligible claims 12/11
Golf Course Transfer to payroll acct
Employee Bond PR13
Federal Payroll Taxes PR13
State Payroll Taxes PR13
Weekly eligible claims 12/18
SCRMA workers comp acct
1,222,654 11
341
MINUTES OF THE
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1998 - 5:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gordon at 5 00 p in
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Council Member Kelly McDowell
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gordon -
Present
Mayor ProTem Jacobs -
Present
Council Member Wernick -
Present
Council Member Gaines -
Absent
Council Member McDowell -
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 $250 No
Individuals addressed Council
CLOSED SESSION: The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law,
including the Brown Act (Government Code §54950, et sec ) 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))
In the Matter of the Application of City of Los Angeles, OAH No L- 9604014
El Segundo v Kilroy, LASC Case No YC 031166
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov't Code §54956 9(b) -3- potential case (no
further public statement is required at this time), Initiation of litigation pursuant to Gov't
Code §54956 9(c) -1- matters
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — None
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR - (Gov't Code §54957 6) — None
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
342 DECEMBER 15, 1998
500PM
PAGE
^
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956 8) — None
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT at 6:55 p.m.
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
343
MINUTES OF THE
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1998 - 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4103
Next Ordinance # 1291
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gordon at 7 00 P M
INVOCATION — Pastor Dennis Estill, El Segundo Foursquare Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member McDowell
PRESENTATIONS
Council Member McDowell presented a Proclamation to Gale Segers and Candy Cane Lane
Residents, and invited the community to visit and enjoy Candy Cane Lane from December 12
through 25, 1998
Mayor ProTem Jacobs presented Commendations to Chris Sherrill, Sue Carter, and Cindy
Mortesen recognizing them for their unselfish community service as sponsors, supporters and
volunteers by keeping the tradition of the El Segundo Community Christmas Dinner Mayor Pro
Tern Jacobs invited those in the community who wish to participate in fellowship to share in
some Christmas Cheer at the El Segundo Community Christmas Dinner, at 1 00 p in, Christmas
Day at the Joslyn Center, Recreation Park
Council Member McDowell presented a Proclamation to Katie Gibson, and Carlie Day of the
Tree Musketeers, declaring the two week period prior to Christmas as the "Light Up the
Community" and commended the Tree Musketeers for volunteering to judge all participants
Council Member Wernick presented commendations to Stacy Cabote of Chevron Products
Company, El Segundo Refinery, Joseph Czadski of Northrop - Grumman, Military Aircraft
Systems Division, Kaye Gagnon - Sherback of Raytheon Sensors & Electric Systems, and Keven
Lee of Xerox Corporation for their dedicated attention to implementing programs in waste
reduction
Mayor Gordon presented a Commendation to Christopher H Low, El Segundo Boy Scout Troop
773, for achieving the rank of Eagle Scout
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gordon
Mayor ProTem Jacobs
Council Member Wernick
Council Member Gaines
Council Member McDowell
- Present
- Present
- Present
- Absent
- Present
3 44
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
In response to Gerhardt VanDne, resident's concern, Mayor Gordon stated that the El Segundo
Postmaster will be invited to address the City's poor mail delivery at a future Council meeting
Bill Mason, El Segundo Chamber of Commerce President presented the President Elect, Darryl
Heath of Northrup Grumman, who will take office January 1, 1999
In response to Peggy Tyrell, resident's concern regarding property on Manposa and Illinois
Court, currently being used for heavy equipment storage, Ms Strenn, City Manager stated that
there is a storm drain project in the area and the contracting company is currently using this site,
with the approval of Edison, for equipment storage
Liz Garnholz, resident, requested that the public be allowed input on Item Nos B -3, Downtown
Task Force, and B -4, Prohibition on non - retail development
Donald Clemmens, resident, spoke regarding the Council's approach to the year 2000 and
possible problems
Mayor Gordon stated that this would be addressed in January or early February
In response to Liz Gamholz, resident's request that Council consider initiating law suits to keep a
grocery market on the Ralphs site, City Attorney, Mark Hensley stated that the City does not
have the legal standing to bring a law suit against Ralphs for any alleged anti -trust or anti-
competitive activities
Mayor Gordon stated that Ms Gamholz' will be advised if this item will be agendized January
5, 1999
Bill Mason, El Segundo Chamber of Commerce, requested extention of the Heritage Walk
Stepping Stone Project to the east and west sides of the 600 block of Main Street and the south
side of the 300 block of West El Segundo Boulevard
Ken Schofield, resident, stated that the El Segundo Chamber should set a procedure for obtaining
stones on the 600 block of Main
MOVED by Mayor ProTem Jacobs, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to approve
the request to extend the Heritage Walk Stepping Stone Project to the east and west sides of the
600 block of Main Street and the south side of the 300 block of West El Segundo Boulevard
MOTION PASSED BY UNANANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL
MEMBER GAINES. 4/0
MINUTES
3 4 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 1998
700PM
PAGE NO 2
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on this Agenda by title only
MOVED by Council Member McDowell, SECONDED by Council Member Wernick to read
all ordinances and resolutions on this Agenda by title only MOTION PASSED BY
UNANANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER GAINES. 4/0
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS -
1 Public Hearing on a proposed Development Agreement Amendment to increase the
permitted size of the proposed L A Kmgs /Lakers Sports Training and Recreation Facility
previously approved for Project Area 4 of the Grand Avenue Corporate Center Project
The Amendment would increase the size of the proposed facility by 15,000 square feet
from 120,000 square feet to 135,000 square feet. (Environmental Assessment EA -467 and
Development Agreement 98 -2) Address 555 North Nash Street Applicant: L A Ice
Venture Company, LLC (Ted Fikre)
Mayor Gordon stated this is the time and place hereto fixed for a public hearing on a
proposed Development Agreement Amendment to increase the permitted size of the
proposed L A Kmgs/Lakers Sports Training and Recreation Facility previously approved
for Project Area 4 of the Grand Avenue Corporate Center Project The Amendment
would increase the size of the proposed facility by 15,000 square feet from 120,000
square feet to 135,000 square feet (Environmental Assessment EA -467 and Development
Agreement 98 -2) Address 555 North Nash Street Applicant LA Ice Venture
Company, LLC (Ted Fikre) He asked if proper notice had been given and if any written
commumcations had been received Clerk Mortesen stated that proper notice had been
given by the Planning and Building Safety Department and no written communications
had been received
MOVED by Mayor ProTem Jacobs, SECONDED by Council Member Wernick to
continue the public hearing to January 5, 1999, due to a lack of quorum because of the
absence of Council Member Gaines, and to potential conflicts of interest with respect to
Mayor Gordon and Council Member Wernick MOTION PASSED BY
UNANANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER GAINES. 4/0.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS —
2 Proposed (Third quarter) amendments (unfinished item) to the Zoning Code for Signs;
and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Assessment EA -419A and Zone
Text Amendment ZTA 97 -3A, Third Quarter Amendments Applicant City of
E1Segundo
City Attorney Mark Hensley read the following by title only
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
346 DECEMBER 15, 1998
700PM
PAGE NO 3
ORDINANCE NO. 1290
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL AS-
SESSMENT NO. EA -419A AND ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT ZTA 97 -3A,
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF TITLE 9 (PEACE, SAFETY, AND
MORAL), AND TITLE 20 (ZONING CODE) OF THE EL SEGUNDO
MUNICIPAL CODE. PETITIONED BY THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
MOVED by Mayor ProTem Jacobs, SECONDED by Council Member Weinick to
adopt Ordinance No 1290, amending the Zoning Code for Signs; and, a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Assessment EA -419A and Zone Text Amendment
ZTA 97 -3A, Third Quarter Amendments. Applicant City of El Segundo MOTION
PASSED BY UNANANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER
GAINES. 4/0
3 Implementation of the Downtown Task Force recommendations
Council consensus to continue the Downtown Task Force with the possibility of
additional appointments to replace members who do are unable to continue to contribute
Civic Center Plaza Design
Prepare an RFP for a project coordinator to direct a charette process Invite three
architects /designers to submit competing proposals for consideration by a citizens group
These proposals would be reviewed by the Task Force and the recommended plan
forwarded to the City Council for final selection
Downtown Events Programming
Prepare an RFP for an events coordinator, the Task Force to determine the types and
numbers of events that will aclueve the goals of the program Farmers Market
groundwork will begin immediately with staff support from the Department of Recreation
& Parks
Retail Recruitment
Prepare an RFP to develop a candidate list of consultants to be considered by the Task
Force for recommendation to the City Council for final action
Specific Plan
Planning & Building Safety to complete portions of this project, with the help of outside
experts to define the scope of work, recommended course of action, including budgetary
implications, if any to be reviewed by the City Council subcommittee prior to formal
consideration
All items to return to Council for RFP approvals, and budgetary considerations
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 1998
700PM
347 PAGE NO 4
4 Proposed prohibition on non - retail and non - restaurant development within downtown El
Segundo
Due to lack of quorum because of the absence of Council Member Gaines, and conflict of
interest of Mayor ProTem Jacobs, this item was continued to January 5, 1999
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
5 El Segundo Senior Housing Board's 1999 Budget Proposal for Park Vista
MOVED by Council Member Wernick, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to
approve the El Segundo Senior Housing Board's 1999 Park Vista Budget MOTION
PASSED BY UNANANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER
GAINES, 4/0.
6 Provide input and direction to the Planning Commission regarding a proposal to begin
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings at 6 00 p in instead of 7 00 p in
Fiscal impact None anticipated
Council consensus in favor of the Planning Commission determining the need to change
the time of their regular meetings
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
7 Warrant Numbers 2253759- 2254041 in total amount of $1,062,713 39, and Wire
Transfers in the amount of $280,467 01
8. City Council meeting minutes of December 1, 1998
9 Adopt Resolution No 4103 authorizing stop signs for northbound and southbound
Virginia Street and Whiting Street at Holly Avenue, eastbound and westbound Palm
Avenue at Hillcrest Street (east intersection)
10 Received and filed the quarterly review reports of the City's Investment Policies and
Transactions for the quarters ended March 31, 1998 and June 30, 1998 by Thomas,
Bigbie and Smith
11 Receipt of $4,417 69 donation from Marcellus L Joslyn Foundation, and deposit in to the
Joslyn Donation Account
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 15, 1998
348 700PM
PAGE NO 5
12 Acceptance of the replacement of water lines, 1997 -98 — Project No PW 97 -15 (final
contract amount = $274,269.37) Approval of Change Order No 1 in the amount of
$7,47547
13 Adoption of RESOLUTION NO 4104 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT OF ITS DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS WITH THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BENEFIT SERVICES
CORPORATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL CITY /COUNTY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION RETIREMENT CORPORATION
MOVED by Council Member Wemick, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to
approve consent agenda items numbers 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER GAINES 4/0.
