2003 AUG 05 CC PACKETAGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City - related business that is within the
jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the
Meeting. During the first Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments are limited to those items
appearing on the Agenda. During the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments may be made
regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public
Hearing item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence and the
organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda by submitting a
Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00
p.m. the prior Tuesday). Other members of the public may comment on these items only during this second Public
Communications portion of the Agenda. The request must include a brief general description of the business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings
if they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting arid they do not exceed five (5) minutes
in length
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF TI4E EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003 — 5:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4316
Next Ordinance # 1365
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
NEW BUSINESS
1. Appointment of Real Property Negotiator. Recommend action is to appoint the City Manager, Mary Strenn, as the
City's real property negotiator to acquire property located at APN 4138 - 010 -010, 4138 - 012 -800, 4138 - 012 -900,
902 & 904, 4138 -011 -019, 006 and 036. Discussion and possible action.
o
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government
Code Section §54960, et sue.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and /or
conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §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)) — 3
matters
1 Bressi v City of El Segundo, LASC No. BC288292
2 Bressi v City of El Segundo, LASC No. BC288293
3 Ganey v Haffley / Haffley v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. YC 045092
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -0- potential case (no further public
statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(c): -1- matter.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — None.
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) — 3 matters
1. Labor Negotiators: Bruce Barsook and Mary Strenn, City Manager
Bargaining Units: Police Officers' Association and Firefighters' Association
2. Conference with City's Labor Negotiator, City Manager, regarding Management/Confidential employee group
(unrepresented)
3. Labor Negotiator: Mary Strenn, City Manager
Bargaining Unit Supervisory and Professional Employees Association
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -1- matter
1 City Negotiators: Mary Strenn, City Manager; Property, APN 4138 - 010 -010, 4138 -012 -800, 4138 - 012 -900, 902 &
904, 4138- 011 -019, 006 and 036; Negotiating Parties: Property Owners; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of
Payment.
SPECIAL MATTERS — None.
2
t��0�
AGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City- related business that is within the
jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the
Meeting During the first Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments are limited to those items
appearing on the Agenda During the second Public, Communications portion of the Agenda, comments may be made
regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public
Hearing item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state* Your name and residence and the
organization you represent, if desired Please respect the time limits
Members of the Public may place items on the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda by submitting a
Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2.00
p m the prior Tuesday) Other members of the public may comment on these items only during this second Public
Communications portion of the Agenda The request must include a brief general description of the business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings
if they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five (5) minutes
in length
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2003 — 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4316
Next Ordinance # 1365
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION — Fr. Alexei Smith — St. Andrew Russian Greek Catholic Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Councilmember Nancy Wernick
`)0.:)
PRESENTATIONS —
(a) Commendation to the El Segundo Ministerial Association for its spiritual and moral support
of the work of the City Council and of the people of our community.
(b) Commendation to Bernice Whitcomb, E. Jane Conley, and Robert Sowder, outgoing
Directors on the El Segundo Library Board of Trustees for their service to the community.
(c) Proclamation proclaiming Saturday, August 16, 2003 as Volunteer Recognition Day in El
Segundo and inviting its volunteers to a celebration in their honor on this day from 11:30
a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on
behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to
addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250. While all
comments are welcome, the Brown Art does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The
Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed.
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title
on— ly. - --
Recommendation — Approval.
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) regarding a Resolution of the
City of El Segundo, California, finding the City to be in conformance with the
annual Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the annual CMP
Local Implementation Report, in accordance with California Government Code
Section 65089. _
Recommendation — (1) Hold Public Hearing; (2) Read Resolution by title only; (3) Adopt
Resolution; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
4
004
2. Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) regarding a request to
construct nine townhouse -style condominium "live /work" units with: (1) a
Variance request to allow access to the site from Grand Avenue; (2) a Zone Text
Amendment, which would allow a 15 foot front yard setback on lots with a depth
of less than 140 feet in the MDR Zone and a definition of a "live /work" use; (3) a
subdivision request to allow the construction of nine townhouse -style "live /work"
units through Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54134; and (4) a Smoky Hollow Site
Plan request that would activate of the Medium Density Residential Zone for the
property.
Recommendation — (1) Open Public Hearing; (2) Discussion; (3) Reading of Resolution
approving Environmental Assessment No. 608, Subdivision No. 03 -2, Variance 03 -4;
and Smoky Hollow Site Plan No. 03.1; (4) Introduction of Ordinance for Zone Text
Amendment No. 03 -1; (5) Schedule second reading and adoption of Ordinance on
September 2, 2003; (6) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3. Consideration and possible action regarding a progress report on the update to
the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Recommendation — (1) Consider progress report and assumptions for Circulation
Element; (2) Provide direction to staff and approve recommendations as listed on Page 7
of this report; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
4. Consideration and possible action regarding adopting a new Resolution of
Application to the Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County
( LAFCO) and Reorganization Agreement between Hawthorne, El Segundo and the
developer with respect to the Los Angeles Air Force Base project.
Recommendation — (1) Council consider adoption of a LAFCO Resolution of Application
and approval of a Reorganization Agreement; and /or (2) Provide direction to staff with
respect to LAFCO staff's position that it will not recommend that LAFCO adopt the
conditions requested by the City; or (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
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.
5. Warrant Numbers 2534794 to 2535206 on Register No. 20 in the total amount of
$1,914,228.08 and Wire Transfers from 7/4/2003 through 7/24/2003 in the total
amount of $1,496,040.53.
Recommendation — Approve Warrant Demand Register and authorize staff to release.
Ratify: Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or
agreement; emergency disbursements and /or adjustments; and wire transfers.
6. City Council Meeting Minutes of July 15, 2003.
Recommendation — Approval.
7. Consideration and possible action regarding the annual destruction of identified
records in accordance with the provisions of § 34090 of the Government Code of
the State of California.
Recommendation — (1) Approve Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain
records; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding the presentation of the FY 2003 -04
Preliminary Operating Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Project Plan.
Recommendation — (1) Receive and file the FY 2003 -2004 Preliminary Operating Budget
and Five -Year Capital Improvement Project Plan; (2) Publish announcements of the key
budget dates: a) Budget Workshops — August 19, 2003, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; b)
Continued if necessary — August 20, 2003, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; c) Public Hearing —
September 2, 2003, 7:00 p.m.; d) Continued Public Hearing and Adoption — September
16, 2003, 7:00 p.m.; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
9. Consideration and possible action to award the contract to Harris & Associates for
Infrastructure Valuation Consulting Services related to the implementation of
Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement 34.
Recommendation — (1) Award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Harris &
Associates, in the amount of $25,950; (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a
standard professional services agreement on behalf of the City; (3) Alternatively, discuss
and take other action related to this item.
6 6
10. Consideration and possible action regarding expanding the scope of services of
contract to Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates for professional services to conduct
financial advisory services for the Air Force Base Project. (Fiscal Impact $16,700)
Recommendation — (1) Expand the scope of services and amend the contract of
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates in the amount of $6,950 not to exceed $16,700; (2)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
11. Consideration and possible action regarding a resolution providing for the
payment of compensation to executive and management level employees serving
during extended emergency services under the City's Emergency Operations
Plan._
Recommendation — (1) Adopt Resolution; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
12. Consideration and possible action on the purchase and installation of a
replacement Range Ball Dispenser at The Lakes Golf Course. Purchase and
installation will come from the remaining FY 2002 -2003 Golf Course capital outlay
budget, not to exceed $16,000_
Recommendation — (1) City Council waive the formal bidding process per the Municipal
Code for the purchase and installation of a Range Ball Dispenser on a sole source basis;
(2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City and Range
Servant America (manufacturer); (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related
to this item.
13. Consideration and possible action to waive the formal bidding process on the
purchase of 13 Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) status - mapping systems,
RADCOM client licenses, antennas, and related equipment, for the Police
Department Patrol Division. Fiscal impact is approximately $19,604 in grant funds.
Recommendation — (1) Approve the purchase of the AVL status mapping systems and
RADCOM client licenses using funds from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
(LLEBG) account; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
7 r
14. Consideration and possible action regarding the acceptance of $160,232.41 in
cumulative grant funding from the State Homeland Security Grant Program
( SHSGP) and County of Los Angeles Office of Emergency Management (OEM).
Fiscal Impact: $160,232.41 which will be fully reimbursable.
Recommendation — (1) Receive and file report; (2) Accept all SHSGP grant awards
issued to date through Los Angeles County OEM; (3) Authorize the Administrative
Services Department to establish an account for the purchase of grant - related
equipment; (4) Authorize the Fire Department to coordinate the acquisition and purchase
of equipment as authorized under the grant; (5) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
15. Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of the new City of El
Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). This plan has been approved
by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendation — (1) Adopt Resolution; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
16. Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of the Emergency
Management Mutual Aid (EMMA)_Plan. Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendation — (1) Adopt Resolution; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
17. Consideration and possible action to approve cost sharing agreement between
the Cities of El Segundo and Manhattan Beach for Rosecrans Avenue
Improvements between Sepulveda Boulevard and Highland Avenue. (Estimated
cost to El Segundo - $250,000) _
Recommendation — (1) Approve cost sharing agreement; (2) Authorize the City Manager
to execute the agreement on behalf of the City; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
18. Consideration and possible action awarding contract to Civil Works Corporation
for the 2003 -2004 Annual Contract for P.C.C. Curb, Curb and Gutter, Sidewalk and
other minor improvements — Protect No. PW 03 -07. (Fiscal Impact $50,000)
Recommendation — (1) Award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Civil Works
Corporation, in the amount of $50,000; (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the
contract on behalf of the City; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to
this item.
8 ��
19. Consideration and possible action to authorize an additional $30,000 to the City -
CBM Contract No. 3019 for providing construction inspection services for the
Grand Avenue /Sepulveda Boulevard intersection improvement project — Approved
Capital Improvement Program_ Estimated Cost $30,000)
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to authorize an additional $30,000 to
the City -CBM contract; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this
item.
20. Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project for City
Hall Improvements — Phase 1 — Approved Capital Improvement Program — Project
No. PW 01 -17 (Project Cost $_210,861).
Recommendation — (1) Accept the work as complete; (2) Approve Change Order No. 1
in the amount of $43,656; (3) Authorize the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of
Completion in the County Recorder's Office; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this itern.
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
F. NEW BUSINESS —
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 —
Council Member Gaines —
Council Member Wernick —
Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs —
Mayor Gordon —
9
0 9
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related -to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have receive 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. While all
comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The
Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed.
MEMORIALS —
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government
Code Section §54960, et se q.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and /or
conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators.
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED:
DATE�� �3
TIME- 319
NAME t'�`
10
f!1f;
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA HEADING: Special Order
of Business
Consideration and possible action (public hearing) regarding a Resolution of the City of El
Segundo, California, finding the City to be in conformance with the annual Congestion
Management Program (CMP) and adopting the annual CMP Local Implementation Report,
in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Hold Public Hearing.
2. Read Resolution by title only.
3. Adopt Resolution.
4. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) became effective with voter approval of
Proposition 111 in June 1990. In accordance with State law, the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) has adopted the CMP for Los Angeles
County. Cities within the County are required to comply with the adopted CMP.
(Background and discussion continues on the next page........)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Resolution for adoption.
2. 2003 Local Implementation Report.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
ORIGINATED BY: � DATE: July 29, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
Mary Strenn, City M
DATE:
10J
1
20030805 - Congestion Management Program Resolution
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued)
The MTA requires that by September 1 s` of each year, local agencies submit a self -
certification Resolution and a Local Implementation Report pursuant to a noticed public
hearing as required by State law.
The self- certification Resolution consists of the following:
1. A finding that the City is in conformance with the CMP.
2. Certification that the City will continue to implement the Transportation demand
Management Ordinance. (City Zoning Code, Chapter 20.55).
3. Certification that the City will continue to implement a Land Use Analysis
Program. (City Council Resolution No. 3805).
4. 2003 Local Implementation Report which includes:
(a) Carry over credit from 2002 Local Implementation Report = 6,395
(b) Total credits accrued as a net result of building and = (754)
demolition permits issued between 6/1/2002 and 5/31/2003
(c) Credits for qualifying transportation strategies = 1,001
implemented by the City between 6/1/2002 and 5/31/2003
Total Positive Credit Balance as of May 31, 2003 = 6,642
Staff from the Departments of Public Works and Community, Economic and Development
Services has worked together to develop the Local Implementation Report.
The CMP requires that local agencies demonstrate a positive balance of CMP credits to
demonstrate that they have implemented transportation improvements to mitigate negative
traffic impacts due to growth. A negative balance would indicate that the local agency has
failed to offset development traffic impacts by transportation improvement strategies. MTA
is required to report this non - conformance with the CMP requirement to the State
Controller who is then required to withhold that City's State Gasoline Tax allocations until
that particular City is found to be in compliance with the CMP.
As indicated above, as of May 31, 2003, the City has a net positive credit balance in the
City's favor and is therefore in conformance with the MTA's CMP requirements.
20030805 - Congestion Management Program Resolution +``
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND
ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE § 65089.
The city council of the city of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The city council finds that:
A. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority ( "MTA "), acting as the
Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, adopted the 1999
Congestion Management program in December 1999;
B. As adopted, the CMP requires that MTA annually determine that Los Angeles
County and cities within the County conform with all CMP requirements;
C. Among other things, the CMP requires municipalities within Los Angeles County
to submit Local Implementation Reports to the MTA by September 1 each year;
D. The City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 5, 2003 during which it
considered the evidence presented by staff and the public regarding how the City
has implemented measures designed to mitigate the impacts of traffic congestion
resulting from new development;
E. Based upon the August 5, 2003 public hearing, the City Council determined that
1. By June 15 of odd - numbered years the City conducts annual traffic counts
and calculated levels of service for selected arterial intersections
consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP Highway and
Roadway System Chapter;
2. The City adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand
management ordinance consistent with the minimum requirements
identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management Chapter;
The City adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program
consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land
Use Analysis Program Chapter; and
4. The City adopted the attached Year 2003 Local Implementation Report,
which is incorporated into this Resolution, consistent with the
requirements identified in the CMP. This report balances traffic
1.
OI13
congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation
improvements, and demonstrates that the City meets its responsibilities
under the County-wide Deficiency Plan.
SECTION 2: In accordance with its findings, the City Council determines that the City of El
Segundo is in compliance with all requirements of the 1999 CMP.
SECTION 3: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution.
SECTION 4: This Resolution will take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August, 2003.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
City of El Segundo
APPROVED
Mark D. Hers
By: Z14VI j/i /-.I
Karl H. Berger„ Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST: (>r"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Resolution
No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor
of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the 5th day of August 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
2.
01
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
Date Prepared: 23- Jul -03
2003 CMP Local Implementation Report
Report Period: JUNE 1, 2002 - MAY 31, 2003
Contact. Paul Garry
Phone Number. (310) 524 -2342
CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
2002 DEFICIENCY PLAN STATUS SUMMARY
1. Total Current Congestion Mitigation Goal
[from Section 1]
........... (754)
Exempted Dwelling Units
0
Exempted Non - residential sq. ft (in 1,000s)
0
2. Transportation Improvements Credit Claims
[from Section II]
....... ...... 1,001
Land Use Strategy Claims
0
Capital Improvement Claims
5
Transit Claims
0
TDM Claims
1
Total Strategies Claimed
6
Subtotal Current Credit (Goal)
....... 247
3. Carryover Credit from Last Year's (2002)
Local Implementation Report
6,395
Net Deficiency Plan Credit Balance:
..... ... 6,642
LIR 2002- 2003.XLS
Section I, Page 1
��Il.i
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Date Prepared: 23- Jul -03
2003 CMP Local Implementation Report
Report Period: JUNE 1, 2002 - MAY 31, 2003
SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT
-.- DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
Dwelling
Units
Debit Debits
Value /DU
Single Family Residential
10.00
x 680 = 68
Multi-Family Residential
42.00
x 4.76 = 200
Group Quarters
0.00
x 1 98 = 0
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
Category
1000 Gross
Square Feet
Debit Debits
Value /1000SF
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq ft. )
1.74
x 22.23 = 39
Commercial (300,000 sq ft. or more)
0.00
x 17.80 = 0
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
0.001
x 6699 = 0
NON - RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
Category
1000 Gross
Square Feet
Debit Debits
Value /1000SF
Lodging
0.00
x 7.21 = 0
Industrial
61.76
x 6.08 = 376
Office (less than 50,000 s .ft.)
14.19
x 1616 = 229
Office (50,000 - 299,999 s .ft )
0.00
x 10.50 = 0
Office (300,000 sq ft. or more)
0.00
x 7.35 = 0
Medical
0.00
x 16.90 = 0
Government
0.001
x 20.95 = 0
Institutional /Educational
0.001
x 7.68 = 0
University
0.001
x 166 = 0
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Description
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Daily Trips
0
Debit Debits
Value/Trip
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
x 0.71 = 0
ENTER IF APPLICABLE
0.00
x 0.71 = 0
Subtotal New Development Activity = 911
Adjustments (Optional) - Complete Part 2 0 = 158
Total Current Congestion Mitigation Goal (Points) _ (754)
LIR 2002 -2003 XLS
Section I, Page 2
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Date Prepared: 22- Jul -03
2003 CMP Local Implementation Report
Report Period: JUNE 1, 2002 - MAY 31, 2003
SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT (Continued)
Enter information where it says "Enter." If not applicable, enter "0" so it will total.
PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
IMPORTANT Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that
were both issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and
2) demolition of any structure within the reporting period.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Category
Dwelling
Units
Adjustment Subtotal
Value /DU
Single Family Residential
14.00
x 680 = 95
Multi- Family Residential
8.00
x 4.76 = 38
Group Quarters
0.001
x 1.98 = 0
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Category
1000 Gross
Square Feet
Adjustment Subtotal
Value /1000SF
Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
x 22.23 = 0
Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
x 17.80 = 0
Freestanding Eating & Drinking
0.00
x 66.99 = 0
NON - RETAIL
DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Category
1000 Gross
Square Feet
Adjustment Subtotal
Value /1000SF
Lodging
0.00
x 7.21 = 0
Industrial
4.01
x 6.08 = 24
Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.)
0.00
x 16.16 = 0
Office (50,000 - 299,999 sq.ft.)
0.00
x 10.50 = 0
Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more)
0.00
x 7.35 = 0
Medical
0.00
x 16.90 = 0
Government
0.00
x 20.95 = 0
Institutional /Educational
0.00
x 7.68 = 0
University
0.00
x 166 = 0
OTHER DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Description
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Daily Trips
0
Adjustment Subtotal
Value /Trip
None
0.00
x 0.71 = 0
None
0.00
x 0 71 = 0
Total Mitigation Goal Adjustments (Points) = 158
LIR 2002- 2003.XLS
Section I, Page 3
G`1 i
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Date Prepared: 22- Jul -03
2003 CMP Local Implementation Report
Report Period: JUNE 1, 2002 - MAY 31, 2003
SECTION II.b - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CREDIT CLAIMS
Total Cap. Imp. Projects: 5 Total Cap. Imp. Credit (Points): 978
1
2
244.1
3 Intersection Modification, CMP Arterial
5. Scope
1.0
6. Units
intersection
4 Intersection Modification - Sepulveda /EI Segundo
7. Str. Name: Enter
8. From/To: Enter
9. Intersection. Enter Sepulveda/El Segundo (signal phasing) 10. Map Page: 732
11. Participants: Enter
12. MTA Funding. 0%
13. Your share of local funding: 100%
14 Portion of Project within your jurisdiction: 100%
15 Other Info: Add left -turn phasing for El Segundo Blvd @ Sepulveda
1 17
16
1 17
1 18
1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22 1 23
1 24
1 575
57500
1 575
1 2003
1 Unknown
1 100%
1 2
1 115 1 50%
1 173
1
2
2
244 1
3 Intersection Modification, CMP Arterial
5. Scope
1.0
6. Units
intersection
4 Sepulveda /Grand; Addition of right -turn lane
7 Str. Name: Enter
8. Fromrro- Enter
9. Intersection Enter Sepulveda /Grand 10. Map Page: 732
11 Participants: Enter
12 MTA Funding: 0%
1 13. Your share of local funding: 100%
14. Portion of Project within your jurisdiction: 100%
15. Other Info: Grand Avenue Corporate Center Mitigation, dedicated right -turn lane southbound Sepulve
16
1 17
1 18 1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
1 24
575 00
1 575
1 2003 1 Unknown
1 100%
1 2 1
115
1 50%
173
LIR_2002 -2003 XLS Section 11 b, Page 1 6118
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Date Prepared: 22- Jul -03
2003 CMP Local Implementation Report
Report Period: JUNE 1, 2002 - MAY 31, 2003
SECTION II.b - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CREDIT CLAIMS
Total Cap. Imp. Projects: 5 Total Cap. Imp. Credit (Points): 978
1
3
2
244.1
3 Intersection Modification, CMP Arterial
5. Scope
1 0
6. Units
intersection
4 Sepulveda /Grand; Addition of 2nd left -turn lane
7 Str. Name: Enter
8. From/To: Enter
9. Intersection: Enter Sepulveda /Grand 10. Map Page: 732
11. Participants: Enter
12 MTA Funding: 0%
13. Your share of local funding: 100%
14. Portion of Project within your jurisdiction: 100%
15. Other Info: Grand Avenue Corporate Center Mitigation, westbound Grand to Southbound Sepulveda
17
16
17
1 18 1 19
1 20
1 21 1
22
1 23
1 24
1 575
575.00
1 575
1 2003 Unknown
100%
1 2
1 115
1 50%
1 173
1
a
2
244.1
3 Intersection Modification, CMP Arterial
S. Scope
1.0
6. Units
intersection
4 Sepulveda /Grand; Addition of 2nd left -turn lane 1
7. Str Name: Enter
8 From/To: Enter
9 Intersection: Enter Sepulveda /Grand 10. Map Page: 732
11. Participants: Enter
12 MTA Funding: 0%
13. Your share of local funding: 100%
14. Portion of Project within your jurisdiction: 100%
15 Other Info: Grand Avenue Corporate Center Mitigation, Southbound Sepulveda to eastbound Grand
16
17
1 18 1 19
1 20
1 21
1 22
1 23
24
575 00
1 575
1 2003 1 Unknown
1 100%
1 2
1 115
1 50%
1 173
1 2 3 Intersection Modification, CMP Arterial S. Scope 6. Units
a 244.1 4 Sepulveda /Grand, signal phasing 1 1.0 intersection
7. Str Name:
Enter
8 From/To-
Enter
9 Intersection:
Enter Sepulveda /Grand
10. Map Page: 732
11 Participants:
Enter
12 MTA Funding:
0%
13. Your share of local funding: 100%
14. Portion of Project within your jurisdiction- 100%
15 Other Info: Grand Avenue corporate center Mitigation, add protected left turn phasing eastbound Gn
r 16 1 17 1 18 1 19 1 20 1 21 1 22 1 23 1 24
575.00 1 575 1 2003 1 Unknown 1 100% 1 2 1 0 1 50% 1 288
LIR_2002- 2003.XLS Section Il.b, Page 2
U1
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Date Prepared: 22- Jul -03
2003 CMP Local Implementation Report
Report Period: JUNE 1, 2002 - MAY 31, 2003
SECTION II.e - TDM CREDIT CLAIMS
Total TDM Projects: 11 ITotal TDMCredit (Points): 22
1 321.0 CMP TDM Ordinance 72.65 1000 gsf
Non - Residential building permits issued, as reported in Section I
No other description entries required for this strategy. This is already done for you.
16 17 18 1 19 1 20 21 22 23 24
0.30 22 n/a n/a 100% 3 n/a 100% 22
LIR 2002 -2003 XLS
Section 11.e, Page 1
0 t2U
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action (public hearing) regarding a request to construct nine
townhouse -style condominium "live /work" units with: (1) a Variance request to allow access to
the site from Grand Avenue; (2) a Zone Text Amendment, which would allow a 15 foot front
yard setback on lots with a depth of less than 140 feet in the MDR Zone and a definition of a
"live /work" use; (3) a subdivision request to allow the construction of nine townhouse -style
"live /work" units through Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54134; and (4) a Smoky Hollow Site
Plan request that would activate of the Medium Density Residential Zone for the property.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Open Public Hearing;
2) Discussion;
3) Reading of Resolution approving Environmental Assessment No. 608, Subdivision No.
03 -2, Variance 03 -4; and Smoky Hollow Site Plan No. 03 -1;
4) Introduction of Ordinance for Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -1;
5) Schedule second reading and adoption of Ordinance on September 2, 2003; and /or,
6) Other possible action /direction.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
(Background and discussion on the next page.....)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution
B. Draft Ordinance
C. Planning Commission Staff Report form June 26, 2003
D. Initial Study of Environmental Impacts
E. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 2003
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
N/A
Amount Requested:
N/A
Account Number:
N/A
Project Phase:
N/A
Appropriation Required: Yes x No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE:
7/2s/0-3
Ja s . Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
D BY:
Mary StrenK -City Ma
DATE:
O�
2
021
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On June 26, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed
project and adopted Resolution No. 2549, recommending City Council approval of the project.
Briefly, the proposed project is the construction of a nine -unit townhouse style condominium
project at 1225 East Grand Avenue. The Project is in the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone
and the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Overlay Zone.
The following applications require City Council action:
A. A subdivision (SUB No. 03 -2) request to allow the construction of nine
townhouse -style "live /work" units through Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
54134. The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan allows condominium development
as a permitted use. Residents would have exclusive rights to their personal
units and garage for "live /work" usage.
B. A Smoky Hollow Site Plan (SHSP No. 03 -1) review application would allow
MDR Overlay Zone to be activated for the site.
C. A Zone Text Amendment (ZTA No 03 -1) would amend Section 15- 7A- 4(D)(4)
of the ESMC to all "live/ work" uses as a permitted use in the MDR Zone.
The amendment would also amend Section 15 -1 -6 to add a definition of
"live /work" to the ESMC, which would define the types of "work" activities that
would be allowed in a "live /work" use. Current regulations do not allow
"live /work" as a type of use permitted in any zone. Currently a home
occupation business is permitted in residential zones, but a home occupation
license is more restrictive in the intensity of business operation that is allowed
in a residence than the "live /work" concept would be. The "live /work" definition
would broaden the types of business that would be allowed in a residential
building. Staff proposed that the "live /work" amendment would apply only to
projects in the MDR Zone. The June 26, 2003, Planning Commission staff
report (Exhibit C) contains a full analysis of the "live /work" concept.
D. A Variance (VAR No. 03 -4) is requested to utilize one of the existing three
driveways on Grand Avenue as an access point into the site. The MDR Zone
does not allow direct access from Grand Avenue. Since the applicant plans to
remove the existing drive aisles during demolition of the existing structure, a
variance is required to have a new access point from Grand Avenue. Since
the lot only has street frontage on Grand Avenue, it is not possible to access
the site from any other street. As a result, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the variance request.
022
oil
The Planning Commission Staff Report of June 26, 2003 (Exhibit C) contains a full project
description and analysis. Staff is recommending the addition of one condition to the project
that was not considered by the Planning Commission. To insure that vehicles waiting at the
access gate to enter the project would not block Grand Avenue, staff has incorporated a
condition of approval into the draft Resolution to require that the gate be able to be opened
electronically from within each dwelling unit for visitors.
The proposed project has been analyzed for its environmental impacts and a Draft Initial Study
(Exhibit D) has been prepared pursuant to Section 15063, of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is proposed
for this project pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
P.\Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \600 - 625 \Ea - 608 \EA- 608ccsr doc
3 0203
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 608, SUBDIVISION NO. 03-02, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 54134, SMOKY HOLLOW SITE PLAN NO. 03 -01, ZONE TEXT
AMENDMENT NO. 03 -01 AND VARIANCE NO. 03 -04 TO CONSTRUCT NINE
TOWNHOUSE -STYLE CONDOMINIUM "LIVEIWORK" UNITS AT 1225 EAST
GRAND AVENUE.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On February 6, 2003 Albert L. Marco filed an application for Environmental
Assessment No. 608, Subdivision No. 03 -08, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54134,
Smoky Hollow Site Plan No.03 -01, Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -01 and Variance
No. 03 -04 to allow a nine unit townhouse- style live /work condominium development
on a 0.5 acre site at 1225 East Grand Avenue.
B. Albert L. Marco's application was reviewed by City's Department of Community,
Economic and Development Services for, in part, consistency with the General Plan
and conformity with the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ");
C. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA "), the
regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq.,
the "CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council
Resolution No. 3805, adopted March 16, 1993);
D. The Department of Community, Economic and Development Services completed its
review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before this Council
for August 5, 2003;
E. On June 26, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive public
testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without limitation,
information provided to the City Council by Albert L. Marco; and adopted Resolution
No. 2549 recommending City Council approval of the project;
F. On August 5, 2003 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public testimony
and other evidence regarding the application including, without limitation, information
provided to the City Council by Albert L. Marco; and,
G. The City Council considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony,
and by Albert L. Marco representative. This Resolution, and its findings, are made
based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its August 5, 2003 hearing
including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of
Community, Economic and Development Services.
Page 1 024
SECTION 2: Factual Findings. The City Council finds that the following facts exist:
A. The subject site is located in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, Medium Density
Residential (MDR) Overlay Zone, and is located at 1225 East Grand Avenue;
B. The subject site is a rectangular shaped 21,849 square foot lot (164.23 feet wide and
133.04 feet deep) and currently developed with a single -story light industrial building
with parking at the rear of the site and three access points from Grand Avenue;
C. The property to the west and east has a single -story light industrial building, to the
north a middle school and to the east is an 88 -unit condominium development.
D. The applicant is proposing a construct a nine unit townhouse style live /work
development with attached two car garages and four guest parking spaces;
E. The applicant has applied for a Zone Text Amendment that would permit "Live/ Work"
uses in the MDR Zone as well as allow a 15 -foot front yard setback on lots less then
140 feet in depth in the MDR Zone
F. The applicant also applied for a variance that would allow access to the site from
Grand Avenue.
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. Because of the facts identified in Section 2 of this
Resolution, the proposed project has been analyzed for its environmental impacts and a Draft Initial
Study has been prepared pursuant to Section 15063, of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is proposed for this project
pursuant to CEQA § 15070. The mitigation measures listed in the mitigated negative declaration
are sufficient to reduce all identified environmental impacts to less than significant levels.
Accordingly, based upon the evidence presented to the City Council, the City need not prepare an
environmental impact report for the proposed project.
SECTION 4: Notice of Determination. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a Notice of
Determination in accordance with Pub. Res. Code §§ 21152, 21167(f); 14 CCR § 15094; and any
other applicable law.
SECTION 5: Variance Findings. After considering the above facts, the City Council finds as
follows:
A. There are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to
the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
The property is situated on the north side of Grand Avenue and is surrounded by
Center Street Middle School to the north, an 88 -unit condominium development to the
east, and a light industrial building to the west. There are no side streets to provide
Page 2
i +2;)
alternative access points. The exceptional circumstance is that there is no practical
access to the site from any other public right -of -way except Grand Avenue. Most
other properties in the MDR overlay zone with frontage on Grand Avenue are corner
lots, which allow for alternative access from a public side street.
B. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but
which is denied to the property in question.
The variance to allow access from Grand Avenue would preserve the integrity of the
site. A variance will allow access into the site from Grand Avenue. Without a
variance, the site would be a land- locked parcel, which would deny substantial
property rights. Staff conducted a site visit and determined that the condominium
development (Grand Tropez) just east of the site has access from Grand Avenue, as
do other properties both east and west of the proposed site.
C. Granting the Variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located.
Granting the variance to allow driveway access from Grand Avenue will not affect the
public welfare or safety. The proposed 18 foot wide driveway allows sufficient
driveway width to accommodate anticipated ingress and egress and traffic demand.
In addition, the 82 foot driveway length is sufficient to discourage any queuing of
vehicles onto Grand Avenue. The site is currently designed with three driveways off
Grand Avenue. Two of these would be removed. Since the applicant plans to utilize
an existing driveway location, it would not create an impact to the neighboring
properties.
D. Granting of the Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan.
Granting the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. The overall proposal
would not result in a change to the present planned use for the area, as it is
consistent with the kind of uses permitted for the zone. The proposed development is
consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan and the ESMC and
does not constitute a significant or substantial alteration in planned land uses.
Granting the variance for continued use of the existing driveway /access point located
at the southeast corner of the site off of Grand Avenue would not conflict with the
goals of the General Plan.
SECTION 6: General Plan and Zoning. The proposed project does not conflict with the City's
General Plan and the zoning regulations in the ESMC as follows:
A. This townhouse development is consistent with Goal 3 of the City's 2000 -2005
Housing Element which focuses on providing housing opportunities through new
construction, but also in a variety of locations and densities in accordance with the
land use designations detailed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Also,
Policy 3.1 of the Housing Element specifies providing for the construction of 78 new
Page 3 0 21 1
housing units during the 2000 -2005 timeframe in order to meet the goals of the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This project would help meet this goal by
providing nine new residential units.
B. One of the purposes of the General Plan and zoning is to maintain consistency within
the City in terms of property development. The subject property is situated between
an 88 unit multiple - family development unit on the east, a light industrial building to
the south and west and a middle school to the north of the property. The applicant's
property is situated along Grand Avenue and is land locked on three sides. The
proposed project would be consistent with the transition zoning characteristics of the
MDR Zone which allows multiple - family residential uses between the R -1 Zone
property to the north and the Light Industrial uses to the south.
C. The applicant proposed modifications to the ESMC to permit "live /work" uses in the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan are compatible with the types of uses already allowed in
home occupations in other parts of the City.
D. The applicant's proposed setback amendments to the MDR Zone are compatible with
setback requirements in the Multiple - Family Residential (R -3) Zone.
SECTION 7: Approval. Subject to the conditions listed on the attached Exhibit "A ", which are
incorporated into this Resolution by reference, the City Council approves Environmental
Assessment No. 608, Subdivision No. 03 -08, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54134, Smoky
Hollow Site Plan No.03 -01, and Variance No. 03 -04
SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective unless superseded by a subsequent resolution.
SECTION 9: The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to Albert L. Marco to any
other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective
immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August 2003.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
Page 4 r0 2 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 1
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor
of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the 5th day of August 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS T O f'
Mark D. Hensle , City Y
r
/ � k
By:
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City AttgIrey,
I It
Page 5
RESOLUTION No.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC "), Albert L. Marco
agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of El Segundo's approval of
Environmental Assessment No. 608 and Subdivision No. 03 -02, Smoky Hollow Site Plan No.03 -01,
Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -01 and Variance No. 03 -04. ( "Project Conditions "):
Zoning Conditions
There may be a maximum of nine "live /work" units developed on the existing 21,849
square foot parcel.
2. The applicant must install an intercom system in all the units to allow the remote
operation of the driveway control gate.
Public Safety Conditions
3. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a photometric light study to
the Police Department for review and approval.
4. Street and unit addressing must be a minimum of four to six inches high, of contrasting
color to the background and illuminated during hours of darkness.
5. A minimum of one footcandle of light on the ground surface must be provided around all
sides of the building, throughout the driveway and over guest parking during hours of
darkness. Aisles, passageways and recesses related to and within all sides of the
complex, including the common deck areas, must be illuminated with a maintained
minimum of .25 -.50 footcandles during hours of darkness. Lighting devices must be
enclosed and protected by weather and vandal resistant covers.
6. All main entry doors, including entry doors from the garage into the residence, must be of
solid core construction, with a minimum thickness of 1.75 inches. Entry doors must have
a deadbolt locking device and the deadbolt throw must have a one -inch projection. The
cylinder guard must be of case hardened steel, with the outer edge angled or tapered
and free of spinning. The exterior portion of the lock must be connected to the inside
portion of the lock with bolts at least one - quarter inch in diameter and constructed of
steel. The locking mechanism must contain a minimum of a five -pin tumbler.
7. All main entry doors with glass constructed in or within 40 inches (including windows
along the side of the locking mechanism should either reverse the swing of the door if a
window is positioned within 40 inches of the locking mechanism, or reverse the position
of the window to be opposite the locking mechanism, or all glass should be replaced with
polycarbonate materials, or of fully tempered glass, or rated burglary resistant glazing.
Page 6 G2
8. A panoramic door viewer (180 -190 degrees) must be installed in each main entry door.
9. Strike plates must be made with a minimum of 16 U.S. gauge steel, bronze or brass and
secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws, off -set and which must penetrate at
least two inches into solid backing beyond the surface to which the strike plate is
attached.
10. Sliding glass doors must have a secondary locking device (i.e. locked by a key or a
twisting /turning device /Charlie bar). This device must limit any up and down or sideways
movement while the window is in the closed /locked position.