F. NEW BUSINESS -
14 Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for off -site sale of beer, wine, and liquor
(Type 21 - Off -Sale General) for New York Food Company, a full- service, off - premises,
catering company located at 2320 Alaska Avenue (ABC 98 -8) Applicant Jim Wharton -
New York Food Company Fiscal Impact None
MOVED by Mayor ProTem Jacobs, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to
determine that the public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of the
ABC license, thereby approving the license MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS
VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER GAINES. 4/0
15 New Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license for off -site sale of beer, wine, and liquor
(Type 21 - Off -Sale General) for an existing neighborhood market (currently named
Good Stop Market) located at 601 Virginia Street The market currently has a Type -20
license for off -site sale of beer and wine (ABC 98 -9) Applicant /Buyer Tim Hovland
Fiscal Impact None
Item continued to January 5, 1999 at the request of the applicant, Tim Hovland
G. REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - NONE
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY - NONE
I. REPORTS - CITY CLERK - NONE
J. REPORTS - CITY TREASURER - NONE
K. REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member McDowell - NONE
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
n DECEMBER l5, 1998
'349 700PM
PAGE NO 6
Council Member Gaines - NONE
Council Member Wernick - NONE
Mayor Pro Tem Jacobs - NONE
Mayor Gordon —
16 Request for variances from the Municipal Code
Recommendation — Approve request by Mr S. Claus for a waiver of the permits required
for doing business within the City of El Segundo as follows
1) Approval of a Conditional Use Permit and waiver of regulations in ESMC Section
20 74 040,
2) The use of air rights and waiver of the Santa Monica Radial 160 R procedure
(FAA should be contacted),
3) Waiver of the ordinance on Animal Regulations (ESMC 8 02 010),
4) Waiver of the Trespass Ordnance (ESMC 9 28 010) including 8 04 110 dealing
with trespassing ammals,
5) Grant a free business license for a non - profit organization (ESMC 5 04 050),
6) Waiver of the Pooper - Scooper regulations (ESMC 9 04 040),
7) Waiver of the Noise Ordinance to permit the sound of bells (ESC 9 06 0110), and
8) Waiver of ESMC 16 04.060 (Driveway Permits Required) and 10 28 110 (Parking
on Grades)
MOVED by Council Member Wemick, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to
approve of the variances by Mr S Claus for December 24 & 25, 1998 MOTION
PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER
GAINES. 4/0.
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
Clerk Mortesen read a letter into the record from Mr CharlesWilkerson opposing the narrowing
of Main Street
Mr Ward, resident, spoke regarding revitalization of Main Street
ADJOURNMENT at 9.20 p.m. to January 5, 1998
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
MINUTES
nn CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
5 V DECEMBER 15, 1998
700PM
PAGE NO 7
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 5, 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Application to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Call for Projects for funding
the Douglas Street Gap Closure/Railroad Grade Separation Project (total estimated project cost = $10 5
million)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Authorize staff to submit the application through the Southbay Council of Governments (COG)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The MTA has notified all local agencies to submit applications for funding transportation improvement
programs This process is known as the 1999 Call for Projects and includes an estimated total funding of
between $385 and $509 million dollars over five (5) fiscal years in seven (7) modal categories of transportation
improvements as shown on the attachment The funding for a particular project could come from County,
Federal or State transportation programs as determined by the MTA The application deadline is January 29,
1999 If the city is successful in receiving the grant, the grant funds would become available starting in 2001
DISCUSSION:
(Discussion begins on the next page.........)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS-
Preliminary MTA fund estimates
Traffic Mitigation Fee "Estimated Costs of Transportation System Improvements "
FISCAL IMPACT: Potential City commitment of $3,675,000
Operating Budget:
Capital Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested:
ProjecUAccount Budget.
ProjecUAccount Balance:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
ORIGINATED:
-lE
Not at this time
Date:
Date:
/� —/
Page 1 of 2 351
N \COUNCUPWJAN056 (Tuesday 12/22/98 8 45 am)z 9
DISCUSSION: (continued)
The City is currently pursuing a project to close the existing gap in Douglas Street north of Rosecrans Avenue
by means of constructing a grade separation structure for the Burlington -Santa Fe Railroad tracks The
proposed roadway would be constructed under the railroad tracks and the Metro Green Line Douglas Street
Station
The total estimated cost of the project is $10 5 million Staff is recommending submitting an application to the
MTA Call for Projects for funding this project through the sponsorship of Southbay Cities Council of
Governments, under the modal category of Regional Surface Transportation Improvements
The proposed funding based on MTA's local agency matching fund requirements is as follows
MTA Funds = $ 6,825,000
35% City Matching Funds = $ 3,675,000
Total Project Cost = $10,500,000
A minimum 20% or $2,100,000 of the City matching funds has to be in hard dollars and the remaining
15% or $1,575,000 may be from soft in -kind contributions such as engineering, construction management
and right -of -way contributions The City's adopted Traffic Mitigation Fee Program includes he Douglas Street
Extension (same protect) in the list of proposed system improvements to be partially funded through the fee
program (see attached)
Staff is currently preparing the funding application for submittal to the MTA prior to the January 29,1999,
deadline Staff Is requesting City Council authorization to submit this application to the MTA through the
sponsorship of Southbay Cities of Council of Governments
35Z
Page 2 of 2
N \COUNCUPMAN056 (Tuesday 12122/98 8 45 am)z
lz
O
x
a
O
F
0
LU
aLU
z n
Z
�O
F Ir
a
z�
F O
J LL
C J
a0, U
a
cw F
C �
z
O
U
N
W
J
W
Z
co
a
O
J
cZ_
G
J
W
W-
a
N
W
H
a
N
W
0
Z
:) c
LL O
Irl
p_
0
W
Q
U
J
O
2
2
W
O
4
Q
0
Z
Q
£I
I
0
d
N
N N
U a
d �
O C
W Y
m
m
U t
d c
9 -
.r O
� n
2
d y
N N
N >.
`m d
r _
N N
U �
d
c m
v m
c y
� D
� E
n0. V
A
N
N >
O �
C'4 a
N y
l}L E
C U
c
v 0
(D L
E c
m o
O N
O
a n
h h
�0 c
c m
li H
N
V
d
IL
3
2'i U
d
O pOi
a`
w y
U c
m
m C
r' E
t 0
m
0
o O
v a` a
O T
Q1 jj y
a a
� C
01 N
O) A
.L.. 7. A
c
V O
N N
o' m
c
d 00 C
m o m
o E
r°`w
a
n n o
353
elk
NH
a
LL
a
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
m
J =
M
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
F
O
o
0
0
0
o
e
o
0
i
f�0
O
d
N
N
N
N
m
J
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
e
O
»
o
s
0
0
S
0
0
»
a
4 i
M
N
N
v
r
N
Ci
O
N
LL
J
»
0
0
0
c
0
o
e
e
m
N
N
M
N
M
V
W
=
»
4 =
N
N
O
NO
O
o
e
e^
O
o
J
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N m
b
w
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
4 i
r
0
0
N
o
o
e
e
e
o
o
e
LL O
N
N
N
M
b
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
J
M
[
+»
L
N
M
»
O
O
N
d
6
4
1
U
U
m
N
N
U
YI
w
N
N
IL J
U
o s
�
L
6
d
IA
w
LL
q
N
N
N
h
O Ol
5
c
V
j
Y
i
II
N
@
E
E
o
e
e
o
C
d
G
F
_o
U
p>
CL
E
e
T
m
O
C7
E
m
E
W
v
c
c
O
CL
W
E
d
O
J
Qm
V
O
QF-
0
p
m
m
e
O
0
c
V
v
L
O
(�
~
N
L
J
>
u
E
0
a
m
a-
w
0
H
c
L
N
N
N
N
N
3
C
O
m
G
m
3
tt
0
6
N
2
N
0)
2
Y
LL
a'
N
+-
m
F
H
I
0
d
N
N N
U a
d �
O C
W Y
m
m
U t
d c
9 -
.r O
� n
2
d y
N N
N >.
`m d
r _
N N
U �
d
c m
v m
c y
� D
� E
n0. V
A
N
N >
O �
C'4 a
N y
l}L E
C U
c
v 0
(D L
E c
m o
O N
O
a n
h h
�0 c
c m
li H
N
V
d
IL
3
2'i U
d
O pOi
a`
w y
U c
m
m C
r' E
t 0
m
0
o O
v a` a
O T
Q1 jj y
a a
� C
01 N
O) A
.L.. 7. A
c
V O
N N
o' m
c
d 00 C
m o m
o E
r°`w
a
n n o
353
elk
NH
a
LL
a
11
`1
11110rA
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed Improvement
Total
Estimated Cost
New Development
Share of Costs
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to
Imperial Highway (Add one lane in each direction)
$4,600,000
$200,000
Widening of Sepulveda Boulevard - Rosecrans
Avenue to El Segundo Boulevard (Add one lane in
each direction)
Not Available
$870,000
Douglas Street Extension - Park Place to Alaska
Avenue
$9,500,000
$2,000,000
Construct left turn pocket for northbound
Continental Boulevard at Grand Avenue
$65,000
$24,700
Widen Manposa Avenue seven feet (7') on the
northside between Nash Street and Sepulveda Blvd
$235,000
$89,300
Nash /Douglas One -Way Couplet - Convert
casting two -way streets to a one -way couplet
(Nash - Southbound and Douglas- Northbound)
$500,000
$190,000
Signalizanon Improvements
$75,000
$28,500
Extend westbound left turn pocket
$25,000
$9,500
Shuttle system enhancements
$489,600/yr
$244,800
Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs
Not known at
this time
$47,500
Manposa Avenue
$2,410,500
$915,990
Lairport Street Extension
$1,594,250
$605,815
Grand Avenue Extension
$3,678,250
$1,397,735
Nash Street Extension
$15,471,250
$5,879,075
Hughes Way Extension
$7,168,000
$2,723,840
Impact Fee Program Setup and Update Costs
$135,000
$135,000
Administration Costs for Impact Fee Program
3%
3%
$15,822,608
TAB7 TAB 2 -5 -95
354
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE- January 5, 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING. Consent Calendar
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Agreement between Wadell Engineering Corporation ( "WEC "), the City of El Segundo, Culver City,
and the City of Santa Monica for an air traffic growth study to be performed by WEC
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION,
Authorize execution of Agreement between WEC, City of El Segundo, Culver City and the City of
Santa Monica, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney
BACKGROUND
As part of the City's response to LAX's planned expansion, City staff is recommending that the City
enter into a contract with WEC for purposes of having WEC analyze anticipated air traffic growth
throughout the Southern California region over the next twenty years
DISCUSSION
Currently, Culver City and Santa Momca have agreed to pay $15,000 each towards the study The City
of El Segundo will initially be responsible for $15,000 of the study It is anticipated that other cities
may contribute towards the study which will ultimately cost approximately $100,000 However, m the
event other contributions are not received, the City of El Segundo will be responsible for any shortfall
The cost of the study will be paid from the LAX Master Plan Intervention Account No 2901 -6406
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Proposed Agreement
FISCAL IMPACT.
(Check one) Operating Budget: -X- Capital Improv Budget
Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget: $1 2 million
Project/Account Balance Date:
Account Number, 2901 -6406
Project Phase
Appropriation Required - Yes_ No X
Date,
Mirk D Hensley, City Attomdy — December 30, 1998
REVIEWED W. Date.