11. Double or French doors must have a secondary locking device, such as a cane or flush
bolt in addition to a deadbolt. The inactive leaf of double door(s) must be equipped with
metal flush bolts having a minimum embedment of 5/8 inch into the head and threshold of
the doorframe.
12. Windows adjacent to main entry of each unit must be constructed of high impact "plastic"
glass block.
13. Perimeter walls, not in the front yard setback, must be a minimum height of six feet and
of solid construction. Walls must limit climbing access (i.e. concrete walls must not have
varied sections where decorative blocks allow for stepping over the wall or part of the wall
consists of wrought iron). Wood, wrought iron or steel tubular perimeters must be six feet
high and all horizontal members must be on the inside of the perimeter. Where wrought
iron or steel tubular fencing is used, the horizontal members must run along the top and
bottom portion of the fence.
14. Residents of the individual units must be informed that an alarm permit is required by the
El Segundo Police Department for the operation of any home security alarm system,
whether audible or monitored by a security company.
Building Safety
15. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a geotechnical report to the
Director of Community, Economic and Development Services for review and approval.
16. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a grading report to the
Director of Community, Economic and Development Services for review and approval.
16. Before building permits are issued, plans must show conformance with the 2001
California Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire, Plumbing, and Energy Codes as a Group
R, Division 1 occupancy.
Page 7 0 J 0
17. Before building permits are issued, plans will be reviewed for accessibility requirements
per Chapter 11 of the 2001 California Building Code.
18. Before building permits are issued, handicapped access must be provided to work portion
on the residence.
19. Before building permits are issued, separate Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical plans
will be submitted for plan check.
20. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a drainage plan to the
Director of Community, Economic and Development Services for review and approval.
Fire Conditions
21. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a fire sprinkler plan to the
Fire Chief for review and approval. Fire sprinklers must be installed before the issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
22. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will develop plans, which identify fire
protection, notification, detection and access provisions and mechanisms for their testing
and maintenance.
23. The applicant will ensure that combustible storage for pre /post construction will comply
with the California Fire Code, including fire protection.
Public Works
24. Grand Avenue frontage must be improved to City standards with new sidewalks and
curbs. Any existing driveways to be abandoned must be removed and the parkway
reconstructed with full height curb and sidewalk improvements.
25. Any work or encroachment in the public right -of -way must have a Public Works Permit.
Service Fees
26. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will pay a one -time library services
mitigation fee of $0.03 per gross square foot of building floor area.
27. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will pay a one -time fire services fee of
$0.14 per gross square foot of building floor area.
28. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will pay a one -time police services
mitigation fee of $0.11 cents per gross square foot of building floor area.
29. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will pay the required sewer connection
fees (as outlined in Chapter 12 -3 of the ESMC) if the development requires a new sewer
connection.
Page 8
fJ 31
Miscellaneous Conditions
30. The applicant will ensure that water service connections are sized for the expected water
usage increase as a result of the new development.
31. The applicant must adhere to all Strom Water Pollution Prevention Guidelines for new
Developments.
32. Asbestos and lead -based paint analysis and removal must be performed in conformance
with federal, state and local regulations.
33. All activities associated with asbestos must be conducted under the direct supervision of
a certified asbestos consultant.
34. Demolition of structures that have asbestos containing materials (ACM) must comply with
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 - Asbestos
Emissions from Demolition /Renovation Activities.
35. The applicant will ensure that any trenches deeper than five feet and meeting CaIOSHA
definitions will comply with shoring requirements.
36. During construction and operations, all waste must be disposed of in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed, regulated
disposal site by a licensed waste hauler.
37. All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction must be cleaned up promptly and
in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations to prevent contaminated soil on
paved surfaces that can be washed away into the storm drains.
38. If materials spills occur, they will be cleaned up in a way that will not affect the storm
drain system.
39. The project must comply with Chapter 5 -7 of the ESMC establishing storm water and
urban pollution controls.
40. Before anticipated rainfall, construction dumpsters must be covered with tarps or plastic
sheeting.
41. Inspections of the project site before and after storm events must be conducted to
determine whether Best Management Practices have been implemented to reduce
pollutant loadings identified in the Storm Water Prevention Plan.
42. The owner or contractor must conduct daily street sweeping and truck wheel cleaning to
prevent dirt in the storm drain system.
43. Storm drain system must be safeguarded at all times during construction.
Page 9 of
44. The applicant must construct pavement, retaining walls and landscaped areas in general
on -site to be maintained in order to prevent future soil erosion.
45. Albert L. Marco agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any
claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or
liability, arising from the City's approval of Environmental Assessment No. 608 and
Subdivision No. 03 -02, Smoky Hollow Site Plan No.03 -01, Zone Text Amendment No.
03 -01 and Variance No. 03 -04. Should the City be named in any suit, or should any
claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not,
arising out of the City approval of Environmental Assessment No. 608 and Subdivision
No. 03 -02, Smoky Hollow Site Plan No.03 -01, Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -01 and
Variance No. 03 -04, Albert L. Marco agrees to defend the City (at the City's request and
with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any judgment
rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For purposes of this
section "the City" includes the City of El Segundo's elected officials, appointed officials,
officers, and employees.
By signing this document, Mr. Albert L. Marcos certifies that he has read, understood, and agrees to
the Project Conditions listed in this document.
Mr. Albert I. Marco, Property Owner
{If Corporation or similar entity, needs two officer signatures or evidence that one signature
binds the company}
U 3 :)
Page 10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW USE, DEFINED AS LIVEIWORK, TO
THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL ZONE SET FORTH IN THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL
CODE (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 03 -1)
The city council of the city of El Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On February 6, 2003 Albert L. Marco filed an application for Environmental
Assessment No. 608, Subdivision No. 03 -08, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 54134, Smoky Hollow Site Plan No.03 -01, Zone Text Amendment No.
03 -01 and Variance No. 03 -04 to allow a nine unit townhouse- style
live /work condominium development on a 0.5 acre site at 1225 East
Grand Avenue.
B. Albert L. Marco's application was reviewed by City's Department of
Community, Economic and Development Services for, in part, consistency
with the General Plan and conformity with the El Segundo Municipal Code
( "ESMC ");
C. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq., "CEQA "), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal.
Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines "), and the
City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805,
adopted March 16, 1993);
D. The Department of Community, Economic and Development Services
completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the
application before this Council for August 5, 2003;
E. On June 26, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including, without limitation, information provided to the City Council by
Albert L. Marco; and adopted Resolution No. 2549 recommending City
Council approval of the project;
F. On August 5, 2003 the City Council held a public hearing to receive public
testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without
limitation, information provided to the City Council by Albert L. Marco, and
adopted Resolution No. approving Environmental Assessment No.
608 for Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -1; and,
Page 1 of 4 034
G. The City Council considered the information provided by City staff, public
testimony, and by Albert L. Marco representative. This Ordinance is made
based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its August 5,
2003 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the
Department of Community, Economic and Development Services.
SECTION 2: A new definition is added to El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 15 -1-
6 to read as follows:
"LIVE/WORK: The partial use of a dwelling unit for commercial
uses restricted to artists, craftsmen, photographers, and other fine
art work; professional services conducted by persons in recognized
professions such as architecture, engineering, and law; and other
business activities consisting principally of services as
distinguished from handling of commodities. Live/Work does not
include musicians; medical - related services; veterinary services; or
animal care services. Live/Work uses are in addition to residential
purposes and must comply with all the following:
A. Live/Work uses may only be located in the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) Zone of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Area;
B. Live/Work uses cannot be open to walk -in trade or client visits
other than by appointment;
C. Only one employee, other than the resident, may be employed
on -site;
D. Work activity must be conducted entirely within the individual
unit;
E. Outdoor storage is not permitted;
F. Live/Work uses cannot generate hazardous materials or employ
hazardous processes;
G. The Live/Work use cannot be publicly observed;
H. Live/Work activities, such as noise, vibration, dust, odors, fumes,
smoke, heat, electrical interference or other similar nuisances,
cannot be perceptible beyond the individual unit;
Page 2of4 035
I. LiveM/ork activities cannot increase pedestrian or vehicle traffic
beyond that ordinarily associated with residential occupancy nor
can it reduce the number of required off - street parking spaces
available for residential use;
J. One wall sign is permitted at the entrance of each individual unit.
The wall sign cannot exceed six square feet and cannot extend
above or out from the wall. Signs cannot emit sounds, order, or
visible matter, such as smoke or steam. Signage may be lighted
from another source such as gooseneck lamps. Internally
illuminated and neon signs are not allowed. Roof top signage is not
allowed within the zone. Signs cannot contain any revolving,
fluttering, flashing or spinning elements. All signage is subject to
City requirements for sign permits."
SECTION 3: ESMC § 15 -7A -2 is amended to read as follows:
"Section 15 -7A -2: Permitted Uses
A. Multiple - family dwellings including condominiums, apartments,
townhomes and small lot detached housing.
B. Live /work uses.
C. Other similar uses approved by the Director of Community,
Economic and Development Services as provided by Chapter 22 of
this Title."
SECTION 4: ESMC § 15- 7A- 4(D)(4) is amended to read as follows:
"Grand Avenue Setback: Notwithstanding any of the above -
referenced setbacks, a thirty foot (30) minimum setback is required,
except that all lots with a depth of less than 140' feet may provide a
minimum of fifteen feet (15') from the Grand Avenue right -of -way
line."
SECTION 5: If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, the city council intends that such invalidity will not affect the
effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions
of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of El Segundo's book of original
ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting;
and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it
to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
Page 3of4 0 J6
SECTION 7: This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty -first (31st) day following
its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September, 2003.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
APPROVZeyjC31ty FARM:
Mark D. H Amine?
I
By:
arl 1H. Berger r
Assistant City Attorney
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 5th day of August 2003, 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 2nd day of September 2003, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
Page 4 of 4 0 3 7
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING: June 26, 2003
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 608, Subdivision No.
03 -02, Smoky Hollow Site Plan No. 03 -01, Variance No.
03 -04 and Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -01
APPLICANT: Albert L. Marco
PROPERTY OWNER: Albert L. Marco
REQUEST: A nine unit Townhouse Development (Live/Work)
PROPERTY INVOLVED: 1225 East Grand Avenue
I. Introduction
The Planning Division has received a request to construct nine townhouse -style
condominium "live /work" units on a 21,849 square foot lot. The project is located on
the north side of Grand Avenue between Nevada Street to the west and Kansas Street
to the east in the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone. The project is also located in the
Medium Density Residential (MDR) Overlay Zone of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
area. The project also includes a variance request to allow access to the site from
Grand Avenue. A Zone Text Amendment, which would allow a 15 foot front yard
setback on lots with a depth of less than 140 feet in the MDR Zone and a new
definition of "live /work" as a permitted use, is also proposed.
II. Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the facts as
contained within this report, and adopt Resolution No. 2549, recommending that the
City Council approve Environmental Assessment EA -608, Subdivision No. 03 -02,
Smoky Hollow Specific Site Plan Review No. 03 -01, Variance No. 03 -04, and Zone
Text Amendment No. 03 -01 with conditions.
III. Background
The project is located on the north side of Grand Avenue just east of Nevada Street
and west of Oregon Street. The site currently consists of a 21,849 square foot (0.5
acres) lot with a 7,560 square foot single -story light industrial building constructed in
1953. The existing unoccupied building, as well as the existing asphalt parking lot at
US
the rear of the property, would be demolished during the construction phase of the
project. The most recent use of the building was for the storage of exotic cars.
The site is void of landscaping and currently has three points of access from Grand
Avenue. A six -foot high block wall separates the project site from the abutting property
to the east, a chain link fence separates the property to the north, and a driveway
separates the property to west.
The surrounding area is developed with a multiple - family residential development to
the east (Grand Tropez condominium complex), light industrial buildings to the south
and west, and Center Street Middle School to the north. The Grand Tropez
condominium project to the east was the first project approved under the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan MDR Overlay Zone. This project, includes 88 units on 3.91 acres.
This area of the City of El Segundo has historically been devoted to industrial uses
such as aerospace, research and development and oil recovery. These uses are
gradually being replaced by small commercial, office, and residential uses within the
City. Over the past 20 to 30 years, the City of El Segundo has made a conscientious
effort to accommodate a range of uses and to meet current housing needs. Mixed -use
and transition zones have been encouraged. The vicinity of the project site is
representative of this transition and reflects the City's intent for application of the MDR
Zone.
IV. Analysis
The applicant proposes a medium density residential development consisting of nine
townhouse -style residential "live /work" units. A total of 10,195 square feet of
residential building area is proposed on the 21,849 square foot lot. Individually owned
residential units would be constructed as two -story units over garages. Each unit
would be designed with a patio and roof top deck, with the units arranged in a "U"
shape and a maximum height of 26 feet.
The site plan organization is designed to facilitate access, maximize useable area, and
establish a design theme and building orientation that benefits both the surrounding
land uses and the future project residents. Direct vehicle access to the site and
parking areas would be provided from Grand Avenue utilizing the existing curb cut and
drive aisle off of Grand Avenue. Units along the southern edge would have frontages
oriented toward Grand Avenue. The unit on the west side of the property would face
the light industrial building that abuts the site. The remaining units located on the north
side of the site would have frontages oriented toward Center Street Middle School. No
units are proposed for the east side of the site.
�i 3 , i
Surrounding land uses are as described in the following table:
The average size of the units would range between 1,287 and 1,778 square feet.
Each unit would have a workspace and bathroom on the ground level and one
bedroom and one bathroom on the upper level. No recreational facility is proposed on
this site. Internal access would be provided by one driveway located in southeast
portion of the site with meandering pedestrian paths throughout. In addition to two
garage parking spaces per unit, six visitor parking spaces would be provided on -site.
The remainder of the project site would be landscaped.
General Plan Consistency
This townhouse development would be in keeping with Goal 3 of the City's 2000 -2005
Housing Element which focuses on providing housing opportunities through new
construction, but also in a variety of locations and densities in accordance with the
land use designations detailed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Also,
Policy 3.1 of the Housing Element specifies providing for the construction of 78 new
housing units during the 2000 -2005 timeframe in order to meet the goals of the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This project would help facilitate the
achievement of this goal by providing nine new residential units.
a) Subdivision No. 03 -02
The application includes a subdivision request to allow the construction of nine
townhouse -style "live /work" units through Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54134. The
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan allows condominium development as a permitted use.
Residents would have exclusive rights to their personal units and garage for "live /work"
usage. Residences would be required to submit a business license application and all
appropriate documentation as required by the City for the "live /work" portion of their
unit. Residence would have a percentage of ownership in the common open space
areas as well as responsibility for maintaining the common landscape area through a
Homeowner Association (HOA).
Land Use
Zone
North:
Middle School
Public Facility (P -F)
South:
Light Industrial
Medium Manufacturing (MM)
Grand Avenue Commercial
Overlay (GAC)
East:
Multi - Family
Medium Manufacturing (MM)
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
West:
Light Industrial
Medium Manufacturing (MM)
Medium Density Residential
(MDR)
The average size of the units would range between 1,287 and 1,778 square feet.
Each unit would have a workspace and bathroom on the ground level and one
bedroom and one bathroom on the upper level. No recreational facility is proposed on
this site. Internal access would be provided by one driveway located in southeast
portion of the site with meandering pedestrian paths throughout. In addition to two
garage parking spaces per unit, six visitor parking spaces would be provided on -site.
The remainder of the project site would be landscaped.
General Plan Consistency
This townhouse development would be in keeping with Goal 3 of the City's 2000 -2005
Housing Element which focuses on providing housing opportunities through new
construction, but also in a variety of locations and densities in accordance with the
land use designations detailed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Also,
Policy 3.1 of the Housing Element specifies providing for the construction of 78 new
housing units during the 2000 -2005 timeframe in order to meet the goals of the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. This project would help facilitate the
achievement of this goal by providing nine new residential units.
a) Subdivision No. 03 -02
The application includes a subdivision request to allow the construction of nine
townhouse -style "live /work" units through Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54134. The
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan allows condominium development as a permitted use.
Residents would have exclusive rights to their personal units and garage for "live /work"
usage. Residences would be required to submit a business license application and all
appropriate documentation as required by the City for the "live /work" portion of their
unit. Residence would have a percentage of ownership in the common open space
areas as well as responsibility for maintaining the common landscape area through a
Homeowner Association (HOA).
b) Smoky Hollow Site Plan No. 03 -01
The following chart reflects development standards for the MDR Zone.
REQUIREMENTS
MDR ZONE STANDARDS
PROPOSED PROJECT
STANDARDS
Permitted Uses
Multi- family including
"live /work" Condominiums
condominiums
(ZTA No. 03 -01 required)
Minimum Lot Size
2.5 acres, a complete block or
0.5 acres, site is surrounded by
sites less than 2.5 acres that are
Medium Density Residential
completely surrounded by
(MDR) to the east, Medium
different zones
Manufacturing (MM) Zone to
th.e south and west and Public
Facility P -F) Zone to the north
Lot Area per
18 units per acre (2,420 s.f. /lot
18 units /acre; 2,427 s.f. /lot
Dwelling
area per dwelling)
area per unit
Lot Coverage
11,580 s.f. (53 %)
10,195 s.f. (46.66 %)
Front Setback (East
30 ft. minimum
15 ft. /18 ft. fully landscaped
Grand Avenue
(Along Grand Avenue
(ZTA No. 03 -01 required)
Side Setbacks
5 ft. minimum fully landscaped
5 ft. fully landscaped (including
walks and patios)
Rear Setbacks
10 ft. minimum
10 ft. /13 ft. fully landscaped
Height
26 ft. maximum
26 ft. maximum
Common Open
200s.f. /unit minimum
434 s.f. /unit
Space
Private Open
50 s.f. /unit minimum
281 -472 s.f. /per unit
Space
Landscaping
5% of total vehicular use area
19.64 %; 4,291 s.f. with
with permanent irrigation system
permanent irrigation system
Parking Spaces
2 spaces per dwelling and 6
2 spaces per dwelling plus 6
guest spaces
guest spaces (18 total spaces)
Access
No vehicular access from Grand
Access from Grand Avenue
Avenue
(VAR No. 03 -04 required)
Residential development in the Medium Manufacturing Zone of the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan is allowed through the MDR Overlay Zone using the Smoky Hollow Site
Plan Review application. The applicant seeks approval of a Smoky Hollow Site Plan
and related entitlements that would permit activation of the MDR Zone for this project,
which is substantially similar to other multiple - family residential projects that have been
approved east of the property site. The site plan for this project is for construction of
nine "live /work" condominiums and is designed to reflect current zoning standards and
market trends.
4
( _' 4
Access and Internal Circulation
The site plan provides for vehicular access from Grand Avenue. Due to the
configuration of the site, only one access point would be provided on the southeastern
end of the project site off of Grand Avenue. All nine units would be accessed from an
18 foot wide driveway with garage entrances just left of the drive aisle. There would
be two visitor parking stalls located at the end of the driveway entrance and the
remaining visitor parking stalls would be located between units 2 and 3 and units 6 and
7. The driveway would be under private ownership and maintained by the
Homeowners Association (HOA).
Architecture
The proposed project design incorporates contemporary industrial style elements.
Residential units would be clustered in attached linear rows with each unit slightly
offset to distinguish individual units. The architectural theme utilizes metal canopies
that are affixed by a metal chain while the exterior of the buildings would have a stucco
finish. The exterior front doors would be constructed of metal with an elongated
window in the door and a rectangular window above creating an overall industrial look
to the design. The proposed design is consistent with the design guidelines in El
Segundo Municipal Code Section 15 -11 -3. The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Design
Goals encourage buildings with texture and metal surfaces, buildings with varied wall
articulation, and landscaped areas that enhance the major architectural design
elements through the coordinated use of shrubs, plant material, and lighting elements.
Landscaping
The proposed project would be extensively landscaped both internal to the site and
along the site perimeters. Landscaping would include a complementary combination of
hardscape and plantscape materials. Hardscape elements of the Landscape Plan
include paved pedestrian pathways, treated vehicular entries, and signage. The street
frontages along Grand Avenue would be rimmed with a five -foot wide concrete
sidewalk.
Planting materials would vary depending on location and function of specific
landscaped areas within the site. Site perimeter landscaping along Grand Avenue
would offer a public interface between project units and the public sidewalk.
Lighting
Exterior lighting would be provided to address safety, security, utility and decorative
needs. Recessed wall lights at step locations and along shadowed walkways would
be provided as appropriate to ensure sufficient visibility for pedestrian safety.
Uplighting in landscape areas would serve a multi - purpose role of decorative, security
and safety value. Lighted decorative theme poles would be provided at site entry
points and key pathways. Individual entryways and patio areas would be outfitted with
fixtures per building code requirements. The unit owners would determine final fixture
selections. All exterior lighting serving areas interior to the project site would adhere to
minimum candlepower requirements for typical multi - family housing developments and
0442"
would be consistent with the City of El Segundo Police Department lighting standards.
To the extent feasible, lighting fixtures would be constructed or treated with corrosive
combative materials that are resistant to exposure of salty ocean air.
Parking
Resident parking would be accommodated by two -stall garages located under each
unit. In addition, a minimum of six visitor parking spaces would be interspersed
throughout the project site and easily accessible to the units.
Recreational Amenities
In total, approximately 12,026 square feet of open space area would be provided on-
site through areas of Private Open Space and Common Open Space. Private patio
areas and rooftop decks would provide private open space. These individual patio and
deck areas would be owned and maintained by the individual unit owners. While
these areas may be individually enclosed and may or may not be landscaped, they
would nonetheless serve as an extension into the common use areas.
Common Open Space throughout the project includes landscaped areas, lawn areas
and promenade and pathways. Lawn areas around the site perimeter setbacks and
along the southwestern edge would provide passive play areas for residents and pets.
The theme promenade and linking pathways would provide visual relief and
opportunities for aesthetic appreciation and would serve as a place for resident
interaction.
Signage
Project signage would be provided as necessary to identify the development, direct
visitors to units and parking areas, and communicate appropriate safety, privacy and
operational policies.
c) Zone Text Amendment No. 03-01
The applicant has applied for a Zone Text Amendment that would permit "live/ work"
uses in the MDR Zone. The "live /work" use proposal would be a new definition and
permitted use. The current code does not allow "live /work" as a type of use permitted
in any zone. The proposed amendment would allow residents in the MDR Zone the
right to utilize the "live /work" use as outlined in Table 1 of this text. The applicant has
provided a definition of the "live /work" use and staff has recommended that the
definition be modified in order to address issues such as type of work, number of
employees, signage and other issues that have been outlined (see Table 1).
6 0 4
Table 1 — Permitted Uses in MDR Zone
CURRENT
PROPOSED BY
APPLICANT
PROPOSED BY STAFF
El Segundo Municipal Code
El Segundo Municipal Code
El Segundo Municipal Code
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
(MDR) Zone Chapter 7
(MDR) Zone Chapter 7
(MDR) Zone Chapter 7
Section 15- 7A- 2
Section 15- 7A- 2
Section 15- 7A- 2
PERMITTED USES: The
PERMITTED USES: The
PERMITTED USES: The
following uses are permitted
following uses are permitted
following uses are permitted
in the MDR Zone:
in the MDR Zone.
in the MDR Zone:
A. Multiple - family
A. Artists' studios and
A. Multiple - family
dwellings including
work space for
dwellings including
condominiums,
artists and artisans,
condominiums,
apartments,
illustrators, painters,
apartments,
townhomes and
sculptors,
townhomes and
small lot detached
photographers, or
small lot detached
housing.
other work activities
housing.
related to fine arts.
B. Other similar uses
B. Live /work uses.
approved by the
B. Office - related
Director of
activities and office-
B. C. Other similar uses
Community,
professional work
approved by the
Economic and
activities, such as
Director of
Development
consultants and
Community,
Services as provided
professional services
Economic and
by Chapter 22 of this
including
Development
Title. (Ord. 1212,11-
architectural,
Services as
16 -1993; amd. Ord.
engineering, and
provided by Chapter
1315, 1 -18- 2000).
industrial design and
22 of this Title.
drafting.
(Ord. 1212,11 -16-
1993; amd. Ord.
1315, 1 -18- 2000).
In addition to the proposed permitted uses in the MDR Zone, the applicant is
requesting that lots with a depth of less than 140 feet provide a minimum front yard
setback of 15 feet from Grand Avenue instead of 30 feet (see Table 2). The provision
would allow the applicant to develop the proposed lot to its fullest potential. The 30
foot front yard setback required in the current code could result in the developer
having to create smaller units and /or possibly reduce the number of units currently
being proposed. The developer would be required to submit a detailed landscape plan
that would create a smooth transition between Grand Avenue and the proposed units.
044
Table 2 — MDR Setbacks
CURRENT
PROPOSED
El Segundo Municipal Code Medium
El Segundo Municipal Code Medium Density
Density Residential (MDR) Zone Chapter
Residential (MDR) Zone Chapter 7 Section
7 Section 15- 7A-4D- 4
15- 7A -4D- 4
Grand Avenue Setback:
Grand Avenue Setback:
Notwithstanding any of the above-
Notwithstanding any of the above - referenced
referenced setbacks, Re tisode„+TiQ:
setbacks, a thirty foot (30) minimum setback
b ildiR„ May be IGGated GleGer +haR +ti,h.,
is required, except that all lots with a depth of
engineering and industrial design and
drafting by a resident Medium Density
Residential Zone (MDR) thereof, which is
does not include musicians; medical -
feet (38') from the Grand Avenue right of
less than 140' feet may provide a minimum of
fifteen feet (15') from the Grand Avenue right -
way line.
of-wa line.
must comply with all the following.
A Live /Work uses may only be
located in the Medium Density
d) Proposed New Uve/Work Text
The applicant has proposed a definition of "live /work" to include how the "work" portion
of the residence would be conducted. Staff's recommendations list the applicant's
suggestions, as well as additional guidelines, to ensure that the proposed "live /work"
use would not create an impact to surrounding property owners. Staff believes that a
more restrictive definition would ensure the compatibility of the proposed residential
development with the surrounding industrial and residential uses. Table 3 provides the
proposals by the applicant and staff's recommendation for the "live /work" definition.
Table 3 — Live/Work Definition
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
El Segundo Municipal Code Title;
Interpretation; Definitions Chapter 1
Section 15- 1- 6
El Segundo Municipal Code Title;
Interpretation; Definitions Chapter 1
Section 15- 1- 6
Live /Work:
The partial use of a dwelling unit for the
"Live Work:
A partial use dwelling units for commercial
following commercial uses: artists studios
uses that are restricted to artists,
craftsmen, photographers, and other fine
and work space for artists and artisans,
illustrators, painters, sculptors,
photographers, or other work activities
related to fine arts, office - related activities
art work; professional services conducted
by persons in recognized professions such
as architecture, engineering, and law; and
and office - professional work activities,
such as consultants and professional
services including architectural and
other business activities consisting
principally of services as distinguished
from handling of commodities. Live/Work
engineering and industrial design and
drafting by a resident Medium Density
Residential Zone (MDR) thereof, which is
does not include musicians; medical -
related services; veterinary services or
animal care services Live /Work uses are
in addition to the use of the dwelling for
in addition to residential purposes and
residential purposes, in compliance with all
must comply with all the following.
A Live /Work uses may only be
located in the Medium Density
of the following_ conditions*
A. Work activities shall not be open to
walk -in trade or client visits other
Residential (MDR) Zone of the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Area;
than by appointment.
0 4 1)
B No one other than a resident of the
unit shall be employed on site,
except that one non - resident
employee may report to work on-
site.
C Work activitV shall be conducted
entirely within the boundaries of the
individual unit.
D No outdoor storage is permitted
E. Existence of home occupation shall
not be apparent beyond boundaries
of the site.
F. No work related noise, vibration,
dust, odors, fumes; smoke, heat,
electrical interference or other
obiectionable nuisances shall be
Perceptible beyond the walls of the
individual unit.
G. Work activities shall not create
pedestrian or vehicle traffic not
normally associated with residential
occupancy, nor shall the work
activity preempt the required off -
street parking spaces.
No motor vehicle repair, beauty or
barber shop (or other similar
personal service uses), no
manufacturing, fabrication, material
handling, photo development
requiring use of chemicals,
recording studios, music studios,
medical offices (or similar
professional services); no activity
related to animals (such as
veterinary office or boarding /kennel
facility).
Signs: One wall sign shall be
permitted at the entrance to an
individual unit provided that it not
exceed ***square feet and that it
not extend above or out from the
wall, and does not contain any
revolving, fluttering, flashing, or
spinning elements, and subject to
City requirements for sign permits.
B Live/Work uses cannot be open to
walk -in trade or client visits other
than by appointment;
C Only one employee, other than the
resident, may be employed on -site;
D Work activity must be conducted
entirely within the individual unit;
E. Outdoor storage is not permitted,
F Live/Work uses cannot generate
hazardous materials or employ
hazardous processes;
G. The Live/Work use cannot be
Publicly observed;
H. Live/Work activities, such as noise,
vibration, dust, odors, fumes,
smoke, heat, electrical interference
or other similar nuisances, cannot
be perceptible beyond the
individual unit;
Live/Work activities cannot
increase pedestrian or vehicle
traffic beyond that ordinarily
associated with residential
occupancy nor can it reduce the
number of required off - street
parking spaces available for
residential use;
One wall sign is permitted at the
entrance of each individual unit.
The wall sign cannot exceed six
square feet and cannot extend
above or out from the wall. Signs
cannot emit sounds, ordor, or
visible matter, such as smoke or
steam. Signage may be lighted
from another source such as
gooseneck lamps. Internally
illuminated and neon signs are not
allowed Roof top signage is not
allowed within the zone. Signs
cannot contain any revolving,
fluttering, flashing or spinning
elements All signage is subject to
City requirements for sign permits "
0 4 ()
Other Cities Requirements
Staff contacted five cities that allow "live /work" uses to review the standards they use
to regulate such uses. Two cities require administrative approval, and three required a
Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, staff is aware that "live /work" spaces have also
recently been constructed in Venice and Santa Monica.
Table 4 — Other Cities Requirements
City and Respondent
Requirements
City of Fremont, California
The City of Fremont requires a conditional
use permit for "live /work ". The city has set
limited hours of operation between 8 a.m.
and 8 p.m.
City of Oakland, California
The City of Oakland requires a conditional
use permit for Joint Living and Working
Quarters, The City has a minimum of
1,000 s are feet for working quarters.
City of Rohnert Park, California
The City of Rohnert Park requires a
conditional use permit for "live /work ". The
living space shall not be rented separately
from the working space.
City of Santa Ana, California
The City of Santa Ana permits creative arts
uses as a home based business in the
Central Business Artists' Village with an
Administrative Approval.
City of San Rafael, California
The City of San Rafael Code states that at
least one (1) of the residents of the
"live /work" quarters shall be required to
have a business license. Approval for
"live /work" is Administrative and the unit
may not be rented or sold as a commercial
space for a person or persons not living on
the premises, or as a residential space for
a person or persons not working on the
remises.
e) Variance No. 03 -04
Section 15- 7A -4D -4 of the El Segundo Zoning Code states that all new development
along Grand Avenue may not have access from Grand Avenue. The site is land- locked
on the north side by Center Street Middle School, on the east by an 88- condominium
development (Grand Tropez), and to the west by a light industrial building. The
applicant is requesting a variance to utilize one of the existing three driveways as an
access point into the site. The applicant plans to remove two of the existing drive
aisles and curb cuts and maintain one existing curb cut located at the southeast corner
of the site and redesign the drive aisle with decorative pavement. Since the applicant
plans to remove the existing drive aisle, a variance is required to continue to use this
access point from Grand Avenue. Staff has researched the requirements for a
variance and determined that since the existing drive aisle pavement is being
removed, the right to the legal non - conforming structure (the driveway) is abandoned
as well.
10 .i 4 7
In accordance with Section 15 -23 -3 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission
may grant a variance if all of the following four findings can be met:
A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply
generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
The property is situated on the north side of Grand Avenue and is surrounded
by Center Street Middle School to the north, an 88 -unit condominium
development to the east, and a light industrial building to the west. There are
no side streets to provide alternative access points. The exceptional
circumstance is that there is no practical access to the site from any other
public right -of -way except Grand Avenue. Most other properties in the MDR
overlay zone with frontage on Grand Avenue are corner lots, which allow for
alternative access from a public side street.
B. That the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, but which is denied to the property in question.
The variance to allow access from Grand Avenue would preserve the integrity
of the site. A variance will allow access into the site from Grand Avenue.
Without a variance, the site would be a land- locked parcel, which would deny
substantial property rights. Staff conducted a site visit and determined that the
condominium development (Grand Tropez) just east of the site has access from
Grand Avenue, as do other properties both east and west of the proposed site.
C. That the granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
Granting the variance to allow driveway access from Grand Avenue will not
affect the public welfare or safety. The proposed 18 foot wide driveway allows
sufficient driveway width to accommodate anticipated ingress and egress and
traffic demand. In addition, the 82 foot driveway length is sufficient to
discourage any queuing of vehicles onto Grand Avenue. The site is currently
designed with three driveways off Grand Avenue. Two of these would be
removed. Since the applicant plans to utilize an existing driveway location, it
would not create an impact to the neighboring properties.
D. That the granting of the Variance will not adversely affect the General
Plan.
Granting the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan. The overall
proposal would not result in a change to the present planned use for the area,
as it is consistent with the kind of uses permitted for the zone. The proposed
development is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City's General
Plan and the ESMC and does not constitute a significant or substantial
11 U48
alteration in planned land uses. Granting the variance for continued use of the
existing driveway /access point located at the southeast corner of the site off of
Grand Avenue would not conflict with the goals of the General Plan.
Planning staff believes that the four required findings for the variance can be made.
V. Inter - Departmental Comments
The project applications, Initial Study Report and plans were circulated and all inter-
departmental comments are attached to the report. The following Divisions and
Departments had no comments on the project: City Manager, Administrative Services,
Library, and the City Attorney's office.
The Fire Department commented that the project and building plans would
be reviewed to ensure compliance with the California Fire Code and Uniform
Fire Code before permits would be issued. The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
Section 15- 11 -2 -G.2 requires that all new developments have an automatic
fire sprinkler system. The Public Works Department commented that
standard traffic mitigation fees are required; that the sewer connections
should be upgraded to facilitate the expected increase in water usage,
handicapped access must be provided, and all work performed in the public
right -of -way requires a permit. The Police Department addressed safety
issues with regard to lighting, addressing, landscaping, hardware (related to
doors and windows), perimeter walls or fencing, common areas, the trash
dumpster, and alarms. The Building Safety Division comments centered on
meeting the 2001 California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical
codes, as well as meeting required egress standards. It was also noted that
grading and drainage plans and a geotechnical report would be required.
These comments have been incorporated as conditions of approval in the
Resolution.
VI. Environmental Review
The proposed project has been analyzed for its environmental impacts and a Draft
Initial Study (Exhibit D) has been prepared pursuant to Section 15063, of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts is proposed for this project pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA.
VII. Conclusion
Planning staff recommends Planning Commission adopt Resolution No 2549,
recommending that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment No. 608,
Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -01, Subdivision No. 03 -02, Variance No. 03 -04, and
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Site Plan Review No. 03 -01.
12 'J49
Vlll. Exhibits
B. Applications
C. Inter - departmental Comments
Randie Davis, Assistant Planner
James M. a e it or
Community, Economic, and Development Services
P• /planning &bldgsafety /projects /600- 625 /Ea -608 SR
13 U 5 U
Community, Economic and
Development Services Department
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
HE (D E 0 WED
DIVIS ON
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 524 -2344
FAX (310) 322 -4167
www.elsegundo.org
PROJECT No. (odg` S 63 �, S4Sp -D3 -1
Date: 2 ��
The applicant:
ALBERT L. MARCO 201 Nevada Street, E1 Segundo 90245 310/615 -0694
Name Address Phone
(Check One)
Owner XX Lessee Agent
Property Owner:
Same as above
Name
Address
Phone
Property Situated at: Lots 100 & 101, Block 123, El Secuncto Tract
(Exact legal description. Provide attachment if necessary)
General
Location: 1225 East Grand Avenue
Address and Street, Avenue
Existing Zoning: MDR
Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map
Final Tract Map
between Nevada Street & Oregon Street
Street, Avenue
Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
XX Vesting Tentative Tract Map 54134
Final Vesting Tract Map
Request: Under the provisions of Title 14 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Subdivision
for the above described property.
EA-A'08; or 98 03.M
%A40 03.1
SUBMIT WITH THIS APPLICATION:
13 copies of the above noted map(s) prepared in accordance with Title 14, "El Segundo Municipal Code ".
Supporting documents or drawings to illustrate the proposed subdivision (parcel) map as fully as possible.
Other information as may be required by the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services or City
Engineer.
MISCELLANEOUS:
All deeds required shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Los Angeles, California.