/9/ P
ary enn,City Manager December 30, 1998
n \ca -stfrp
355
10
Sent B/ GLAOSTE:h & ASSOCIATES, 31C 314 9196,
UCH. -G I-1'J7d 15 or �NLVI
WADELL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
AIRPON7 PLANN',N0 . EN%K91 1NG • MANAGEMENT CQNSULTMTI
BAN FRANUI`hPUU BAT ARFA COFiPOWATE HKApQUAIMM
POST OFFICE BOX 1818 BURLINGAME, CAS4011.1819
PHONE (850)340-t5910 • ? AX j5K 548.5e0%
, fill w WADELL,GOM
Dec -29 -98 10 23Av, Page 2
TO 13103149196 P 01/24
ROBERT P. WADELL, P E
PrealdeM
December 7, 1998
Mary Strenn, City Manger, City of El Segundo
John Jallh, City Manger, City of Santa Monica
Jocile Hall-Esser, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Culver Gty
Re, Agreement with WadBit Engineering Corporator for Preparation of a Regional Aviation
Allocation Method Analysis
Cigar City Managor,
This letter of agreement will confirm the mutual understanding between Wadell Engineering
Corporation (WEC) and tho ortioo of El Segundo, Culver City, and Santa Monica ( the Initially
participating cit!se°) for the funding of a technical study by this firm The study is antcipeted to
result in a report asseseing the dlstnbution of anticipated growth In air traffic in Southern
California over the neAt twenty years to a number of airports throughout Southern California A
scope of work Is atta0hed to this letter, The City Manager of each of the three named cites is
signing this letter
The City and Wadell Engineenng Corporation agree to the following
I The City agrees to contribute $15,000 toward the funding of the above- clawrlbed study, This
contribution will be matched by $15,000 coMributrons each from the other titres, The monies
WE he paid to WEC by each city upon its City Manager's approval of this agreement in the
following manner, $5,000 from each participating ctty at the commencement of Work, $0,000
from each city upon receipt of the draft report on the results of Part A, and, $5,000 from each
otty upon receipt of the final report on the results of PArt A An additional $5,000 will be
advanced by El Segundo for final payment of the Part A total compensation of $50,000 The EI
Segundo admnice will be reimbursed to EI Segundo as part of cor WaLiVons from additional
cities JOAN the study effort,
2 Upon receipt of the total $15,000 In Initial funding, WEC vNl immediately commence Its
efforts to undertaKO ire tasks In Part A of Ltie Btuxohed Bcope of Work, Upon receipt of a second
$15,000 In funding and after receiving comments from participating wiea WEC shall prepare e
flna! report providing In its best professional Judgment the analysis and results of Part A. The
tasks In Part A wfll be completed for a total of W,Uuu
356
Sen* By G_ADSTEIN & ASSDC =ATES, 310 314 9196, Dec -29 -98 10 24AM, Page 3
--- — — """ iu 1J lld.]14717b P. 4e/el;
Mary Strenn, City Manger, City of El Segundo
John Jahll, City Manger, City of Santa Monica
Jodie Hall- Esser, Chief Adminleirative Officer, City of Culver City
December 7, 1996
Page Two
3 The projected coat of the entire scope of work (Patti A. S. and C) Is currently expected to be
up to $100,000 The inittally participating cities of El Segundo, Culver City, and Santa Monica,
in an cffort coordinated by the City of El Segundo, will continue to seek additional funding trom
additional Interested cities It Is anticipated that the projected additional $55,000 will be raised
through contributions from three to six other cities, The cities that provide contriwtions later wAl
ue asked to agree to the relevant provisions of this letter through separate letters of agreement
4 Wadell Engineering Corporation anticipates that it will retain qualified subconsultante to
perform some of the technical work specrtfed In Parts B and C of the Swint of Work. WEC and
Its subconsultants will not be expected to undertake efforts for which funding has not been
aecured.
5. In the interest of efficient administration, Wadell Engineering Corporation will report to one of
the Initially particlpabng titles, That city mil be designated by mutual agreement among the
three participating chles. The designated city will be responsible for keeping the other titles,
Including any subsequently joining paNcipabng titles, apprised of the statue and progress of the
WEC work, and convene meetings and otherwise distribute Information among the participating
cities as appropriate In the event the tides are unable to agree on a single city for such
reporting and administrative purposes, the Wise understand that compensation to WEC may
need to be augmontod to cover tiny additional adminwtratrve ooste of WEC.
6 Wadell Engineerng Corporation will release its reports, data, and any other material to the
rrpresent4itive clty designated pursuant to paragraph b above, Wadell shall exercise he best
professional judgment in cons'deration of comments received from participattng cities (or
agencies),
7, It is understood by Wadell Engineering Corporation and the initially paritIcipating cities that
Wadell Engineering is acting as an Irrdspendent expert, and on this basis the cttes are entering
into this agreement to fund the work described in the Scope of Work. All parties anticipate that
the report produced by WEC and Its subconsultants will be an impartial expert analysis
If you are in agreement with the above - described terms, please sign where indicated below and
return,
Sincerely,
Wadeli Engmeenriq Corporation
X ,4't 12 (,rJ4'0'e .
Robert P Wadell, P E.
President
Attachment Scope of Work
357
Se— 9y C_ACSTE:% & ASSCC:ATES, 310 314 9196, Dec -29 9e 10 24WA, gage 4,7
-�- - •��•+ .. �� ,�u IU 1J1bJ1u717C Y 4J_ ✓l�4
Mary Strenn, Clty Manger, City of El Segundo
John Jallll, City Manger, City of Santa Monica
Jodie Hall-Esser, Chief Administrative Officer, City of CUlver City
December T, 1996
Page Three
Read and agreed:
Mary Strenn Date
City Manager
City of El Segundo
Read and agreed.
John Adolf Data
City Manager
City of Santa Monica
Read and agreed:
Jodie (tall -Easer pate
Chief Adminstratfva Officer
City of Culver Cfty
35�
Se By G�ADSTEIN & ASSOCIA —ES, 310 314 9196, Dec -29 -98 10 25A "A, Page 6/7
Memorandum of Agreement
Side Agreement between the cities of El Segundo, Culver City and Santa Monica
with respect to the Regional Airport Study being conducted by Wadell
Engineering Corporation
1 To implement paragraph 5 of the Agreement with WEC to conduct a study of regional airport
options, the cities designate El Segundo as the city to wluch WEC reports El Segundo will be
responsible for keeping the other participating cities, including laterjoining participating cities,
informed, and for convening meetings as appiopnate El Segundo will designate an individuall or
individuals as the contact person or people for WEC.
2 To implement paragraph 6 of the agreement with WEC, the cities agree that WEC will
provide any product initially to El Segundo El Segundo will be responsible for dissermnating
such reports, data, or other materials to the other participating cities The City of El Segundo
shall assure each participating city the opportunity to participate in the release of the report, as
each city may elect
360
[DRAFT LETTER]
January _, 1999
Jodie Hall- Esser, Chief Administrative Officer
Mark Wmogrand, Community Development Director
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd
Culver City, CA 90232 -0507
Re Regional Airport Study by Wadell Engineering Corporation
Dear Jodie and Mark
The City of El Segundo appreciates the decision of the City of Culver City
to join us in our efforts to demonstrate the viability of a regional airport plan that
does not rely upon a major expansion at Los Angeles International Airport Such
a plan would encourage the development of Southern Califorma's regional airport
resources to absorb the reasonably projected increases in regional air commerce
without further overburdening communities in the vicinity of LAX
As we begin the first phase of our study with Wadell Engineering
Corporation, I want to give you my assurances of the strong commitment of the
City of El Segundo to guarantee the completion of this project
I look forward to working together on this important effort
Sincerely,
Mary Strenn
City Manager
MS mb
cc Mayor Mike Gordon and
members of the City Council
mb \n \w delltr
361
Sergi By GLADSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, 310 314 9196, Dec -29 98 'C 24AM, Page 5/7
IU 04/04
SCOPE OF WORK
REGIONAL AVIATION ALLOCATION ME7MOO (RAAM) ANALYSIS
Objective.
To perform an independent analysis of the potential for allocaWn of amine passenger and wr cargo to a
balanced mg'cnal syste r of airports rather than focus development through year 2015 at LAX,
DescrlpUont
Part A — Assess the Existing Commercial Airports within the Region
The C,onsuRant will coliecn and review currently adopted wili ioporto. draft in- progress reports, and
reglonal studies, and will meet with airport representatives Analysis will be made of available data to
determine existing and planned demand and capacity, known conatrairits, and reported wets of
development Data fur till wiwas will be interpolated to a common time frame for oanpdrative purposoc.
Using SLAG aggregate demand forecasts, the Comltarrt wig make an order of magnitude allocation of
passenger and cargo traffic to the closest :uitablc ouport m the region applying profwslonal judgment
without computer modeling The results will be reviewed mformaily w1h local officials at each airport to
determine anticipated local support or opposition
fA" — Evaluate the Adequacy of the Currently Used Forecast Model
The Consultant will meet with SCAG and review the current aggregate forecast model and method
Based on the characteristic* of the study nrpn and the model's features, the Consultant will evaluate the
strengths and weaknesses of that spedltlo model and methodology for use to Southern Califomla A
discussion wig be presented as to other models In use elsewhere, and advantages / disadvantages of
using p rlrffarpr,t modal
P-912_Q — Perform Modeling for Allocation of Demand
The Consultant will prepare assumptions for up to three scenarios of demand ailacatoon to the regions
aliport system assuming existing facility constraints at LAX The number of scenali and extent and
refinement of modeling will be suhfect to available budget prior to the analysis commencing
Deliverable*:
Each Part of this Scope of Work will result in a focused narrative report presenting the rrralysts and
results in the beat professional judgment of the consultant Eaoh part of the scope will oomrnerrcv upun
receipt of executed agreements and initial funding
Part A - A draft narrative report prsoan ig fife analysla and rasulw ul Pail A shall be submited for roylew
and comment to the designated city 75 days after commencement Comments shall be retumed to the
consultant within 15 days A final repot, shall be prepared and submitted 15 days after receipt of all
wmmerts on the draft
Part B • A draft narrative report presenting the analysis and results of Part B shall be submitted for review
and eorrimeili lu the designated arty 45 days after oommcnocmant Comments shall be returned to 1he
oonsullant within 15 days A fine' report shall be prepared and submitted 15 days after receipt of all
comments on the draft
Er Q - A drari narrative reporl presenting the analysis and results of Part C shall be submitted for review
and comment to the designated city 90 days+ after cemmoncemant. CQ mmente shall be rettmted to the
cvnovltamt within 16 days A final report shall he prepared and submitted IS days after receipt of oil
comments on the draft
End of Scope of Work - 1217M
359
TOTAL P.04
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 5, 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Granting of an Easement Deed to the State of California for the Sepulveda Boulevard Widening Protect (no
fiscal Impact)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Approve Easement Deed and authorize the Mayor to sign the Deed on behalf of the City
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The City has entered Into a co- operative agreement with Caltrans and the City of Manhattan Beach to widen
Sepulveda Boulevard between Grand Avenue (in El Segundo) and Marine Avenue (in Manhattan Beach) In
accordance with this agreement, the two (2) cities have the responsibility of delivering to Caltrans the right -of-
way needed to construct the proposed widening improvements
Within El Segundo City limits all private property owners have agreed to grant the needed right -of -way for the
project The City also has its Golf Course property fronting Sepulveda Boulevard and small portions of this
frontage are necessary to construct the project There are three (3) separate areas (enclosed map) totaling
1,780 square feet that are included In the Easement Deed prepared by the Los Angeles County Department
of Public Works which is the right -of -way agent for the project
DISCUSSION:
The City Attorney has reviewed the Easement Deed and is of the opinion that City Council action is not
necessarily required to execute the Deed, however the County has required City Council authorization for the
Mayor to sign the Deed on behalf of the City
The Easement Deed has been approved as to form by the City Attorney The Department of Recreation and
Parks has reviewed the proposed easement areas and has determined that these easements will not impact
the operations of the Golf Course
Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed Easement Deed
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Easement Deed
Location map
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Capital Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
Date:
362 N \COUNCIL \PW- JAN0501 (Monday 12/21/98 11 45 AM) 11
res.oe
.Q
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE
ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803 -1331
Telephone (626)458 -5100
HARRV W STONE, Doeet.,
November 30, 1998
Mr Bellur Devaraj
City of El Segundo
350 North Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245 -3895
Dear Mr Devaraj
ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE lO
P O BOX 1460
ALHAMBRA CALIFORNIA 91802 -1460
IN REPLY PLEASE
REFER TO FILE MP-2
A
CNGINCE RING
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD - PARCELS 27 -1, 27 -1D.1, AND 27 -1101.2
EASEMENT DEED
Enclosed are another original and duplicate Easement Deed for execution by the City of
El Segundo for the above - referenced project The Easement Deed must be executed by
the Mayor pursuant to a Resolution adopted by your City Council Please return the
original executed Easement Deed to me in the self- addressed stamped envelope provided,
together with a copy of the City's Resolution
If you have any questions, please contact me at (626) 458 -7072
Very truly yours,
HARRY W STONE
Director of Public Works
(
DAYNA ROTHMAN, Senior Real Property Agent
Acquisition & Revenue Properties Section
Mapping & Property Management Division
DR adg
P2 \SEPDOCSI
Enc
363
GRIGINAL
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
State of California Department
of Transportation
120 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012 -3606
Map No
RWPS
THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM DOCUMENTARY
TRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO SECTION 11922 OF THE
REVENUE & TAXATION CODE
THIS DOCUMENT RECORDED PURSUANT TO SECTION
6103 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
DONATION
EASEMENT DEED
CORPORATION
Space Above Thu Lute Reserved for Recorder's Use
Assessor's Identification Number
4138- 014 -909 (Portion)
DISTRICT
COUNTY
ROUTE
POST MILE
NUMBER
07
LA
1
23.4/252
76086
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation, does hereby GRANT to the State of California,
acting by and through the Department of Transportation, an EASEMENT for road and highway purposes
and drainage purposes upon, over and across that certain real property In the City of El Segundo, County
of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows:
FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS
REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on , 19 ,
the City of El Segundo, a municipal corporation has caused this Easement Deed to be executed by its duly
authorized officer pursuant to a resolution adopted by its City Council.
(CITY SEAL)
ATTEST
By
City Clerk
MP-9 54 e6l
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO,
a municipal corporation
By
Mayor
Approved as to Form
36 ! City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
County of ) SS
On this the day of
19, before me,
Name, Title of Office-E G , "Jane Doe, Notary Public"
personally appeared
Name(s) of Signer(s)
• personally known to me
• proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to be the person(s) whose nune(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed
the same in brsther /their authorized capacuy(ws), and that by
or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument
WITNESS my hand and official seal
(Notary Pubhc's signature to and for said County and State)
htsther /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s),
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that the State of California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation (pursuant to Government
Code Section 27281), hereby accepts for public purposes the real property described to the within deed and consents to the recordation thereof
IN Wf1NF.SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this day of
,19
0
3 s5
Director of Transportation
Attorney in Fact
SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD (27)
Parcels 27 -1, 1D.1 and 1D.2
A.M.B. 4138 - 014 -909
C.I. 25 (B1, 2)
S.D. 4
T.G. 732 (G -2,3)
M9180110
Parcels 76086 -1, 76086 -2, and 76086 -3
PARCEL 27 -1
Parcel 76086 -1
That portion of Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 17749, as shown on
map filed in Book 207, pages 56 through 60, inclusive, of Parcel
Maps, in the office of the Recorder of the County of Los Angeles,
lying westerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the intersection of the centerline of Hughes Way
as said centerline is shown on said parcel map and a line parallel
with and 40 feet easterly, measured at right angles, from the west
line of Section 18, Township 3 South, Range 14 West, Rancho Sausal
Redondo, as shown on map filed in Case No. 11629 of the Superior
Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, a
certified copy of said last mentioned map is filed as Clerk's Filed
Map No. 218, in the office of the Director of the Department of
Public Works of the County of Los Angeles; thence northerly along
said parallel line, North 00 041 13" West 591.82 feet, thence
North 890 55' 47" East 86.31 feet to the true point of beginning;
thence North 00 04, 10" West 77.94 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve concave to the west and having a radius of 3052 feet;
thence northerly along said curve through a central angle of
1° 30' 00 ", an arc distance of 79.90 feet; thence tangent to said
curve, North 10 34' 10" West to that certain course having a length
of 1659.26 feet in the westerly boundary of said Parcel 1.
To be known as SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD.
Containing: 780 square feet, more or less.
PARCEL 27- iD.1(Drainage easement)
Parcel 76086 -2
That portion of above mentioned Parcel 1, within a strip of
land 20 feet wide, lying 10 feet on each side of the following
described centerline:
Commencing at the above described intersection of the
centerline of Hughes Way and the line parallel with and 40 feet
easterly, measured at right angles, from the west line of above
mentioned Section 18; thence northerly along said parallel line,
1431.36 feet to the true point of beginning; thence easterly, at
EXHIBIT A [Page 1 of 21
366
right angles to said parallel line, to a line parallel with and
25 feet easterly, measured at right angles, from above mentioned
certain course having a length of 1659.26 feet.
Containing: 500 square feet, more or less.
PARCEL 27 JJ2. (Drainage easement)
Parcel 76086 -3
That portion of above mentioned Parcel 1, within a strip of
land 20 feet wide, lying 10 feet on each side of the following
described centerline:
Commencing at the above described intersection of the
centerline of Hughes Way and the line parallel with and 40 feet
easterly, measured at right angles, from the west line of above
mentioned Section 18; thence northerly along said parallel line,
1771.36 feet to the true point beginning; thence easterly, at right
angles to said parallel line, to a line parallel with and 25 feet
easterly, measured at right angles, from above mentioned certain
course having a length of 1659.26 feet.
Containing: 500 square feet, more or less.
JLO jb /P- 5 /wp#240 /Pcl 27 -1
AF ?OVER AS TO DESCRIPTION
ll � 98
,19 5
OF LOS ANGELES
SING CADASTRAL ENGINEER I
Mapping end Property Management DWAm
EXHIBIT A [Page 2 of 21
367
W
a U( L Ize U = z
..
EA5EMENT
AREAS
GNEvRorl
Z1 -1 -D 2
50o SF�
Z7 -I -D
50o SFT
2
(�7Bo 5Ft
MANHATTAN
s
0
p
2
-N-
n
v�
�P
2,
� � c
Wfc$T
,aPy
B�t51N
AL -t ED
51"AL
�••: �N F',. BEACH ,
I
a ,
0
W
J /
J �
Q
` G
y0
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE, January 5, 1999
AGENDAHEADING: ConsentAgenda
City - Caltrans State -Local Transportation Partnership Program ( SLTPP) Master Agreement and Program
Supplement No 001 (one -time revenue of $41,417 00)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1 Approve Master Agreement No SLTPP 07 -5235 and Program Supplement No 001
2 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Master Agreement and Program Supplement No 001 on behalf
of the City
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
The State of California has a program to contribute State funds to eligible local agency funded transportation
projects This program, known as the State -Local Transportation Partnership Program is administered by
Caltrans and the level of State funding vanes from year to year depending upon funds allocated in the State
budget
DISCUSSION:
The City recently completed a project to rehabilitate Vista del Mar within City limits for a total construction cost
of $261,961 34 Caltrans has indicated that this project is eligible for participation in the 1998 -99 fiscal year
SLTPP program Based on the State estimated participation level of the eligible construction costs, the City
is eligible to receive $41,417 00
Caltrans has prepared the enclosed Master Agreement and the Program Supplement No 001 for execution
by the City In order to formalize the State's participation In the City's project The Master Agreement is the
general agreement to be executed and the companion program supplement needs to be executed for receiving
state funds for the particular project The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Agreement as to form
Staff recommends City Council approval of the Agreement and Program Supplement No 001 and
authorization for the Mayor to execute the documents on behalf of the City
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
City -State Master Agreement No SLTPP 07 -5235 and Program Supplement No 001
FISCAL IMPACT: Potential revenue of $41,417 00
Operating Budget:
Capital Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested-
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
r � Eduard Schroder. Director ofPubhi
RE =WED
0 A a tip -s
N/A
N/A
None
Date:
jgf28) 191018
369 N \COUNCILIPW- JAN05 -02 (Monday 12/28/989 50 am) 12
STATE -LOCAL ENTITY MASTER AGREEMENT NO.SLTPP 07 -5235
STATE -LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
(Pursuant to S &H Code Section 2600 et seq )
07 City of El Segundo
District Agency
THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate this day of , 199_, by and
between the City of El Segundo, a City, County, or LOCAL ENTITY, as defined in Streets and
Highways Code Section 2601(a), hereinafter referred to as "LOCAL ENTITY," and the State of
California, acting by and through the Department of Transportation, herein referred to as
"STATE "
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, as provided by Section 2600 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code,
LOCAL ENTITY, has applied for State Share funds to be used for an "Eligible Project" as
defined, herein referred to as 'PROJECT" selected by LOCAL ENTITY.
WHEREAS, STATE is required to enter into an agreement with LOCAL ENTITY to
delineate certain responsibilities relative to prosecution of the said PROJECT.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows.
ARTICLE I - Contract Administration
1 Projects shall be constructed in accordance with this agreement and as described in the
Project Termini and Type of Work of the Program Supplemental Agreement.
2 Unless otherwise provided in the Program Supplement, the LOCAL ENTITY shall
advertise, award and administer the construction contract for the PROJECT
3. The construction work for PROJECT shall be performed by contract As a condition of
acceptance of the State Share Funds provided for this PROJECT, LOCAL ENTITY will abide by
the State/Local Partnership Program policies, procedures, guidelines and any special covenants
in the Program Supplement which is made part of this agreement by this reference
4. The estimated cost and scope of PROJECT will be shown in the approved Project
Application which, by reference herein, is made part of this agreement A contract for an amount
in excess of said estimated may be awarded and expenditures may exceed said estimate provided
370
LOCAL ENTITY will provide the additional funding and that sufficient LOCAL ENTITY
money is available to finance same
5 If the total State Share for all eligible PROJECTS exceeds the amount specified in the
Annual Budget, the STATE shall compute the pro rata share of State Share funds to be available
so that each eligible PROJECT will receive the same ratio of State Share to local share funding
6 The LOCAL ENTITY agrees that the payment of State Share Funds will be limited to the
lesser of the product of multiplying the calculated pro rata percentage as determined by the
STATE by either
(a) the Total eligible State/Local Partnership Project Cost in the approved
State/Local Partnership Program Application
(b) the award amount
(c) the Final Cost amount
and accepts any consequent increase in LOCAL ENTITY funding requirements
7. Subsequent to the Legislature appropriating the State Share funds and after the LOCAL
ENTITY has entered into. a) this State -Local Entity Master Agreement; b) a project specific
Program Supplement, and c) awarded the contract for an eligible project, the LOCAL ENTITY
may request and shall receive payment for eligible work as follows.