Provide the City with one reproducible mylar copy of the map(s) after recordation in the County Recorder's office
together with two prints of the same.
All maps to be submitted in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
I, We ALBERT L. MARCO the undersigned, depose and say that I/We
am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with
the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans attached hereto are in all
respects true and correct to the best of my/oUr.w edge d belief.
I hereby autho
application. I up
and corresD
Owner's Signature
nature
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
October 22, 2002
Date
JOYCE, FLOOD and ELIZABETH SROUR
to act for me /us in all matters relevant to this
tand th t this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information
I�5„
AGENT AFFIDAVIT
1, We ELIZABETH SROUR the undersigned, depose and say that Me
am the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with
the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all
respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief
Procedures for filing application
VA
3
4
5
6
�-
20�.
ignature Date
File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division along with completed Initial Study
Applicant Questionnaire. Signature of the owner/ owners, lessee (if applicant), and /or agent shall be
required on all applications.
Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division
as indicated on the Notice to Applicants.
Pay filing fee (See fee schedule).
Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing.
Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his /her request.
There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal.
Planning Staff: Date received
Signature
3
EA
SUB
Pi I,b Oapfonns /subc{wIspoi,
05
.s
Community, Economic and
Development Services Department
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
PROJECT No. 03 ` 04
350 Main Street
EI Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 524 -2344
FAX (310) 322 -4167
Date: 4 G - Q3
The applicant:
AT.RnT T._ MARC'.n 901 NPVacIa gtrPPY } F.1 iPgttncin 90949 '110./615-1 Al R
Name Address Phone
(Check One)
Owner xx Lessee Agent
Property Owner:
SAME AS ABOVE
Name Address Phone
Property Situated at: LOTS 100 & 101, BLOCK 123, EL SEGUNDO TRACT
(Exact legal description. Provide attachment if necessary)
General
Location: 1225 EAST GRAND
Address and Street, Avenue
Existing Zoning: MDR
between Nevada & Oregon
Street, Avenue
Request: Under the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 23 -3 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a
Variance for the above described property.
Explain in detail wherein your case conforms to each of the following requirements:
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions including size, shape, topography,
location, or surroundings applicable to the intended use that do not apply generally to the other property or
class of use in the same vicinity and zone;
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FOR RESPONSE TO THESE ITEMS
2 That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in
question
I_` 5 -1 /
Y
That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvement in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT FOR RESPONSE TO THESE ITEMS
4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan
NOTE: Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby
authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege not shared by other properties in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located
OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE /OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
I, We the undersigned, depose and say that I/We am
the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the
rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans attached hereto are in all
respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief.
04" � April 24, 200320
Signature Date
REPRESENTATI OR ALBERT L. MARCO, PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
I hereby authorize to act for me /us in all matters relevant to this application I
understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and
correspondence
Owner's Signature
AGENT AFFIDAVIT
I, We ELIZABETH SROUR the undersigned, depose and say that Me am
the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that I/we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the
rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all
respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief
IIt A r\ April 24, 209;
ig atur Date
Procedures for filing application
File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners,
lessee, and /or agent shall be provided.
2 Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division
3. Pay filing fee.
4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing.
Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his /her request.
6. There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal.
Planning Staff: Date received E.A.
Signature
VAR.
VAR-APP
UJ�)
ATTACFM[ENT TO VARIANCE APPLICATION
FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM GRAND AVENUE
1225 EAST GRAND AVENUE, EL SEGUNDO
April 24, 2003
1 The purpose of the variance request is to allow a driveway curb cut on Grand Avenue
The property is situated on the north side of Grand Avenue and is surrounded on three sides by
private property and a school site There is no vehicular or pedestrian access to the site except
from Grand Avenue The exceptional circumstance is based on the fact that there is no access
except from Grand Avenue
2 The variance is necessary to allow use and development of the property. Without
driveway access from Grand Avenue, there is no way to gain access to the subject site or
exercise permitted development rights
3. Granting of the variance to allow driveway access from Grand Avenue will not be
detrimental to the public welfare nor will it compromise public safety. The proposed driveway
plan allows sufficient driveway width to accommodate anticipated ingress and egress traffic
demand. In addition, the driveway length is sufficient to discourage any queuing of vehicles
onto Grand Avenue The garages and motor court are located within the development and will
not result in any conflict with existing traffic flow on Grand Avenue. In addition, pedestrian
access to the units is separated from the driveway and thus there will be no conflict between
pedestrian and vehicular patterns
4 The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan The over all
proposal will not result in a change to the present planned use for the area, as it is consistent with
the kinds of uses permitted for this zoning designation The proposed development is consistent
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and does not constitute a significant or
substantial alteration in planned land uses, and the driveway location does not introduce any
conflict with the goals of the General Plan.
u51
P`. DATA\ WORD '- Dre,ELSEGUNDO,I^_'_>agmd\a - %anancedoc
The Applicant:
$ J 3J-0
COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 350 main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 524 -2344
FAX (310) 322 -4167
APPLICATION FOR A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT
PROJECT NO.7/�
ALBERT L. MARCO
Name
(Check One)
Owner M_ Lessee Agent
Property Owner:
SAME AS ABOVE
Name
201 NEVADA STREET
Address
Address Phone
Date: G49 /0'!2
310/615 -1818
Phone
Property Situated at: LOTS 100 & 101, BLOCK 123, EL SEGUNDO TRACT
(Exact legal description. Provide attachment if necessary)
General
Location: 1225 EAST GRAND AVENUE between Nevada and Oregon Streets
Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue
Existing Zoning: MDR (SMOKY HOLLOW SPECIFIC PLAN AREA)
Request: Under the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration
of a Zone Text Amendment for the above described property.
1. Does public necessity require the proposed amendment? Describe the nature of the proposed amendment
including the section(s) of the Municipal Code to be amended.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE FOR RESPONSE TO ITEMS 1 & 2.
D
APR 0 7 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
2. Would the changes proposed by the amendment be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property?
(Explain reasons supporting your answers.)
r�
1
Procedures for filing application
File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division. Signature of the owner, owners,
lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public
2. Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division.
Pay filing fee.
4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing.
5. Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his /her request.
6. There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal.
Planning Staff: Date received EA
Signature ZTA
ZTA APP
05")
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
I, We ALBERT L. MARCO being duly sworn dispose and say that 1/We
am the OWNER(S) of the property Involved in this applic and tha /we have familiarized myself (ourselves)
with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo ith respect to pr paring and filing this application and that
the foregoing statements herein contained and the formation on docu ents and all plans attached hereto are in
all respects true and correct to the best of my /our nowledge and bel' f.
Sidna(tur`e
Marr_h 95, , 2003
Date
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) �\
County of Los Angeles )ss.
On this `�-' day of l� , 20 O before me, the undersigned Notary Public
in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to
me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument,
and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same.
WITNESS my hand ald o l sealeizmEfHC.SROUR
Commission # 1214302 3;
< 4 �"�' '' Notary Pubric - Califam'
Nota Public and for said County and state
Z : h y Los Angeles Co�udY rY tY
'.*esA 2.%27J3
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
I hereby autho 'ze F.T.TzAB 8ROUR to act for me in all matters relevant to this application. I understand that
this person will the excl s' a contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence.
Owner's Signature
AGENT AFFIDAVIT
1, We El .IZABM SROUR being duly sworn dispose and say that I/We
am the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with
the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all
respects true and correct to the best of my /our 4fnowledge and belief.
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
County of Los Angeles )ss.
March 25,
Date
2003
On this 25th day of March , 20 03 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public
in and for said county and State, personally appeared ELIZABETH SROUR known to
me to be the person whose name is subscdbAo the within Instrument,
and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same.
WITNTS �anS Ali �f N
Commission # 1324574
Notary , "ublic - California _
Z Los /A iQeles County ` o ary Public in and for said County and state
Oct 4 My Corr.r Eimims 9, 2005
2 U 6 6
DRAFT
TITLE: INTERPRETATION; DEFINITIONS
15 -1 -6:
LIVE -WORK USES: The partial use of a dwelling unit for the following commercial uses- artists
studios and work space for artists and artisans, illustrators, painters, sculptors, photographers, or
other work activities related to fine arts, office - related activities and office - professional work activities,
such as consultants and professional services including architectural and engineering and industrial
design and drafting by a resident Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone thereof which is in
addition to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes, in compliance with all of the following
conditions:
A Located in the Medium Density Residential Zone of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
Area;
B. Work activities may not be open to walk -in trade or client visits other than by
appointment;
C. No one other than a resident of the unit may be employed on site, except that one non-
resident employee may report to work on -site;
D. Work activity must be conducted entirely within the boundaries of the individual unit;
E. No outdoor storage is permitted;
F. Work activities must not generate any hazardous materials, processes or impacts to
adjacent residents;
G. Existence of the business operation must not be apparent beyond boundaries of the
site;
H. No work related noise vibration dust odors fumes smoke heat electrical interference
or other objectionable nuisances may be perceptible beyond the walls of the individual
unit;
I. Office - related activities and office professional work activities, such as consultants and
professional services including architectural and engineering and industrial design and
drafting;
J. Work activities must not create pedestrian or vehicle traffic not normally associated with
residential occupancy, nor may the work activity preempt the required off - street parking
spaces;
K. No motor vehicle repair, beauty or barber shop (or other similar personal service uses),
no manufacturing, fabrication, material handling, photo development requiring use of
chemicals recording studios, music studios, medical offices (or similar professional
services); no activity related to animals (such as veterinary office or boarding /kennel
facility) are permitted;
P•\Planing & Budding Safety \PROJECTS \600- 625\EA608 INT
u61
DRAFT
L. Signs - one wall sign may be permitted at the entrance to an individual unit and that it
not exceed six square feet and that it not extend above or out from the wall. Signs must
not emit sounds, order, or visible matter, such as smoke or steam. Signage may be
lighted from another source such as gooseneck lamps. Internally illuminated and neon
signs are not be allowed. Roof top signage may not be allowed within the zone. Sign
may not contain any revolving, fluttering, flashing or spinning elements. All signage is
subiect to City requirements for sign permits.
15 -7A -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses are permitted in the MDR Zone:
A. Multiple - family dwellings including condominiums, apartments, townhomes and small lot
detached housing.
B. Live /work Uses.
S. C. Other similar uses approved b y the Director of Community, Economic and Development
Services as provided by Chapter 22 of this Title. (Ord. 1212,11 -16 -1993; amd. Ord. 1315, 1 -18 -2000)
15 -7A-4: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
D. Setbacks;
1. Front Yard: Fifteen feet (15') minimum, except that all lots over eighty feet (80') in depth shall
provide a minimum of twenty feet (20'). (Ord. 1212, 11 -16 -1993)
2. Side Yard: Ten percent (10 %) of the width of the lot on each side of the lot, but shall never be
less than three feet (3') and need not be more than five feet (5'), except if parking garages or
covered parking spaces are located in a side yard and face a street, then the setback shall be
twenty feet (20'). (Ord. 1288, 10 -20 -1998)
3. Rear Yard: A minimum of ten feet (10') shall be provided.
4. Grand Avenue Setback: Notwithstanding any of the above - referenced setbacks, ae- Fesicleetial
building may he Ienated nleGer than +h;.+„ foot (30') a thirty (30') minimum setback is required,
except that all lots less than 80' feet in depth may provide a minimum of fifteen feet 0 5') from
the Grand Avenue right of way line.
P \Planing & Building Safety \PROJECTS \600- 625 \EA60�1�f� „
tJ p .c.
r
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT
FRONT YARD SET BACK IN THE MEDIMUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (MDR)
ZONE
PROPOSAL
To approve a Zone Text Amendment for Section 15- 7A -4:D.4 to allow a 15 foot
front yard setback for properties located on the north side of Grand Avenue, in
the MDR Zoning District on lots with a depth of less than 80 feet, provided that a
landscape plan is developed to provide an adequate and creative buffer between
the street face and the proposed residential structures.
Project utilizing the 15 -foot set back along the north side of Grand Avenue would
be required to provide a substantial front yard landscape area for buffering the
structures from the street. The landscaped areas would also provide for
adequate separation of the residential units from street activity.
EXISTING CODE
REVISED CODE
Grand Avenue Setback:
Notwithstanding any of the above-
referenced setbacks, ^^ F96i t°^
Grand Avenue Setback:
Notwithstanding any of the above -
referenced setbacks, a thirty foot (30)
minimum setback is required, except
thirty feet from the Grand
Avenue right of way line.
that all lots less than 80' feet in depth
may provide a minimum of fifteen feet
0 5') from the Grand Avenue right -of-
wa line.
P \Planing & Building Safety \PROJECTS \600 - 625 \EA608.ZTA
COMMENTS:
AJY
ink 1►� cns S��r
6i-co- d }-•z not + rjGc ► -f' ,_,J�ao(
/ 0 e6Avv a7+ SI �J Gt''7+ l �' �J Y, LAG
�i o �'✓i.'W1"1�
jtzl-
J�
Reviewed By:
Signature an Title
Enclosure:
Site Plan
7
LO�>
Date
P \PLANNING & BUILDING SAFETYIPROJECTS 1600- 6251EA- 60BL6c doc
064
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
INTER - DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE June 6, 2003
TO Randie Davis
Assistant Planner
FROM Bellur Devaraj
City Engineer
SUBJECT 9 Unit Townhouse — 1225 East Grand Avenue
Comments:
1. The development will be subject to a Traffic Mitigation Fee per Council Resolution No. 3969.
2. Grand Avenue frontage to be improved to City standards with new sidewalks and curbs.
Any existing driveways to be abandoned shall be removed and the parkway reconstructed
with full height curb and sidewalk improvements.
3. Water and sewer service connections shall be sized for the proposed use.
4. Any work or encroachment in the public right -of -way shall need a Public Works permit.
BKD:dr
MEMOSRantlie Dais - Assistant Planner - 9 Una
Townhouse - 1225 East Grand Aoenue
�!UJ
COMMENTS:
The Fire Department will require the buildings to have automatic fire sprinkler
protection throughtout, in accordance with E1 Segundo City Code, section 15- 11 -2 -G.2
Reviewed By:
James J. Carver, Principal Fire Prevention Specialist
6/3/03
Signature and Title Date
Enclosure:
Site Plan
2
P \PLANNING & BUILDING SAFETY\PROJECTS \600 - 625 \EA - 608 \idc doc
0b0
City of El Segundo
Inter - Departmental Correspondence
May 12, 2003
To: Jim Hansen, Director of Com unity, Economic & Development Services
From: Jack Wayt, Chief of Polic
Subject: Environmental Assessment EA -608, Variance No. 03 -04, Zone Text
Amendment No. 03 -01, Smokey Hollow Specific Plan No. 03 -01
and Subdivision No. 03 -02
Address: 1225 E. Grand Avenue, Studio Apartments
Applicant: Albert L. Marco
Property Owner: Albert L. Marco
The Police Department has reviewed EA -608 and returns them with the following comments:
LIGHTING
A maintained minimum of one footcandle of light on the ground surface shall be provided
around all sides of the buildings /units, in the motor court, over the guest parking spaces
and the dumpster, during hours of darkness. Aisles, passageways and recesses
related to and within all sides of the complex shall be illuminated with a maintained
minimum of .25 -.50 footcandles during hours of darkness.
Lighting devices shall be enclosed and protected by weather and vandal resistant
covers.
A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY, WHICH INCLUDES ALL OF THE ABOVE, SHALL
BE PROVIDED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUING THE PERMIT.
ADDRESSING
Unit and street addressing shall be a minimum of 6" to 8" high, visible from the street, of
contrasting color to the background and illuminated during hours of darkness.
LANDSCAPING
All landscaping shall be low profile around perimeter fencing, windows, doors and
entryways taking special care not to limit visibility and provide climbing access. Floral or
grass ground cover is recommended. Bushes shall be trimmed to 1 to 2 feet and away
from buildings. Dense bushes should not be clumped together; this provides a hiding
place for criminal activity. Trees should be trimmed up to 7 feet.
TRASH DUMPSTERS
Trash dumpsters shall be enclosed with a solid wall, wrought iron or steel tubular
fencing. All dumpsters not enclosed this way shall be constructed to fully enclose the
dumpster.
ij6'
EA — 608/1225 E. Grand
Page two
HARDWARE/DOORS/WINDOWS
All main entry doors, including entry doors from a garage into the residence, shall be of
solid core construction with a minimum thickness of 1 3/4 inches.
Entry doors shall have a deadbolt locking device. The deadbolt throw shall have a
1 -inch projection. The cylinder guard shall be of case hardened steel, with the outer
edge angled or tapered and free spinning. The exterior part of the lock shall be
connected to the inside portion of the lock with bolts at least 1/4 inch in diameter and
constructed of steel. The locking mechanism shall contain a minimum of a 5 -pin
tumbler.
Main entry doors with glass constructed in or within 40 inches of the locking mechanism
shall use with polycarbonate materials, fully tempered glass with security mesh
embedded within, or rated burglary resistant glazing.
If the present style of main entry door (glass vision panel in door) is replaced with a solid
door, a panoramic door viewer (180 -190 degrees) shall be installed.
Strike plates shall be made with a minimum 16 U.S. gauge steel, bronze or brass and
secured to the jamb by a minimum of two screws, off -set and which must penetrate at
least 2 inches into solid backing beyond the surface to which the strike plate is attached.
Double or French doors shall have a secondary locking device, such as a cane or flush
bolt in addition to a deadbolt. The inactive leaf of double door(s) shall be equipped with
metal flush bolts having a minimum embedment of 5/8 inch into the head and threshold
of the doorframe.
PERIMETER WALLS OR FENCING
Security gates are noted at the entrance of the driveway and in the common area
between units #4 and #9. Please clarify how these gates will secure.
What type of perimeter walls or fencing will be used to secure the entire property?
(All walls and fencing shall be a minimum height of 6 feet and of solid construction.
Walls shall limit climbing access (i.e. concrete walls shall not have varied sections were
decorative blocks allow for stepping over the wall or part of the wall consists of wrought
iron). Wood, wrought iron, steel tubular or mesh perimeters shall be 6 feet high and all
horizontal members shall be on the inside of the perimeter. Where wrought iron or steel
tubular fencing is used, the horizontal members shall run along the top and bottom
portion of the fence. Wrought iron or steel tubular fencing is always recommended
around a perimeter as it provides maximum visibility.)
TRAFFIC DIVISION (SGT. ROGER STEPHENSON)
No concerns.
-"
t� 0 6
COMMENTS:
V Af 6-4�
exw- lac..�, yen aj.
lto4�
�7� 1
1
Reviewed By:
Sig%alturnd Title
Enclosure:
D to
Site Plan
P \PLANNING & BUILDING SAFETYAPROJECTS 1600- 6251EA- 606�jdc doc
2
BACKGROUND
City of El Segundo
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, 350 Main Street
ECONOMIC, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 322 -4670
FAX (310) 322 -4167
www.elsegundo.org
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT No. EA -608, SUB 03 -02, SHSP 03 -01, VAR 03- 04
Project Title: Nine Unit Live/Work — Townhouse Condominiulms
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of El Sequndo, 350 Main Street, El Sequndo, CA 90245
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Randie Davis, Assistant Planner. (310) 524 -2343.
4. Project Location: 1225 East Grand Avenue, El Sequndo, CA 90245
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Albert L. Marco 201 Nevada Street, El Segundo CA 90245
6. General Plan Designation: Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
7. Zoning: Medium Density Residential (MDR)
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 applicant proposes a medium density residential development consisting of 9 townhouse style
live /work condominium units A total of 18,770 square feet of residential buildings including garage area
are proposed on a 21,849.16 square foot lot. Individual residential units will be constructed as two- stories
with over the garage /work area. Each unit will also be equipped with roof top decks. Units will be
attached and constructed in a "U" shape design.
The project includes a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA 03 -01) to modify the required Grand Avenue setback
from 30 feet to 15 feet. The applicant also proposes to amend the permitted use section of the Medium
Density Residential Zone (MDR) zone to permit Live/Work as a permitted use. The applicant also
proposes amending the definition of a home occupation to expand the types of business activities that
could take place in a multi- family dwelling in the MDR Zone
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings)
Surrounding uses to the north of the project site include a Middle School (Center Street Middle School)
The property to the immediate east is an 88 unit townhouse project (Grand Tropez) that fronts along East
Grand Avenue. The properties to the south and west are single -story light manufacturing buildings.
The City of El Segundo is located in the Los Angeles urban area and is considered part of the
Airport/South Bay subregion. The City of El Segundo is situated between Los Angeles International
Airport to the north, the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant and Department of
Water and Power Scattergood Generating Station and the Pacific Ocean to the west, the Chevron oil
refinery and the City of Manhattan Beach to the south, and Del Aire (a Los Angeles County island) 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
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below ( X ) 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.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this Initial Study of Environmental Impact, the Planning Commission of the City of El
Segundo finds the following:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
Aesthetics
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
Public Services
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
Agricultural Resources
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Hydrology/Water Quality
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Recreation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Air Quality
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact' or "potentially significant
Land Use /Planning
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately
Transportation/Traffic
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed
Biological Resources
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
Mineral Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
Utilities /Service Systems
be addressed
Cultural Resources
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
Noise
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
Geology /Soils
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
Population /Housing
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this Initial Study of Environmental Impact, the Planning Commission of the City of El
Segundo finds the following:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed
X
to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potential significant impact' or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact 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 the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
A �L�1. /7
James M Hansen,
Director of Community, Economic and Development Services;
and, Secretary of the Planning Commission
City of El Segundo
3
Date
IV. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as
well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less
than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross - referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (d). In this case, a
brief discussion should identify the following:
(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The analysis of each issue should identify. (a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each
question; and (b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
4 I„, 7 .3
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentia ,
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
highway?
Incorporated
No scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway are located within this
area of the City of El Segundo No mitigation is required.
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
No scenic vistas exist within this area of the City of El Segundo. No mitigation is required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
X
highway?
No scenic resources, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic highway are located within this
area of the City of El Segundo No mitigation is required.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
I
I
I
I
and Its surroundings?
X
The existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings will not be affected, as the site is located in a
built -out, light- manufacturing zone The applicant is proposing on -site Improvements that would promote a more
pedestrian friendly environment such as an increase in landscapina alona East Grand Avenue.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
7
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
The proposal calls for the development of 9 unit townhouse style units with exterior lighting provided for the purpose of
illuminating pedestrian walkways and on -site amenities. All lighting will be positioned to face away from all neighboring
uses and will not cause a significant impact on surrounding neighbors. The proposed project design utilizes low -
intensity exterior lighting, which has been designed and directed to minimize intrusive effects to adjacent residential
uses. Furthermore, all exterior lighting will be provided to address safety, security, utility and decorative needs, and in
accordance with an approved Lighting and Photometric Study. The site will have a less than significant impacts on
substantial light or glare to surrounding properties.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
X
Resources Agency to non-agricultural use?
The facility is located in a built -out manufacturing zone. No farmland exists. No mitigation is required.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
I
I
contracts
X
The City of El Segundo has no sites zoned foragricultural use. No mite ation is required.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
X
agricultural use?
There are no agriculturally zoned sites in the City of El Segundo. No mitigation is re uired.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the proje ct:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
Ian?
L
I
I X
The site is located within the regional non - attainment area as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The project size Is significantly below the
construction and operational significance thresholds defined in the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. Operations at the
site will not significantly alter the quality of the air in the area. The protect will have a less than a significant impact on
air quality.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
I
I
or projected air quality violation.
X
074
Issues and Supporting Information
Potenna..,
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
live /work units, no significant air quality impacts related to operation of the proposed project would occur According to
Significant
Significant
Significant
the proposed project would be below SCAQMD significance thresholds and would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required
Impact
With
Impact
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
Mitigation
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
Inco orated
X
A significant effect related to air quality could occur if the proposed project were to generate air emissions during
construction or operations that could affect sensitive receptors The SCAQMD, in its Air Quality Handbook, has
established screening thresholds for determining whether a project has the potential to result in significant air quality
impacts. According to Table 6 -2 of the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, a potentially significant air quality impact may
occur if a condominium project has more the 297 units Since the proposed project would have 9 unit townhouse style
live /work units, no significant air quality impacts related to operation of the proposed project would occur According to
Table 6 -3 of the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, a potentially significant construction air quality impact could occur if a
condominium project is larger than 1,455,000 square feet. Since the proposed project would be smaller (10,195 square
feet) than these thresholds, no significant impacts related to construction air quality would occur. Air quality impacts of
the proposed project would be below SCAQMD significance thresholds and would be less than significant. No
mitigation is required
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
X
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
The site is located within the regional non - attainment area as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the SCAQMD. The project size is significantly below the construction and operational significance thresholds
defined in the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. Operations at the site will not significantly alter the quality of the air in
the area. Operations at the site will not significantly alter the quality of the air in the area. The project will not
significantly contribute to a cumulative impact. No mitigation is required.
d Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X
Operations at the site will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants since this facility will produce no pollutants.
Center Street Middle School, which abuts the project site to the north, is a sensitive receptor. Since the proposed
project is primarily a residential use, which falls below the SCAQMD significance thresholds, the project will not expose
the Center Street Middle School to any pollutants. No mitigation is required.
e Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of peopi e? I I I I X
The construction of a 9 unit townhouse style development will not create any objectionable odors. No mitigation is
required.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
X
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
The site is in a built -out urbanized area where no candidate, sensitive, or special status species are known to exist. No
mitigation is required
b) Have a substantially adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S.
X
Wildlife Service?
The site is in a built -out urbanized area where noriparian habitat is known to exist No mitigation is required.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc ) through direct removal, filling,
X
hydrological interru tion, or other means?
No wetlands exist at the site No mitigation is required.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory
X
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
The site is not known to contain any migratory corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. No mitigation is re uired.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
I
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
There are no local policies or ordinances regarding biological resources affecting this site. No mitigation is required.
1-75
Issues and Supporting Information
Potenti... ,
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional,
Significant
Significant
Significant
X
or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact
With
Impact
This site is not affected by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan, a Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other habitat conservation plan No mitigation is required
Mitigation
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
Incorporated
resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, inju or death involvin :
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
Natural Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional,
recent Alquist -Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
X
or state habitat conservation plan?
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
This site is not affected by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan, a Natural Conservation Community Plan, or
other habitat conservation plan No mitigation is required
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project-
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
Publication 42.
resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
X
The project is not expected to produce significant impacts upon, or result in the alteration or destruction of, any historic
or prehistoric site, building, structure, or object The site was constructed with a concrete foundation and concrete
block for the exterior walls. It is a single story building with a flat roof made of roll composition and was constructed in
1953 for light industrial use. The building is not a historic resource No mite ation is re uired.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
Three active /potentially active faults are located near the City. This site is exposed to seismic risks dust as other
developments in the vicinity would be, should an earthquake occur along these faults. These effects are mitigated
because the structure will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) relating to seismic safety.
archaeological resources pursuant to Section 15064.5
required
(iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction'? X
X
The site and surrounding areas are fully urbanized and developed environments and further archaeological studies are
not necessary, nor are preservation efforts. No mitigation is re uired.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
I
I
geologic or physical features exist on the site, no impacts are anticipated. No mite ation is required
I
unique geologic feature?
The proposed project will not involve any excavation or fill The site is completely paved currently so no topsoil is
exposed No mitigation is required
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
X
No paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features are known to exist on site or in the area. No
mitigation is required.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
I
I
I
I
cemeteries?
X
No human remains, burial sites, or cemeteries are known to exist on site or in the area. No mitigation is required.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, inju or death involvin :
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist -Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
X
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Three active /potentially active faults are located near the City This site is exposed to seismic risks dust as other
developments in the vicinity would be, should an earthquake occur along these faults. The effects are mitigated
because all structures will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) relating to seismic safety.
Compliance with the CBC reduces the impacts of fault rupture to below a level of significance. No mitigation is
required.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
Three active /potentially active faults are located near the City. This site is exposed to seismic risks dust as other
developments in the vicinity would be, should an earthquake occur along these faults. These effects are mitigated
because the structure will be required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) relating to seismic safety.
Compliance with the CBC reduces the impacts of ground shaking to below a level of significance No mitigation is
required
(iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction'? X
The facility will comply with all applicable sections of the California Building Code (CBC) relating to seismic safety
at the time of construction. Compliance with the CBC reduces the impacts of fault rupture or ground shaking on the
structure to below a level of significance.
iv Landslides? X
Areas prone to landslides typically have steep slopes (15% or more), unstable rock or soil characteristics, or other
geologic evidence of instability As this site does not have slopes that are greater than 15 %, and no known unique
geologic or physical features exist on the site, no impacts are anticipated. No mite ation is required
b Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
The proposed project will not involve any excavation or fill The site is completely paved currently so no topsoil is
exposed No mitigation is required
(c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-
0 7 6;
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentia,.,
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
collapse?
Significant
Significant
Significant
The applicant will be required to submit a geotechnical report to insure the soil conditions are suitable for construction.
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
X
collapse?
I -
The applicant will be required to submit a geotechnical report to insure the soil conditions are suitable for construction.
No modification or cut and fill will be necessary to accommodate underlying soil conditions See Mitigation Measure
MM -I
(d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -a -B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or prope rt ?
X
Adherence to MM – 1 will insure soil conditions are acceptable for construction. The project will have a less than a
significant impact on risks to life or property.
(e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not
X
available for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposal will not use a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal s stem No mitigation is required.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project. - – — __J_
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
I
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
The General Plan Environmental Impact Report indicates that future developments which place residential
development in close proximity to industrial areas may create a significant impact by exposing those residents to
hazardous materials or risk of upset from industrial or commercial activity, Implementation of specific programs from
the Petroleum Resources /Hazardous Materials and Waste Program in the Public Safety Element, and policies and
programs of the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Element would minimize risks by allowing the City to
oversee and monitor the use, handling and transport of hazardous materials and wastes within the City of El Segundo.
Additionally, the Live/Work use, as proposed, prohibits the use of hazardous materials as part of the "work" portion of
the development. The project will have a less than significant impact to the public or on the environment.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
X
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
A significant impact may occur if a proposed project involves use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its
routine operations and would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could
adversely affect sensitive receptors. Uses sensitive to hazardous emissions (i.e., sensitive receptors) in the area
include a 88 unit residential condominium development to the east, light industrial uses to the south and west, and a
middle school to the north of the property. The proposed project will not result in the use of hazardous materials.
Although the presence of asbestos in the aged structures has not been substantiated, the potential for asbestos
remains possible. Overall, the potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials due to the proposed project is
low, but would be greatest during initial demolition and grading activities. See Mitigation Measure MM - 2
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or
X
proposed school?
A significant impact may occur if a proposed project involved the exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards There are no known sources of potential health hazards on the project site or in the immediate
surrounding area. Although the presence of asbestos in the aged structures has not been substantiated, the potential
for asbestos remains possible Overall, the potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials due to the
proposed project is low, but would be greatest during initial demolition and grading activities The site abuts an
existing middle school to north, an 88 unit residential condominium development to the east and to the south and west'
light industrial uses. Implementation of MM - 2 will reduce the potential im act to a level of insignificance
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
X
environment?
This site has not been included on a list of hazardous materials sites and therefore will be of no hazard to the public or
the environment No mitigation is required
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
X
residing or working in the project area
0 7,
Issues and Supporting Information
Potenti,.
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
The project site is located approximately one -mile south of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Since the
buildings at the highest point is 26 feet tall and not located in the flight path for LAX, there would be no impacts. No
mitigation is required
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
X
area?
The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip The project will have a less than a significant impact on
private airstrips
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
The proposed project will not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans The project will have a less
than a significant impact on emergency responses plans or emergency evacuation pl ans
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
X
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
There are no wildlands in proximity to the site. Therefore there is no associated risk of loss, injury, or death. No
mitigation is required.
S. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
While ocean waters will be affected by the site's runoff, changes in ocean water quality due to the proposed project
are considered to be insignificant, if not even beneficial and the overall concentrations of pollutants will be diminished
due to more frequent maintenance and a reduction in the volume of runoff and pollutants. The project will be required
to construct pavement, retaining walls and landscaped areas in general on -site to be maintained to prevent future soil
erosion. Because the proposed project will comply with all appropriate City of El Segundo Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Controls, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits requirement, and the County's
Stormwater Discharge Program policies, and will employ Best Management Practice (BMP) procedures, impacts
related to runoff pollutants will be reduced to less than significant. See Mitigation Measure MM - 3
b) Substantially degrade groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level
X
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
Development of the proposed project will introduce urban contaminants (i.e., tire wear residue, oil and grease,
fertilizers, etc.) to the project site, thereby resulting in the potential for long -term degradation of accepting surface
waters and ground water quality. Nonetheless, project conditions are anticipated to be an improvement over the
existing on -site urban run -off pollutant conditions. The change from light industrial, including auto - related services, to
residential will eliminate the presence of many chemical contaminants Adequate drainage and periodic maintenance
and watering of the paved areas, will wash contaminants from the site thereby reducing the opportunity for
contaminants to accumulate to undesirable concentration levels. Finally, the overall volume of runoff will be reduced
by the introduction of landscape areas thereby reducing the volume of contaminants entering the storm
drainage/surface water/ groundwater systems See Mitigation Measure MM - 3
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
X
site?
Development of the proposed Project will alter the drainage and runoff conditions at the project site. Proposed
improvements will increase the area of permeable surfaces from those currently observed on -site, thereby changing
the existing absorption rates and runoff volumes Proposed improvements will also recountour the existing grade of
the project site to eliminate on -site ponding and redirect stormwater flows to adjacent streets and ultimately the
stormwater collection system These changes are expected to be beneficial both to stormwater flood conditions and
for water quality The project will have a less than a significant impact on drainage pattern of the site or area
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
includinq through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. or
u78
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentta,.,
less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
absorbed on -site as well as being redirected to adjacent streets and ultimately the stormwater collection system
Proposed improvements will also recountour the existing grade of the project site to eliminate on -site ponding and
Impact
With
Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing
Mitigation
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
incorporated
additional sources of polluted runoff?
substantially increase the rate or surface runoff in a manner which
X
would result in flooding on- or off site
The project site will have minor pavement, extensive landscaping and covered by structures, surface flows will be
absorbed on -site as well as being redirected to adjacent streets and ultimately the stormwater collection system
Proposed improvements will also recountour the existing grade of the project site to eliminate on -site ponding and
instead drain off -site onto adjacent streets and eventually to storm drains outletting to the Pacific Ocean. Surface run-
off rates would be decreased due to the increase in landscape. The project will have a less than a significant impact
on existing drainage patterns No mitigation is required.
e) Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
X
additional sources of polluted runoff?
Introduction of a substantial area of landscaping will both reduce the volume of site runoff through the provision of
permeable surface area and enhance water quality by replacing industrial uses with generally "cleaner' residential
uses and landscaped areas. The project will have a less than a significant impact on runoffs. No mitigation is
required.
f Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
While ocean waters will be affected by the site's runoff, changes in ocean water quality due to the proposed project are
considered to be insignificant, if not even beneficial and the overall concentrations of pollutants will be diminished due
to more frequent maintenance and a reduction in the volume of runoff and pollutants. Mitigation Measure - 3 requires
that pavement, retaining walls and landscaped areas in general on -site be maintained to prevent future soil erosion.
Because the proposed project will comply with all appropriate City of El Segundo Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Controls, NPDES Permits requirement, and the County's Stormwater Discharge Program policies, and will employ
BMP procedures, impacts related to runoff pollutants will be reduced to less than significant. See Mitigation Measure
MM-3
g) Place housing within a 100 -year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
X
hazard delineation ma
According to Exhibit PS -2 contained in the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, EI Segundo is not at risk
from flooding during a 100 -year storm since there are no dams or waterways located near the City. Localized flooding
during periods of heavy rainfall may occur but this would be due to the inadequacy of storm drains, therefore, the risk
of flooding or other water related hazards on the site is considered remote and no impacts are anticipated. No
mitigation is required.
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
I
I
I
X
According to Exhibit PS -2 contained in the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, El Segundo is not at risk
from flooding during a 100 -year storm since there are no dams or waterways located near the City. Localized flooding
during periods of heavy rainfall may occur but this would be due to the inadequacy of storm drains, therefore, the risk
of flooding or other water related hazards on the site is considered remote and no impacts are anticipated No
mitigation is required.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
X
or dam?
There are no dams or levees located near the City, therefore no associated risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of
them flooding is expected No mitigation is required.
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
According to the Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the southwestern portion of the City along the coast
(and adjacent portions of the City of Los Angeles to the north) are identified as seiche and tsunami hazard areas.