(a) STATE will pay its proportionate "State's Share" of the eligible participating
costs upon LOCAL ENTITY submittal of acceptable monthly progress pay estimates
for expenditures Initial progress billings should cover completed or underway
contract work
(b) If PROJECT is a cooperative project and includes work on a STATE highway,
PROJECT shall be the subject of a separate cooperative agreement between the
STATE and LOCAL ENTITY.
8 The Legislature of the State of California and the Governor of the State of California, each
within their respective jurisdictions, have prescribed certain employment practices with respect
to contract and other work financed with State funds LOCAL ENTITY shall ensure that work
performed under this agreement is done in conformance with the rules and regulations
embodying such requirements where they are applicable.
9 After completion of all work under this agreement and after all costs are known, LOCAL
ENTITY shall contract for a financial audit of the project costs The Final Audit, to be
accomplished at the LOCAL ENTITY's expense, may be done on an individual project basis, or
may be included in the LOCAL ENTITY's annual Single Audit. If an individual project audit is
done, the auditor must prepare a Final Audit Report If the LOCAL ENTITY chooses the Single
Audit option, a Management Letter will be required for the State Share funding. In either case,
the audit will include compliance tests required by the Single Audit Act and its implementing
2
371
directive, OMB Circular A -128 The compliance testing should ensure controls are in place to
assure that
(a) Reimbursement claims submitted to the State for the project are supported by
payment vouchers and canceled checks
(b) Charges for the various categories of eligible costs incurred by the LOCAL
ENTITY are fully supported
(c) Ineligible costs were not claimed as reimbursable on the project.
(d) Local match funds were from an approved source
10. The Final Project Expenditure Report must be completed within 120 days of project
completion and should be in the format described in Volume I, Section 19, Exhibit 19 -1a of the
Local Programs Manual The Final Audit must be completed by December 30th following the
fiscal year of project completion. Project completion is defined as when all work identified in
the approved State/Local Partnership Application and Program Supplement Agreement has been
completed and final costs are known. The report documents (Final Project Expenditure Report
and Final Audit Report) will be sent to the appropriate State Department of Transportation
District Office Failure to comply with these reporting requirements may result in withholding of
future allocations by the Commission.
11. The State reserves the right to conduct separate technical and financial audits if it is
determined necessary. After the financial audit, LOCAL ENTITY shall refund any excess State
Share fiends reimbursed to LOCAL ENTITY beyond its entitlement
12 Should the LOCAL ENTITY fail to pay STATE claims within 30 days of demand, the
STATE, acting through State Controller, may withhold an equal amount from future
apportionments due the LOCAL ENTITY from the Highways Users Tax Fund The STATE
may, at its option, intercept and apply any monies otherwise due the LOCAL ENTITY to pay
these claims
13 When THE PROJECT includes work to be performed by a railroad, the contract for such
work shall be entered into by LOCAL ENTITY. LOCAL ENTITY shall enter into an agreement
with the railroad providing for maintenance of the protective devices or other facilities installed
under the service contract and for Railroad Protective Insurance during construction as necessary.
ARTICLE II - Right of Way
1. All related rights -of -way as are necessary for the construction PROJECT shall be acquired
by LOCAL ENTITY at its own expense and no contract for construction of PROJECT, or any
portion thereof, shall be advertised until the necessary rights -of -way have been secured.
2 The furnislung of rights -of -way as provided for herein includes but may not be limited to:
372
(a) all real property required for THE PROJECT free and clear of obstructions and
encumbrances
(b) the payment of damages to real property not actually taken but injuriously
affected by the proposed improvement.
(c) the cost of relocating owners and occupants pursuant to Government Code
Sections 7260 -7277
(d) the cost of demolition and sale of all improvements on the right of way
(e) the cost of all utility relocation, protection or removal legally obligated to be
done by the LOCAL ENTITY
(f) the cost of all hazardous materials and waste clean up not reimbursable by prior
owners
(g) the costs which arise out of delays to the contractor because utility facilities
have not been removed or relocated, or because rights -of -way have not been made
available to the contractor for the orderly prosecution of the work.
3 Should LOCAL ENTITY, in acquiring right of way for PROJECT, displace an individual,
family, business, farm operation, or nonprofit organization, the LOCAL ENTITY shall provide
relocation payments and services as required by California Government Code, Sections 7260-
7277.
ARTICLE III - Engineering
1. "Preliminary Engineering" costs may not be financed with State Share funds and shall be
financed by the LOCAL ENTITY with other sources of funding available to the LOCAL
ENTITY
2 Unless the parties shall otherwise agree in writing, LOCAL ENTITY's employees or
engineering consultant shall be responsible for all engineering work When construction
engineering is performed by STATE, charges therefore shall include an assessment on direct
labor costs in accordance with Section 8755 1 of the State Administrative Manual The portion
of such charges not financed at State cost shall be paid from funds of LOCAL ENTITY.
ARTICLE IV - Miscellaneous Provisions
I. The cost of maintenance performed by LOCAL ENTITY forces during any temporary
suspension of the work or at any other time may not be charged to the PROJECT
2 Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or
liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by LOCAL ENTITY under
373
or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to LOCAL ENTITY under
this agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section
895 4, LOCAL ENTITY shall fully indemnify and hold STATE harmless from any liability
imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810 8) occurring by reason of
anything done or omitted to be done by LOCAL ENTITY under or in connection with any work,
authority, orlunsdiction delegated to LOCAL ENTITY under this agreement.
3 Neither LOCAL ENTITY nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any
damage or liability occurring by reasons of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE
under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this
agreement. It is also understood and agreed that pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4,
STATE shall fully indemnify and hold LOCAL ENTITY harmless from any liability imposed for
injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810 8) occurring by reason of anything done or
omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction
delegated to STATE under agreement.
4 Auditors of STATE shall be given access to LOCAL ENTITY's book and records for the
purpose of verifying costs and pro rata share to be paid All project documents will be available
for inspection by authorized state personnel at any time during project development and for a
three -year period from date of final payment under the contract or one year after the audit is
completed or waived by the STATE, whichever is longer If a State audit is conducted, the
source of local match funds will be checked to determine if the source complies with the program
requirements
ARTICLE V - Accommodation of Utilities
1 Utility facilities may be accommodated on the right of way provided such use and
occupancy of the right of way does not interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic or
otherwise impair the roadway or its scenic appearance; and provided a Use and Occupancy
Agreement, setting forth the terms under which the utility facility is to cross or otherwise occupy
the right of way is executed by the LOCAL ENTITY and OWNER. The Use and Occupancy
Agreement setting forth the terms under which the utility facility is to cross or otherwise occupy
the right of way must include the provisions set forth in Volume I, Section 12 of the LOCAL
PROGRAMS MANUAL published by the STATE, unless otherwise approved by the STATE
2 If any protections, relocation or removal of utilities is required within STATE's right of
way, such work shall be performed in accordance with STATE policy and procedure. LOCAL
ENTITY shall require any utility company performing relocation work in the STATE's right of
way to obtain a State Encroachment Permit prior to the performance of said relocation work.
Any relocated utilities shall be correctly located and identified on the as-built plans.
ARTICLE VI - Condition of Acceptance
374
As a condition of acceptance of the State Share Funds provided for this project, LOCAL
ENTITY will abide by the State policies, procedures and guidelines pertaining to the State/Local
Partnership Program
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement by their duly authorized
officers
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation City of El Segundo
UZ
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Project Implementation
Date
Date
• ae • • ,
�� %_ �� ,
<�,- _ /-
6 375
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO 001 Date: December 08, 1998
to Location: 07 -LA - 0 -ESEG
STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Project Number: SB99- 5235(001)
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP -5235 E.A. Number 07- 931234
This Program Supplement is hereby incorporated into the State -Local Transportation Partnership Program Agreement for State
Share Funds which was entered into between the Local Entity and the State on / / and is subject to all the terms and
conditions thereof This Program Supplement is adopted in accordance with Paragraph 3 of Article I of the aforementioned
Master Agreement under authority of Resolution No approved by the Local Entity on (See
copy attached)
The Local Entity further stipulates that as a condition to payment of funds obligated to this project, it accepts and will comply
with any covenants or remarks setforth on the following pages
PROJECT TERMINI
Visa Del Mar 45th Stree to Grandk Avenue
TYPE OF WORK Reconst and Resurfacing Pavement LENGTH O(MILES)
PROJECT CLASSIFICATION OR PHASE(S) OF WORK
[X] Construction
Estimated Cost
State Share Funds
Matching Funds
FY1999 $41,41700
LOCAL
OTHER
$249,65200
$208,235 00
$0 00
$0 00
FY20001 0 00
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
By By
Chief, Office of Local Programs
Date Project Implementation
Attest Date
Title
I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for this encumbrance
Accounting Officer Date
'aL $ —�g $41,41700
Chapter Statutes Item Year Program BC Fund Source AMOUNT
324 1998 2660- 101 -042 98 -99 20 25 010 100 C 258010 042 -T 41,417 00
376
Program Supplement SLTPP- 5235 -001- Page 1 of 3
07 -LA - 0 -ESEG
SB99- 5235(001)
SPECIAL COVENANTS OR REMARKS
12/08/1998
1. It is mutually understood between the parties that this contract
may have been written before ascertaining the availability of
legislative appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of
both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that
would occur mf the agreement were executed after that
determination was made.
The total amount of State -Local Transportation Partnership funds
payable by the State shall not exceed the sum of the "State Share
Funds" column on page 1 of this Program Supplement. The funds to
be encumbered and reimbursed are according to the schedule shown
under the aforementioned column.
Any increase mn State Partnership funds will require a revised
program supplement.
Any decrease in State Partnership funds will require a revised
fa.nance letter.
2. SPECIAL COVENANTS FOR SLTPP PROJECTS UNDER EARLY
REIMBURSEMENT PLAN AND UNDER $300,000 STATE SHARE
These Covenants supersede any conflicting provisions of the
Master Agreement:
A. The LOCAL ENTITY agrees that the payment of "State
ShareFunds" will be limited to the lesser of the product of
multiplying the calculated pro rata percentage as determined by
the STATE by either:
(a) The eligible award amount or
(b) The total eligible State /Local Partnership Project
cost in the approved State /Local Partnership Program
Application and accepts any consequent increase in
LOCAL ENTITY funding requirements.
B. The LOCAL ENTITY will xnvoice the State for the full "State's
Share" after the contract award or upon the State Budget Act
appropriation of funds, whichever occurs later. "State's Share"
ms considered a grant and wall be reimbursed as a lump sum
payment regardless of final project cost.