However, since the site is not located in these areas, no impacts due to these natural hazards are anticipated As the
project vicinity is currently developed there will be no change in the risks associated with land subsidence, the potential
for landslides, or mudflows No mitigation is required
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community X
10 (� '7 `�
Issues and Supporting Information
Polentl,
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Approval and development of the proposed Project will bring a consistency and continuity of residential uses which
reflects the tiered density approach outlined by the General Plan and Smoky Holly Specific Plan. Development of the
proposed protect eliminates a division of the neighborhood and would enhance land use compatibility. Therefore, land
use issues are less than significant The protect will have a less than a significant impact on physically dividing and
established community. No mitigation is required
b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the protect (including, but not limited to the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
X
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
The proposed project meets or exceeds all of the development standards required by the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
and the General Plan except setbacks. A Zone Text Amendment No 09 -01 is proposed to modify the setbacks In
accordance with the development standards, the project represents compatible land use planning in relationship to
adjacent land uses, arterial streets and overall locational requirements. The project site represents a transitional land
use area amongst established residential uses and older industrial /commercial uses, which are being phased out at
this interface. No mitigation is required.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
communities conservation plan?
X
No habitat conservation plans or natural communities conservation plans exist for the site. No mitigation is required.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
There are no known mineral resources in the project vicinity. The General Plan EIR determined that the loss or partial
loss of access to mineral resources, particularly petroleum resources, is less than significant impact. No mitigation is
required.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
X
land use Ian?
No locally- important mineral resource recovery sites have been delineated in the General Plan, Specific Plan, or other
Land Use Plan for the area. No mitigation is required.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in*
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
X
applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction activities will temporarily elevate ambient noise levels. The City's Noise Ordinance limits construction
activity to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on
Sundays or holidays The Noise Ordinance provides that when temporary increase in noise (i e., due to construction)
exceed noise standards, but are conducted within the operational hours established by the ordinance, impacts are
acceptable. Hence, temporary noise increase generated by construction activity are less than significant. No
mitigation is required
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels
X
Construction activity will temporarily elevate noise ambient noise levels. Implementation of Noise Element policies
N11.4 through N11.9 and N21.1 and N31.1 would minimize these to less than significant impacts. No mitigation is
required.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the protect
vicinity above levels existing without the protects I I X
Construction activity will temporarily elevate notse ambient noise levels Implementation of Noise Element policies
N11 4 through N11.9 and N21 1 and N31.1 would minimize these to less than significant impacts. No mitigation is
required.
d) A substantially temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the protect? X
Issues and Supporting Informatiou
Potenti,..
Significant
Less than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
Construction activities will temporarily elevate ambient noise levels The City's Noise Ordinance limits construction
activity to between the hours of 7:00 a m to 6.00 p.m , Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on
Sundays or holidays The Noise Ordinance provides that when temporary increase in noise (i.e., due to construction)
exceed noise standards, but are conducted within the operational hours established by the ordinance, impacts are
acceptable. Hence, temporary noise increase generated by construction activity are less than significant No
mitigation is required
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
X
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
The project site is locates approximately one -mile south of LAX According to the Noise Element of the General Plan,
the project site is located in the 60 decibel Community Noise Elevation Level (CNEL) Zone. Noise from LAX generally
does not create impacts in the 60 CNEL Zone. The project will have a less than a significant impact on airport land
use. No mitigation is required.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
X
noise levels?
No private airstrips are located in the vicinity of the project No mite ation is required
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
X
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure
Construction of the residential units will assist the City of El Segundo in meeting an existing demand for housing and
reducing a deficit in the City's housing stock The General Plan EIR further concluded that implementation of the
General Plan EIR mitigation measures 4.5 -1, 4.5 -3 and 4.5 -5 would adequately address citywide and regional impact
issues related to the availability of affordable housing and maintenance of an effective jobs /housing balance and
thereby reduce effects to less than significant impacts No mitigation is required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
I
I
X
Construction of the residential units will assist the City of El Segundo in meeting an existing demand for housing and
reducing a deficit in the City's jobs/housing balance No housin is bein demolished. No mitigation is required.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
No housing currently exists on -site. No mitigation is required
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a Fire prote ction? I I I X
The proposed project will increase the localized population by approximately 18 residents. A significant impact may
occur if the City of El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD) could not adequately serve the proposed project based upon
response time, access or fire hydrant/water availability. The proposed project site is served by two fire stations; the
Headquarters Station, located at 314 Main Street and Station 2, located at 2161 East El Segundo Boulevard
Headquarter Station has two engine companies and a rescue team Station 2 has an engine company, rescue team;
and a truck company Existing staffing levels are not expected to be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The
proposed project would have less than significant impacts on fire service. No mite at is required.
b) Police protection? I L X L
12 08L
Issues and Supporting Information
Potenti,
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
service for the proposed project site is provided by the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD), which is located at 34
Significant
Significant
Significant
service. No mitigation is required.
Impact
With
Impact
Therefore, project impacts related to school facilities are less than significant. No mitigation is require
d Parks? I I I X
The increase in population will result in a minor Increase in the usage of parks. The local parks are adequate to
Mitigation
service. No mitigation is required.
e Other public facilities? X
The proposed project will increase the localized population by approximately 18 residents. The increase in population
will result in the minor increase and incremental demand for fire, police, parks, library and other governmental
incorporated
existing service boundaries, the increase in demand for these services is insignificant. The proposed project would
have less than significant impacts on other public facilities No mitigation is required.
The City of El Segundo requires development project applicants to prepare and submit a lighting plan and photometry
study for review and approval. City review provides the opportunity to ensure that the project lighting demonstrate
compliance with relevant conditions of approval, policies, safety and security considerations, which enhance safety and
minimize the potential for crime A significant impact may occur if a proposed project resulted In an increase in demand
for police services that would exceed the capacity of the police department responsible for serving the site Police
service for the proposed project site is provided by the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD), which is located at 34
Main Street, in the City of El Segundo. The proposed project would increase on -site population, which could generate
demand for additional security. The extent of additional protection needed would vary in accordance with the Live/Work
use and expected number of visitors on -site. The proposed project would have less than significant impacts on police
service. No mitigation is required.
c Schools? X
The proposed project will increase the localized population by approximately 18 residents (based on average
household size of 2 persons per household). The increase in population will result in minor demand for schools.
Therefore, project impacts related to school facilities are less than significant. No mitigation is require
d Parks? I I I X
The increase in population will result in a minor Increase in the usage of parks. The local parks are adequate to
accommodate an increase In population The proposed project would have less than significant impacts on park
service. No mitigation is required.
e Other public facilities? X
The proposed project will increase the localized population by approximately 18 residents. The increase in population
will result in the minor increase and incremental demand for fire, police, parks, library and other governmental
services, including schools. Because the project is relatively small in size and represents infill development within
existing service boundaries, the increase in demand for these services is insignificant. The proposed project would
have less than significant impacts on other public facilities No mitigation is required.
14. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The increase In population will result in a minor Increase in the usage of parks. The local parks are adequate to
accommodate an increase In population. The proposed project would have less than significant Impacts on park
service. No mitigation is required.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not provided on -site recreational facilities. However, the site does provide open space
areas to be utilized by the residences creating a less than significant Impact on recreational facilities. No mitigation is
required.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project
a) Cause an Increase in the traffic which is substantial In relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result In a
substantial increase In either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
X
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at Intersections
The project site consist of nine units and is anticipated to result In a less the significant Impact to existing transportation,
systems and patterns of travel. The concept of the proposed development anticipates a live /work residential
environment in which the owner /resident of a unit will work from home. This will reduce the number of vehicle trips to
and from the site. The project will have a less than a significant impact on traffic No mite ation is required
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for
X
designated roads or highways?
The project site consist of a 9 unit townhouse style development and is anticipated to result In a less the significant
Impact to existing transportation systems and patterns of travel The concept of the proposed development anticipates
a live /work residential environment In which the owner /resident of a unit will work from home. This will reduce the
number of vehicle trips to and from the site No mitigation is required
c) Result in a change In air traffic patterns, including either an Increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
X
13 U
Issues and Supporting Informatio.,
Potentt, _
Significant
Less than
Stgntficant
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
dangerous intersections ) or incompatible uses e. g farm equipment)?
Impact
With
Impact
e Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Emergency access to the site will not be changed No mitigation is required.
f Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
Mitigation
unit and guest parking spaces as required by he El Segundo Munici al Code No mitigation is required.
g) Conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative
The project site is already paved and has an established drainage pattern that will not be modified. No mitigation is
required.
Incorporated
X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks
risks?
The proposed project will not affect any existing airtraffic patterns No mitigation is required
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections ) or incompatible uses e. g farm equipment)?
X
There will be no modifications to the existing street pattern No mitigation is required
e Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Emergency access to the site will not be changed No mitigation is required.
f Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
The 9 unit townhouse style development will provide adequate on -site parking in the form of 2 -car garages for each
unit and guest parking spaces as required by he El Segundo Munici al Code No mitigation is required.
g) Conflict with adopted policies or programs supporting alternative
The project site is already paved and has an established drainage pattern that will not be modified. No mitigation is
required.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
X
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
The project does not inhibit or interfere with the adopted alternative transportation plans. No mitigation is required.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project.
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
I
Water Quality Control Boards
There are sufficient water supplies available to accommodate adequate water. No mite ation is re uired
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
X
The proposed project is subject to the City's Sewer Allocation Ordinance, which limits the generation of City
wastewater generation to the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion treatment plant during any three -month quarter. The
allocation system is based on a "first come, first served" basis, and any development which would be displaced due to
the project allocation would be held until the future quarter. The project site would filter into pump station no. 8 and
even though it has been determined that pump station no 8 could handle the increase, pump station no. 8 is close to
the maximum load. The increase load could result in an overload. In the City's Sewer Master Plan, Pump Station No.
8 is scheduled to be replaced in order to accommodate current and future volume load creating a less than significant
impact. No mitigation is required.
b) Require or result in construction of new water or wastewater treatment
X '
provider's existing commitments?
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
X
could cause significant environmental effects?
is based on a "first come, first served" basis, and any development, which would be displaced due to the project
allocation would be held until the future quarter. No mitigation is required
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
The proposed project is subject to the City's Sewer Allocation Ordinance, which limits the generation of City
wastewater generation to the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion treatment plant during any three -month quarter. The
allocation system is based on a "first come, first served" basis, and any development which would be displaced due to
the Project allocation would be held until the future quarter. No mitigation is required.
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
X
could cause significant environmental effects?
The project site is already paved and has an established drainage pattern that will not be modified. No mitigation is
required.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
X
entitlements needed?
There are sufficient water supplies available to accommodate adequate water. No mite ation is re uired
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
services or may serve the project determined that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
X '
provider's existing commitments?
The proposed project Is subject to the City's Sewer Allocation Ordinance which limits the generation of City wastewater
generation to the City of Los Angeles' Hyperion treatment plant during any three -month quarter. The allocation system
is based on a "first come, first served" basis, and any development, which would be displaced due to the project
allocation would be held until the future quarter. No mitigation is required
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs'?
X
The project developer will be required to recycle all disposable material whenever possible No mitigation is required.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to
I
I
solid wastes
X
14
Issues and Supporting Informatiou
Potenti..
Less than
Less Than
No Impact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
Incorporate
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
This proposal will comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. No mitigation
is required
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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
X
eliminate important examples of the mayor periods of California history
or prehistory?
The project site is in an urbanized setting already developed with light industrial uses. The transition of land uses from
industrial to residential will not effect or substantially reduce fish, wildlife or plant habitats, communities or species.
Additionally, the proposed project will not adversely effect or eliminate important examples of major periods of
California history or prehistory. These conclusions are documented in Items 4 and 5 above. Further, as documented
in Items 1 through 16, all potential impacts related to the proposed project will be reduced to Less Than Significant,
thereby avoiding degradation of the environment. No mitigation is require
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
X
connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
As noted above, all project - related impacts will be reduced to Less Than Significant. However, project impacts when
considered with other cumulative development may result in incremental effects which are quantitatively more adverse.
Incremental impacts are cumulative considerable relative to traffic, public services and utilities. However, the City of El
Segundo has adopted ordinances requiring the payment of fees to mitigate project contributions toward cumulative
impacts. Funding mitigates any potential cumulative impacts including demand for public services or local traffic
infrastructure capacity.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
X
indirect)
The transition of land uses, which will result, with implementation of the proposed project will eliminate incompatible
uses in an established area. The proposed project will improve existing visual and physical conditions as encouraged
by the General Plan. Overall, the change in uses will result in a beneficial effect on humans and the surrounding area.
Mitigation Measures
MM —1 Before the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must submit a geotechnical report to the City Building
official for review and approval
MM —2 a) Asbestos and lead -based paint analysis and removal must be performed in conformance with federal,
state and local regulations.
b) All activities associated with asbestos must be conducted under the direct supervision of a certified
asbestos consultant
c) Demolition of structures that have asbestos containing materials (ACM) must comply with the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 - Asbestos Emissions from
Demolition /Renovation Activities.
MM-3 a) During construction and operations, all waste must be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws
and regulations. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed, regulated disposal site by a licensed
waste hauler.
b) All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction must be cleaned up promptly and in compliance
with all applicable laws and regulations to prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be
washed away into the storm drains
15 Us 1
Issues and Supporting Information
Potentia
Loss than
Less Than
No ]mpact
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) If materials spills occur, they should cleaned up in a way that will not affect the storm drain system
d) The project must comply with the City of El Segundo Ordinance No 1235 and No. 1348, which
establishes storm water and urban pollution controls
e) Before anticipated rainfall, construction dumpsters must be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting.
f) Inspections of the project site before and after storm events must be conducted to determine whether
Best Management Practices have been implemented to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the Storm
Water Prevention Plan.
g) The owner or contractor must conduct daily street sweeping and truck wheel cleaning to prevent dirt in
the storm drain system.
h) Storm drain system must be safeguarded at all times during construction.
i) The applicant shall construct pavement, retaining walls and landscaped areas in general on -site to be
maintained in order to prevent future soil erosion.
p- \projects \600 - 625 \ea - 608 \initial study
16 I.i85
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA
.TUNE 26, 2003.
Chairman Mahler called the meeting of the El Segundo Planning CALL TO ORDER
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City of
El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California.
Commissioner Funk led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PRESENT: BUSCH, FRICK, FUNK, MAHLER, MILLER SHEEHAN
ABSENT: None
Chairman Mahler presented the Consent Calendar.
None.
Vice - Chairman Busch moved, seconded by Commissioner Miller
Sheehan, to approve the May 22, 2003, Minutes as submitted. Passed
5 -0.
None.
None.
Chairman Mahler presented Item No. H -2, Environmental Assessment
No. 614 and Subdivision No. 03 -03. Address: 225 Sheldon Street.
Applicant: Gregory Lutz. Property Owner: Jack and Allie Curtis.
Planning Technician Yuan presented staff report related to this matter.
Chairman Mahler opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the
applicants.
Ms. Srour explained that this project proposal is for a four -unit attached
residential condominium complex that will provide all of the amenities for
a residential environment, such as private entries from a landscaped
PLEDGE TO FLAG
ROLL CALL
CONSENT
CALENDAR
CALL ITEMS
FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
MOTION
PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS,
NEW BUSINESS,
EA. NO. 614 AND
SUBD. NO. 03 -03
El Segundo Planning Cornnussion
Minutes, June 26, 2003
entry court, private and enclosed two -car garages for each unit, entries
into the units from the garages, and two guest parking spaces for each
unit. She stated that these are modest units in size, ranging from
approximately 1,600 square feet to 1,900 square feet; and highlighted
the traditional layout, with the living area on the lower level and the
bedrooms on the upper level. She indicated that each of the units have
private decks off the lower level living areas and a smaller deck off the
vanity area on the upper level. Ms. Srour stated that the proposal
complies with all of the development standards for this R -3 zone; that
this project is one of the first condominium units in this area — pointing
out her belief that this project will invigorate the neighborhood and
influence new development in the area; and she advised that the
applicant concurs with the conditions of approval.
Ms. Srour noted for Vice - Chairman Busch that she anticipates the
construction will take 10 to 12 months following the completion of the
permit process.
There being no further input, Chairman Mahler closed the public
hearing.
There was consensus among the Planning Commissioners that the
applicant has met all of the required conditions for a subdivision and that
the zoning standards have been met.
MOTION
Commissioner Frick moved, seconded by Commissioner Funk, to
approve the applicant's request, thus adopting Resolution No. 2548.
Passed 5 -0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS,
Chairman Mahler presented Item No. H -3, Environmental Assessment CONTINUED
No. 608, Subdivision No. 03 -02, Smoky Hollow Site Plan No. 03 -01, BUSINESS, EA NO.
Variance No. 03 -04, and Zone Text Amendment No. 03 -01. Address: 608; SUBD NO. 03-
1225 East Grand Avenue. Applicant and Property Owner: Albert L. 02; SHSP NO. 03 -01:
Marco. VAR NO.03 -04;
ZTA N 0.03 -01
Assistant Planner Davis presented staff report related to this matter.
Chairman Mahler recused himself from consideration of this matter due
to his residence being adjacent to this project. At this time he departed
the Planning Commission meeting.
Responding to Commissioner Frick's inquiry regarding home occupation
permits, Assistant Planner Davis explained that these residents will have
to abide by the same guidelines /restrictions for the current home
occupation application process and that they will have to abide by the
definitions in the Medium Density Residential Zone; stated that the
2 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, June 26, 2003
approval will be done
administratively; and that the applicants will be required to obtain a
business license.
Assistant Planner Davis noted for Commissioner Miller Sheehan that
each unit will be able to display a sign for identification of their business,
no larger than six square feet.
Assistant Planner Davis stated for Commissioner Frick that the signs will
be located on the building of their residence; and noted that there
currently are no design standards for the individual signs:'
Assistant City Attorney Berger explained for Commissioner Funk that
part of the resolution will be a recommendation to City Council to amend
the Municipal Code to include this definition that will apply to all future
live -work projects within the Medium Density Residential Zone.
Acting Planning Manager Garry explained for Vice - Chairman Busch that
the Downtown Specific Plan allows for one to have a separate
residential unit on the second floor above a commercial first floor
business, which has to be an owner /tenant occupied unit; and noted that
the concept on Main Street would primarily have the residential unit as
an accessory use, whereas the primary use with this project is a
residential use.
Assistant Planner Davis explained that the live -work concept is a very
marketable trend at this time; stated that this concept will help to
alleviate traffic congestion; and noted that since receiving this proposal,
several other inquiries have been received by staff with regard to live -
work projects in this City.
In response to Commissioner Miller Sheehan's question regarding the
possibility for artists to put on a show to display their work at this site,
Assistant Planner Davis stated that it would have to be done by
appointment only; that if the property owner were to have a party
displaying their works, she suggested that the Planning Commission
might want to consider that the owner obtain a special permit which
would identify certain parameters. Assistant Planner Davis highlighted
the fact that these units are small and that they would not be able to
easily accommodate a large gathering without negatively impacting the
other condominium residents; and noted that only six guest parking
spaces would be available.
Acting Planning Manager Garry pointed out that part of this requirement
is to avoid a retail -type use or service use that would generate retail
3 El Segundo Planning Conmussion
Minutes, June 26, 2003
traffic or walk -in trade.
With regard to described uses in the general definition, Assistant City
Attorney Berger explained for Commissioner Funk that the City
Attorney's Office believed that it would be better to highlight those
businesses that would be acceptable versus those that would not
acceptable in this development; and added that the acceptable types of
uses within this project would be more of an artist -type use or
professional service -type use that would not generate vehicular or walk -
in traffic.
Assistant Planner Davis noted for Vice - Chairman Busch- that these units
could be used for residential use only.
Vice - Chairman Busch opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, 1001 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the
applicant.
Ms. Srour thanked staff for their professional guidance and assistance
throughout this process; explained that nine residential condominium
units are being proposed — pointing out that the primary use is for
residential; noted that the goal of the applicant is to develop this
property for owner /resident type uses; and stated that this property will
be governed by an association with recorded Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions (CC &R's). Ms. Srour explained that the variance is for
the existing driveway access off Grand Avenue; and stated that this is
primarily a residential condominium complex, but that it will allow the
opportunity for home occupation businesses. She commented on the
growing popularity of this live -work concept and its marketability. Ms.
Srour explained that this project is primarily a U- shaped complex with
two separate buildings; and that it is designed with the front four units
facing the street and displaying front entries. She indicated that there
currently are two other driveway access points at this site that will be
closed off; explained that the driveway on Grand Avenue will be 18 -feet
wide, very visible, and will have enough room for the queuing of two
vehicles; and stated that there will be a security gate recessed from the
street. Ms. Srour noted that there will be a 21 -foot setback from the
curb; and explained that this reduced setback is needed because of the
limitations of the lot depth, which is less than 140 feet — pointing out that
if one were to apply the 30 -foot setback, it would take up to 22.5 percent
of the entire lot area.
Ms. Srour explained that the types of home occupation uses expected
within this development would be self- conducted businesses, ones that
would not negatively impact the neighbors with increased noise, odors,
4 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, June 26, 2003 i ��
lights, electrical interference, and traffic. She expressed her belief that
these units would be perfect for artists, architects, draftsmen, engineers,
lawyers, anything by which the work stems from the person's creativity
without bringing in or selling goods and commodities; and stated that
these businesses shall be operated on an appointment -only basis. She
stated that they should be permitted to have a party /showing, but that
they would have to work within the established parameters. Ms. Srour
stated that the association will have some interest in regulating the
design of the signs; and noted that the applicant has proposed that in
addition to the owner of the unit/business, that only one employee be
permitted to work on site. Ms. Srour expressed her belief that this
project will add value to the community, making it more compatible with
the concept of a livable community.
Commissioner Funk questioned whether the reflected wording in the text
clearly identifies the distinction between the prohibition of handling of
commodities versus that of a salesperson who works from home.
Ms. Srour explained that there is limited space in these units and that
storage of merchandise or display tables is not permitted.
Joyce Flood, 659 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, project architect.
Ms. Flood stated that the first floor area for all the units range from 434
square feet to a maximum of 644 square feet, areas that do not easily
accommodate for storage of materials.
Assistant Planner Davis stated that minimal storage of office supplies
would be permitted for one's own use; explained that when an applicant
applies for a home occupation permit, they must provide a description of
their business; and stated that if an applicant violates the provisions of a
permit, their permit/license can be revoked. She added that, if
necessary, the residents within the complex could lodge a complaint
with the City to investigate the business operations. She made the
distinction that one can have an office but not a sales office.
Albert Marco, project applicant.
Mr. Marco thanked staff for their assistance on this project; highlighted
his vision to create a complex that provides an open space feel, such as
a typical artist's loft; and expressed his belief that the owners of these
units will take a lot of pride in this development.
Ms. Flood noted for Vice- Chairman Busch that once commenced, the
construction process should take anywhere from 12 to 14 months.
5 El Segundo Plantung Commission _
Minutes, June 26, 2003
In response to Commissioner Funk's question, Mr. Marco stated that he
concurs with the conditions of approval.
With regard to Commissioner Funk's concern with the wording for no
sales of commodities, Mr. Srour suggested adding the words "from
handling commodities on site" to further delineate the definition —
pointing out that the administration of the sales can occur on site, but
that the actual delivery or picking up of items does not occur on site.
There being no further input, Vice - Chairman Busch closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Miller Sheehan stated that this is a creative concept and
a good way to bring residential use into this area; and stated that it has
the potential to bring in additional culture and creativity into El Segundo.
Commissioner Frick expressed her support of this creative live -work
concept; pointed out that this concept will save some business owners
the expense of renting a storefront; noted that people working from
home alleviates traffic congestion; and expressed her support for the
beautiful design of this building.
Commissioner Funk noted her support for the live -work concept; and
expressed her appreciation for the work put into this project.
Vice - Chairman Busch noted his support for the live -work concept; and
stated that approving this type of concept on a small scale in the MDR
zone only would be beneficial in determining its future success in other
zones throughout the City. He stated that the 15 -foot setback is
reasonable considering the limited depth of the lot, and he wished the
applicant best wishes in this creative endeavor.
Commissioner Frick moved, seconded by Commissioner Funk, to
approve the applicant's request, thus adopting Resolution No. 2549.
Motion carried 4 -0.
Highlighting the status of the Air Force Base proposal, Acting Planning
Manager Garry advised that the city of Hawthorne Planning Commission
voted to recommend approval of all the entitlements for the residential
portions that they would be building in that city; stated that this issue will
be going before the Hawthorne City Council for approval on July 7; that
the El Segundo City Council will review the Final Environmental Impact
Report on July 15; and that LAFCO is expected to review the annexation
application late July or early August.
MOTION
REPORT FROM
DIRECTOR
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS'
COMMENTS
6 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, June 26, 2003
v.�
Vice - Chairman Busch wished everyone a happy 0' of July celebration
There being no further discussion, Commissioner Frick moved,
seconded by Commissioner Funk, to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. to
the regular meeting of July 10, 2003. Passed 4 -0.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 24th DAY OF JULY, 2003.
James Hansen, Secretary of
the Planning Commission
and Director of Community,
Economic and Development Services
City of El Segundo, California
ADJOURNMENT
Philip Mahler, Chairman of
the Planning Commission
City of El Segundo, California
El Segundo Planning Cornnussion
Minutes, June 26, 2003 9
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a progress report on the update to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Consider progress report and assumptions for Circulation Element;
2. Provide direction to staff and approve recommendations as listed on Page 7 of this
report; or,
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On February 4, 2003, the City Council began its review of the update of Circulation Element by
providing direction to staff on a number of important technical issues. Specifically, the issues
relate to many of the assumptions and data sources that are inputs into the traffic model that
will be used to study the future traffic in the City. These issues included use of LAX and Playa
Vista data, SCAG Model, approved project lists, Spheres of influence, vacant land survey,
recycled building survey, redevelopment of the Honeywell property, and roadway extensions.
The primary purpose of this report is to share the results of two of the main technical
components in the development of the traffic model that will be used for the traffic forecasts.
These components are validation of the base year traffic model and running the new traffic
model on the current land use buildout in the General Plan. The analysis of the existing
General Plan will serve as the "No build" scenario for the Environmental Impact Report. The
report also addresses the status or previous comments received, additional assumptions and
the next steps in the process. (Continued on next page...)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Model Validation Screenline locations and Comparisons
B. Traffic Analysis Zone Map
C. Existing General Plan Buildout Analysis and Summary table
D. Summary of Response to Previous Comments
E. Lane Capacity and Inefficiency Factor Assumption Summary Table
F. Recyclable Building Inventory
G. Approved and Pending Project list
H. Vacant Land Inventory
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $250,000
Amount Requested: N/A
Account Number: 001 -400- 2402 -6214
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: Yes X No
N "-Ov � -.
JayKesk Hansen, Director of Communitv
R IW ED B
Mary Strenn, COka=nager
71-,W43
Economic and Development Services
DATE:
d�
'fy'�
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
1. BASE YEAR MODEL VALIDATION
Page 2
a. Validation Process
In order to ensure that the traffic model will accurately forecast future traffic
generation, the City's traffic consultant, Kimley -Horn & Associates, performed a
process of model validation. The base year model validation entails a
comparison of actual traffic counts to model results. These comparisons are
made across "screenlines." A "screenline" is a hypothetical line that cuts across a
number of parallel arterials. The actual ground count across each screenline
(the sum of the traffic on all arterials that the screenline crosses) is compared to
the results produced by the model. The comparison of screenline totals provides
an indication as to whether or not the model is performing well in general.
In transportation modeling practice, at the screenline level, model results within
10 to 12 percent of actual ground counts are generally considered acceptable.
The screenline locations are illustrated in Exhibit A. A total of six screenlines
were evaluated. One screenline cuts across the arterials at the southern
boundary of the City, one at the northern boundary, one at the eastern, and one
just east of Vista Del Mar. These four screenlines indicate whether or not the
model is representing correctly the trips that enter, exit, or go through the City.
The remaining two screenlines, one east -west and one north - south, help assess
model performance within the City.
About 70 traffic volume counts were made on roadway segments in January and
February of 2003. These counts were used for model validation purposes.
Exhibit A presents the results of the screenline comparisons. At five of the six
screenlines, the ratio of the modeled volume to actual ground count is in the
range of 0.95 to 1.11. At one of the screenlines the ratio is 1.13. These results
at the screenline level are considered excellent. Thus, the model can be used
with confidence to make traffic volume projections.
After concluding that the model is performing well at the screenline level, the
model results were compared at the level of individual roadway segments across
the screenlines. A total of 30 roadway segments are included in the screenline
comparisons. On 20 of the segments, the traffic volume estimated by the model
is no more than 20% below or above the actual ground count. This range of 0.8
to 1.2 times the actual ground count for 20 roadway segments is considered very
good. On the remaining 10 segments, causes of differences may include
fluctuations in the traffic count. These differences will be considered in reviewing
the traffic volume projections and adjustment, as necessary, will be made.
b. Base Year Model Inputs
i. Land use inputs: Current land uses in the City were quantified by land use
category and by Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). The City was subdivided into
40 TAZs (Exhibit B). By comparison, in the regional model of the Southern
'i J .1
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 3
California Association of Governments (SCAG), the City of El Segundo is
represented by three TAZs. Land use categories included residential (single -
family and multiple - family), industrial, retail, office, and other specific
categories where appropriate.
The number of trips associated with these land uses was estimated (for each
TAZ) using applicable trip generation rates. Trip rates were obtained from
information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
ii. Network inputs: The existing roadway network within the City was depicted in
the model with the appropriate characteristics such as facility /road type and
capacity. Roadway characteristics were verified in the field before input to the
model. All existing roadways that are a part of the Circulation Element were
included in the model. In some cases, it was necessary to include in the
model local roadways for purposes of providing access or continuity. The
inclusion of local streets in such cases should not be construed as an
indication that these local streets would be slated to become arterial
roadways.
iii. Other inputs: Other inputs such as regional trips and the regional orientation
of El Segundo trips were obtained from the SCAG regional model.
Staff is confident that the traffic model is ready for use for the next phase of the
project, which is adding assumptions for future development, including alternative
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scenarios, and preparation of the year 2025 traffic forecasts.
2. Existing General Plan Buildout Analysis
As part of the Circulation Element update process, Kimley -Horn prepared an analysis
of the traffic impacts of the buildout of the existing General Plan. The Land Use
Element of the existing General Plan provides an estimate of the total amount of
future development that would be permitted based on the land use designations and
densities permitted in the City. The analysis of the existing General Plan buildout will
be used as the "No Build" alternative in the Environmental Impact Report that will be
prepared. The results of the traffic forecasts for the three FAR scenarios will be
compared to the results of the existing buildout analysis to determine if changes
proposed as part of the new Circulation Element would improve future conditions.
Exhibit C includes a discussion of the input assumptions and the results of this
analysis. In summary, the number of the roadway segments in the screenline
locations that would operate at Level of Service (LOS) E or F if the existing General
Plan were continued to be implemented would increase from four to eighteen
between now and 2025.
3. Previous Comments
Staff has also been directed to provide an update to Council on how each of the
comments submitted by the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce and El Segundo
Employers Association (ESEA) were addressed in the February 4, 2003, staff report.
Attached is a table (Exhibit D) which lists each comment and where and how it was
addressed. Since the comments were not received in time for all of them to be
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 4
incorporated into the last staff report, some of the issues raised are discussed below
(e.g., assumptions on lane capacities and interim projections years).
a. Lane Capacities
In its December 17, 2002, memo to the to City staff, ESEA requested additional
analysis of the appropriate lane capacity to use in the traffic model calculations.
The City uses a traffic analysis methodology that is consistent with the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) analysis guidelines promulgated by the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( LACMTA). This
methodology uses a capacity analysis technique called Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU). Very briefly, ICU is a computation that reflects a ratio of the
traffic volume at the intersection to the capacity of the intersection. Assuming that
the number of lanes at the intersection does not change, higher traffic volumes
result in a higher volume to capacity ratio, or higher ICU value. The computed
ICU value is then translated into a Level of Service (LOS) designation.
Inherent in the ICU computation is an assumed value for the capacity of each
lane at the intersection. Per LACMTA guidelines the capacity of each lane is
1,600 vehicles per hour of green signal time. Expressed otherwise, if the signal
were to remain green for an approach direction for an entire hour, 1,600 vehicles
would be able to go through the intersection in one lane. If the signal were green
for that approach 50% of the time, then 800 vehicles would be able to go through
the intersection in one hour.
Also per LACMTA guidelines, an inefficiency factor, or lost time factor of 10% is
built into the ICU computation. In otherwords, during one hour, it is assumed that
the available capacity at the intersection cannot be used 10% of the time because
of amber time and all -red time clearance when the signal indication changes.
The lane capacity value of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour of green is low
compared to the values used by other jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions have found
actual vehicle flow rates observed in the field as high as 1,800 vehicles per lane
per hour of green or higher. Many jurisdictions use a value of 1,700, and a few
use 1,800. Also many jurisdictions use an inefficiency, or lost time, factor of 5 %,
rather than 10 %.
The table attached (Exhibit E) is a summary of the effect of lane capacity and
inefficiency factor assumptions on intersection Level of Service (LOS). As the lane
capacity is increased and the inefficiency factor is decreased, the LOS for a given
intersection would improve.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider using a lane capacity value of
1,700 vehicles per lane per hour of preen time (rather than 1,600) in the ICU
computation. Staff also recommends that the City Council consider using an
inefficiency, or lost time, factor of 5 %, rather than 10 %. This would be consistent
with the methodology used by Los Angeles County.
b. Interim projection years
ESEA also asked if interim growth years would be analyzed in the Circulation
Element Update process. Since the Circulation Element is focused on the long-
C, 9 ;;
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 5
term future at buildout of the City's land uses in the year 2025, staff did not
include an analysis of interim years in the work program. Additionally, the scope of
work approved for the project does not include a budget for the additional work
that preparing interim year projections would entail.
Staff recommends that the City Council defer action on this until after a
consensus is reached on the matter of the appropriate floor area ratios (FARs)
under long -term future conditions. At that time, the Council might direct staff to
augment the work program to include an analysis of the phasing of land use
growth and the necessary transportation system improvements in interim years.
Without a decision on the matter of the appropriate FAR, staff would not be able
to formulate meaningful interim year growth projections.
c. Alternative growth scenarios for LAX
In its January 20, 2003 memo, ESEA asked if sensitivity runs would be made for
alternative growth scenarios. Staff interpreted this to mean alternative growth
scenarios for LAX. The current scope of work does not include doing additional
traffic model runs with varying levels of growth at LAX. Staff is proposing that just
one estimate for LAX growth (78 million annual passengers -MAP) is used for all of
the traffic forecasts. This is based on the growth of LAX described in Alternative D
of the recently released LAX Master Plan and EIR. Adding alternative growth
scenarios would complicate the modeling process and make it harder to isolate
the impact of the changes in FAR that Council directed to be the primary variable
in the input assumptions.
d. Traffic Counts
In response to ESEA's comments regarding the identification of anomalies on the
days in which traffic counts were taken for the baseline traffic, Kimley -Horn
conducted the traffic counts during normal midweek days and the traffic counting
company reported no transitory phenomena that would render the counts as
unrepresentative of typical traffic condition in the City.
4. Additional Assumptions
a. Honeywell Propert y
At the February 4, 2003, Council Meeting, the future land use of the
approximately 80 -acre Honeywell and adjacent properties at the northeast corner
of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue was discussed. Since then, staff
has had discussions with the potential developer of the area and has learned
more about the buildout potential for inclusion into the vacant land and recycled
building inventories. Based on current proposals, staff recommends incorporating
approximately 850,000 square feet of commercial development on the property
into the land use portion of the traffic model to account for the future potential
transition of the property from industrial use and vacant land to commercial
development.
b. Recyclable Buildings
On the February 4, 2003, the Council questioned the criteria used to determine
which buildings were included in the inventory of potentially recyclable buildings.
The list was developed by first conducting a "windshield survey" of the commercial
09 ,
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 6
and industrial areas of the City then by reviewing the County Assessor parcel
data. Data regarding the parcel size, structure size, and year built was obtained
from the Assessor's rolls as well as City building permits. Older structures, which
appeared to be in poor condition, were not compatible with the surrounding
development and the zoning district in which they were located, and structures
significantly under the maximum allowed FAR were considered to be potentially
recyclable. Staff has refined the criteria for inclusion on this list to make the list
based more on quantitative data.
Staff recommends including only buildings that are less than 50% of the maximum
allowable FAR in the zone. Using these criteria, older buildings that are in good
condition, which still might have a long useful life would not be on the list because
age of the building would not be a criterion anymore. Additionally, eliminating the
criteria for the apparent condition of the building would remove a subjective
measure from the criteria. Based on the revised criteria 2,458,912 square feet of
development from recycled buildings would be included in the traffic model future
buildout scenario for 0.8 FAR. 3,394,530 square feet would be included in the 1.0
FAR buildout scenario, and 8,105,975 square feet would be included in the 1.3
FAR buildout scenario, instead of 6,776,929 square feet (Exhibit F) under the
original recycled building criteria.
c. Approved and Pending Projects
Staff has revised the list of pending and approved projects (Exhibit G), which
would be incorporated into the traffic model. The list now includes specific
information related to the redevelopment of the Honeywell property, as well as
updated information on Mattel's pending application, a self- storage facility
proposed in the City, and the possible commercial reuse of other industrial space
in the southeast quadrant of the City. Staff has also added the vacant office
building at 909 N. Sepulveda Boulevard to the list to insure the eventual re-
occupancy of this building is accounted for in the traffic model. The list also
includes the assumptions for the development of LAX and Playa Vista that would
be incorporated into the traffic model.
d. Vacant Land Inventory
Staff has revised the vacant land inventory (Exhibit H) to remove the vacant land
that would be involved in the Honeywell redevelopment project, since the potential
development is now included in the approved and pending project inventory.
e. Nash - Douglas One -Way Couplet.
Council previously directed staff to study the conversion of the Nash - Douglas one -
way couplet to two -way operations in the new Circulation Element. If the Council
concurs, staff will incorporate Nash and Douglas Streets as two -way streets as a
baseline condition in the traffic forecasts for each of the three FAR scenarios and
will not provide a separate analysis of the impact of conversion of the roads from
one -way to two -way operations.
f. Planned Roadway Extensions.
At the February 4, 2003 meeting, the Council directed staff to study the
elimination of several planned roadway extensions that are currently in the Master
Street Plan (i.e. Grand and Mariposa Avenues). With Council's concurrence. staff
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 7
will eliminate the extension of Grand and Mariposa Avenues from Douglas Street
to Aviation Boulevard as part of the baseline condition for the traffic forecasts.
Due to impracticalities of extending these roads across private property and
railroad right -of -ways, staff does not see a need to provide a separate analysis of
the traffic impact of removing these streets from the Master Street Plan.
The Council also directed staff to retain future roadway extensions of Nash Street
and Hughes Way through the Honeywell property area. Since February, it has
become more apparent to staff that the future development of the Honeywell
properties at the northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans
Avenue will provide opportunities to construct roadway extensions in area once
thought to be infeasible. As a result, staff recommends that the baseline traffic
conditions studied in the traffic model for the three FAR scenarios include new
roadway connections in that area. Since the Honeywell plans have not been
formalized, it is still too early to define exact locations of future roads in the area,
but the model can examine the traffic impacts of additional east -west and north -
south roadway connections.
5. Next Steps
Upon approval of the assumptions by the Council, staff requests that it be directed to
begin the preparation of the traffic forecasts of the three FAR scenarios that were
approved by the City Council at its previous meeting (0.8, 1.0, and 1.3 FAR in the CO
and MU -N Zone). In September, staff will return to Council with the results of the
model runs for the FAR scenarios for a discussion of possible additional model runs
and whether or not to pursue density revisions to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
6. Summary of Staff Recommendations
a. Use 1,700 vehicles per hour and a 5% inefficiency factor for lane capacities (item
3a).
b. Defer action on preparing interim year projections (item 3b).
c. Incorporate 850,000 square feet of development on Honeywell property into
Approved and Pending Project List (item 4a).
d. Use 50% of building FAR as criteria for inclusion on Recyclable Building Inventory
(item 4b).
e. Include two -way operation of Nash and Douglas Streets as abase year condition
in the traffic model (item 4e).
f. Include deletion of Grand and Mariposa Avenue extensions from Douglas Street
to Aviation Boulevard as a base year condition in the traffic model. Incorporate
future east -west and north -south roadway extensions on Honeywell property as a
base year condition in the traffic model. (item 4f).
g. Direct staff to begin FAR scenario traffic forecasts based 0.8, 1.0 and 1.3 FAR in
the CO and MU -N Zone (item 5).
PAPlanning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \576 - 599 \EA - 579 \8- 5- 03.ais doc
1 '7 i
EXHIBIT A
FIGURE 1 - SCREENLINE LOCATIONS
Screenline
Screen Line Number
rud
7 , T
I I
lu I
1101'.
M�
CIMFI Kimley-Ho,n
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN -- did AssociAes Inc
moms
Screenline
Screen Line Number
rud
7 , T
I I
lu I
1101'.
M�
CIMFI Kimley-Ho,n
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN -- did AssociAes Inc
EXHIBIT A
Table 1 - Summary of Screenline Comparisons
Ratio of o e Difference
2003 Daily Result to (Model minus
Screenline Number and Location
Traffic Count Model Result Count Count)
1 N -S East of Vista del Mar
Imperial Hwy (East of Pershing Drive)
29408
25800
088
-3608
Grand Avenue
5724
8600
1.50
2876
Rosecrans Avenue
15883
18200
1.15
2317
Total Screenline 1
51015
52600
1.03
1585
2 N -S East of Sepulveda Boulevard
Imperial Avenue (East of Selby Avenue)
30440
31800
1.04
1360
Maple Avenue
3773
1600
0.42
-2173
Manposa Street
9356
11200
1.20
1844
Grand Avenue
6212
12900
208
6688
El Segundo Blvd
26821
24500
0.91
-2321
Hughes Way
4700
5300
1.13
600
Rosecrans Avenue
35877
39500
1.10
3623
Total Screenline 2
117179
126800
1.08
9621
3 N -S West of Aviation Boulevard
Imperial Avenue
23769
28500
1.20
4731
El Segundo Boulevard
34635
41000
1.18
6365
Utah + Alaska Avenue
8587
11500
1 34
2913
Rosecrans Avenue
53203
52600
0.99
-603
Total Screenline 3
120194
133600
1.11
13406
4 E -W North of Rosecrans Avenue
Vista del Mar
21870
24500
1.12
2630
Sepulveda Boulevard
61470
50100
0.82
-11370
South Nash + Apollo Street
15934
18800
1.18
2866
South Douglas + Continental Street
13472
14700
1.09
1228
Aviation Boulevard
33782
31300
093
-2482
Total Screenline 4
146528
139400
0.95
-7128
5 E -W South of El Segundo Boulevard
Vista del Mar
21870
24500
1 12
2630
Sepulveda Boulevard
61767
50600
082
-11167
Douglas Street
7761
8900
1.15
1139
Aviation Boulevard
30193
35900
1.19
5707
Total Screenline 5
121591
119900
0.99
-1691
6 E -W South of Imperial Parkway/ Avenue
Vista del Mar
21132
24500
1 16
3368
Main Street
20329
26100
1.28
5771
California Street
3887
1700
0.44
-2187
Sepulveda Boulevard
69733
72900
1.05
3167
Nash Street
9627
13200
1.37
3573
EB On Ramp to 1 -105
6027
3900
0.65
-2127
Douglas Street
4128
7044
1.71
2916
Aviation Boulevard
26172
32800
1.25
6628
Total Screenline 6
161035
182144
1.13
21109
t LI 1
EXHIBIT B
nIa$
_H
U
W
H
d
Q
a
H
z
w
W
W
W
z
0
W
U
N
w
z
0
N
v4
va
z
U
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
MODEL APPLICATION FOR BUILDOUT UNDER CURRENT GENERAL PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The City of El Segundo last adopted an update to its General Plan in 1992. The General
Plan Update included a comprehensive evaluation and update of the Circulation
Element. At that time, a substantial amount of traffic analysis was conducted, and a
variety of Land Use and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) alternatives were tested for the Mixed -
Use and Corporate Office areas of the City.
The City Council has initiated this current process to update the Circulation Element
(which is now ten years old) and to revisit the matter of FARs in the Mixed -Use and the
Corporate Office areas of the City. As a first step in the analysis of long -term future
traffic conditions and the analysis of the implications of different FAR assumptions,
traffic volumes were estimated under the scenario that the City would be built out under
the provisions of the current General Plan.
YEAR 2025 MODEL INPUTS FOR MODEL RUN WITH GENERAL PLAN
ASSUMPTIONS
Inputs to the 2025 model are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Land use inputs: Land use information was quantified by land use category and by
TAZs. Land use categories were those reflected in the General Plan. Since the
General Plan reflects buildout, it incorporates approved specific development projects,
such as the Corporate Campus, and any anticipated in -fill land uses on vacant or
underused parcels
The number of trips associated with these land uses was estimated (for each TAZ)
using the appropriate trip generation rates. The estimated trips were incorporated into
the 2025 subarea model for the City of El Segundo. In the model, LAX was assumed to
be at the 78,000,000 million annual passenger level (78MAP).
Network inputs: The General Plan roadway network in the current Circulation Element
was depicted in the model with the appropriate characteristics. Each roadway segment
that is a part of the Circulation Element was included in the model, whether or not the
roadway has yet been constructed and whether or not the roadway has the
characteristics of its ultimate General Plan classification.
In the model run for the General Plan conditions, Nash and Douglas Streets are
assumed to remain in their present one -way configuration. Subject to direction by the
City Council, in future model applications it might be appropriate to assume two -way
configuration on these streets as different FAR levels are analyzed.
103
EXHIBIT C
In the model for the General Plan, the following roadway extensions are specifically
included, since they are a part of the current Circulation Element:
a) Extension of Grand Avenue from Duley Road to Aviation boulevard,
b) Extension of Mariposa Avenue from Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard.
c) Extension of Lairport Street from Maple Avenue to Walnut Avenue.
d) Extension of Nash Street from El Segundo Boulevard to Park place or
Rosecrans Avenue,
e) Extension of Hughes Way from its terminus to Douglas Street.
In the modeling process truck routes are not specifically designated as inputs. Rather,
the results of the modeling process are reviewed and analyzed to develop the Truck
Route Master Plan for the City. Similarly to truck routes, bicycle routes are not
specifically designated as inputs in the modeling process. Unless the planning process
indicates otherwise, no changes to the Bicycle master Plan of the City are anticipated.
Other inputs: Other inputs such as regional trips and the regional orientation of El
Segundo trips were obtained from the regional model.
RESULTS
As expected, daily traffic volumes on the City's roadways will be higher in 2025 than
today's traffic. The attached table presents a comparison of today's traffic volumes
compared to the projected 2025 traffic volumes, across six screenlines. The tabulation
indicates that the growth in east west traffic would be relatively small on the west side of
the City, with a growth of about 31,000 vehicles per day (vpd) across screenline
Number 1. Further to the east, traffic across screenlines 2 and 3 would increase by
about 89,000 and 149,000 vpd, respectively.
As indicated by the traffic volumes across screenlines 4, 5, and 6, growth in north south
traffic will be larger on the roadways east of Sepulveda Boulevard, with lesser growth on
roadways on the west side.
The extensions of Mariposa Avenue, Nash Street, and Grand Avenue are projected to
carry 30,000 to 40,000 vpd.
With the projected traffic volumes, the Level of Service (LOS) on some roadways will be
E or F. Likewise, many intersections on the east side of the City will have LOS E or F.
P: \Planning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS \576- 599 \EA - 579 \General Plan Analysis.doc
EXHIBIT C
Traff ic Volumes of Existing General Plan Buildout
Percent
2003 Daily Estimated 2025 Increase in Daily Increase in
Screenline Number and Location Traffic Count DailvTraffic Traffic Daily Traffic
1 N -S East of Vista del Mar
Imperial Hwy (East of Pershing Drive)
Grand Avenue
Rosecrans Avenue
Total Screenline 1
2 N -S East of Sepulveda Boulevard
Imperial Avenue (East of Selby Avenue)
Maple Avenue
Mariposa Street
Grand Avenue
El Segundo Blvd
Hughes Way
Rosecrans Avenue
Total Screenline 2
3 N -S West of Aviation Boulevard
Imperial Avenue
Manposa Street Extension
Grand Avenue Extension
El Segundo Boulevard
Utah + Alaska Avenue
Rosecrans Avenue
Total Screenline 3
4 E -W North of Rosecrans Avenue
Vista del Mar
Sepulveda Boulevard
South Nash + Apollo Street
South Douglas + Continental Street
Aviation Boulevard
Total Screenline 4
5 E -W South of El Segundo Boulevard
Vista del Mar
Sepulveda Boulevard
Nash Street Extension
Douglas Street
Aviation Boulevard
Total Screenline 5
6 E -W South of Imperial Parkway/ Avenue
Vista del Mar
Main Street
California Street
Sepulveda Boulevard
Nash Street
EB On Ramp to 1 -105
Douglas Street
Aviation Boulevard
Total Screenline 6
LOS with
Existing LOS with 2025
Traffic Traffic
29408
42300
12892
4384%
C or Better
F
5724
15300
9576
16730%
C or Better
C or Better
15883
24500
8617
5425%
C or Better
C or Better
51015
82100
31085
60.93%
30440
59700
29260
9612%
C or Better
F
3773
11600
7827
20745%
C or Better
C or Better
9356
16900
7544
8063%
C or Better
C or Better
6212
23400
17188
276.69%
C or Better
C or Better
26821
32400
5579
2080%
C or Better
C or Better
4700
18700
14000
29787%
C or Better
C or Better
35877
43100
7223
2013%
C or Better
D
117179
205800
88621
75.63%
23769
55800
32031
13476%
C or Better
F
37800
37800
N/A
F
33600
33600
N/A
F
34635
42100
7465
21.55%
C or Better
C or Better
8587
34200
25613
29828%
C or Better
D
53203
66000
12797
24.05%
E
F
120194
269500
149306
124.22%
21870
36000
14130
6461%
C or Better
F
61470
68500
7030
1144%
F
F
15934
26000
10066
6317%
C or Better
C or Better
13472
26300
12828
9522%
C or Better
C or Better
33782
41600
7818
23.14%
D
C or Better
146528
198400
51872
35.40%
21870
36000
14130
6461%
C or Better
F
61767
76200
14433
2337%
F
F
34800
34800
N/A
F
7761
24500
16739
215.68%
C or Better
C or Better
30193
58500
28307
9375%
C or Better
F
121591
230000
108409
89.16%
21132
37000
15868
7509%
C or Better
F
20329
30200
9871
4856%
C or Better
E
3887
5800
1913
49.22%
C or Better
C or Better
69733
104800
35067
5029%
E
F
9627
41400
31773
330.04%
C or Better
F
6027
11900
5873
97.44%
C or Better
F
4128
35800
31672
76725%
C or Better
D
26172
60900
34728
13269%
C or Better
F
161035
327800
166765
103.56%
104
EXHIBIT D
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS
Comments
Where & How Addressed
December 17, 2002 ESEA Memo
- Lane Capacity
- Assumptions on Lane Values
To be discussed in July I staff repot.
Interim Projection Years
To be discussed in July 1 staff report.
ITS Assumptions
Discussed in Feb. 4 Kimley Horn report. City will
need to review actual improvements planned to
determine appropriate level.
Additional Input Opportunities
No previous discussion on additional input
opportunities. Stakeholders given 2 weeks to
review Feb. 4 Kimley Horn report before it was
distributed to Council.
Januag 20, 2003 ESEA Memo
Model Characteristics
- Compare to subarea models
Kimley Horn to spot check counts against other
recent projects as part of validation process.
- Assumptions for LAX growth
Addressed in Feb. 4 City Council staff report.
- Sensitivity runs for Alt. Growth
scenarios
To be discussed in July I staff report.
Base Year Model inputs
- Geographic area of Model
Covered by SCAG Model discussion in Feb. 4
Council staff report.
- What developments included in
and outside of El Segundo
Covered by SCAG Model discussion in Feb. 4
Council staff report.
Traffic Counts
- How to control for outside factors
To be discussed in July 1 staff report.
Other Evaluation Methodologies
- Asked for more information
Progression analysis using HCM in Kimley
Horn's Feb. 4 Council staff report.
ITS
Nospecific question asked in this memo.
10 :�
EXHIBIT D
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS COMMENTS
January 16, 2003 Chamber of
Contnterce Letter
LAFCO Spheres of Influence
Addressed in Feb. 4 Council staff report.
Traffic from other projects
Addressed in SCAG model discussion in Feb. 4
Council staff report.
Traffic Counts
- Adjust for reduced LAX travel
LAX Forecasts discussed in Feb. 4 Council staff
report.
Regional Transportation Plan
Covered by SCAG Model.
P \Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \576- 599\EA- 579 \input table doc
1061
EXHIBIT E
Effect of Lane Capacity and Inefficiency Factor Assumptions on Intersection Level of Service
Note Scenario 1 is the set of assumptions the City uses now.
10'7
Number of Intersections with Level of Service Worse than D
AM Peak
AM Peak
Total E or PM Peak
PM Peak
Total E or
Scenario
Assumptions
LOS E
LOS F
F in AM LOS E
LOS F
F in PM
1
Lane Capacity =1600, Lost Time Factor =0 10
4
4
8 3
6
9
2
Lane Capacity= 1600, Lost Time Factor =0 05
4
2
6 4
3
7
3
Lane Capacity =1700, Lost Time Factor =0 10
4
2
6 4
3
7
4
Lane Capacity= 1700, Lost Time Factor =0.05
3
1
4 4
2
6
5
Lane Capacity= 1800, Lost Time Factor =0 05
1
1
2 1
2
3
Note Scenario 1 is the set of assumptions the City uses now.
10'7
O
C
C
U
U)
Q
LL
co
O_
m �
m Lf)
O C Q
Taw
C
mm c
�_Q)E
W T
U
O N C
> O
U o m
C `
EU
CL
O
d
O
0
10
N
O
a
a
R
.I
i ��fQ
d
41
4f
N
d
N
0
71
N
N
61
O
O
Q
b
a
m m
m
h Q
�O
O
O
h
M
M
O q
r O m
h
�O
m
Q
4)
r
N
�'!
p
p
O
Q
N
O
1
v
N
Q
r
b
O
Po.
a
1t�
n
N
M
O
N
b
b
m ( rNy 13;
n
N
M
1N
A
w
M
^
O
N
„
N
b
�-
N
m
Q
I
I
I
'0
N
Ib0
m
W N
Y
Cr'1
N
I^
Obi
m
N
1�
A
[A
V
IND
h
C)
O
m
N
y
4
�
m
w
m m
m
m
m
m
m
ill
W
d
d
a
d N
N
N
N
It
d
a) d
d
d
41 N
d d
N
N
d
d
D+
N
d
d
N
N
N
m
d
d
N
I"1
O
7
b
O IN
^
Q
b
N
O
m O
O
m
O
01 Q
O
O
m
M
O
O
O
I
r
I
N
h
b
n
O
O
Q
R
b m
Q
b
M O
Q Q
C)
^
Q
m
IN
h
C]
h
O
b
Q
N
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
�d
C,
<"1
IG
4i
Fj
M
h
Qi
�=
W
Oi
Q
O
N
>
m
N
O
A
m
m
r
I
I
O
w
IOW
IVO
tl
u0'i
m
M
m
O
1�
�
N
YYYfffll(���
t00
O
CND
Ori
tr.7
ONi
O
N
M OI
N
!-
-
A
•-
�- r
h
N
�
N�
�
r
0
.-
b
N
p
�
10
�
�`
v
m
M
b
W
�
e`
M
aJ
�
O
u)
N
r
1� Ot
W
�aq
g
In
N
t5
m
rN
N
m
u)i
m
0
N
O
r
m
W
r
r°- °o
m Y
N m
!!pp
W
m
m
N
IN
V
N
m
N
N
w
V
V
r
�_
V
m o "
m
' Ih
a
V
O
te
m
O
/t��
Ifs
n
v g
m m
o
r r
3S
N ai
r- h
V
r
'K
t►
1+
m
m
m
m
r
7
vmi
m
th
n
m
e-
m 10
o
m
N
n
N
rn
O
t2
d
tlJ
v
m
I")
N
mmm
m
N
m
th
N
m
W
p
V
rn w
m
V
l
OI
m
m
m
o
m M
o
0
0
0
o
m m
m
m
o 0
0 0
o
m
M
M
o
0
o
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
ri
LL
o
0
0
0
—o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
In
r
m
m N
V
I"1
m C)
O
m
r
m N
m N
m
m
m
IN
r
V
M
r
N
r
m
m
ry
M
th
C'f
N M
N
^
O
N
v m
m
I7
O N
O N
N
M
M
'-
V
M
0
0
0
0
0
V
LL
0
0
o
O
O O
o
0
o
O
o
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
m
Wo
8
N
1'$x'1{,
8
O
H
O
m
m
11pp
p
r
N t7
N
pI�
Ill
O
O
W �+;
0I
OI
m Y
cn�
fV
o
AA
O
N
l°
m
M
fmD
ppp
m
1
•
O
N
Y
CJ
m
CD
O
N
m
I'
W
I
ti
r
V
b
N
O O
o
m
Y
O o)
m
O
N
o",
m
N
O
o
m
m
o
m-
m
N
Q! M
m
N
N
m
m
N N
a N
o
m
N
N
m O
V m
m m
O m
m
O
O
m
O
a
N
a
m
N
Y
r
O
m
m
M
N
m
m
N
C'1
m
r
r
b
N
r
m
r
t')
ID
clf
m
V
m
V
IV
Oi
c
01
m w
r Ih
IN
n
r
ID
tC
tD
m
(D
O
o
ti
V
v
yx
r
N
N
V r
N
IN
V
f")
C7
V
N
b
N
m
V
N
n
N
m
N
o
I
1-i
I
0
/7
7 Z
M
C)
t`)
C)
l+)
li
Z
Z
Lp
O
U
G
U
O
U
(.:
�0
U
U
U
U
U U
O O
U
O
U
O
U
'�
M M
U U
l"1 M
U U
M
U
O
U
��
N
U
m
U
M
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
41
f`0
t`
8,
O
N
m O
C
C
','
I�p
O`
3
8
1
C
C
U
"1
,'�I
C
m
>>>>
C
C
C
C
J
C
U
m
m
L
O
a7
a)
t
N
U LL
m
b T
a
m
f�
O
m
C
ou
U
d
m
m
IA
d
i
i
v m
N 49
O
O
c2i
U
m
MR
MR
MR
i
i
N N
c
LD
d
m
2
x
2
x
2
d
O
F
Z
m
Er
li
p
j
u
c
m
a>
o
In
o
U
U_
rn
N
O
0
O
m
V
n
m
U
d
d
lA
V
V
O
C V
Ipp
o
o
`ii
C
N
h
IN
N
IN
N
V
S
O
E
o
E
d
L
m
m
m
0
Qt
a)
d
c
V V
at m
>>>
at ",
>
>
rn
>
a •i
>
.1
C
0
4
R
R
IQ_
R
v
a
Fli�f
c�
$'
a
r
a z,
>>>
n
a
n
d
>
a
>>
n
n
L°
N
E
I.I.
v
`
n n
i''
n'
v
`
',I
v
`
/n
In
4)
iq
I' I
mn
>.
m
m
I
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
"L,
v La
m m
d .1'
L°
m
,.
"
-I'
>
cmi
o
m
Ul
Iq
N
!n Z
to
In
to
i.''
N
(A /n
J
Z
J
H
C7
In N
to i 1
U'
',
C7
Z
W
W
fn ,
W
: I
N
O^
N�
I
N
N
'ia I'
O.
n
d
n
o M
Ih
M
m
m
N
YYY
In
N
100
N
Ih
VJ
v)
05
N
N
N
N
•I
m
i
n
i
f00
�k
'-
t
N
N
N'�li
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
i'.
N
f") 17
'j r
r
r
JI'
M M
M N
N
IN
„'
iI
F-T-
G
PL---
m
o O
;:
V1
M
-1
-1.11
N
N
M
N
V
N
m
N
m
N
r
:
F
F N
m
U
M
O
N
«
ca
]
j
\\
�co
/2E
§ \$
\I$
G«]
E
�
3
k
CL
till]
}Uq
/
Q
\
7
\
U
R
�
b
�
2
}
}(
/
\$k�
�
�
�
7
\
\(
\
M
§
�
)
/CZ
a
2
2
■
m
/
/����5
2
}Uq
/
Q
\
7
\
(9
LLC
U
Q
O
N 1O
O c Q
-0 W
C
01 m C
CO N E
W > N
O O C
>. Q O
U o m
C U
EU
CL
O
i
N
(9
N
O
d
C �
I
A
w
N O
m
N
ID
y
ID
4l
d
d
N
N
N
N
d
N
N
Pb
Q
b
O
N
CD
A
W O
O N
Q
@ O
Q{ u)
O
O
M1
p
�H
01
C
�O h
M b
b
!� (D
YI N
T��! Q
O
Q
N
b
O
t0
h
Of
N
^
O
%q
q^
p
Q
O
O
'r
a
M
Q
Oi
Q
M
<D
A
A.
Illbbb
O
6
Q
M
M
O
Q
�O
f,
N
O
ppp
N
CO
O
N
ap
W
N
h
b
{y
4i
O
b
n
b
Q
n
g
i
m
r
T^
h
N O)
Q
499
1(�
'W Q
{{pp
4
m
{9
T
M
O
p o-
a I�
N
ai
W
O
W
to
N
.�
M
M
g
M
b
C!
�U
b
O
pp
Cq
M
W
O
N
Q
�D
(p
O
b
h
y
1[I
M
$m
y�
rt
VV
N
e'1
0
5
a
N
R
b
m
O
oo O
O
co
g b
O
O
O
N
mm
O
O
lo
O
N
N
m
O
O
b
u)
O
Q
1�
H
N
h
N
IA
M
M
'm
t7
O
O
n
M
O
p
T
N
N N
Q
O
tD
O
N
N
W
IL
M
N
b
h
b
Q
R
N
O
T
T^
r
Q
1�
N
h
N
m
4
m CV
10
1�
.-
p
�p
10
O
10
b
l')
�[1
N
0
tlt
�t1
O
Yf
O
1D
1D
(p
b
p
1Ta7jlj
M
A
N
N
V
N
N
"'MMM
p0
a
C
pO
''NJ
H
N
G
N
Q�
✓i
N O
N
N
N
Q1
G1
N
G1
N
N
N 41
N C1
N
N
N
N
N N
N N
N
N
O
N
y
O
O
N
N
VI
41
N
y
N
G1
O
�l
�
N
Q1
N
Ql
41
N
IIOf
M
O
Q
b
O O
N
h
Q
b
CJ
O o1
O
b
O
R
m
^ O
m Q
N
O
N
M
O
b'D
N
M
O
O
Q b
m
m
•O
Q
O
W
'D
M O
Q Q
M
O^
b
l�
.-
Q
O
b
b
co
O
A
N
O
T
N
M
ID
M N
O
01
.-
'O
M
b of
t0
N
1D
N M
'O W
�d
O
ID
W
n
O
t`
'O
�I
Q
b
Oi
u)
N
O
N
C2
M
ID
M
^
1�
of
b
N
u)
of
u)
of
O1 of
M
Q
O
W
'O
O
b
M
M
M
!�
M
N
N
Q
M
Q
u)
3k 1�iyi
v
v
N
v
O N
v
ID
N
m
O
O
N O
m r
O W
O�
W
u)
co
r
OI
o O
v O
W
O W
p1
v m
v
Q+
0
v
O
r
O�
p
W
O
N
O
r
J
t•!
N
q
W
r
v
W
{
{yypp
O
O
(D
b
b
1D W!
to
u)
00
C)
m
O
Q
M M/
u)
CJ
v
.-
pR
W ID
tv
R
N
N
im
m
m
N
N
IfL
m
p
n
n
(D
O
N
C
N
O
O
N
A
r
<D
m
O
t`
'O
P
N
N
G]
N
q
10
m
v!
r
W
0
m ai
O
v
IO
n
N
N
m
y
ul N
o> PJ
b
v
W
t•
!"
m
IA
W
'�
W
v
W
T
O
�p
Iq
r
m!''1
N
(")
ID
P!
Y!
N
m
to
V
CCa
N
ry
RRR
°1I
V
fix(
W
N
to
m
W
W
N
m
{y
OI
O O
v O
pp (")
Y 0
M
0
O
m
W
W
OI
v
co
O W
co Cl)
m
W
N
01
O
W
W
O
W
f`
O!
O
W O
co
O W
N m
W O
O♦
V
l0
V
m
'Q
O
N
IO
O
N
N
N
N
(n
W
IO
(D
co
co
V
O
th
N
W
N
ft4
rl v
O
O
11D
N
N
oI
N
v
111000000
.f'
W W
O)
10 M
M
Ol
v
v
N
O)
th
OI
so
V W
co co
O .
h h
O OI
N
f:
O
N
V
,itY
C
y
Q
(�1
lye
��pp
m
W
R1
R
u1
N
v
(7
W
Il
'Ib
1D
W
1
W
W
7
W
N
O
r
N h
p to
N
N
A
r
v
Io m
N
f`
t+7
W
p
Wv
N`
W
W
a�
co
m
m
W
W
W
O
W W
m
0
0
0
0
O W
W
W
W
W
W
o 0
0 0
o
W
W
W
W
m
m
m
m
W
m
O
O
O
u.
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
h
to
W v
N
v
f`
m
W m
O
DI
co
co
r
m N
co ID
W
co
W
co
O
o!
N
W
W
v
o!
n
u.
0
o
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
m
0
O N
0 0
O N
0 0
0
v
0
N
0
v
0
IO
0
m
0
M
0
V
0
v
0
v
0
v
0
0
v
0
m
0
N
W
N
co
N
IO
ID
N
O
q�q
g
W
W
IA
1_!)
ppL
N O
f0 co
N 10
N� O
W
C7
g
`x
O.
r
N
r
v
W
W�
W
W
O�
fD
v W
V 10
l`9 N
R O
O
m
o
O
O
N
OI
m
t+I
to
O
O
O
N O
O
W O
N O
Ol N^
M o1
IQ
SY
O
Ol
N
O
O�
O
o']
ID
f`
W♦
a
O
r
O
O
O
10
N
n
O
O
(O
o
O�
o1
O
O
^
W
W�
to
N
C
W
A
W
O
N
m
q
O
W
co
to
1�
Iw
N co
p M
q
1�
N
m
N
W
v
� �
N'
0
1�
{y
O
O
p
O
10
1A
O
g
W�
N
M
y
E
A
N
.' Cl
1f1 N
N
v
•f
v
co
V
W
N
ID
W
W
O
W
N
W
N
W
W
v
m
(D
m
r
r
�W
t`
v
N
N
O O
O
O
co
y
O m
W
O
O
O
N
- W
O
W
N
O
CO
o
t
N
co
co
O
p
0
m
O O
W
N
v
0
_
N
O
W co
W
m
0
O
co
O
O
10
C)
'0
v
D�
m
N
01 O
m
N
I
N
N
'D
N
v (O
O I
O
N
co
(O
v
v
N
O
v
�
1O
h
n N�
M
N
0
N
co
v co
Oi
N
q-
A
N
v
N
W
Cl)
v
O
o!
(
r
W W
�C4
N
V
N
N
n
W
N
N
b
b
[ 1
W
W
W
W
•
0
0
0
m
70
?
m
m
m
0
O
O
0
"
�
OO
OO
z
z
z
U
U
U
b
i U
ti
ti
U
U
y
U
U
U
U
U
U
01
v
v
U
U
I�
1z1
10
Pi,
lc?l,?Ic
C
d
O V
3
O
m
N
C
C
o �a
C
i
U
U
U
m
C
O
U
i
C
U
D
m
2
.6
5
12
_
_V
°w
c
m N
N
y
ul
cf
V
m
(0
_u
ICO
—c E
o
o
`•
m
2
3
I I
co
i
f0v
o
a
rn
v
a'
v
m
vvvW
E
E
E
d
U
m>
l0
>>
>>
o
o
o
v
???
a
v
o
c
v
o
v
a
a
a
G
G
I
a L
J'
>
>>
ei
L
L
d
C
J J.
p p
p
C
C
a
C
D
C
C
L
N
L
N
d
C
D
C
C
d
(n
d
D)
N
D7
y
d
ID
m
,
m m
W
N
N
O
5
m m
m
��
o
N
i
O
''
l0
(0
m
O
N
(n
(!1
N Z
Z
i'
(A
u)
h
u)
N u)
Z
Z
J
U`
(A N
J)
U
0
U
0
Z
Z
2
U
O'
W
W
(A
Io
IO
y
O IO
O
C
C
C
c
O O
O
O
O
O n
n
O
0
0
v
0
0
O
- i
O
N
ID
O
W
W
h
m
W a\
W
n
IO
m
W h
W
t`
N
r
O
W
m
O
O
W
m
m W
O
m m
m
m
O
l0
IO
oI
O
O
IO
IO
W
v
v
IO
IO
m
O
N
O
N
N
N
b
ID
r
O
ff^
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
MM+
N
m m
l t`
N
o
r
f`
M M
M M
Col l
v
v
l
IO
b
W
W
W
W
ID
m
N
N
Li
m
m
m
o
m
v v
ID
O
r
f`
f`
$
n
'�
W W
W
W
W
W
W
o
0 0
0 0
�
�
VVVVVVF
�
p2
�
O
N
N
N
�
F
F
H
F
F
H
H
F�
H
H�
HCCOF
FV
F
� f_r
i
IQ
C
N
U
U)
Q
LL
N
O] LO �
O C Q
C
LLJ
7
lT m C
U) d E
U N
W U N
O N C
z, of O
U ° �
C U
N �
EU
n
0
Q
m
C
N
O
a
lit
tt
Of
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
7�
N
N
N
d
N
N
N
N
N
W
N
71
N
0
n
N
•
b
�
N
V
I
�
�p
I
n
Ip
O,
M
I
A
ONi
M
b
�D
N
(qp
OI
'o
�o
b
N
N
90
Mf
t
N
tp
N
O
IV
M
I'
N
W
r
O
r
O�
W
Q1
PSG
O
1�
n
Ql
m O`
f`]
O
co
�
IA
114
N SQL
I
O
OJ
c
W
iZ
N
7
N
M
Y
W
IA
n
V
V
O
A
�
N
M �!
h
N
co OD
O
w
N
O
fV
m
O
M
O
!7
In
M
ri
N
m
to
w
rn
ao
'
m
ci
Q
O�
'3 m a0
c�
o
n
m
R
1
m
ai
M ii
t0
tD
f0
f0
t0
tD
f0
M
M
M
M
M
f0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
V
r
V
N
V
CO
M
V
N
O
o
O
O
o
0
o
O
O
o
O
o
p
p
VtY,
O
t0
Q
�4L
O
N
m^
ID
V
N
V
S
pR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
4R
O
O
Q
RS
O
N D 0
+
fD
10
N
a
N
10
m
N
O
8
N
M
W W
n
O
V
to
lV
q.
r
(O
M
W
M
N
W
M
O
M
W
N
V
m
O
OD
oc
CS!
00
M
h
L
A
O
t0
Lh
M
00
O
n
N
N
Y
O
N
M O
Y
w
a
M
V
M
2
N
N
h
9
N
N
N
N
N
N
!n
fn
II
D
D
ail
b
p
t
a
t
y
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
N
N
2
2
2=
2
Z
cn
N
D
U
c
O
O
O
F
v
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
Cb
°
a ��•
19
C D
a
m
m
m
a4o
m'
m
l
a
a'
H
w
¢
o
a
v
v
v
a I
�°
a
o°
a,
a
O^
i
M
1 -I
y
d
m
Np
N
O
O
I`
cli
N
M
fQ
N
(A
N'{
p
C-4
N
M
N
nll
pN
N
;ICI
O
Q
O
m
Ifj
A
m
m
W
W
Mm
C
co
M
o
o
M
M
M
a
ui
a
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
N
F
O
lit
0
co
C
U)
Q
LL
CO
m I�
-0
C: LL
ED m C
N -O 6
W_a)E
W i aU
O d C
T � C
U
01
C
EC
CL
_o
CD
d
0
(d
C
N
O
d
a
ma
LL
m
y
•
h
N
N Vi
N
N h
V,
v,
N
W
N
0
Y,
0
G
N
0
N
H
0
y
0
V1
G
N
U
rJ
N
q
l
q
f,
r0
h
N
ry N
M
C2
l7
R
2
O
'S
a
O
^p
b
M
Jq
b f0
b
m
^J
M r
Q
o
Q
N
O
M
O,
b
r,
^
b
01
N
b
o
O
O
•_
r.
n
O
rj
Y
O pQ
at N
�D r,
[J R
10
b tp
O
b
Oi
b
M
J
R
O
M
o.,
[,
O
q
rJ
f0
Op
,
a
[1 a
a g
I�
a
�n
0
w,
h
N
0
0
0
m >
m �
0 >.
o c
� ,
c
m
> ,
o
o
m
M
O
Q
b
O
N
m
112
P
10
N
O
'D
C,
O
0,
m Q
l
CJ
O
N^
M
b
M
ID
O
O
O, N
C
,o
0
N
b
m
b
O
M
"O1
2
m
O
m
P
f\
O
V
P
N
O
m b
O O
a
h
O,
[V
Oi
Oi
cp
b
an d
[V M
M
Q
m
M b
-[IN
N
10 r,
10
10
10
r
b
O
4
b
b
b
eQ--
P�
V
M
V@
p
ti
Q•
A
m p
O O
M
V
N 1qf�
0 0
O
rp
N_
M
N
01
OI
<♦
O
R M
m a
fp N
fD N
N m
N Ol
1p 10
N M
O A
1� 01
-
m
N
Q,
,0
m
10
N
m
[,
M
b[J
O
O
m O
V O
10 m
O cD
V tD
m
O
Q
4�
O
V
O
O
N
r-
T
m^
U.