377
Program Supplement SLTPP- 5235 -001- Page 2 of 3
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 5, 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION.
Acceptance of the improvements to the City Parking Lot at the southwest corner of Main Street and Manposa
Avenue Project No PW 97 -25 (final contract amount = $57,853 21)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1 Approve Change Order No 1 in the amount of $946 85
2 Accept the work as complete
3 Authonze the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND:
On August 4,1998, the City Council awarded a contract to Century Parking, Inc, in the amount of $56,906 36
for improvements to the City Parking Lot at Main Street and Manposa Avenue The scope of work included
construction of a sewer connection at the parking lot to facilitate the community car wash program and
landscaping improvements
DISCUSSION:
During construction staff authorized installation of additional moisture barriers against the exterior wall of the
building abutting the proposed landscaping along the southside of the parking lot and installation of a battery
operated sprinkler controller in lieu of the specified conventional electrical service operated controller The
additional cost of this work, which was not included in the scope of the original contract, is $946 85 for which
Change Order No 1 is being requested There are sufficient funds in the project budget to finance this change
order and no additional appropriations are needed for this purpose
Staff recommends City Council acceptance of the completed work
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS-
1 Notice of Completion
2 Location map
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: No
Capital Improvement Budget: Yes
Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
ProjectlAccount Balance: $60.000 Date: 8/4/98
Account Number: 301 -400- 8201 - 8995/8986
Project Phase: Accept the work as complete
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED:, 7J OG Date:
379
N \ COUNCIL \PW- JAN053 (Tuesday 12/22198 8 30 am) 13
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name Improvements to Parking Lot at Southwest corner of Main Street and Manposa Avenue
Project No PW 97 -25
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 properly 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 Public parking lot
5 A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the City
Engineer on 11/25/98 The work done was Parking lot improvements
6 On 1/5/99, 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
7 The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was Century Paving, Inc
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 Southwest corner of
Manposa Avenue and Main Street
9 The street address of said property is None
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- SNPW97 -25 NOC (12110/95) 380
C4TY OF LOS ANGELES
North City Boundary—
IMPERIAL 2 I HWY.
WALNUT u G �I�J )?= L /
EX 1 pW <
p SYCAMORE D ~
ace J "
car r <
J H O
o u 4
]PI F
> a CITY PARKING LOT LL
m 1 MARIPOSA
AVE. S ®� HUMID— D a
I HOOMM 10 TOO
U I Pep -
N
A E D GRAND MPI -00L,_
FRANLaiaDm [om C
O®®®®O®F11
ORPNO __ -P
MU]UJIU! MMMMMMIELIEY L�DL
BiNDFR l
14`13 r I- �- r r a .-
t N N N N N N N N p N N N N N N p N N N
v
9 y�
a �
< p K 6 Z Z
C > V = ¢ p < Y O a OJ a =
J < 1- V U Z Z Z < J Z C ~ Y V w a V
'J Z ` O U < F n G Z W W O < J W W Q
U Q i N W It N 6 N J Z O V Z O
-N-
CHEVRON U.S.A.
LviJ
SCALE N.T.S. st 3 8 f
7� &y,^ St
.w
1 Notice of Completion
2 Vicinity map
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Capital Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested:
ProjecUAccount Budget:
ProfecVAccount Balance:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
Date:
108/119 -400- 8203 -8373
Accept the work as complete
No
ORIGINATED: J Date:ZZ, 9
Eduard Schroder Director of Puhhc Works
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name Sidewalks north of Douglas Street Metro Green Line Station
Project No PW 95 -12
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 Public street right -of -way
5 A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the City
Engineer on 12/14/98 The work done was Construction of new sidewalks
6 On 1/5/99, 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
7 The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was Damon Construction 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 Various streets
9 The street address of said property is None
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 \N0TICE'S\PW9&12 NOC (12/18198) 383
I 1
Nf:
J
Y
•
J
O
F
V
7==O=lAvo is 1117
tio— •NN tt!
I
v
i
M
f
1 =
■
NI�W tt ;
l+ Nf
l+ IW
M \YIN ►M
l+ fbI V
1+ IL\f
l+ ■•f�1
1+ \I \M\
\t HM.N
IL
S�
2
V
�+
�11MM7 77179=f !0's
11a1110
i t I 1 I
I iii;
UU
0MI
YN
.
}
t
►
J
4
1
i
awl
flow@
_
r
I
`
r
J ►
Y
s
-
11 Y\It
N
so
J
r
•�
J
Y
•
J
O
F
V
7==O=lAvo is 1117
tio— •NN tt!
I
v
i
M
f
1 =
■
NI�W tt ;
l+ Nf
l+ IW
M \YIN ►M
l+ fbI V
1+ IL\f
l+ ■•f�1
1+ \I \M\
\t HM.N
IL
S�
2
V
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE January 5,1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION.
Request for the City Council to approve the lowest responsible bids for exercise equipment as authorized in the
Police Department gymnasium remodel project and equipment replacement accounts
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
1) Accept bid and approve the expenditure of $20,091 36 for cardiovascular training equipment
2) Accept bid and approve the expenditure of $32,778 36 for weight training equipment
3) Reject all other bids
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND,
In 1996 staff determined that the existing gym, located within the Police Department, could no longer accommodate
the influx of Police and City personnel wishing to use the gymnasium The majority of exercise equipment in the
current gym is either broken, unsafe or scheduled for replacement in FY 98/99 The funds to purchase the needed
equipment will come from 2 different accounts $7000 will be used from the equipment replacement account, ( Acct
#001 - 400 - 3101 - 6207), and the remaining $45,869 70 will come from asset forfeiture funds authorized for the
remodel and expansion of the gymnasium, men's locker room and briefing room, (Acct # 109 - 400 - 3105 -8396)
DISCUSSION:
On November 30th, 1998, staff went out for competitive bids on cardiovascular and strength equipment Five
responses were received before the close date of December 15th After review, staff recommends awarding the bid
to the lowest bidder In regards to both cardiovascular and strength equipment, the low bidder was Advantage
Fitness of Santa Monica The bids of $20,091 36 for seven cardiovascular machines and $32,778 34 for the strength
training equipment, includes sales tax, delivery, installation, training and a two year quarterly maintenance
agreement
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1) A list of the cardiovascular equipment included in the bid specifications
2) A list of the strength equipment included in the bid specifications
3) A list of bid summaries
FISCAL IMPACT
(Check one) Operating Budget. Capital Improv Budget-
Amount Requested. $ 45.869 70 + $7000
Project/Account Budget: $ 235.000.00
Project/Account Balance. Date*
Account Number. Acct. #109 - 400 - 3105 -8396 / Equip. Rep Acct #001 -400- 3101 -6207
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required - Yes_ No-
ORIGINATED- Date. December 21, 1998
Tim Grimmc
REVIEWED
385
/�r�I06
15
Specifications for the Strength Training Gym Equipment
L W H Weight Stack
1) Camber Curl
45
54
33
364
150 Lt Stack -120
2) Seated Tricep Extension
41
35
52
383
150 Lt Stack -120
3) Shoulder Press
74
53
62
594
200 Lt /Hvy 100 /25C
4) Rear Delt/Pec Fly
60
48
82
504
200 100/25(
5) Leg Extension
49
35
52
490
260 180/30(
6) Seated Curl Leg
55
36
52
547
260 180/30(
7) Abdominal Isolator
45
37
52
454
200 100/25(
8) Adjustable Decline Bench
66
30
32
127
Highest Position- 46"
9) Multi Purpose Bench
45
30
33
60
10 ) 2- Superbenches
55
30
18
107
Highest Position- 47"
11) Power Cage
62
49
91
340
12) Smith Machine
55
87
92
614
13) Vertical Plate Tree
24
23
49
78
14) Five Station to include,
CPT Pulldown
73
67
78
345
CPT Row
73
63
47
370
CPT Bench Press
81
54
29
310
CPT Incline Bench Press
70
55
37
270
CPT Shoulder Press
51
58
53
285
CPT Shrug
50
54
31
285
** Bids must include the following
1 ) The trade -in value of 2 Hammerstrength leg machines,
a Norland Dakota
work station (5 station), an incline
bench press, an adjustable bench press, and an
older model Smith machine,
all available for inspection
2 ) Delivery and setup fees
3 ) A 2 year, quarterly maintenance agreement with the option to extend service at
additional cost
386
Specifications for the Cardiovascular Gym Equipment
2 - STAR TRAC 3900 Commercial Treadmills
Black in color
20" wide running surface
2 5HP continuous DC
Incline range- 0 to 15%
Speed range 5 to 10 mph
Readout to include but not limited to, time, track, distance, calories expended, incline and
speed
Warranty to include, lifetime on frame, limited 2 -year on parts, 1 -year on labor
2) 2 - STAR TRAC 4400 Recumbent Bikes
3) 1 - STAR TRAC 4300 Upright Bike
Black in color
Self contained power supply
1- 30 load levels
Programs include hills, varied, interval and manual
No -key start-up
Readout to include but not limited to, work level, elapsed time, speed, total calories, total
distance, watts and heart rate
Warranty to include, lifetime on frame, limited 2 year on parts, and 1 year on labor
4) 1 - STAR TRAC 4100 Stair Climber
Black in color
Self- contained power supply
No key start up
Readouts to include, but not limited to, work level, elapsed time, total calories, speed
calories per hour, floors climbed, and heart rate
Warranty to include, lifetime on frame, 2 -year limited on parts, and 1 year for labor
5 ) 1 - STAR TRAC Elliptical Edge
Black in color
Self- contained power
15 levels of intensity
Readout to include, time, stride count, strides /min , calories, cal /min , heart rate, resistance
levels, course profile, distance and met level
Warranty to include, lifetime on frame, 2 -year limited on parts, 1 -year on labor
*Bids must include the following 1 Trade -in allowance of 2- 9500 Life cycle bikes, a
4000PT Stair master, a 1500 Star Trac treadmill, all
purchased in 1993
2 Fully itemized estimate including tax, delivery and
setup fees
3 A 2 -year, quarterly maintenance agreement, with
options to purchase additional years
387
1)
2)
1)
2)
3)
POLICE DEPARTMENT EXERCISE EQUIPMENT
BID # PD -98 -10
SUMMARY
STRENGTH TRAINING EQUIPMENT
Advantage Fitness $32,778 34*
Fitness Products International $34,09235
CARDIOVASCULAR EQUIPMENT
Advantage Fitness $20,09136*
Planet Exercise Equipment $22,96187
Star Trac $21,24636
Lowest bid received
388
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE January 5, 1998
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Cal -Card Purchasing Program
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION
Discuss Cal -Card Purchasing Program and provide direction to staff to implement program
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of El Segundo currently is restricted to making purchases by petty cash and by check
Petty cash requests are limited to $50 per transaction and much paperwork and follow -up staff
time is needed to monitor all transactions City personnel from satellite locations must come in to
get the cash before going back out and making purchases for their departments This is time
consuming and costly Additionally, there is often need to cut a manual check and obtain either a
direct payment or purchase order for purchases over $50
On December 14, 1998, City staff received a demonstration of a purchase card program
administered by the State of California The purpose of this program is to streamline purchases
made by various departments in the City
DISCUSSION (Continued on next page)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Cal -Card Program Overview
Fiscal Impact
Operating Budget.