[D
1D
uq 1fp�
[O
Q !!
N
W
M
10
O
8
M C
M 00
b
N
1 M
1
[O
ro
O
IV
V
c0
^
M
N N
M
N
N
O
r A
N
O
V m
m N
Y
N
O
V
O
O
N
m
Imp
0
1fJ
p)
I
C0
0
O
D o
m
m"
N
ai
IJ
f
[m0
Y�
IV
O,
O m
V N
m N
r- [m0
OM, !O
m 01
Cm'),
r0[f
pi
m
pi
[�+I
m
tM0
I�
N
w1
fOD
m m
tm0
r r
CJ Ii'
A
r
M
m
a
v
N
_
I;
N
S
I.S
Im
m
m
m
o
m
n
n
o
0
0
o
au au
m ao
ao m
m o
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
ao
o 0
0 0
o
m
m
m
m
m
m
M
u:
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
1�
m
m
N
f`
a
f•
M
M m
NM
N
m N
m
m N
m
M
Y
N
LL
O
O
O
O
O
Ml
coo
O
O o
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O O
O O
o
0
o
0
o
O
O
O
O
N
m
m
N
10
N
1�
10
m
N
M
O
m
1�
O
f`
m
r
m
m
O
m
O
C 8
M M
M N
O m
m f`
O N
S
m N
m
O
O
O
O
10
m
M
N
O
O
N
h
O
0
N O
O
N O
m N
N
O
m
O
m
l7
m
m
O
m
V
01
r7
CO,
vi
r�
N
O
m
.54
1�
`+
N
N
N„
N
I�
v
[V
m
'
C
O
�Y
m O
S [D
m
N m
N O
y O
N O
0
p
m
O
N
m
V
O
(V
Q)
m
r0
O
N
m O
V
M m
N O
0
m
N
10
O
1�
O
rl
O
O,
m
O
O
1
Or
O
m
ii
m O
O
a Y
m a'
O
A
m
V
Ol
N
N
m
N
10
10
N
m
m
O
lfVr
OI
m
r
P
N
N
O
O_
m
O
m
V
O V
V O
N O
10 O
M
m
0
0
0
N
V
N
O
a
0
m
f•
M
m
M
N
O
m I
M
m
M
M
m
m
N
N
m
m
M O
N m
N m
10
p
g J�
m m
m
N
a
N
N
a
N
0
m
O
N
N
Y
0
h
0
m O
a [O
m m
O tp
�p
O
m
�f
M
N
O
m
n
m
n
m
m
V
10
h
M
N
m
1l
N
0,
m
a
m'
O
m M
M m
S
n
fA
A
N
N
a
f`
Cm]
N
'-
N
A A
V N
A m
N Y
M
h
M
S
Y
V
V
r
N
N
[^p
N
i J
M
0
0
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I
MMM
M
M
0
0
O
0
0
0
Z'
U
U
0
61
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UUUUU
U
U
U
U
U
U
„I
I
''
iUUU
II
I�
C
U
z
.0_.
❑'
❑
O
C
C
cc
O
10/, 8
C 10/,
❑❑
O, N
N
4
p
N
�❑
C
C
U
I
t0 '2
O c
0
m>
m
O"
O
x
aiJ
°d
d
IE
m O
ep .t1
LC 0
U
LL
m
m
Ul 7.
a
o
m
U�
O
x
U
r
U)
o
aJ
t
o
2
rn
r
E
f
f
O
ru
U)
to fl
O
O
O
O
O
IE
U
m
m N
d
m
to 5
41
ru
0
m
m
tG
m
v
` E
U d
❑
❑
g
o
a1
3
oe
of
d
.I
m
O
m
w
N
m`
U
3
a+
'0
E
E
O
to
T
w
m
O1
i
i
i
i
0 0
0
r r
O O
i
O
(0
O
U
Q
LL
M
m
OJ lL
O C d
�:2u
c •�
U
O G7 C
T� C
U p
C �
C1 �
CL
0
N
I y
I
I�
I
I
O
b
O
OJ
O
Dl
FJ
N
M
b
m
N
IIn
�O
O
I.
n
b
Y
O
b
M
r
•01
K`
lip
b
Y
N
ui
J"1
a-
Y
O
N
N
rn
b
O OJ
"$
t7
m
ri
h
N
M
�D
O
01
N
M
p
O
47
f.l
N
fJ
Iq'
h
N
I
/O
OJ
1!!
h
n
47
10
OYi
W
h
S
M
pm{y
Yf
b
O
J`]
N
W
�ppY
O
i
1Wlp
I
I
M
I`J
tti
r]
ry
Iti
M
tti
^]
M
r)
I
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
M
1
a
1
O
O
n
n
In
N
b
10
b
b
Y
10
N
Y
Y
¢7
n
O)
0
01
ID
N
I
O
(D
O
e}
10
0
OJ
N
n
Iti
Ip
0
b
I
b '
O
b
n
O
b
N
OJ
10
r]
Y
h
Y
N
Y
10
Y
W
b
N
10
ee}}
'O
10
N
O)
47
M
O
M
�-
CJ
b
I"J
N
Y
V
M
M
?
f0
r
G
h
Y
Ol
b
J")
<ry
h
b
QI
b
ISI
N
T
b
O)
Y
n
Ih
Ip
M
Cp
h
10
Of
"I
N
F
N
O
O
N
171
O
to
N
m
m
A
r
COO
m
rn
m
c�
In
ne
N
rn
R
o
n
m
8
n
m
O
QI
lei,
O
r
ONi
r
OBI p
rn'1
O
!1
N
i
N
ID
�Ji
v�
i_,T
IIIYYY
v
n
�.
Di
fn
ri
N
tf
a
N
m
N
10
o
M
o
N
rN
V
�
Di
,-
�r
o
t`1
�
m
a
m
o�
N
N
v
n
ai
A
m
ri wi
OI a�
r
o
Ih
1
l
I,
I
m
I N
O
a
N
N
pp
8
Qp
N
'�yV.
m
m
W
m
m
O
a
m
M
M
n
O
O 8
to
q
N
10
M
a
OJ
N
n
V
O
0
P
N
M
n
n
M
10
n
m
N
O
D
m
l
m
m
DI
m
m
N
m
0pp+1
V
Oi
m
Ifs
1f7
m
m
10
m
(O m
f0
IY
O
'O
m
lh
m
m
fV
O
m i�
n
O
01
pJ
N
m
I
1+
M
N
I�
ImO
�
a0
P
A
m
m
t7
Or
rI
N
{Y
011
my
O
N
N
M
m
V
wp
O
n
le
10
N
�f
0�
i
1
d
i
i
o
0
o
0
o
o
0
o
o
o
M
M
N
M
In
w
m
a
m
Y
Ih
10
a
O
''I
m
N
O
V
n
V
N
M
'
M
O
n
O
N
O
n
O
M
O
m
O
o
O
V
V
M
N
O
1
o
o
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
i
O
0
8
N
N
n
N
M
0
O
O
ID
O
co,
q
g
Q
°Q°Q..
O
0
1N_►
0
GG
O
m
m
In
tl�
tl
N
m
0
Ol
m
0
m
M
O
G
In
!1
1►
O
N
OJ
O
m
M
,
1
O
N
an
m
m
'I
IN
^
V
N
O
p
V
O
O 8
O O
O
0
C
O
0
0
O
0
0
O
O
0
N
m
Ifl
qqq
O
10
ID
In
O
m
m
S
t0
""..��
O
N
{f
Ih
V
In
r
r
tp
m
O
O
IV
10
m
IN IA
O
I7
O
p
In
IOfI
Q! m
N
m
N
N
m
Y
M
M
10
m
O
N
Ip
10 YO
V
m
O�
O
r
I
�1
o
O
m
10
m
V
o
V
n
O
10
N
In
M
O
m
M
m
m
O
V
M
n
n
m
o
O
m
M
W
N
01
n
IA
m
10
O�
p
O
N
V
n
N
f0
n
V
N
IA
N
O
N
N
N
O
O
N
O
M
N
a
ID
m
N
ID
M
n
m
O
N
W
IN
ID I
m
M
N
m
m
o
M
N
ID
n
Y
0i
10
n
a
N
Y
O
10
m
W
O
10
m
M
O
N
r
N
CO]
N
'I
I
o
Z
7
Z
7
Z
7
Z
Z
7
O
Z
>>
Z
M
M
M
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
I•
r
I
U
U
U
U
C
d
U
tl-
t
U
V„
V
V
C
m❑
H
U
V
d
CC
1
la
C
C
C
C
C
U
ajj
V
o❑p
I
L
Jz�.
N
�C
C
V
V
Q
M
M
M
M
M
U
U
t
o
c
❑
L
N
i
t
(/i
S,g
fNp
m
d
O
2
2
2
2
2
O
Io
U
2
a8
l0
d
U
Iy
❑
0
i
'
V
N
N
O
O
O
�,
qqN
qqN
c
c
�r
m
a
m
`-
i
y
>
II
(I
+'
uQi
4
u1
4
IA
4
IQ
9
a
a
m
I'
t
t
r
g
y ,
II+
g
m
Iyo
m
m
;�'
„
L°
I,
N
w
9
9
F.'
In
u)
rmi
Iii
Iii
Iii
g
m I❑
g
8
�
c7
z
z
tp
z
(7
w
w
a'
1 M
11
w
I''4
a
e
a
a
a
a
as
❑
a d
ID
V
pz
0
100
C
1 1.1
O
OY
0
11[
N
V
pa'
0'
'�
fOD
d
d
m
d
yJ
0
N
N
N
N
N
Np
N
N
N
N
N
M
(n
(A
(n
N
N
N
N
O
N
N
b
p
h y
N
IlN1
I�,l
O
O
O
O
M
m
mm
m
ID
m
n
m
m
m
m
m
ur
m
T
O
N
N
N
N
yl f
0
m
M
N
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
I
Z
1
M
M
M
M
M
.R.
*Tl
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
9
T
Y
N
«'
m
N
m
N
F
n
N
n
N
n
N
n
n
mF
F
F
F
F
F
N
N
N
rn
c
•v
C
d
C
O
N
C
a)
a) y
n�
L) EU
O
T N
Tc QC
a)
Z ay
w °' a
Z
E
E >
U U 0
U U U U
c
O
> U > > >
d$a)a)a)
a n n n
O C 0 0 0
O)
C
v o)
N�
a
,a 0
Ga?
c0
L
w0 c C
cm8:2
C cMD a) Co
a c m
Q > ZS
LJI COO „N„0000 NO �N, 000000 OONO
N 0)O 000o d0 O cO CO 00 co Ch cOOf�O
C! 0 C 0000 00 CO�trO� c0� ^Of"-
N 0 C) O O 00 � O a) In ) co O O to M N R i LC) c0
N M co N CO O N 0 M O N O 0) �•' ' c(•) N
C
a)
ti •' n
()
IA y O
IL D
++ 0) 0 N 7 N
C c W `a
c O U O N LL a) O N T co
m d a p (a� N act d
Y W'a w 0 4) ID m 'E
�X O c a O�r0�2�a0WOOM00000020
O y
o
7 C
CL
�Q
V
O1 r��L, co r- co m ��V� " t2
z
N
CL
y
N
a)
N
m
m
U
m
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 G
cON0000 G
1�C710000
cD O O N C) I�
M N M
O
O
CD
N
0 a) N
co
~ -a -a N U
aci� DOE
m a�i`8E60
�0w0NU
N
C C
c 0 m
o•
� m a0i
j N
Q O W
0 >(D c
U) d Q 5
a7
C C C U > N
N W
00 (D U
L
U) ZZ 2(')
C
a)
E
Q m o
mma'� v
aa� m
a) a) m
m m O N
7
c 8CL m5
rLL LL ; O
5 V% N
$gg =2 >ir
a
9 - - — M N
c r
a)
IL
;
O
H
A
E
x
O
a
O.
Q
O
a
c
rn
m
N
111
a,
r
7
O
w
m
'o
a`
d
L
O
C)
O 000 N
O
CD
O O O O E
O
r O�Of)00
000
O
>C ca)
a) (n
O
in v
m mn]
a)
N +••, Q N
m O
�? a
cc
Z
ch N
Z
0 a) m a) m zt
U U c0
V% a) 07 Z
N
!n O)
Z ?` — O
7 a[2 7 0> L O
a) E a O. a N O.
fn
0 r-
l0 0 0
U) (n (n Z (n
d' �at7 �CD
MppZ
Zoo ZZZZZ
0U") 0
M� O
Lno(DLO
cO 't NCO
cooUO0rnrn M
OD 0) COOa 00
Q N r st
r r N
W N r r O) O) O CA
N
7
CL
E
co
U
y
m
c
cc
U
d
a
N N
0) O
c U
O
U
a) co
O
N
7
V 7
Q
d C C N
O Z a)
0 (0
N
U o O �
O�
a 2 Y w
O
-5
0 Q ir
-i
—i d3�
U Y Y m Y
O1 r��L, co r- co m ��V� " t2
z
N
CL
y
N
a)
N
m
m
U
m
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 G
cON0000 G
1�C710000
cD O O N C) I�
M N M
O
O
CD
N
0 a) N
co
~ -a -a N U
aci� DOE
m a�i`8E60
�0w0NU
N
C C
c 0 m
o•
� m a0i
j N
Q O W
0 >(D c
U) d Q 5
a7
C C C U > N
N W
00 (D U
L
U) ZZ 2(')
C
a)
E
Q m o
mma'� v
aa� m
a) a) m
m m O N
7
c 8CL m5
rLL LL ; O
5 V% N
$gg =2 >ir
a
9 - - — M N
c r
a)
IL
;
O
H
A
E
x
O
a
O.
Q
O
a
c
rn
m
N
111
a,
r
7
O
w
m
'o
a`
d
L
O
C)
O 000 N
O
+N+000
O C 0 0 0
O O O O E
O
r O�Of)00
000
O
c0000
(00
O1 000 O
O
N cD LOO
c0 CT C 0
LO
10
MNMN
r
M (000^
(OO
Cl)
M N
N
N
()
O)
a)
N
N
IL
c0
C
Q
0
2
N
CD
N N
O D
m w
a c
C) r_
V5 E
iOwU
CD
m
d
.R
J
T
a
(n
CD
En
m Y
U C
= E _ E
NSE1E
a)a)00 O
01- w U m U
a)
M
L
LL
a
a
i l '!
z
J
W
U
U
N
X
O
n
O
Q
W
N
N
U
a)
O
CL
O
2
IL
m
N
M
0
rn
N
O1
ti
N
a
w
H
z
w w
2 z
w O
J N
W }
zm
a v,
go
J
� F
d' < z
U Q
O
a
z
D
C9
w
N
J
W
ilv
�I
u�
v
RONNIE
ilv
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding adopting a new Resolution of Application to the
Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County ( LAFCO) and Reorganization
Agreement between Hawthorne, El Segundo and the developer with respect to the Los
Angeles Air Force Base project.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Council consider adoption of a LAFCO Resolution of Application and approval of a
Reorganization Agreement; and /or
2. Provide direction to staff with respect to LAFCO staff's position that it will not
recommend that LAFCO adopt the conditions requested by the City; or,
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
At the July 15, 2003, City Council meeting, the Council adopted the LAFCO Resolution of
Application, which gave LAFCO the formal authority to proceed with the reorganization of Area
A from the territorial boundaries of El Segundo to Hawthorne. The Resolution requested that
LAFCO impose certain conditions on the reorganization and that if LAFCO was not going to
adopt the conditions as part of the reorganization, that LAFCO deny the application for
reorganization. The City of Hawthorne on July 16, 2003 adopted a similar resolution.
(Continued on next page...)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution (to be distributed separately)
B. Draft Reorganization Agreement (to be distributed separately)
C. LAFCO Letter, dated July 18, 2003
D. July 15, 2003 Staff Report (without Exhibits)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
NIA
Amount Requested:
N/A
Account Number:
NIA
Project Phase:
N/A
Appropriation Required: _Yes X No
-71-1110,3
M. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
A*
Ma ry Stre C:iityv Mana ge r
I I �)
STAFF REPORT: August 5, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 2
The Executive Officer of LAFCO, Larry J. Calemine, sent a letter to the City on July 18, 2003
(Exhibit C) stating that LAFCO staff will not recommend that Commission adopt the requested
conditions. The letter states that the hearing on the reorganization has been set forAugust 13,
2003. Finally, the letter provides that the Executive Officer will recommend denial of the
reorganization unless El Segundo and Hawthorne propose an alternative course of action by
July 31, 2003. The City Manager has contacted Mr. Calamine to inform him that the City
Council will consider this matter at its August 5, 2004 meeting and that LAFCO Staff will
receive notice of any relevant action from that Meeting by August 6, 2003.
The requested conditions generally provided for (1) the reorganization to not become effective
until El Segundo and Hawthorne have provided notice to LAFCO thatthe conditions detailed in
the July 15, 2003 Staff Report (Exhibit D) had been satisfied; and (2) Hawthorne to make
certain payments to El Segundo in the event that the reorganization is completed but the Air
Force Base Project does not meet certain milestones. If the first condition is not imposed, El
Segundo will not have any assurance that the project will proceed to the point where the
developer has executed an agreement with the Air Force Base for the construction of the Base
facilities before the reorganization becomes effective.
With respect to Hawthorne's obligation to make payments to El Segundo in the event the
Project does not reach certain milestones, this obligation is also set forth in the Reorganization
Agreement that was executed by El Segundo, Hawthorne, and the developer. However, it will
not be a specific condition of the reorganization that may be approved by LAFCO. The City
Attorney's Office requested that such condition be included by LAFCO so as to provide the
City with additional legal assurances respecting the condition.
Based upon discussions with LAFCO staff, it appears that they want El Segundo and
Hawthorne to retract their requests that LAFCO deny the reorganization application if the
desired conditions are not imposed. Staff will prepare a new resolution for Council's
consideration that will meet LAFCO's requests. Additionally, a new revised Reorganization
Agreement will be prepared for Council's consideration.
Staff is currently working with the parties to the project to determine whether there is
agreement with respect to the redevelopment documents that need to be approved by both El
Segundo and Hawthorne. This is the next critical step in the process with respect to the
project. Staff will be prepared to provide Council with an oral update respecting the
redevelopment documents at the council Meeting.
PAPlanning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \576 - 599 \EA - 577\8 -5 -03 LAFCO ais.5.clean.DOC
LAtF,
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HENRI F PELLISSIER
CHAIRMAN
Re: City of El Segundo Reorganization No_2003 -01
Gentlemen:
The cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne each submitted yesterday to the Local Agency
Formation Commission for Los Angeles County ( LAFCO) resolutions of application for
the initiation of proceedings for the reorganization of territory, along with other
documentation necessary to complete the application for the above - referenced proposal.
The resolutions contain identical requests that LAFCO include specific terms and
conditions in the Commission's resolution making determinations approving and
ordering the reorganization should it approve the proposed reorganization. These terms
and conditions provide for a conditional effective date for the proposed reorganization.
Your respective staffs and legal counsel had been advised by LAFCO staff and legal
counsel that LAFCO does not have the authority to adopt the terms and conditions
Yroposed. As Executive Officer, I v:ill not recommend that the Commission include
these terms and conditions in its resolution.
LAFCO has the discretion to disregard your proposed terms and conditions, and approve
the proposal with alternative terms and conditions. Your resolutions, however, also
request that if the proposed terms and conditions are not included, LAFCO not approve
the reorganization. Since, as discussed above, I will not recommend the proposed terms
and conditions set forth in the cities' resolutions, the Executive Officer's
recommendation, instead, will be to deny the proposal based upon the cities' stated
requests to not approve.
1 f i5
700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 350 GLENDALE CALIFORNIA 91 202
(B9 B) 254 -2454 • FAX 181 B) 254 -2452
YVONNE BRATHVWITE -BURKE
JAMES DIGIUSEPPE
JERRY GLADBACH
Q ^�
July 18, 2003
CAROL HERRERA
CINDYMSCKOVVSKIa
BEATRICE PROD
WILLIAM WENTWORTH
ZEV YAROSLAVSKY L
ALTERNATE MEMBERS
HAL BERNSON
KENNETHI CHAPPELL�
Mike Gordon v'
RICHARD H CLOSE
ROBERTTW GOLDSWORTHYY
City Of El Segundo
DON KNABE
STAFF
350 Main Street
LARRY COFFICER R
EXECUTIVE OFFICER Z
El Segundo, Ca 90245
SANDOR L WINGER
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE OFFICER
JUNE D SAVALA f
Larry M. Guidi, Mayor
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
City Of Hawthorne
'
4455 West 126`h Street
Hawthorne, Ca 90250
Re: City of El Segundo Reorganization No_2003 -01
Gentlemen:
The cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne each submitted yesterday to the Local Agency
Formation Commission for Los Angeles County ( LAFCO) resolutions of application for
the initiation of proceedings for the reorganization of territory, along with other
documentation necessary to complete the application for the above - referenced proposal.
The resolutions contain identical requests that LAFCO include specific terms and
conditions in the Commission's resolution making determinations approving and
ordering the reorganization should it approve the proposed reorganization. These terms
and conditions provide for a conditional effective date for the proposed reorganization.
Your respective staffs and legal counsel had been advised by LAFCO staff and legal
counsel that LAFCO does not have the authority to adopt the terms and conditions
Yroposed. As Executive Officer, I v:ill not recommend that the Commission include
these terms and conditions in its resolution.
LAFCO has the discretion to disregard your proposed terms and conditions, and approve
the proposal with alternative terms and conditions. Your resolutions, however, also
request that if the proposed terms and conditions are not included, LAFCO not approve
the reorganization. Since, as discussed above, I will not recommend the proposed terms
and conditions set forth in the cities' resolutions, the Executive Officer's
recommendation, instead, will be to deny the proposal based upon the cities' stated
requests to not approve.
1 f i5
700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 350 GLENDALE CALIFORNIA 91 202
(B9 B) 254 -2454 • FAX 181 B) 254 -2452
Messrs. Gordon & Guidi
July 18, 2003
Page Two
The hearing on this matter is being noticed for August 13, 2003, on an expedited basis as
requested by the cities. If the cities would like to propose an alternative course of action
we will need to receive further direction from the city councils no later than July 31,
2003.
Sincerely,
- LARRY 1. CALEMINE
Executive )bfficer
Cc: Sonja Ransom, Allen Matkins
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Public hearing for consideration and possible certification of an
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) for the Los Angeles
Air Force Base ( LAAFB) Land Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project.
(Environmental Assessment No. 577) and consideration of LAFCO Application and
Reorganization Agreement.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Open Public Hearing;
2) Discussion;
3) Reading of Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report and making related findings;
4) Reading of Resolution approving LAFCO application;
5) Approving Reorganization Agreement with the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne
Redevelopment Agency and SAMS Venture LLC; and /or,
6) Other possible action /direction.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Commencing with the selection of an environmental consultant on April 16, 2002 by the City
Council, staff has been working on the environmental review documents and other related
entitlements for the LAAFB Land Conveyance, Construction and Development project to
facilitate the relocation of the LAAFB Space and Missile Systems Center (SAMS) from Area A
of the LAAFB to Area B ("the SAMS project" or "project ").
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft City Council Resolution (CEQA)
2. Draft City Council Resolution ( LAFCO) and Draft Reorganization Agreement (Exhibit C)
3. Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments, May 22, 2003.
4. Hawthorne Police Department Memo
5. Col. Brackett Letter
6. BRAC Closure timeline and Criteria
7. Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation Report
8. Redevelopment Report (Distributed separately)
9. Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Report
10. Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003.
11. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2540.
12. Final Environmental Impact StatemeWEnvironmental Impact Report (Distributed
Separately)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: N/A
Amount Requested: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: N/A
ORIGI TED: DATE: July 10,
Jaryies Ki. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
REVIEWPD BY: DATE:
Mary St*r , City Manager
-71°l�
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 2
On May 22, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft EIS /EIR for the project and
unanimously recommended Council approval of the project. The purpose of tonight's meeting
is for the City Council to consider and take action on the Final EIS /EIR, the Resolution of
LAFCO Application and the Reorganization Agreement for the project.
This staff report aims to highlight the various components to the project, identify the actions
required of the City Council, identify significant issues that have yet to be resolved, and
discuss a number of important actions that would have to take place outside the control of the
City Council after certification of the EIS /EIR for the project to be implemented.
To begin, staff has provided a brief outline of the topics in this report
1) Project Description
2) Items for Council Action:
a) CEQA (certification of Final EIS /EIR)
i) Summary of Project Impacts
ii) Statement of Overriding Considerations
b) LAFCO Reorganization Application (Adoption of Resolution of Application)
c) Reorganization Agreement
3) Actions that have to occur and have to become final and take effect after this
evening in order for project to be carried out:
a) Hawthorne adopts entitlements on Area A and Lawndale Annex (July 16)
b) Hawthorne adopts LAFCO Resolution of Application (July 16)
c) LAAFB issue ROD with respect to the NEPA determination for the Project
d) LAFCO approves reorganization (August 13)
e) Components of the Financing Plan must be approved
i) Hawthorne adopts Redevelopment Plan for Areas A and B (September 8)
ii) El Segundo introduces ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan for
inclusion of Areas A and B in Hawthorne Redevelopment Area No. 2 (September
2, 2003)
iii) Inclusionary Housing Requirement
iv) Hawthorne and SAMS Venture LLC resolve issues relating to development fees;
v) The County enters into an agreement/adopts resolution whereby the County's
tax revenues from Area A are transferred to Hawthorne;
vi) Bonds issued for the financing of the improvements on Area A.
f) No protest of LAFCO actions or LAFCO reconsideration hearing
g) SAMS Venture LLC enters into an unconditional agreement with the LAAFB to build
the Air Force Base facilities on Area B.
h) SAMS Venture LLC constructs LAAFB Facilities.
1) Project Description
Briefly, the proposed project consists of the possible conveyance, development and use of
four properties currently belonging to the Los Angeles Air Force Base ( LAAFB), which are
ir_1
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 3
referred to as: Area A, Area B, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley property. Under
the proposed concept, Area A, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley property will be
conveyed to a private developer (a partnership of Kearny, Morgan Stanley Real Estate
Fund IV, and Catellus — "SAMS Venture LLC ") in exchange for constructing new buildings
(560,000 square feet) for the Air Force on Area B. In the DEIS /EIR, Area A was analyzed
with a maximum of 850 condominium units and Area B was analyzed with a maximum of
300 condominium units. Since no new development is proposed on Sun Valley Property, it
was analyzed with its existing industrial/ warehouse use. A complete project description is
contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit D). Subsequent to the
distribution of the Planning Commission staff report, the developer agreed to reduce the
density on Area A from 850 units (22 units /acre) to a maximum of 750 units (19 units /acre)
and agreed to reduce the density on the Lawndale Annex from 300 units to a maximum of
280 units.
It is noteworthy that the City has received comments to the effect that if the proposed
project does not proceed and the Air Force does close its facilities on Area A and Area B
that such properties would eventually become tax generating commercial properties.
However, under a myriad of federal regulations, including the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, the properties must first be offered
for use to other federal agencies, homeless assistance program providers, public benefit
transfers, and local redevelopment authorities. Accordingly, it is not possible to predict
what uses Area A and B would ultimately host should the military facilities be closed on
these properties.
2) Items for Council Action
a) CEQA
The primary role of the CSty in the entitlement processing for the LAAFB project is to
take action on the (EIS /EIR). For purposes of California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the City is the lead agency in the preparation of the EIS /EIR. The City of
Hawthorne and the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agencies are responsible agencies
under CEQA. The United States Air Force is the lead agency for purposes of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As the Council will recall, early on in the LAAFB
project, the City prepared a draft EIR for the commercial development of Area A as part
of the project. After consultation with the Air Force and the City of Hawthorne, all three
parties agreed to prepare a joint EIS /EIR instead that would examine the impacts of the
entire LAAFB project in one environmental document. The attached Planning
Commission staff report from May 22, 2003 summarizes in greater detail the
environmental review process that has taken place. Subsequent to that meeting, the
Final EIS /EIR was distributed for public review on July 3, 2003. It was also sent to all
public agencies that provided comment on the draft EIS /EIR ten days before tonight's
meeting as required by CEQA.
If the City Council certifies the EIS /EIR (Draft Resolution attached as Exhibit 1), the City
of Hawthorne would also have to take action on the document in order to use it as the
��n
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 4
environmental document for the entitlements for the development of the residential
projects on Area A and the Lawndale Annex. Hawthorne may not take final action on
any of the project entitlements until El Segundo certifies the EIS /EIR. Hawthorne is
scheduled to take final actions on Wednesday, July 16, 2003.
i) Summary of Project Impacts
Because the Draft EIS /EIR is written to provide an environmental analysis to satisfy
the requirements of both CEQA and NEPA, there are differences in the standards
for determining the significance of environmental impacts. Under CEQA, the Draft
EIS /EIR concluded that there would be significant unavoidable impacts on
aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short-term soils and geology, air quality,
short-term construction noise, and operational noise, after the implementation of all
feasible mitigation measures. Some of these impacts apply to both the proposed
action and the project alternatives; others only apply to one or more of the project
alternatives.
As the lead agency for CEQA compliance, the City of El Segundo is responsible for
evaluating the potential impacts of all the project alternatives. However, the City is
only required to make findings related to the potential impacts associated with the
proposed action, not the project alternatives. The significant unavoidable project
related CEQA impacts of the proposed action would be on aesthetics,
transportation, libraries, parks, air quality, and short-term construction noise.
The Draft EIS /EIR also concluded that the proposed project, in conjunction with
other planned and approved projects, would contribute to a significant unavoidable
cumulative traffic, mobile source air emissions, and regional solid waste impact. The
Planning Commission Staff Report attached as Exhibit 3 includes a discussion of
each of these issues. As a result of these findings, in order for the City to take
action on the project, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
On June 12, 2003, staff received a copy of a memo from the Hawthorne Police
Department (Exhibit 4) stating that since the size of the project has been reduced, it
would not assess the impact of the project on police services until the project is
built. Consequently, there is no need for three to four officers as a result of the
project and no mitigation fees would be required to offset the impact on police
services.
Col. Bracket of the Air Force Space Command submitted a letter to the City on May
22, 2003 (Exhibit 5) explaining that the "No- action Alternative" in the Draft EIS /EIR
would not be a viable option for the LAAFB base to pursue. According to the letter,
the cost of renovating the existing facilities on Area A would be significantly more
than relocating to new facilities. Additionally, the letter goes on to state that
traditional military construction (MILCON) funding sources are not expected to
become available to renovate the base.
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
ii) Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 5
The California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines provide
that:
"CEQA requires the decision - making agency to balance, as applicable,
the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining
whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological; or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental
impacts may be considered "acceptable ". (15093(a)"
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the
final EIR and /or other information in the record. This statement is necessary if the
agency also makes a finding under Section 15091 (a)(3).
Project benefits are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that
would not occur without the proposed project. As stated in the Final EIS /EIR, the
proposed project would result in significant unavoidable project related CEQA
impacts relative to aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, air quality, and short-
term construction noise,
The following substantial benefits will occur as a result of approval of the proposed
project:
(1) The Project is the best option for upgrading the USAF facilities, and thereby
preventing the LAAFB from being closed or relocated out of southern California
as part of the BRAC process. Deteriorating facilities such as exist on the LAAFB
as well as substandard seismic and life safety building standards such as exist
on the LAAFB are important criteria under the BRAC process for determining
whether a military facility should be closed (Exhibit 6). The Project will allow for
the redevelopment of the existing LAAFB facilities and remove existing
unattractive and unsafe buildings and conditions. The Project, therefore, will
substantially increase the likelihood of retaining the LAAFB in southern
California by allowing the construction of the SAMS Center on Area B. The
construction of the SAMS Center is expected to save approximately $3.5 million
in annual operations and maintenance for the USAF.
(2) The LAAFB currently provides approximately 65,000 jobs, and is projected to
provide approximately 75,000 jobs directly and indirectly through considerable
government contracts to local aerospace companies, currently valued at
$8,500,000,000 per year and expected to increase to $10, 000,000,000 per year
1 6. t
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 6
(Exhibit 7). Most of the jobs and contracts created by the LAAFB exist in the
City, Hawthorne, Manhattan Beach, and surrounding communities.
(3) The Project replaces currently underutilized USAF sites and replaces unsafe
USAF buildings with private uses that generate sufficient value to support the
construction of the new facilities for the USAF at no cost to the federal
government.
(4) The Project will create attractive, well- designed residential development
immediately adjacent to the City to serve the expected demand for new housing
in the region, which will further strengthen the sense of community, adhere to
livable community principles, and enhance the quality of life in southern
California.
(5) The Project will improve the region's jobs /housing balance by providing new
housing close to major employers.
(6) The Project facilitates of the long -term economic health of the City and its
neighboring cities and communities. "
(7) The Project provides for residential housing rather than commercial
development, which is preferred by the City of Hawthorne and the majority of the
Hawthorne residents that have spoken out with respect to the Project. The
Reorganization Agreement provides this residential component desired by
Hawthorne while providing El Segundo with assurances with respect to the use
of tax revenues derived from Area A. Thus, the "transfer" of property of Area A
from El Segundo has been accomplished through a mutually beneficial
agreement.
Staff recommends that the City Council find that the approval of the project could result
in significant unavoidable impacts relative to aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks,
air quality, and short-term construction noise. Implementation of mitigation measures
would substantially reduce some of significant unavoidable impacts but not completely
mitigate any of them. Staff recommends that the Council find that these immitigable
impacts are outweighed by the project benefits described above and therefore
acceptable.
b) LAFCO Application
On January 21, 2003, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4293, authorizing staff
to file a preliminary application (attached to Exhibit 3) for reorganization with the Local
Agency Formation Commission of Los Angeles to detach Area A and surrounding right-
of-ways from the City of El Segundo and allow the annexation of this land by the City of
Hawthorne. At about the same time, the City of Hawthorne adopted a similar
resolution.
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 7
The annexation area includes the approximately 39.24 acre Area A of the LAAFB. A
Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way occupies approximately 4.82 acres of the
annexation area abutting the south side of Area A. There are local railroad tracts and a
wireless communications facility, operated by Sprint, located in the right -of -way. An on-
and off -ramp to the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway occupies approximately 2.8 acres of the
annexation area on the east side of Area A. Street right -of -ways in Aviation and El
Segundo Boulevards comprise the remaining approximately 3.2 acres of the 50.1 acre
annexation area.
The purpose of the .proposed reorganization is to facilitate the construction of the
residential development on Area A of the Air Force Base. In authorizing the preliminary
reorganization application, the City Council expressed its policy of not permitting
residential development in the City of El Segundo east of Sepulveda Boulevard. The
majority of services that support residential development in the City (i.e., parks,
libraries, police, schools, City Hall, churches) are located in the northwest quadrant of
the City. Development of a residential project on Area A within El Segundo would result
in a residential community divided geographically and separated from the support
structures the rest of the community enjoys.
In order for LAFCO to consider the proposed reorganization, the City is required to
adopt a resolution of application (Exhibit 2). The EIS /EIR for the LAAFB project also
serves as the EIR for the reorganization application. In acting on the application,
LAFCO must consider the EIS /EIR in its role as a responsible agency under CEQA.
The resolution /application provides that it will not become effective until Hawthorne
adopts a similar resolution and the Reorganization Agreement is fully executed. The
reason for these conditions is to provide assurances to El Segundo that Hawthorne and
the developer are committed to requesting that LAFCO condition the reorganization to
include the terms and condition set forth in the Reorganization Agreement (discussed
below). Additionally, the proposed El Segundo and Hawthorne resolutions request that
LAFCO not approve the reorganization if LAFCO is unwilling to incorporate the key
terms and conditions of the Reorganization Agreement into is potential approval.
If approved by LAFCO, the reorganization would transfer the 50.1 acre annexation area
into the City of Hawthorne. El Segundo would no longer be responsible for police or fire
service for the area. Children living in the Area A development would attend schools in
the Wiseburn and Centinela Valley School Districts.