Capital Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested:
ProjecU Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance:
Account Number-
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required.
i Z/ /
! �� 9�
1 ue, Crty T,rleasurer
Bret �Plumle rector e
38: 16
DISCUSSION:
Cal -Card is a Visa purchase card program that allows individuals to purchase what they need
when they need it With the use of this widely accepted Visa bank card by government,
employees are able to make walk -in and telephone orders and receive and confirm purchases of
up to the agreed upon assigned delegated dollar limits
Each individual assigned a card would receive a monthly statement of transactions coded to the
department's particular account number, and the Finance Department would receive a
summarized statement of all monthly activity The City's responsibilities in setting up this
program include designating an Agency Program Coordinator, approving officials, cardholders,
and accounting coordinator, establishing card limits and restrictions, and developing procedural
manuals and a training program
These responsibilities, procedures, and necessary controls will be established if the City Council
wants staff to pursue this program further It would then be staffs recommendation to implement
this program starting with one department If the program were successful, staff would then
implement the program citywide
Staff has contacted several cities that currently are using the Cal -Card program, and all of those
contacted have experienced an increased efficiency and lower costs
Staff feels implementing this program would reduce the number of checks, direct payment orders,
petty cash requests, purchase orders, and associated staff time, and improve the accountability
of purchases Additionally, vendors would receive payment within 2 days while the City would
have up to 40 days to make payment to the bank
Advantages to using this program include some of the following
♦ Streamline the procurement cycle for the purchaser and administrative functions
♦ Eliminate invoices of low value purchases so agencies receive only one invoice per month
♦ Reduce check requisitions, petty cash, direct payment orders, purchase orders, and the
number of checks issued for low value purchases
♦ Reduce order -taker activities in purchasing
♦ Obtain discounts on purchases with improved payment timing and lower processing costs to
suppliers
♦ Save an additional 2% on office supplies
♦ Reduce payment time, which is typically 30 to 60 days from the date of service or goods
shipment
3()0
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name Improvements to Parking Lot at Southwest corner of Main Street and Manposa Avenue
Project No PW 97 -25
Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 et seq that
1 The undersigned is an officer of the owner of the Interest stated below in the properly 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 Public parking lot
5 A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the City
Engineer on 11/25/98 The work done was Parking lot Improvements
6 On 1/5/99, 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
7 The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was Century Paving, Inc
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 Southwest corner of
Manposa Avenue and Main Street
9 The street address of said property is None
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 \NOTICE'STW97 -25 NOC (12/10/96) 380
C 4 T Y OF LOS ANGELES
North City Boundary—
IMPERIAL Z I HWY.
'" ACACIA H N 11
I lic pQ W ❑� � a a C AMORE �� ❑ _M m Y PAR IK NT m AVE. O ®❑ UUU� An v
u I per
Y '� PINE I - MUM m � � IUL
j ; '� j NO
r '
to
[A' E D � GRAND U ® OP
F R A N L�7mmmmf� ® ® ® ®� ®DH�1
GPPNO []MU]WMjj MMMMMMFELSlYl[U[][
sINOER L
14 s 13 �-
N N N N y1 N N N p N N N N N N p N N 1n
9
9 N
N N p
W C J ! > u Z = ! O a O
� i K F- Z p
C
O J 41
WC p
f Z
O 1- a U
J j = C 2 V ` .9 U W W Z ' i c 2 2 > W
0 Z J ; � U ¢ 'j N W a N 6 h a m U Z O
m
Q
SCALE N.T.S. s� 381
.n
CHEVRON U S.A.
v J J 1.
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 5, 1999
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Acceptance of the sidewalks north of Douglas Street Metro Green Line Station — Project Number PW 95 -12
(final contract amount = $227,898 00)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
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 August 4, 1998, the City Council awarded a contract to Damon Construction Company in the amount of
$239,300 00 for construction of sidewalks north of the Green Line Station This project was partially funded by
a Federal Grant of $200,000 00
DISCUSSION:
All work has now been completed to staffs satisfaction The final contract amount based on actual measured
quantities of work is $227,898 00
Staff recommends City Council acceptance of the completed work
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1 Notice of Completion
2 Vicinity map
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Caprtal Improvement Budget:
Amount Requested:
Project/Account Budget:
Project/Account Balance:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
Yes
Date:
106/119 -400- 8203 -8373
Accept the work as complete
um"timpaicu: p vace:�t /LZ /f0
382 N \C0UNCIL \PWJAN054 (Tuesday 12/22/98 8 30 am)
WA
,S CAL, -Card Program
PROCUREMENT DIVISION
An easy -to-use option for purchases
CAL -Card is a way for you to purchase what you need, when you need it With the ease of a widely- accepted VISA bank
card, you may make walk-in purchases, place telephone orders, and receive and confirm purchases of up to S 15,000 or for
state agencies, their assigned delegated dollar hmats Higher hmits are available upon prior approval The CAL -Card
streamlines current procurement methods, effectively manages expenses and cuts program costs It offers agencies effective
control and monitoring of purchases while reducing the time and paperwork associated with the use of Purchase Orders
Each agency which becomes part of the CAL -Card Program designates contact persons for program and accounting offs
functions Your agency decides who will receive cards and establishes card limits, including purchase restrictions For
State agencies, the purchase limit must be within your agency's delegated purchasing authority as authorized by the
Procurement Division The agency's cardholder, approving official and billing office contact each receive a monthly
statement from I M.P.A.0 Government Services (I.IvLP.A.C.), holder of the State's Master Service Agreement for the
CAL -Card Program
Pilot Program proves it works
Six State agencies participated in an 1 &month pilot program (with more than 1200 CAL -Cards issued) and the results were
impressive Evaluations showed that
• State employees who used the purchase card consider it a superior method of getting goods or services when needed
• More than a thud of the cardholders found that suppliers who formerly did not accept State business now accept the
State's VISA card
• Agency officials reported that the purchase card reports make it easier to analyze purchasing patterns and identity
frequently used suppliers
• An Employment Development Department study concluded that purchasing with the CAL -Card achieved 17 percent
lower prices
Who may participate
• State of California
• University of California/California State University Systems
• Local Government Agencies
Agencies are signing up now
If your agency is interested in becoming pan of the CAL -Card Program please send a request to participate to the State
Department of General Services You will also need to execute an addendum to the Master Service Agreement develop
your agency's policies and procedures for the use of CAL -Card and traits your employee cardholders WE WILL HELP
YOU GET STARTED For additional information and assistance, please call the CALCsrd Program,
Janice King - (916) 322 -5833, Michael Wilson - (916) 322 -5851, Roberta Hinchman - (916) 324 -6462,
Jenny Dunmore - (916) 323 -1390 or Donna Perkins - (916) 324 -1333. The Procurement Division TW telephone number
is (916) 322 -7535. The California Relay service telephone numbers an (voice) 1-800 -735 -2922 and (TTY) 1.800.735 -2929.
Department of General Services. Procurement Division, CAL -Card Program, 1823 141h Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
39i
CAL -CARD PROGRAM
BENEFIT SHEET
PARTICIPANT BENEMS
Drastically streamline the procurement cycle for the purchaser and administrative
functions
• Eliminate invoices of low value purchases so agencies receive one invoice per month
• Reduce check requisitions, petty cash, pay warrants for low value purchases
• Translate empowerment rhetoric into concrete action.
• Ehminate order -taker activities in purchasing Reduce related headcount and/or move
purchasing activities into purchase analysis to negotiate discounts, delivery and/or
service improvement
• Obtain discounts on purchases (or value -add services) with improved payment timing
and lower processing costs to suppliers
• Pilot Program indicates an average savings of $24 49 per *" mrlion.
• Save an additional 2% on Office Supplies
SUPPLIER BENEFITS
• Eliminate multiple invoices and all related administrative burdens with a typical invoice
process costmg suppliers over $20 per invoice
• Eliminate collection efforts
• Reduce payment which is typically 30 to 60 days from the date of service or goods
shipment For small business, where access to cash is often limited, the value of this
goes beyond the 2% cash float calculation With charge cards, payment is within
1 to 3 days
392
CAL -CARD
Frequently Asked Questions
9. What is the minimum number of cards required to start a program?
Your program can begin with one or as many cants as you need
2. What are the terms for payment?
Payment terms are 40 days from the date of each monthly statement of
accountlnvoice.
3. What is the interest rate?
This program is set up for accounts to be paid in full each invoice/billing
period. For unpaid, undisputed balances after the 40 day payment term,
there is a late payment interest rate established annually by the
Department of Finance according to the State's Prompt Payment Act.
The current rate is 6.699 %.
4. What are the established transaction increments per carol?
Increases and or decreases can be made in $50 increments per
transaction and in $100 increments for the monthly total up to a maximum
assigned state agency delegation authority or $15,000.
5. What does I.M.P.A.C. represent?
I.M.P.A.C. Government Services, the current Contractor, uses the
Service Mark, I.M.PA.C. These initials stand for International Merchant
Purchase Authorization Card.
6. Who is responsible for errors, omissions, and intentirural
misconduct by an agency or an employee?
The State, each Participating University, or each Participating Subdivision
is responsible for their own errors and omissions. When a card has
unauthorized charges, a dispute process procedure is followed freeing the
agency from financial responsibility. When unauthorized charges are
made by an employee, LM.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES
automatically provides VISA Liability Insurance coverage within specific
program criteria, provided that the employee is terminated.
393
7 Is there a annual card fee?
No When the contract was initially established there were provisions for
an annual card fee to begin after a given time period. However, through
contract negotiations, there will be no card fee through the remaining term
of the contract
8. Can a Cardho/dermake telephonj orders?
Yes A Cardholder can place telephone orders or make walk -in
purchases using the CAL -Card. When making telephone orders,
remember to request that the transaction receipt be mailed to the
Cardholder.
9. What does a Cardholder do if their CAL -Card is lost orstolen?
The Cardholder should immediately contact their Agency Program
Coordinator and call I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENTSERV/CES notifying
them of the situation. /.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENTSERV/CEShas a 24
hour a day, 7 day a week, Customer Service number for reporting lost or
stolen cards. The number is 1- 800 - 227 -6736.
10. Which merchants accept the CAL -Card?
Any merchant that is set up to accept a VISA credit card as a form of
payment, can accept a CAL -Card.
11. What /f the merchant does not curreafly accept V /SA credit card,
but desires to become a V/SA merchant?
The merchant may contact I.M.P.A.C. Support Staff for Merchant/Supplier
Set Up, toll free, at 1- 800 -309 -2404, ext. 99026. All merchant questions
regarding U.S. Bank's card processing will be answered. Also, the
merchant should be encouraged to shop around for various bank card
processing programs.
12. Who should be involved in the development ofan agencies
CAL -Card Program procedures?
The development of the procedures should include cross organizational
staff. All stake holders should have a part in the development of your
agency procedures (the Agency Program Coordinator, Approving
Official(s), Cardholder(s), staff from Fiscal, Accounting, Purchasing,
Receiving, and Budget Managers)
394
13. What happens if Cardholder's statement shows an incorrect
charge?