Since the annexation area would draw the new boundary line at the centerline of
Aviation and El Segundo Boulevards bordering Area A, staff has had discussions with
Hawthorne staff regarding maintenance of the median islands in El Segundo and
Aviation Boulevards, which would be located in both cities as a result of the new
boundary line. Management of both cities recommends that El Segundo be responsible
for maintenance of the landscaped median on El Segundo Boulevard between Aviation
Boulevard and Isis Avenue and that Hawthorne be responsible for maintaining the
paved median island on Aviation Boulevard between El Segundo Boulevard and the
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
southern boundary of Area A.
c) Reorganization Agreement
Page 8
The Reorganization Agreement (Exhibit C to Exhibit 2) is an attempt to provide some
assurances to the City of El Segundo with respect to the transfer of Area A and the
other properties that are part of the reorganization to the City of Hawthorne. There are
two contingencies dealt with in the Agreement: (1) The potential that all of the
necessary approvals and agreements are not attained by November 30, 2003; and (2)
the potential that the transfer of the property will become final but the Air Force Base
facilities are not constructed and Area A is not acquired by SAMS Venture, LLC or its
successor in interest. There are other potential scenarios that could develop whereby
the Air Force Base Facilities are not built. However, the above two scenarios are the
only scenarios where the City of Hawthorne and the developer would agree to provide
the City of El Segundo with some potential protection.
There are a number of risks associated with the way the approvals and agreements are
structured from a timing point of view. As is discussed in more detail below, staff has
been informed that if construction activities do not commence prior to the end of 2003
that there is a substantial chance that the Air Force Base will be designated for closure
as a result of the 2004 BRAC process. Thus, in order to achieve all of the necessary
approvals and agreements (particularly LAFCO's approval of the transfer of Area A and
associated properties to Hawthorne) such that construction can begin this year, it is
necessary that many of the approvals and agreements be acted upon subsequent to
the actions the Council is being asked to consider at this time. For example, the
developer's agreement to actually construct the Air Force Base Facilities will not be
executed, if at all, until sometime in November of this year.
Staff would have preferred that all of the project approvals and agreements would have
been brought forward at the same time and the only approval that would have been
made subsequent to the approval and agreements would have been LAFCO's approval
of the transfer of Area A and associated properties.
The Reorganization Agreement attempts to give the City of El Segundo and Hawthorne
the ability to cancel the transfer of the annexation area to Hawthorne should all of the
approvals and agreements identified above not occur on or before November 30, 2003,
or if there is a timely legal challenge to such approvals and agreements. This gives El
Segundo some protection against the loss of Area A and associated properties should
the approvals and agreements not occur in a timely fashion. However, if LAFCO does
not incorporate a condition in its action approving the transfer of Area A and associated
properties that effectively allows for El Segundo and Hawthorne to cancel the transfer,
then this portion of the Reorganization Agreement will be of no force or effect. It is not
known whether LAFCO staff will support the inclusion of this condition in its
recommendation for the project to the LAFCO Commission.
.t _ f
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 9
The Reorganization Agreement also provides that if the transfer of annexation area to
Hawthorne is approved by LAFCO, but (i) the Agreement between the Air Force and
the developer is terminated or amended such that the Base Facilities are not required
to be constructed and the developer has not already constructed the foundations forthe
facilities, or (ii) the developer has not commenced construction of the SAMS project on
Area B on or before December 31, 2007. Unless and until the SAMS project is
constructed the City of Hawthorne shall be required to make annual payments to El
Segundo as follows:
i) To the extent all or any portion of Area A is developed for residential uses,
Hawthorne shall pay El Segundo an amount equal to 50% of the property taxes
generated from such uses after all costs of Hawthorne providing services to such
residential uses and all of Hawthorne's affordable housing costs for Area A have
been satisfied.
ii) To the extent all, or a portion of Area A is developed for non - residential uses,
Hawthorne shall pay El Segundo an amount equal to 37.5% of the property taxes
received from such non - residential uses and 50% of all other revenue generated by
such non - residential uses.
Hawthorne can terminate its obligation to make such payments to El Segundo by
transferring the annexation area back to El Segundo. El Segundo would be obligated
to undertake all lawful actions to assist in such transfer or otherwise risk loss of the
payments from Hawthorne. If Hawthorne does attempt to transfer the annexation area
back to El Segundo, El Segundo will need to determine at such time if it wants the
properties A back (with the land uses constructed on Area A) or whether it would rather
forego the payments from Hawthorne. Finally, with respect to the payments that might
be made by Hawthorne as described above, staff believes it is unlikely that El Segundo
would receive any payments for a substantial period of time from the residential use of
Area A.
The Reorganization agreement does not, again, deal with all of the potential
contingencies that could occur with respect to the project. For example, there is the
potential that Area A and associated properties could be transferred to Hawthorne, the
Air Force facilities are built but then the Air Force subsequently stops utilizing the new
facilities for military purposes. In this scenario, Hawthorne would have no obligation to
make payments to El Segundo measured by the amount of taxes generated by the
annexation area as the tax increments from Area A will have already been pledged to
the development of Area B.
3) Actions that have to occur after Council action on Reorganization in order for the
project to be implemented
Due to the complexities of the project, including procedural requirements by LAFCO and
timing constraints placed on the project by the Air Force, successful completion of the
project requires that all entitlements and other project approvals and the developer's
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 10
agreement with the Air Force Base be in full force and effect by November 30, 2003. In
order for this to be accomplished, while at the same time following procedural requirements
of El Segundo, Hawthorne, and LAFCO, it is necessary for El Segundo to complete its
portion of the project review before Hawthorne completes its entitlement process and
before LAFCO takes action on the reorganization of Area A of the LAAFB. If Hawthorne
and /or LAFCO do not take the actions anticipated by staff to approve their portions of the
project within the timeframes identified in the section above that immediately precedes
"Project Description," the November 30, 2003, deadline will not be met, even though the
City Council takes all the actions tonight that are required of the City to implement the
project. Staff feels it is important to make clear that there are actions which are outside the
control of the City of El Segundo that are critical for the project to move forward and for the
goal of retaining the LAAFB to be achieved and that many of these actions will take place
after the City Council has completed its portion of the entitlement process. Below is a
discussion in more detail of each of the critical actions that must take place.
a) Hawthorne adopts entitlements on Area A and Lawndale Annex (July 16)
Under the provisions of CEQA, the City of Hawthorne, as a responsible agency, cannot
take any actions on the entitlements on Area A and the Lawndale Annex until El
Segundo, as lead agency, certifies the EIS /EIR. Hawthorne introduced ordinances to
approve all of the required entitlements on July 7, 2003 and is scheduled to adopt the
entitlements on July 16, 2003. The actions Hawthorne would be taking include adoption
of a general plan amendment, specific plan, zone change, subdivision, and
development agreement for the residential development that would take place on Area
A and the Lawndale Annex. Since Area A would be detached from El Segundo and
annexed into Hawthorne as part of the proposed project, Hawthorne is responsible for
pre- zoning the site.
Staff is aware that many members of the public have expressed concern about the
density of the project, particularly on Area A. If the Hawthorne City Council reduces the
density allowed in the specific plans for Area A or the Lawndale Annex below 750 units
and 280 units, respectively, it could jeopardize the financial viability of the LAAFB
conveyance, construction and development project because the density for the
residential development is the basis for determining the value of the land that the
developer would realize in exchange for spending $115 million in construction costs for
the Air Force's new facilities on Area B. As the Council will recall, the City stopped
consideration of a commercial development on Area A when the developer determined
that a residential project, which was preferred by the Hollyglen community, could
generate sufficient revenue to match the commercial project revenue that is needed to
finance the $115 million Air Force facilities. Since the value of the revenue generation
potential of the residential project is related to the number of units, if Hawthorne were
unwilling to adopt specific plans for Area A and the Lawndale Annex that allow for
enough density to support the project on Area B, as a result of community pressure,
retention of the base would be put in jeopardy.
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
b) Hawthorne adopts LAFCO Resolution of Application (July 16)
Page 11
LAFCO must approve the proposed reorganization to allow the detachment of
approximately 50 acres of land, which includes Area A of the LAAFB, right -of -way
owned by Caltrans and the Union Pacific Railroad, and street right -of -way on Aviation
and El Segundo Boulevards from the City of El Segundo and the annexation of this
land into the City of Hawthorne. The intent of the reorganization is to allow the
residential development of Area A of the LAAFB within the City of Hawthorne instead of
within the City of El Segundo. Before LAFCO can consider the reorganization, both
cities must adopt a resolution of application. The El Segundo City Council is scheduled
to consider adopting a Resolution of Application (Exhibit 2) tonight and the Hawthorne
City Council is scheduled to consider adoption of a similar resolution on July 16, 2003.
Again, El Segundo's Resolution will not become effective until Hawthorne adopts its
resolution in a form identical to El Segundo's (Exhibit D to Exhibit 2).
In order for all of the challenge periods to run out before November 30, 2003, LAFCO
must approve the reorganization application by August 13, 2003. On June 25, 2003,
LAFCO voted to waive its 21 -day notice period, as allowed by law, so that it is possible
that LAFCO may act on the reorganization on July 23 instead of August 13. However,
any delay on El Segundo or Hawthorne's part in submitting the Resolutions of
Application could delay action by LAFCO beyond the August 13 deadline. If this
deadline is not met, the November 30 deadline will not be met.
c) United States Air Force signs Record of Decision (August 8)
As the lead agency for purposes of NEPA on the EIS /EIR, the United States Air Force
is responsible for certifying the EIS portion of the EIS /EIR. This is accomplished by the
Air Force approving the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is the legally binding
document that stipulates all of the mitigation measures that the Air Force will be
responsible for implementing. The Air Force is scheduled to sign the ROD, thereby
completing the NEPA process on August 8, 2003.
d) LAFCO approves reorganization (August 13)
Staff is recommending that the Council consider adoption of a Reorganization
Agreement that would be an agreement between the El Segundo, Hawthorne, the
Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency, and the developer as a way to address some of
the uncertainties of the process that could adversely affectthe interests of El Segundo.
On June 25, 2003, LAFCO voted to waive its public hearing for the reorganization
application as is allowed by law. As a result, LAFCO may be able to make a decision on
the reorganization on July 23 instead of August 13 as originally scheduled.
e) Financing Plan must be approved
Through the process of competitive bidding, the developer was awarded the right to
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 12
construct the new Air Force base facilities on Area B in exchange for receiving land
(Area A, Lawndale Annex and Sun Valley Property) based on a proposed funding
package. The cost to construct the new facilities will be $115 million. Through a
competitive process, the United States Air Force has agreed to accept responsibility for
$11 million of costs, either by reducing the costs of construction or some other means
of providing additional payments to the developer. The developer has proposed to
finance its costs by the sale of the three properties that the developer would receive
from the Air Force ($80 million) and the sale of Mello Roos bonds and tax allocation
bonds based on special taxes and the increased property tax valuation that would be
created by the new development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex ($24 -39.5 million).
This $24 -39.5 million is the public funding requirement for the project.
The City of Hawthorne hired a financial advisor, Keyser, Marston & Associates (KMA),
to review the financial estimates on behalf of the City of Hawthorne (Exhibit 8). El
Segundo hired the firm of Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (FRA) to review the
developer's estimates and the KMA analysis. Both KMA and FRA have verified that the
developer's estimates for construction costs and property value appear to be
reasonable and accurate (Exhibit 9).
The sufficiency of available funding based on tax increment and Mello Roos special
taxes are reasonable, given the assumptions forthe number, type and market values of
the residential units to be constructed. It is important to point out that the financing
proposals for the project have evolved since the beginning of the project and are likely
to continue to evolve even after project entitlements are in place. There are many
variables in the processes; particularly those involved with the issuance of bonds that
make it difficult to evaluate the likelihood that the financing will be successful. For
instance, the initial estimates of the feasibility of using tax increment financing to raise
$24 million was based on an analysis that 850 units would be built on Area A. To the
best of staff's knowledge, neither the developer nor the City of Hawthorne have
prepared any subsequent analysis to verify that the current proposal for 750 units on
Area A would provide equal bonding capacity.
i) Hawthorne adopts Redevelopment Plan for Areas A and B (September 8)
The developer and the City of Hawthorne are proposing to include the residential
development of Area A into an existing Redevelopment Plan area in the City of
Hawthorne. The Lawndale Annex is already located in the same redevelopment
plan area (No. 2). By including the project in a redevelopment area, the project may
take advantage of state laws that allow for bonds to be issued by the
Redevelopment Agency based on the future property tax increase that would be
generated by the new development. It is proposed that the proceeds of these bonds
($24 -39.5 million) would also be used for the construction of the Air Force facilities
on Area B.
Area B is also proposed to be included in the Hawthorne Redevelopment Plan area
No. 2 even though Area B would remain in the City of El Segundo. A
1Ji
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 13
Redevelopment Agency is required to spend a portion of the tax increment that it
receives from new development in the plan area on public improvements. By
including Area B in the Hawthorne Redevelopment Plan area, it potentially enables
that requirement to be satisfied through the Agency's contribution toward the cost of
some of the improvements on the Air Force Base itself.
Due to the complexities of redevelopment law, it was not possible for Hawthorne to
amend its redevelopment area to include Area A and /or Area B of the base into their
redevelopment project area at the same time as all the other entitlements are
considered. Additionally, given the expedited pace of processing the projectto date,
the details of the Redevelopment Plan have not been given significant focus to date.
As a result, a draft of the Redevelopment Plan has just been issued but it is still
under review by the parties and there will be additional documents generated to
potentially implement the Redevelopment Plan. The Hawthorne Redevelopment
Agency is not expected to considerthe amendments until September 8, 2003, which
is well after LAFCO will have acted on the reorganization. There are a number of
critical components to the redevelopment actions that could pose challenges to the
Cities and the project. Given the status of the Redevelopment Plan, it is not
possible to provide an adequate analysis of all the issues at this time. Moreover, it
is unknown whether there may be components of the Plan that may be
unacceptable to El Segundo.
Based upon the financing plan being proffered by the developer, if the amended
redevelopment plan were not approved, or if the development of Area A and the
Lawndale Annex were approved in such a way that sufficient revenues would not be
generated from the residential projects to meet the financial requirements of the
overall project, retention of the Air Force base could be compromised. The actions
of the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency are largely out of the control of El
Segundo. The Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency would be the entity issuing the
tax allocation bonds and Mello Roos bonds. They have bond experts working for
them to evaluate the feasibility of issuing an amount currently estimated to be $24-
39.5 million in bonds. It is staffs understanding that the redevelopment plan would
not be approved by the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency without the commitment
by the Agency to issue the necessary bonds. Consequently, if the Hawthorne
Redevelopment Agency approves the redevelopment plan as now proposed, the
majority of the public funding portion of the financing plan would be in place.
As explained in Section iii below, the developer and Hawthorne are still attempting
to address the financing of the affordable housing component of the
Redevelopment Plan. This continues to be a significant hurdle to the Plan.
ii) El Segundo introduces ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan for inclusion
of Areas A and B in Hawthorne Redevelopment Area No. 2 (September 2. 2003)
As explained above, it is not possible to provide an adequate analysis of how the
Plan may affect El Segundo. However, set forth below are some of the issues that
13 ''
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
have been identified by staff.
Page 14
The City Council previously authorized the City of Hawthorne to study the inclusion
of Area A and B of the LAAFB into the Hawthorne redevelopment area. Since Area
A and Area B of the LAAFB are currently in El Segundo, the City Council has to give
its final approval to the inclusion of these areas in the Hawthorne redevelopment
area. By doing so, El Segundo would be giving up land use control of the properties.
If all goes according to plan, it would not be an issue because Area A would be
annexed into the City of Hawthorne and Area B, as a federal government facility, is
not currently subject to local land use control.
However, there are a number of issues that will need to be discussed and analyzed.
For example, staff will want to ensure that the Plan does not provide for any
affordable housing component in Area A or Area B (in the event the Air Force Base
facilities are not built). Additionally, staff will want the Plan to have an enforceable
"sunset" provision in the plan should the project not proceed as planned or in the
event that the Air Force stops utilizing Areas A and B in the future or, as an
alternative the Redevelopment Plan must clearly provide that any potential tax
revenues generated from Area B must belong to El Segundo. There may be
additional issues that are presented in the future but, again, given the lack of
information currently available, it is not possible to provide additional analysis
regarding this issue.
iii) Inclusionary Housing Requirement
To complicate matters, redevelopment law also requires that when new housing is
built in a redevelopment area, 15% of the units must be set aside for low- and
moderate - income residents. Based on a total of 1,030 units on Area A and the
Lawndale Annex, 154 affordable units would be required. These units are not
proposed to be located on either Area A or the Lawndale Annex. They would be
developed separately over time on some other location within the redevelopment
plan area. Hawthorne is requiring that the project finance the cost for these
additional units as well. KMA has estimated that a project in the City of Hawthorne
providing that number of low- and moderate- income units would have costs
exceeding the value of the LAAFB project of approximately $12.2 million plus the
cost of acquiring the land for the project.
iv) Hawthorne and SAMS Venture LLC resolve issues relating to development fees
The City of Hawthorne has determined that there would be a negative financial
impact on their City's General Fund to provide services to the project. Specifically,
Hawthorne has requested that the project reimburse the City for its out -of- pocket
costs for processing the entitlements ($762,850) and for future plan check review
costs that would be generated by the project ($1,750,0000). Hawthorne has also
suggested that $759,110 ($737.00 per unit) in general government costs would
need to be paid for by the project. These cost would add an additional $3.3 million
1 3J'
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 15
costs to the total project cost. These fees are incorporated into the proposed
development agreements between Hawthorne and the developer that would be
acted upon by the Hawthorne City Council on July 16, 2003.
The table below summarizes the current estimates of costs and funding sources forthe
proposed project as negotiated between the developer and the Air Force. The actual
"Gap" is subject to other items and potential costs as discussed in this report.
Source
Revenue
Cost
Construction of Area B
$ 115.0 million
Inclusiona Housing
$ 12.2 million
Hawthorne General Fund Costs
$ 3.3 Million
Land Values
Area A
$58 million
Lawndale Annex
$20 million
Sun Valle
$ 2 million
Public Funding Requirement
Tax Allocation/Special Tax Bonds
$39.5 million
Totals
$ 119.5 million
$ 130.5 million
GAP
$ 11 million
v) The County enters into an agreement/adopts resolution whereby the County's
tax revenues from Area A are transferred to Hawthorne-,
Another key component of the financing of the facilities, is an agreement by the
County to transfer the property tax it receives from the development Area A to
Hawthorne which will in turn use it to finance the Air Force Base facilities. To date
no such agreement has been reached and it is unknown whether the County will,
and under what potential conditions, agree to such a transfer. If such funds were
available, the ability of the project to support public financing would be enhanced.
The amount of public financing required would not change. It is staff's
understanding that the $24 -39.5 million bonding requirement is a conservative
estimate that assumes that the County's portion of the property tax revenue would
not be transferred to the project due to the uncertainties of if and when the County
might commit to such transfer. Staff has been unable to determine how much
additional potential bonding capacity could be generated from the tax increment if
the County were to transfer its share of revenue.
I i
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
vi) Bonds issued for the financing of the improvements on Area A
Page 16
Any public financing for the project must be supported by revenues, its tax
increment, or special taxes generated from within the "four corners" (Area A and
Lawndale Annex only) of the project. It appears that the City of Hawthorne does not
intend to provide additional financial support for public financing in any way and, in
fact, will make no representations as to the sufficiency of funds that can be
generated though public financing. Those items are elements of the risk assumed
solely by the developer.
As the project progresses, the developer is required to construct facilities for the Air
Force from its own resources and will incur its own obligations to be repaid through
the land sales of property to merchant builders or homeowners. Any public financing
would be issued at such time as (1) the project (or portion thereof) is defined and
can be appraised with its market absorption analyzed — for Mello Roos bond
financing, or (2) a portion of the project has been completed and is then generating
increased property taxes representing tax increment — for tax allocation bond
financing. The developer must provide its own interim financing to bridge any time
difference between the date that expenses are incurred and the date the public
financing for the expenses can be issued. For eithertype of financing, the amount of
financing is limited by the level of revenues available for repayment of debts, and is
further limited by the application of a coverage factor — a margin for bond holders
safety — generally estimated to be 1.2 times debt service.
The financial plan is in a relatively early state, particularly with the reduction in the
number of residential units. The ultimate determination of the sufficiency of public
financing is in the hands of the developer. This is emphasized by the fact that the
general outline of the financial terms proposed by the City of Hawthorne places all
the financial risk related to the availability of sufficiency of public financing on the
developer. KMA has not completed a financial review of the prospect of public
financing based on the lower number of residential units now proposed. For these
reasons, it is not possible for any financial consultants to provide a firm opinion on
the sufficiency of public financing. The only definitive statements possible are that
the assumptions used to date appear to be reasonable. The broad outline of the
financial plan (such as it exists) appears to be consistent with the state of California
redevelopment practice and land use financing practice and the developer
continues to act on the belief that public financing will be available in sufficient
amounts when needed.
f) No protest of LAFCO actions or LAFCO reconsideration hearing
The compressed timetable of the project dictated by the Air Force is dependant on
successfully completing the LAFCO reorganization process with no protest hearings or
reconsideration hearings being required. Staff and the Air Force have worked hard to
successfully gain the consent of all three property owners in the Annexation Area (Air
Force, Caltrans, and Union Pacific) to waive the public hearing and the right to a protest
iJi.
STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
hearing on the reorganization action
Page 17
Waiver of the public hearing also requires the consent of LAFCO. On June 25, 2003,
LAFCO agreed to waive the 21 -day notice period for the public hearing, as allowed by
law, instead of the public hearing itself. This means that the hearing could be held on
July 23 instead of August 13. However, the LAFCO process includes periods for
protests and for LAFCO to review requests for reconsideration of the LAFCO action.
g) Developer signs unconditional contract (November 17)
The final act in the process, which is outside the control of the City and which will not
happen before all of the entitlements are in place, is the execution of an unconditional
contract between the developer and the Air Force whereby the developer commits to
build the $115 million facility on Area B of the LAAFB. Currently, the developer is
negotiating with the Air Force on the terms of the contract, but there is no guarantee at
this point that there would not be some issues that could remain that would prevent the
signing of the contract by either party even if all of the above described actions fall in to
place as planned. If the contract between the Air Force and the developer were not
signed on November 17, 2003, as expected, the City could be faced with having agreed
to a reorganization and inclusion of Area A and B in the Hawthorne redevelopment area
with no resulting project. Again, staff will attempt to minimize this potential result
through the negotiation of the redevelopment documents.
h) SAMS Venture LLC constructs LAAFB Facilities.
If all of the previously described actions take place according to plan, culminating in the
execution of a contract between the developer and the Air Force, the developer would
begin construction of the new SAMS facilities on Area B by the end of this year. Based
on everything staff understands about the BRAC process, if the Air Force has begun
construction on new facilities on Area B to replace the existing seismically deficient
buildings on Area A, the likelihood that the base would be subject to closure in the next
BRAC process would be reduced but not eliminated.
PAPlanrnng & Building SafetyAPROJECTS 1576- 5991EA- 5771EA- 577.7- 15- 03.ais.3g.doc
1
❑
z
0 L
Zm
W J
a
. O
WF-
O�
U �
3
O
W
F
h
W
K
ee
0
0
N
N
O
f
N
O
Q
LL
O
fd
Q
Q
O
a.
a
a
Q
LL
O
W
F
0
e n v m m m v
tIA t7 N m n 0)
Oi O0O ' M {r{-�0 1 '
10 O V O C,4
m N O]
o m IZI
m
In
w
z LL
LL ui K
n p z U a UJ
w Z LL z O m
ap 4a {l1
H �� 2rQ[ W N W F z 00
O Z I Z ? m ra ? g w W U Z N
p F 0 a a w g a LL w z=Z, > p
I '.r Mw
Q 20 Ill U) W
p�: LL w O m w W Z p Q O Q' W Z W UmZ Ow mV X �n
LL�3 vgF�O zz z z U z W a N D z=.wmm V
�U(7 cg��pa L) O��LLy�� W DOw pap ap W
w LL F n w a a w W a (7 ma w❑ W IOi a w w N
W a'FQ-rTvli m O¢ wm O >>a pF-0t%i aLLaa 00 j0 IL IL
U' .NaQUaaQ22�f U4U?Ia.30 u1 ;Kw W o
0 (p
N
N
CDf
N
O
m
z
Z
W
Z
J
Q
O
F
W
D
N
Y
V
W
Q
V
G
O
d
m m c�
co
cND�NO
O V f� c 00
c
Nc� m0
N
In
w
z LL
LL ui K
n p z U a UJ
w Z LL z O m
ap 4a {l1
H �� 2rQ[ W N W F z 00
O Z I Z ? m ra ? g w W U Z N
p F 0 a a w g a LL w z=Z, > p
I '.r Mw
Q 20 Ill U) W
p�: LL w O m w W Z p Q O Q' W Z W UmZ Ow mV X �n
LL�3 vgF�O zz z z U z W a N D z=.wmm V
�U(7 cg��pa L) O��LLy�� W DOw pap ap W
w LL F n w a a w W a (7 ma w❑ W IOi a w w N
W a'FQ-rTvli m O¢ wm O >>a pF-0t%i aLLaa 00 j0 IL IL
U' .NaQUaaQ22�f U4U?Ia.30 u1 ;Kw W o
0 (p
N
N
CDf
N
O
m
z
Z
W
Z
J
Q
O
F
W
D
N
Y
V
W
Q
V
G
O
d
N
c
N
p
o
w
n
IA
U d c c
d d o d
� d O E
_O
2y
vi
�yda
fq
C
m j d
E
CL
V m C
E
£
m
O
° E a n a
CO O m
`o
E
d
d
° a
R
m
d
A O d
F
d
C O
d
m
P)
E v E y m
N
l0 M
d
m
0 d
E m U N
d
O
5
�
c
t n N
N
d
C C
Y
� = 0 �. N
d
:F= C
d
N
N
Z
c 'o
od
°- jO�cio
O
O
lo
d
4
d 3>
m
d
E
C U
d
-2
m
I�
W» c
n ° t
N O
V
d
T
p W-
N y C 3
v
d
d L
m
J
W O d
N
O> U
a
d
W
d d
aw0�
U d
O
O
<
O�
d � >
z U N w
d
t N
12 d d
E
O co € A
E
o
O
A d c
E E
=
Qo U
o �
�
a
LL
£
o
°-
m
O
W z
Z 4
w
m
d a
II
`O
II
LL
la- O
N U
° Li
O
U a:
w
Q
m
w
� U ❑
d
r
a
d
0
M \C
a
M
M
m
c
d
d
Co
� U
d j
m w
d V%
a'
d a p
W �
D
? "V
= a 1
O
0
O
w w
II 2' Q
2 O O
h
D
5
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
7/4/2003 THROUGH 7/24/2003
Date
7/7/03
7/7/03
7/9/03
7/10/03
7/10/03
7/15/03
6/27/03
7/17/03
7/17/03
7/17/03
7/22/03
7/22/03
7/24/03
6/13- 7/3/03
Payee Amount
Description
Federal Reserve
15000
Employee Savings Bonds EE
Federal Reserve
60000
Employee Savings Bonds I
Health Comp
2,03352
Weekly claims 6/27
Health Comp
2,53483
Weekly claims 7/4
West Basin
801,190 90
H2O payment
US Bank
378,468.93
ABAG payment
PGC El Segundo LLC
36,302.69
Golf Course Payroll Transfer
Health Comp
1,313.00
Weekly claims 7/11
Employment Development
35,525 00
State Taxes PR PR 2
IRS
186,673 02
Federal Taxes PR 2
Federal Reserve
5000
Employee Savings Bonds EE
Federal Reserve
75000
Employee Savings Bonds I
Health Comp
1,47185
Weekly claims 7/18
Workers Comp Activity
48,976 79
SCRMA checks issued
1,496,040.53
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 8/5/03
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE:
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by
Dep ty Treas rer Date
�z z p
Director of Administrative Service Datb
City M n er Date
1,496,040.53
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo
1��
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003 — 5:00 P.M.
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Gordon at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gordon -
Present
Mayor ProTem Jacobs -
Present
Council Member Gaines -
Present
Council Member McDowell-
Present
Council Member Wernick -
Present
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act
(Government Code Section §54960, et se q.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real
Property Negotiator; and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation;
and /or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or
conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956.9(a)) — 2
matters.
Bressi v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. BC288292
Bressi v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. BC288293
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -0- potential case (no
further public statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government
Code §54956.9(c): -1- matter.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — None.
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) — 2 matters
1. Labor Negotiators: Bruce Barsook and Mary Strenn, City Manager
Bargaining Units: Police Officers' Association and Firefighters' Association
Conference with City's Labor Negotiator, City Manager, regarding Management/Confidential
employee group (unrepresented)
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0- matter
SPECIAL MATTERS — None.
Council moved to open session at 6:55 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
PAGE NO 1
i , J
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 15, 2003 — 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Gordon at 7:00 p.m.
INVOCATION — Pastor Rich Reid of El Segundo Christian Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Kelly McDowell
PRESENTATIONS —
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gordon -
Present
Mayor ProTem Jacobs -
Present
Council Member Gaines -
Present
Council Member McDowell-
Present
Council Member Wernick -
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. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow
Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after
Public Communications is closed.
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title only.
MOVED by Council Member, SECONDED by Council Member, to read all ordinances and
resolutions on the Agenda by Title only. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE
VOTE. 5/0
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Public hearing for consideration and possible certification of an Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) for the Los Angeles Air Force Base
(LAAFB) Land Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project. (Environmental
Assessment No. 577) and consideration of LAFCO Application and Reorganization
Agreement.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
PAGE NO 2
Mayor Gordon stated this is the time and place hereto fixed for a public hearing to consider
certification of an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR)
for the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) Land Conveyance, Construction, and
Development Project (Environmental Assessment No. 577) and consideration of LAFCO
Application and Reorganization Agreement.
He asked if proper notice of the hearing was done in a timely manner and if any written
correspondence had been received. Clerk Mortesen stated that proper notice was
completed and no written communications had been received by the City Clerk's Office.
Jim Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services gave a report.
Council consensus to close the public hearing.
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH NO. 2002071106, AND TO ADOPT FINDINGS, STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
MOVED by Council Member, SECONDED by Council Member to adopt Resolution No.
Certifying Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report SCH No.
2002071106, and to adopt Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation
Monitoring Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION PASSED
BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY
MOVED by Council Member, SECONDED by Council Member to adopt Resolution No.
requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to initiate proceedings for the
Reorganization of Territory. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
MOVED by Council Member, SECONDED by Council Member to approve Reorganization
Agreement No. with the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency and
SAMS Venture LLC. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
PAG!{ H�
2. Consideration and possible action regarding the approval of the Hyperion Monitoring
Agreement (HMA) between the City of El Segundo and the City of Los Angeles regarding
operation of the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP).
Jim Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services, gave a report.
MOVED by Council Member, SECONDED by Council Member to approve the Hyperion
Monitoring Agreement No. (HMA) between the City to El Segundo and the City of Los
Angeles regarding operation of the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) and authorized the
Mayor to execute on behalf of the City. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.
5/0
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
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.
3. Approved Warrant Numbers 2534507 to 2534793 on Register No. 19 in the total amount of
$1,343,723.97 and Wire Transfers from 6/21/2003 through 7/3/2003 in the total amount of
$316,532.10. Authorized staff to release. Ratified Payroll and Employee Benefit checks;
checks released early due to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and /or
adjustments; and wire transfers.
4. Approved City Council Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2003 and Special Meeting Minutes of July
7, 2003.
5. Directed staff to proceed with FY 2003 -04 Estimated Revenue and Appropriation
Assumptions.
6. Accepted the work as complete for the Installation of an ADA Elevator at City Hall (350 Main
Street) — Approved Capital Improvement Program — Project No. PW 02 -18 — CDBG Project
No. 600069 -01 — (Contract Amount $224,655.37). Approved Change Order No. 1 in the
amount of $28,221.37. Authorized the City Clerk to file the Cit Engineer's Notice of
Completion in the County Recorder's Office.
7. Approved a $50,000 amendment to an existing Professional Services Agreement (Contract
No. 3178) for contract planning services for the Department of Community, Economic
Development Services with Willdan.
Recommendation — (1) Approve a $50,000 amendment to a Professional Services Agreement with
Willdan and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement; or, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take
other action related to this item.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
PAGE NO 4
•i 4L r,
8. Consideration and possible action to waive the formal bidding process on the purchase of
15 Data 911 M5 Mobile Data Computer systems (MDC) for the El Segundo Police Department.
The total cost is approximately $116,000 using grant funds.
Recommendation — (1) Approve the purchase of 15 Data 911 MDT systems and equipment using
funds from the Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant and California Law Enforcement
Equipment Program (CLEEP) grant account; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related
to this item.
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
F. NEW BUSINESS —
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — NONE
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY — NONE
REPORTS —CITY CLERK — NONE
J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — NONE
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member McDowell —
Council Member Gaines —
Council Member Wernick —
Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs —
Mayor Gordon —
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
PAGE NO 5
,� 4 .�
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have receive 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. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow
Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after
Public Communications is closed.
MEMORIALS —
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown
Act (Government Code Section §54960, et se q.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real
Property Negotiator, and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation;
and /or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or
conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators.
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED:
DATE:
TIME:
NAME:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 15, 2003
PAGE 1O
1`i4
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the annual destruction of identified records in
accordance with the provisions of § 34090 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Approve Resolution authorizing the destruction of certain records;
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Each year various Departments need to transition older documents to storage or destruction
and make space for the new year's records. By reviewing the older records and inventorying
the current ones, available storage space is used more efficiently.
Certain documents from the Administrative Services Department, City Treasury, Fire
Department and the Library are proposed to be destroyed in accordance with Government
Code § 34090. The City Attorney has given written approval for the destruction of these
records.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Resolution with Attachments
FISCAL IMPACT: Not to exceed $1000.00.
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number: 001 - 400 - 1301 -6206
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: -7 _ a 3 - 03
C?& Doma (iYt,
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary AStre , City Manager �/
7
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF
PUBLIC RECORDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of El Segundo as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. Certain documents from the Administrative Services Department, City
Treasurer's Department, Fire Department and Library are proposed to be
destroyed in accord with Government Code § 34090;
B. The City Attorney has giving written approval for the destruction of these
records pursuant to Government Code § 34090;
C. Based upon the documents presented to it for destruction, it does not
appear to the City Council that these records need be retained and are
occupying valuable storage space.
SECTION 2: Pursuant to Government Code § 34090, the City Council approves the
destruction of the records referred to in attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by
reference, and authorizes the City Clerk to dispose of the records in any lawful manner.
SECTION 3: Upon destroying these documents, the City Clerk is directed to complete a
certificate verifying the destruction of these records and file the certificate with the City's
official records.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution; record
this Resolution in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a minute of the
adoption of the Resolution in the City Council's records and the minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and
will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5`h day of August 2003.
Mike Gordon,
Mayor
Page 1 of 2
X46"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 5U' day of August 2003, and the same was so
passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APP]
Marl
M.
Page 2 of 2
:� 4 f
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
RECORDS DESTRUCTION FORM
Bank Reconciliation
Mile
1995
1996
Audit + 5 Yrs.
Admin.
Services
Dept. —
Accounting
Division
Accounts Payable
1996
1997
Audit + 4 Yrs.
"
Deposits, Receipts
1996
1997
Audit + 4 Yrs.
"
Checks
1995
1996
Audit + 5 Yrs.
"
Warrant Register
1998
1999
Audit + 2 Yrs.
"
Journal Entry Proof List
1996
1997
Audit + 4 Yrs.
"
Citations
12/31/99
Current Yr. + 2
"
Cash Receipts Register
1996
1997
Audit + 4 Yrs.