A "Cardholder Statement of Questioned Item" form is available to
document disputed charges A copy of the dispute form is added to the
Cardholder Statement packet and a copy is immediately mailed to
/.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENTSERV/CES The Cardholder works with the
merchant or immediately takes whatever corrective action is necessary
resolve the dispute The amount is corrected or deducted from the
payment
14. Can the CAL -Card be used for emergency purchases?
Yes, provided that your agency's procurement rules are adhered to In
emergency situations, some agencies elect to temporarily raise card limits
to accomodate emergency purchases. For state agencies, as in any
instance of emergency, your agency's management approval is likely
required. This would be further supported by a justification to maintain
the public health, welfare, or safety and /or the supplies needed in an
emergency situation
15. Can the CAL -Card be used for travel expenses?
STATE AGENCIES: No. The CAL -Card cannot be used for travel, food,
or lodging The State has contracts in place for air travel, car rentals, and
an American Express travel expense purchase card for all other travel
expense needs.
LOCAL AGENCIES: Local Agencies can use the CAL -Card for travel
expenses, unless they have their own specific programs Check with your
agency.
96. How is the administrative fee to Department of General Services
calculated.
STATE AGENCIES: State agencies are charged 1/2 of one percent
( 5 %) per transaction
LOCAL AGENCIES: Local agencies are charged 1/10 of one percent
(0.1 %) per transaction
39;i
17 How is the administrative fee collected?
The fee is listed as a separate item on each Cardholder's monthly
statement and the Billing Office monthly invoice. /.M.P.A.C.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES collects the fee and reimburses the
Department of General Services
18. What "tools" are available to agencies wishing to set up a
CAL -Card Program?
Sample procedures are available from city, school district, community
college district, and state CAL -Card participants We also have
developed guidebooks for the Cardholder, Approving Officials, Billing
Office, and Program Coordinators. In addition, we have a program
overview video available. The video explains the program and the
responsibilities of the Program Coordinator, Cardholder, Approving
Officials, and the Billing Office
Bob Hebert and R.J Aiello, the National Account Managers for
/.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENTSERV/CES, have the contract addendum
available on disk They can walk you through this process, fill in the
blanks with your agency information, and send you a copy for your
editing, review, and approval process In addition, they will help you set
up your Cardholders, Approving Officials, and Agency Program
Coordinator documentation
Bob Hebert can be reached at (650) 857 -9407 and R.J. Aiello can be
reached at (925) 867 -9532
19. /a there anon going supportgrou`-o and continuous improvement
effort for CAL -Card program enhancement?
Yes CAL -Card has a very active Task Force The group meets on a
quarterly basis to address current CAL -Card issues. These meetings are
well attended, averaging 70 to 80 state and local representatives The
meetings are scheduled acid the age, jda is mailed, in advance, to
interested agencies Call Donna Parkins of the CAL -Card Team,
(916) 324 -1333, to have your name added to the Task Force mailing list
396
20. Can the CAL -Card be used forboth commodities and services?
Yes The CAL -Card can be used to procure commodities and services,
provided that the purchase is within the authorized CAL -Card dollar limit.
The CAL -Card may also be used for purchasing from California Multiple
Award Schedules (CMAS) and Master Agreements The purchase must
be in accordance with the authorized dollar limits, State laws, rules, and
Delegation Authority guidelines, all applicable policies and procedures,
specific contract terms, or speck agency requirements The tracking
and reporting of services for 1099 reporting purposes is the responsibility
of the participating agency.
29. Does the State agency Cardholder have to collect Vendor Data
Records, Std. 204.
Yes All transactions of $600 or more per year with service suppliers are
to be reported to the Franchise Tax Board for 1099 reporting State
agencies are required to have a completed Vendor Data Record,
Std 204, on file for each reportable service supplier
The following questions address built in program control issues:
22. Can more than one person charge on a single card
No Cards are issued in the individual Cardholder's name.
23. Cana Cardholder be restricted in the types of/tems to be
purchased?
Yes The CAL -Card Program has an established Merchant Category
Code Table Each card has access to specific categories according to
purchasing needs The Agency Program Coordinator can contact
/.M.P.A.0. GOVERNMENTSERV /CESto add or delete codes'as needs
change.
24. How can a Cardholder be provented from overspending?
Each card can be set up with a maximum single transaction dollar limit
and a 30 day maximum expenditure limit, not to exceed assigned state
agency Delegation Authority or $15,000 Your agency can set lower
limits
397
25. What d there is a need to increase a single transaction or monthly
total expenditure amount?
Your Agency Program Coordinator can contact LM.P.A.C.
GOVERNMENT SERV/CES to increase or decrease a single transaction
and or monthly expenditure amount
26. Can the Cardholder or as Approving Official change merchant
category codes, single transaction limits, or monthly expenditure
limit amounts?
No Only the Agency Program Coordinator can establish a new
Cardholder, delete Cardholders, or make any changes to established card
limits and merchant category codes
27 Can the CAL -Card be used for cash advances?
No The CAL -Card cannot be used for cash advances The CAL -Card is
a purchasing mechanism and should not be used to circumvent
established purchasing guidelines
28. How can a Budget - Manager ensure bu -Ygat amounts are not
exceeded?
Budget managers should be included in the team setting up your
CAL -Card program and should be involved in establishing a Cardholder's
single transaction and monthly expenditure totals to ensure b, sdgetary
control
29. What does a Cardholder do if the have a problem using the
CAL -Card? For example, they attempt to use the card at their
local merchant and the charge is declined.
The Cardholder should nnntact LM. P.A. C. GO VERNMENTSERV/ @ES
Customer Service to inquire as to why the decline occurred. Typical
decline reasons include
-Card not activated
- Charge greater than single transaction limit
-Card has reached the 30 day limit
- Merchant code is blocked
Cardholders should contact their Agency Program Coordinator if they feel
that their merchant blocking or spending limits should be adjusted
398
30. If the master contract between the State of California and I.M. P.A. C.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES is amended, must I amend my addendum to
the contract also?
No. Each addendum to the master contract contains the following
language which incorporates all past and future amendments
"Master Services Agreement DGS MSA 5- 96 -CC-01 and its amendments
are incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement "
.s
399
c
SCRIPT FOR A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL
FOR JANUARY 5, 1999
MAYOR: THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE HERETO FIXED FOR A CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING:
To pre- approve eight (8) public facility sites which could accommodate Mayor and /or
Minor Wireless Communications Facdites Environmental Assessment (EA- 403A), Applicant
City of El Segundo
MAYOR: CITY CLERK WAS PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING GIVEN IN A TIMELY
MANNER?
CLERK: Proper notice of the continued public hearing was posted the City Clerk's
Department
MAYOR: CITY CLERK HAS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BEEN RECEIVED
REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING?
CLERK: No written communications were received by the City Clerk's Office regarding this
public hearing.
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, MS. STRENN WHO WILL MAKE
THE PRESENTATION?
After the presentation-
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC INPUT:
After public
Council discussion, and then
City Attorney will read by title only.
MAYOR: May I have a motion to adopt the Resolution..........
rt12 �
�T'"
SCRIPT FOR A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL
FOR JANUARY 5, 1999
MAYOR: THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE HERETO FIXED FOR A CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING:
On a proposed Development Agreement Amendment to increase the permitted size
of the proposed L.A. Kings/Lakers Sports Training and Recreation Facility previously
approved for Project Area 4 of the Grand Avenue Corporate Center Project The
Amendment would increase the size of the proposed facility by 15,000 square feet from
120,000 square feet to 135,000 square feet. (Environmental Assessment EA -467 and
Development Agreement 98 -2) Address: 555 North Nash Street. Applicant: L.A. Ice
Venture Company, LLC (Ted Fikre).
MAYOR: CITY CLERK WAS PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING GIVEN IN A TIMELY
MANNER?
CLERK: Proper notice of the continued public hearing was posted the City Clerk's Department.
MAYOR: CITY CLERK HAS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BEEN RECEIVED
REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING?
CLERK: No written communications were received by the City Clerk's Office regarding this
public hearing.
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, MS. STRENN WHO WILL MAKE
THE PRESENTATION?
After the presentation.
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC INPUT:
After public-
Council discussion, and then
City Attorney will read by title only. P � ire r
5
MAYOR: Who will introduce the Ordinance.......... 1 �'
SCRIPT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL
FOR JANUARY 5, 1999
MAYOR: THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE HERETO FIXED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING:
On proposed amendments to the Zoning Code for residential side yard setbacks
for attached garages on 25 -foot wide lots in the Single - Family Residential (R -1) Zone;
and, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts in accordance with the California
environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental Assessment EA -465 and Zone Text
Amendment ZTA 98 -7
MAYOR: CITY CLERK WAS PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING GIVEN IN A TIMELY
MANNER?
CLERK: Proper notice of the continued public hearing was done by the Planning & Building
Safety Department.
MAYOR: CITY CLERK HAS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BEEN RECEIVED
REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING?
CLERK: No written communications were received by the City Clerk's Office regarding this
public hearing.
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, MS. STRENN WHO WILL MAKE
THE PRESENTATION?
After the presentation.
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC INPUT:
After public-
Council discussion, and then
City Attorney will read by title only.
MAYOR: Who will introduce the Ordinance.......... �j
*�3
SCRIPT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL
FOR JANUARY 5, 1999
MAYOR: THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE HERETO FIXED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING:
On proposed amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map to change the
Land Use designation from Downtown Commercial to Multi- Family Residential (R -3),
for future construction of condominiums pursuant to Section 20.24 et seq. Of the El
Segundo Municipal Code Environmental Assessment EA 447, General Plan
Amendment 98 -2 and Zone Change 98 -2.
MAYOR: CITY CLERK WAS PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING GIVEN IN A TIMELY
MANNER?
CLERK: Proper notice of the public hearing was done by the Planning & Building Safety
Department.
MAYOR: CITY CLERK HAS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BEEN RECEIVED
REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING?
CLERK: No written communications were received by the City Clerk's Office regarding this
public hearing
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN MS. STRENN WHO WILL MAKE
THE PRESENTATION?
After the presentation
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC INPUT:
After public:
Council discussion. and then
City Attorney will read by title only.
MAYOR: Who will introduce the Ordinance..........
SCRIPT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL
FOR JANUARY 5, 1999
MAYOR: THIS IS THE TIME AND PLACE HERETO FIXED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING:
On the proposed projects and budget for allocation of the 1999 -2000 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. 1999 -2000 Proposed Total CDBG Budget:
$142, 230 (Proposed Community Development Commission CDBG Allocation -
$100,859, Proposed General Fund monies - $41,371)
MAYOR: CITY CLERK WAS PROPER NOTICE OF THE HEARING GIVEN IN A TIMELY
MANNER?
CLERK: Proper notice of the public hearing was done by the Planning & Building Safety
Department.
MAYOR: CITY CLERK HAS ANY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION BEEN RECEIVED
REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING?
CLERK: No written communications were received by the City Clerk's Office regarding this
public hearing.
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, MS. STRENN WHO WILL MAKE
THE PRESENTATION?
After the presentation:
MAYOR: THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC INPUT:
After public:
Council discussion, and then
City Attorney will read by title only
MAYOR: Who will introduce the Ordinance..........