"
Water Stubs
1999
2000
Current Yr. + 2
"
Water Billing Registers
1998
1999
Current Yr. + 2
"
APPROVED FOR DESTRUCTION:
S Z3 -t j
Date
Date
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the items listed above are approved for destruction on
in accordance with City policies and procedures:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
Date
X48
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
RECORDS DESTRUCTION FORM
APPROVED FOR DESTRUCTION:
Department Head
APPR , OR STRUCTION:
City Attorney/
7 /2- y/o 3
Date
.� Date
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the items listed above are approved for destruction on
in accordance with City policies and procedures:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
Date
4j
City Treasurer (July 2003)
Document send for destruction
Box No 1
Union Bank Account Analysis Statement 1/93-9/95
Union Bank Wire Transfer Activity Statement 1993 - 1994
Union Bank Lake at El Segundo Bank Statement 1994 - 1995
Cash Receipt 1993 - 1994
Colon & Lee General & Auto Liability Voucher 9/93 - 12/95
Box No 2
Cash Receipt 1994 - 1995
Bank of America Bank Statement 1993 - 1994
Union Bank Daily Balance Report 1994 - 1995
Box No 3
Investment Document 1994 - 1995
Bail Receipt 1994 - 1995
Misc. Receipt 1994 - 1995
Box No 4
Worker compensation report 9/91 - 6/92
Rnx Nn 5
Cancelled check Account Payable 2/95 - 7/95 Check No. 217576 - 223799
1.77.T1
Cancelled check Account Payable 7/95 - 10/95 Check No. 223800 - 222472
.To - TO OM
Cancelled check Payroll 1/95 - 8/95 Check No. 123420 - 127149
1�Ji�
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
RECORDS DESTRUCTION FORM
Accounts Payable Cancelled
Checks
2/95
7/95
1
Audit + 5
Treasury
Accounts Payable Cancelled
Checks
7//95
10/95
2
Audit + 5
"
Payroll Cancelled Checks
1/95
8/95
3
Audit + 5
"
Investment Documents/Bail
Receipts
1994
1995
Audit + 4
"
Worker Compensation
Check Register
9/91
6/92
Audit + 5
"
Miscellaneous Documents* 1
1954
1994
1
Various
"
*SEE ATTACHED
EXHIBIT
INCORPORATED
BY REFERENCE
APPROVED FOR DESTRUCTION:
�z Q Jlr i,l�zeC J A '
Depdr e Date
APPR D RU TION:
City Attorney ate
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the items listed above are approved for destruction on
in accordance with City policies and procedures:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Date
City Treasurer (Jan 2003)
Documents for destruction
Box 1 Accounts Payable Cancelled Checks
CK# 217596 — 223799 Feb 1995 — July 1995
Box 2 Accounts Payable Cancelled Checks
CK# 223800 — 226472 July 1995 — Oct 1995
Box 3 Payroll Cancelled Checks
CK# 123420 — 127149 Jan 1995 — Aug 1995
Box 4 Investment Documents 1994 — 1995
Bail Receipts
Box 5 Worker Compensation Check Register Sep 1991- Jun 1992
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #6
A -C
1988
1992
PROPERTY TAX VALUATIONS
1992
1993
AEROSPACE DECISION CHECKS RECEIVED
1989
C. J. BARRYMORE PERMIT DEPOSIT
1982
1983
BAIL CLAIMS
1984
1993
BAIL CORRESPONDENCE
1983
1991
BAIL REPORTS
1988
BUDGET FUNCTION ANALYSIS
1982
BURGLARY PLANNING RESEARCH
1982
1988
BURROUGHS CHECKWRITER SERVICE
1982
1993
CDC BLOCK GRANTS
1987
1992
CABLE TV FRANCHISE FEES
1989
1992
CANO, RONALD EMPLOYEE HOME RELOCATION
1989
1990
CITY MANAGERS CREDIT CARD
1986
CASH SHORTAGE LIBRARY
1990
1993
COGEN CHEVRON
1988
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS
1982
1990
PROGRESS PAYMENTS & RETENTION
1983
1991
MISC RECEIPTS REFUNDS REIMBURSEMENTS
1982
1990
COURT APPEARANCE EXPENSES
1987
1990
COUNCIL ACTION MINUTES W /DONATIONS
15
1992
1993
CREDIT CARDS
1973
1977
CURBS & SIDEWALKS -LIENS
1990
1991
CD HOME BANK
1989
1988
LETTER OF CREDIT CHEVRON (EXP 1989
1993
1998
LETTER OF CREDIT TWI PARAGON (EXP 1989
1988
1992
LETTERS OF CREDIT
1990
DEVELOPER FEES
1998
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ZAKAROFF RECYCLING SV
1989
1991
CERIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
1992
DIAMOND JUBILEE SOUVENIERS
1996
1997
COPS FUND STATEMENT
1982
1986
DISABILITY PAYMENTS SELF INS COPY ADMIN SERVICES
1984
1989
DONATIONS TO FIRE AND POLICE
1987
1990
DONATIONS TO CITY
1987
1991
TERMINATION COPY OF CANCELLED CHECK -KOCH DOMANN
1996
1998
EXPIRED PUBLIC OFFICAL BOND - FINANCE DIRECTOR
1994
GOLF 1 ST AND 2ND YEAR START -UP BUDGET
1995
1998
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN SERVICE FEES
1996
WHITEMORE AND ASSOC
1989
1993
CANO CITY MANAGER HOME RELOCATION
1993
1997
ESUSD PAYMENTS -JOINT USE AGREEMENT
1992
1996
PILGRAM INVESTMENT SHARE STATEMENTS
1988
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION EASEMENT PARCEL #72398
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #7
E -N
.� J
1988
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1885
EDD UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
1990
1992
PERSONNEL ACTION FORMS - TREASURY DEPT
1989
1990
PERSONNEL EMERGENCY CARD & LEAVE REPORTS -TREAS
1983
1991
EDD STATE INCOME TAX PAYMENTS
1990
1992
EL SEGUNDO GOLF STATEMENTS
1987
EPSON MICRO COMPUTERLINE
1998
WEED ABATEMENT
1991
1996
FICA DEPOSITS & PAYROLL TAXES
1989
JAMES FARLEY /LAURA ESCOBAR NEXT OF KIN RECEIPT
1986
1991
FRANCHISE TAXES COLLECTED
1985
FLOAT FACTOR
1982
1988
FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TAX
1985
FORGED CHECKS
1989
1991
FUND BALANCE REPORTS
1996
1997
FRANCHISE TAXES RECEIPTS
.� J
1954
1985
GENERAL OLIGATIONS BONDED INDEBTNESS INT STMTS
1992
1998
LETTERS OF CREDIT FOR CONTRACTORS
1976
1987
SUMMARY OF GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED
1982
1986
GRANT CLAIM REIMBURSEMENT FORMS
1970
1995
INTEREST RECEIPTS
1985
1990
IRVINE CITY S &L INTEREST
1991
1988
CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT PLAN RETENTION HARRIS
1988
PROPOSITION 65 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
1987
1985
HOME DELIVERED MEALS RECEIPT
1992
1986
CHEVRON HYDROCARBON INCIDENT
1992
1990
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT SO CAL EDISON
1982
1984
JURY DUTY RECEIPTS
1992
1993
INTEREST DAILY STATEMENTS SWEEP ACCOUNT
1993
LIABILITY INSURANCE COPIES -COLEN AND LEE
1992AUTHORIZED
SIGNERS REMODELING PLAN
1986
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA REFUNDS
1981
1990
LIBRARY DONATION RECEIPTS
1988
1990
CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY FUND RECEIPTS
1986
REQUEST FOR CANCELLED CHECKS -BCH CITY TOWING
1982
NARCOTICS BUY FLASH ROLL
1988
NARCOTICS FORFEITURE FUND
1989
NGANTE CLAIM SATISFACTION
1987
NICHOLSON, NICK WAGES MARY JANE DECEASED
1978
1991
OIL ROYALTIES 1099'S
1975
1990
SB90 RECEIPTS STATE MANIDATE REIMBURSEMENTS
1988
CHECK WRITER SERVICE AGREEMENT
1982
1986
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #8
M -S
1 :) -t
1989
MITIGATION FEES
1988
1991
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
1982
1986
MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS
1985
1988
OVERLOAD PERMIT REPORTS
1970
1992
MISCELLANEOUS ORDINANCES
1993
PAYROLL TAXES
1991
1993
PAYROLL WARRANTS AND TAX REQUESTS
1992
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSES
1987
1991
POLICE INVESTIGATION ACCOUNT
1992
1993
POLICE WESTNET - LA IMPACT DISBURSEMENTS
1992
1993
PROGRESS PAYMENTS
1992
1993
TREASURY OFFICE P.O.
1984
1994
PARKVISTA MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
1 :) -t
1988
1992
PETTY CASH AUTHORIZED SIGNERS
1986
1991
PAYROLL DISTRIBUTION JOURNAL ENTRY
1986
1990
LAIF POOLED COLATERAL STATEMENTS
1989
PERS MISC ADVANCES FOR RETIREMENTS
1987
1989
NARCOTICS FLASH MEMO
19901
1984
PAYROLL CHECK PICKUP SIGNOFF SHEETS
1992
1995
MISC BANK STATEMENTS AND READING MATERIAL
1993
OUTSTANDING CHECK LIST AND JOURNAL ENTRIES
1991
1992
MISC RESOLUTIONS
1983
REGIONAL PLANNING CONSULTANT PAYMENT
1992
PARKING RENT PAYMENTS
1986
1987
REVENUE SHARING STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECEIPTS
1991
1986
SALARY SCHEDULES
1986
1990
SANITARY DISPENSER PROCEEDS
1984
1988
BUS STOP BENCH ADVERTISEMENT
1988
1990
SIGNATURE PATCH SIGNOUT SHEETS /AUTHORIZED SIGNERS
1987
SISTER CITY GUAYMAS EXPENSE COPIES
1986
STANDARD TRAINING CORRECTION P.D.
19821
1986
SOCIAL SECURITY DEPOSIT
1990
1991
STATE TAX COUPON PAYMENTS
1992
1995
NSF RETURNED CHECKS AND BACKUP
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #9
S -Z
1985
1990
BANK STOP PAYMENTS
1986
STORM DRAIN - HUGHES CHECK
1982
STUDENT GOVERNMENT
1983
STREET MAINTENANCE REFUND
1987
1988
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS
1984
SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM
1989
1990
SUPER BLOCK IMPROVEMENTS
1990
SENIOR HOUSING & BUDGET
1991
1993
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX
1988
TELEPHONE RESTITUTION
1986
TOWING SERVICES
1985
1987
TRAFFIC CONTROL
1991
1992
TOT TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
1988
1991
TRAVEL & MEETING
1992
1995
TREASURER CASH OVER/SHORT
1991
1993
UTILITY USERS TAX
1991
CITY WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
1988
WATER RIGHT PURCHASE ATLANTIC RICHFIELD
19821
1988
WEED ABATEMENTS
11151-)
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #10
MISC
1988
1989
WEST BASIN
1986
1982
WINDOW CLEANING
1992
1993
VEHILE CODE FINES
1982
1985
VENDING MACHINES
1986
1991
VOID PAYROLL CHECKS
1979
1989
WITNESS FEES
1982
1992
WYLE LABORATORIES
1984
1991
IWORKERS COMP SETTLEMENTS & REFUNDS
1986
1990
SCRMA WORKERS COMP CHECK COPIES
1988
1993
WORKERS COMP DEPOSITS
1982
1992
TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND & COURT COLLECTIONS LA CO.
1982
1992
PARKING CITATIONS LA CO.
1989
1992
PROP A TRANSIT TAX LA CO.
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #10
MISC
1988
1992
CREDIT CARD RECEIPTS
1986
1992
EMPLOYEE CHANGE ADDRESS ON TERMED EMP
1986
1992
EMPLOYEE CHANGE ADDRESS ON ACTIVE EMP
1982
1992OVER/SHORT
TREASURERS CASH BOX
1988
1992
PURCHASE ORDERS TREASURY
1989
1991
IMPERIAL BANK CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
1988
1991
MISSION VIEJO NATIONAL BANK CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
1988
INVESTMENT INPUT SHEETS
1986
1987
INTEREST EARNED REPORTS
1988
1990
AMERICAN EXPRESS INVESTMENT INCOME
1988
1989
PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT INCOME
1986
1991
AMERICAN COMMERCE NATIONAL BANK INCOME
1980
1991
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL INCOME
1990
1991
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK ANALYSIS
1992
FUND BALANCES FOR AUDITORS
1991
1992
DAILY BANKING
1993
CHECK REGISTER
1991
1992
STATE STREET BANK STATEMENTS
1991
1992
UNION BANK CORRESPONDANCE
1995
SAVINGS BOND PURCHASE ORDERS
1989
1998
OUT DATED EMERGENCY MANUAL
1993
1995
BANK OF AMERICA CANCELLED CHECKS
loci
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM T() nFSC:RIPTI()N
BOX #11
MISC
1994
1995
BANK OF CALIFORNIA BANK STATEMENTS
1958
1962
CHECK REGISTERS
1992
1993
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK
1993
1995
BANK OF AMERICA CANCELLED CHECKS
1993
1994
COAST FEDERAL BANK WESTNET CANCELLED CHECKS
1989
1994
EL SEGUNDO FIRST NATIONAL BANK CANCELLED CHECKS
1992
1993
EL SEGUNDO FIRST CANCELLED CHECKS DARE
1993
1995
UNION BANK MISC PAYROLL & AP VOID CHECKS
1995THE
LAKES DAILY CASH ACTIVITY
DESTRUCTION REQUEST JANUARY 2003
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #12
MATURED
INVESTMENTS
A -G
157
1992
AMERICAN COMMERCE NATIONAL BANK
1987
1993
AMERICAN FUNDS
1984
1989
BANK OF AMERICA TIME DEPOSITS
1990
1992
BANK OF AMERICA TIME DEPOSITS
1982
1982
BANK OF AMERICA TIME DEPOSITS
1989
1991
IBANK OF SAN PEDRO TIME DEPOSITS
1992
1993
BAY CITIES NATIONAL BANK TIME DEPOSITS
1989
1992
BRENTWOOD SQUARE SAVINGS AND LOAN
1989
BROOKSIDE S & L TIME DEPOSITS
1990
1993
CALIFORNIA STATE BANK TIME DEPOSITS
1991
1992
CAPITAL BANK TIME DEPOSITS
1988
1990
CENTRAL BANK OF THE WEST
1986
1988
CENTURY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN
1990
1992
COLONIAL BANK TIME DEPOSIT
1990
1993
COAST FEDERAL BANK TIME DEPOSIT
1980
1990
COAST FEDERAL BANK TIME DEPOSIT
1986
1990
COLUMBIA SAVINGS AND LOAN TIME DEPOSIT
1984
1992
COMMUNITY BANK
1984
1990
COUNTY BANK
1980
1991
IDEL AMO SAVINGS AND LOAN TIME DEPOSIT
1988
DOWEY SAVINGS TIME DEPOSIT
1990
1993
EL SEGUNDO 1ST NATIONAL TIME DEPOSIT
1984
1990
FAR WEST SAVINGS AND LOAN TIME DEPOSIT
1992
1993
FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN
1982
1988
FIRST CALIFORNIA SAVINGS TIME DEPOSITS
157
19841
1987
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK TIME DEPOSITS
1986
1993
FIRST INTERSTATE TIME DEPOSITS
1987
1992
FIRST FEDERAL TIME DEPOSITS
1986
1991
FIRST NATIONAL SAN DIEGO TIME DEPOSIT
1984
1991
GIBRALTER SAVINGS TIME DEPOSIT
19901
1993
GLENDALE FEDERAL TIME DEPOSIT
19821
1986
GREAT AMERICAN SAVINGS TIME DEPOSIT
DESTRUCTION REQUEST FOR FUTURE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #13
MATURED
INVESTMENTS
F -S
1987
1996
FIRST INTERSTATE ACCOUNT ANALYSIS
1993
1995
KIDDER PEABODY PORTFOLIO
1990
1993
INTEREST ON TIME CERTIFICATES
1985
1993
HAWTHORNE SAVINGS TIME CERTIFICATES
1983
1987
FIRST UNITED FUND
1992
1993
MISC BROKER DEALERS
1991
1993
GREAT WESTERN BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1989
1991
IHOME SAVINGS
1990
1993
IMPERIAL BANK TREASURY BILL
1991
1993
IMPERIAL BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1987
1990
IMPERIAL SAVINGS ASSOC
1992
1993
IMPERIAL BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1986
1991
HOME FEDERAL S & L TIME CERTIFICATES
1986
1991
KYOWA BANK OF CA TIME CERIFICATES
1988
1992
SECURITY PACIFIC SWEEP ACCOUNT
1990
1991
SECURITY PACIFIC SWEEP ACCOUNT MISC TAX
1986
1990
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK CONTRACTS
1988
1992
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK SECURE WIRE INFO
1986
1992
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK SAFEKEEPING ACCT
1984
1988
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK TIME DEPOSITS
1981
1990
LAIF LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT POOL
1991
1992
SECURITY PACIFIC BANK ANALYSIS
1984
1989
SIGNAL SAVINGS TIME CERTIFICATE
1991
1992
SIM VALLEY BANK TIME CERTIFICATE
1993
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BANK TIME CERTIFICATE
1993
1995
SMITH BARNEY, SHEARSON INVESTMENT PURCHASES
DESTRUCTION REQUEST FOR FUTURE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #14
MATURED
INVESTMENTS
S -Z
i 41
1982
1990
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA S & L TIME CERTIFICATES
1992
1992
SOUTH BAY BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1988
1993
TORRANCE SAVINGS TIME CERTIFICATES
1986
1993
LONG BEACH BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1990
1991
MARATHON NATIONAL BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1987
1993
MARITIME BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1993
MERRILL LYNCH TIME CERIFICATES
1990
MUTAL SAVINGS AND LOAN TIME CERTIFICATES
1993
NATIONAL BANK OF LONG BEACH TIME CERTIFICATES
1989
1990
NEW WEST FEDERAL S & L TIME CERTIFICATES
1987
1989
PACIFIC SAVINGS BANK TIME CERTIFICATES
1987
PITTSBURG NATIONAL BANK TIME CERIFICATES
1993
PRINTON KANE GROUP FFCB
1992
1993
PACIFIC HORIZON MONEY MARKET
1987
1993
PURDENTIAL BACHE MONEY MARKET
1984
1988
SAN FRANCISCO S & L
1990
1991
SAWA BANK
1986
1989
SECURITY FEDERAL TIME CERTIFICATE
1987
1993
THE PILGRAM GROUP GNMA FUND
1985
1988
TRANSWORLD BANK TIME DEPOSIT
1983
1990
VALLEY FEDERAL S & L TIME DEPOSIT
1989
WEDBRUSH
1989
1993
WESTERN FEDERAL TIME DEPOSIT
1991
TIME DEPOSIT LIST
1987
1992
INTEREST APPORTIONMENT
1990
1991
FUND ACCOUNTING DATAFORM
1983
1984
INTEREST EARNINGS, SWEEP, TIME DEPOSIT LIST
1984
COMPUTER SCIENCES CHECK FOR SANITATION CONNECT
1984
CSDLAC ANNEXATION & CONNECTION SANITATION
1984
UNITED AIRLINES ANNEXATION SEWER ASSESSMENT
1984
XEROX ANNEXATION SEWER ASSESSMENT
1984
1990
GREAT WESTERN TIME DEPOSITS
1992
INTER OFFICE MEMOS
DESTRUCTION REQUEST FOR FUTURE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT
DATES:
FROM TO DESCRIPTION
BOX #15
1990
1993
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT POOL LAIF
1992
1993
LOS ANGELES COUNT POOL LACPIF
1991
1992
POLICE FORETITURE
1990
1995
WESTNET COAST FEDERAL BANK
19941
1998
CHEVRON ADMIN AGREEMENT
i J �j
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
RECORDS DESTRUCTION FORM
EMS Reports
Jan 1994
Jul 1994
1
Period
Closure + 3 Yrs. Fire
EMS Reports
Jul 1993
Dec 1993
2
" Fire
California Field Incident
Report
Jan 1994
Jul 1994
1
" Fire
California Field Incident
Report
Jul 1993
Dec 1993
2
" Fire
APPROVED FOR DESTRUCTION:
Department Head
APPROVED
n
I HEREBY
ON:
6 /.?/ � 3
Date
Date
that the items listed above are approved for destruction on
_ in accordance with City policies and procedures:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
C \WINDOWS \Temporary Internet Files \OLK3252 \Cert of Destruction - FD Request for 2003 doe
Date
1 U �J
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
RECORDS DESTRUCTION FORM
APPROVED FOR DESTRUCTION:
- fartrfient Head
Date
�TRUCTION:
City Attorney' Date
I HEREB CE IFY that the items listed above are approved for destruction on
in accordance with City policies and procedures:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
P \City Clerk\Destruction_Retention \Cert of Destruct 6 -2003 library doc
Date
16�
El Segundo Public Library
INTER- DEPARTMENTAL
Date: April 28, 2003
To: Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
From: Debra Brighton, Library Director
Subject: Destruction of Records
The following records should be added to your "Destruction of Records" Chart:
1. Library Fine Transmittal Forms — 10/01/99 — 9/30/2000
2. Library Request for Reimbursement of Expense — 10/0 1 /99 — 9/30/2000
3. Library Copy Machine Receipts— 10/01/99-9/30/2000
4. Library Lost Book (partial paid) Receipts— 10/01/99-9/30/2000
5. Library Lost Book (paid) Receipts — 10/01/99 — 9/30/2000
6. Library Cash Register Tapes — 01/2000 — 12/2000
7. Library Invoices — 01 /2000 — 12/2000
8. Library Purchase Orders — 01 /2000 — 12/2000
9. Library Postage Receipts — 01 /2000 — 12/2000
Thanks for your help.
ib:
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the presentation of the FY 2003 -04 Preliminary
Operating Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Project Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Receive and file the FY 2003 -2004 Preliminary Operating Budget and Five -Year Capital
Improvement Project Plan
2) Publish announcements of the key budget dates:
a) Budget Workshops August 19, 2003, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
b) Continued if Necessary August 20, 2003, 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
c) Public Hearing September 2, 2003, 7:00 p.m.
d) Continued Public Hearing and Adoption September 16, 2003, 7:00 p.m.
3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Copies of the FY 2003 -2004 Preliminary Operating Budget and Five -Year Capital
Improvement Project Plan have been distributed to the City Council and are available for
public inspection in the Library, City Clerk's office and the on the City web site
www.elsegundo.org
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
The FY 2003 -2004 Preliminary Operating Budget and Five -Year Capital Improvement Project
Plan (On Separate Cover).
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: -Yes _ No
ORIGINA
DATE:
// - / In Z, e �, ? -2_�
Bret M. Plumlee, Director Administrative Services
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
1�i 8
Mary Stre At City Manager
°3
ib�>
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 8/05/03
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to award the contract to Harris & Associates for
Infrastructure Valuation Consulting Services related to the implementation of Governmental
Accounting Standard Board (GASB) Statement 34.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Harris & Associates, in the amount of
$25,950. (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard professional services
agreement on behalf of the City. (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to
this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
In June 1999, the Governmental Accounting Standard Board (GASB) issued GASB Statement
34. This statement requires, among other financial statement changes, that in fiscal year
2002 -2003 the City incorporate asset valuations of the City's infrastructure assets into the
City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Infrastructure capital assets include
such assets as roads, drainage systems, water and sewer systems and lighting systems, just
to name a few.
The infrastructure valuation service provided by Harris & Associates would meet the City's
requirement under GASB Statement 34.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Scope of Required Services and Schedule of Fees
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $40,000
Amount Requested: $25,950
Account Number: 001 -400- 2502 -6214
Project Phase: Award of contract
Appropriation Required: _Yes X No
ORIGIN ED BY: DATE:
Bret M. Plu Nee, Director of Administrative Services
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
/J Mary Strenn, it Manager
ib
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (Continued):
On May 30, 2003 a Request For Proposal for Infrastructure Valuation Consulting Services
was sent to ten bidders of which four responded.
NAME OF COMPANY BID
Harris & Associate
$25,950
CBIZ Accounting Tax & Advisory
$26,100
GK & Associates
$26,250
Muni Financial
$27,100
Based on the bid opening on June 20, 2003, staff recommends award of contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, Harris & Associates for $25,950. This firm has extensive GASB 34
experience and has worked with our financial auditors Lance Soil & Lunghard on other GASB
34 infrastructure valuation projects.
i b .�
Infrastructure Valuation Consulting Services
for the Ci of El Segundo - RFP # 0308
Scope of Required Services
Understanding of the Project
The City of El Segundo wishes to implement the financial reporting requirements of GASB 34 and is
seeking services from a consulting firm to provide and inventory and valuation of infrastructure assets
to arrive at their current Net Book Value as required by GASB 34.
Based upon on the Request for Proposals and discussions with City staff, the approach to be taken
will require that, in a number of cases, estimating techniques will need to be used to establish quanti-
ties, acquisition dates, historical costs, depreciation and Net Book Value. Because of the lack of
recorded data on relevant assets, physical inspections will, to some extent, be required. The City has
indicated that the level of effort is not intended to involve the development of detailed inventories to
the extent that they could serve to transition to asset management systems.
Specifically, the City expects the consultant to provide asset types, quantities, acquisition date, histori-
cal cost, accumulated depreciation, annual depreciation, and Net Book Value data for all relevant
assets Direction and guidance with respect to the nature, approach, and scale of the project has
been provided, including the following:
• Provide an updated inventory listing and valuation of the City's infrastructure assets.
• Reasonable estimation techniques shall be used to arrive at estimated acquisition dates and
historical costs, where actual dates and costs are not readily available, (using standard
industry price indexes) for such assets.
• A sufficient level of detail, in particular for asset inventories, is required to meet the City's
objectives to provide appropriate financial reporting (including GASB 34), property control,
capital expenditure planning and cost accounting.
• Utilization of the Basic Approach (depreciation) and implementation of this approach to the
relevant Capital and Infrastructure Assets.
• Provide an evaluation and implementation plan, as appropriate, for utilization of the Modified
Approach, including an assessment of costs and benefits.
• Further, the city desires to have an asset system that will be perpetual in nature such that
inventories, acquisition dates, depreciation, and Net Book Value can continue to be captured
and properly recorded.
• The City expects that the Infrastructure Valuation project will be completed in time to
completely integrate its contents into the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for
fiscal year ending September 30, 2003.
• Assist in developing new, useful lives for the various infrastructure asset categories and
components
Develop /provide a software system (Microsoft Excel) and procedures for capturing and
updating asset data and provide training to City staff for updating and maintaining invento-
ries and valuation of assets for future GASB 34 reporting purposes.
Harris & Associates Scope of Required Services - Page 1
w
� G
K
G^ M
f
y
GJ
O
J
V;
Rt
.L'
:o
H
O
a
O
I
a
VI W:
N V'
K N
K
a` a`
6.
S
L
i
7
1
L
Gt S
wi
K
OG -
C
m
v
pta =
-r, c a
i t C L
:iC od ;.
V1 xxa,
C
L
r
V
V
7
Z
L
C
'fl
IKItFI
IKI IKiKIKI
I
L
✓.'
IS91 K I I
H
I �
I I '
'IF
E!
i
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding expanding the scope of services of contract to
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates for professional services to conduct financial advisory services
for the Air Force Base Project. (Fiscal impact $16,700)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Expand the scope of services and amend the contract of Fieldman, Rolapp &
Associates in the amount of $6,950 not to exceed $16,700.
2. Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
During 2001 -02, the Los Angeles Air Force Base (Air Force) moved ahead with
implementation of the Systems Acquisition and Management Support (SAMS) Project. As
part of this project, the Air Force is seeking to privatize a portion of the base south of El
Segundo Blvd.
On December 3, 2002, the City Council approved awarding a contract to Fieldman, Rolapp
and Associates to assist staff in analyzing alternative financing mechanisms in which the City
can provide assistance to help fill the gap between the value of land to be traded and the cost
of new facilities. This firm has a history of working on similar land based development
financing projects and also is currently the financial advisor on the water well project.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Scope of Work and Rate Schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $399,400
Amount Requested: $6,950
Account Number: 001 -400- 2401 -6214
Project Phase: Approval of Agreement
Appropriation Required: _ Yes x No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE:
Bret M. Plumlee, Director Administrative Services
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City Manager
10
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (Continued):
The process for review and analysis of the financial elements of the project increased in
complexity and the time required as the number of parties increased. Fieldman Rolapp &
Associates attended a number of finance group meetings to discuss the developer's financial
plan and the resulting analyses by consultants for the City of Hawthorne.
The revised scope of services attached takes into consideration the changes in the original
project scenario from a commercial development within the City of El Segundo to a residential
development with a reorganization of the property from the City of El Segundo to the City of
Hawthorne. The original agreement has been modified to reflect a total cost for these services
is not to exceed $16,700. This amount reflects total costs to date of $15,200 and a
contingency of $1,500 in case there is additional work required.
lh,J
MEMORANDUM
To. Bret Plumlee c/o John Walker
City of El Segundo
From: Fieldman Rolapp & Associates
Date: July 29, 2003
Re: Contract Matters
At the outset of our engagement relating to the Los Angeles Air Force Base, we entered into a
contract under an initial scope of services and a not to exceed provision for our professional
compensation of $9,750. At the time of our original agreement, the definition of the project was
in a state of flux, with our original work being done under a project scenario that called for a
commercial development on Area B within the City of El Segundo. The project changed to a
residential development of Area B with a reorganization of the property from the City of El
Segundo to the City of Hawthorne. We mutually agreed that an amendment of the contract would
be in order as the conditions of the project changed.
The process for review and analysis of the financial elements of the project increased in
complexity and the time required as the number of parties increased. We attended a number of
finance group meetings to discuss the developer's financial plan and the resulting analyses by
consultants for the City of Hawthorne.
We have attached a revision to the beginning of Exhibit A to our Financial Advisory Services
Agreement to conform to the actual scope of our engagement as altered.
The approval process by the City of El Segundo is essentially complete with the approval of
environmental processes and the LAFCO reorganization by the City Council as of Tuesday, July
15, 2003. As of that date, our accrued time and expenses are approximately $5,450 greater than
the $9,750 total cost. Therefore the total contract amount would need to be increased to $15,200
to include all of our billable time.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
l f l�
AMEMDMENT TO EXHIBIT A TO
FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND
FIELDMAN, ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES
Scope of Services
A. General Services.
The Consultant will perform all the duties and services specifically set forth herein and
shall provide such other services as are mutually agreed between the City and the
Consultant, and those services that are reasonable and necessary to accomplish the intent
of this engagement in a manner consistent with the standards and practice of professional
financial advisors prevailing at the time such services are rendered to the City.
The City may, with the concurrence of Consultant, expand this engagement to include
any additional services not specifically identified within the terms herein. Any additional
services may be described more fully in a subsequent addendum.
B. Evaluation of FinancinLr Feasibility.
The Los Angeles Air Force Base project has been modified such that while the actual Los
Angeles Air Force Base will be located on property known as Area A within the
boundaries of the City, other significant portions of the project, particularly those known
as Area B, Area C and the Sun Valley property are located outside the boundaries of the
City. Of particular importance is the fact that, based on the potential success of the
redevelopment of Area B as a residential project, that property will be reorganized
through the Local Agency Formation Commission as a part of the City of Hawthorne,
California.
It is intended that the City of Hawthorne will actually serve as the issuer of public
financing for the redevelopment of Areas B and C and the Sun Valley property as
residential property. Moreover, the responsibility for inclusionary housing under
California law falls on the City of Hawthorne. It is of vital importance to the City that it
understand the financial plan for the development of the Los Angeles Air Force Base and
the related residential property and assess the likelihood of successful implementation of
that plan.
The review of the financial plan has two components: first, an overall review of the
assumptions and results for their reasonableness and their overall sufficiency in matching
the anticipated project costs to be incurred; second, discussions with the developer to
assure the developer of the sufficiency of the public financing. A component of that
strategy is refining the development project list through estimating project cost and
prioritizing identified projects and determining the reasonableness of those costs and
proj ects.
The Consultant will provide the following specific services to analyze and determine the
fiscal strength and capacity of the development project area to support long -term debt
issuance:
1. Identify major goals, establish objectives and review data.
a. The Consultant will confer with City staff and City Counsel, the
developer, the City staff and consultants for the City of Hawthorne to
define and identify preliminary goals and objectives of all parties.
b. The Consultant will conduct an analysis of the potential revenue streams
to confirm likely borrowing levels, costs and marketability.
c. The Consultant will conduct an analysis to determine credit position and
revenue generating capacity of the project area.
d. The Consultant will compile existing short-term and long -term financial
obligations of the development project area.
e. The Consultant will conduct a review of the financial plans provided by
the developer and by the City of Hawthorne.
f. The Consultant will assemble data for a report to the City Council in
conjunction with the approval of the environmental process and the
reorganization of Area B.
2. Describe alternatives.
a. The Consultant will rank financing alternatives according to credit
strength and likely cost.
b. The Consultant will prioritize alternatives in order to attain peak
efficiency.
c. The Consultant will review financial estimates, including sale prices of
homes, tax increment projections, costs of providing inclusionary
housing, and the proposed timing of public financing to determine the
reasonableness of the underlying assumptions.
d. The Consultant will determine cost effectiveness by revenue stream
required to service debt.
e. The Consultant will assist in the development of special tax or increment
analysis and methodology as required.
f The Consultant will participate in overall finance team discussions and
presentations in order to develop consensus as to appropriate methods
and terms of public financing.
g. The Consultant will confer with City staff regarding the results of the
analyses and discussions with the developer and the City staff and
consultants for the City of Hawthorne.
i ��
3. Create plan of finance and obtain City approval.
a. The Consultant will confer with City staff, bond counsel, consultants, the
developer, the staff and consultants for the City of Hawthorne and other
interested parties to assist in the formulation of a coordinated funding,
financing and/or refinancing strategy.
b. The Consultant will participate in the development of a written staff
report to the City Council relating to the environmental process
considerations, the issues related to reorganization of Area B, the
financial questions relating to the costs of the project and the likelihood
of successful completion, issues of process to successfully complete the
development.
c. The Consultant will present the results of its review and analysis and its
recommendations in the staff report to the City Council, as requested.
d. The Consultant will be available for major discussions of financial issues
by the City Council.
17 �
EXHIBIT B TO
FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CTTY OF EL SEGUNDO
AND FIELDMAN, ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES
Fees and Expenses
Part 1: Compensation for General Services or District Formation Services
Financial advisory services performed pursuant to the Scope of Services Paragraphs A, B
and C, as fully described above, will be billed at the then current hourly rates. The table
below reflects the rates in effect as of the date of execution of this Agreement.
Personnel
Hourly Rate
Managing Principal
$275.00
Principals............ ............................... ........................$225.00
Vice Presidents ... ............................... ........................$175.00
Assistant Vice Presidents .................. ........................$160.00
Associates of the Firm ...................... ........................$130.00
Administrative Assistants
.................. .........................$75.00
Clerical (Other) ... ............................... .........................$35.00
For the activities in Paragraphs A and B with regard to the proposed reuse of the Los
Angeles Air Force Base the overall compensation is subject to a maximum amount of
$8,750. The above fee is based on completion of work orders within three months of the
City's authorization to proceed, and assumes that the City will provide all necessary
information in a timely manner.
The above fee presumes attendance at up to 3 meetings in the City's offices or such other
location within a 25 -mile radius of the City place of business as the City may designate.
Preparation for, and attendance at meetings on any basis other than "by appointment"
may be charged at our normal hourly rates as shown in Part 1, above.
Financial advisory services performed pursuant to Paragraph C will be paid by the project
developer through a Deposit and Reimbursement Agreement.
Part 2. Compensation for Debt Issuance Services
Compensation for financial advisory services performed pursuant to Paragraph D, if such
services are required for the project will be negotiated at the time of such services and
will be subject to the then agreed Scope of Services.
Payment of fees earned by Consultant pursuant to this Part 2, shall be contingent on, and
payable at the closing of the debt issue(s) undertaken to finance the project.
1771
03 0
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a resolution providing for the payment of
compensation to executive and management level employees serving during extended
emergency services under the City's Emergency Operations Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Adopt the attached resolution;
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
In the event of the activation of the City's Emergency Operation Plan, City employees may be
required to work beyond their regular schedules to provide extended emergency services or to
be available for emergency operations in accordance with the City's Standardized Emergency
Management System ( "SEMS ") Plan.
While most employees are provided compensation for this additional work time, executive and
management employees are not entitled to additional compensation.
- Continued on next page -
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Resolution
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: _Yes X No
ORIG ATED: DATE: July 2, 2003
Bret M. Plumlee, Director of Administrative Services
REVIEWED Y: DATE:
Mary renn, City Manager
11
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
Passage and adoption of the proposed resolution would 1) fairly compensate executive and
management employees when those individuals are required to provide services substantially
beyond what is ordinarily required in the course and scope of their duties, and 2) will allow for
FEMA and OES to reimburse the City for the compensation - related costs incurred in response
to a disaster or emergency situation.
Criteria to be considered by the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) for providing
compensation to management employees includes but is not limited to:
1. Whether the Emergency Operations Plan was activated in accordance with the
El Segundo Municipal Code.
2. Whether a local emergency has been declared and exceeded twelve (12) or
more hours.
3. Whether a federal or state emergency has been declared.
4. Whether the nature of the declared emergency will require the presence and
services of management employees for a period of time significantly beyond
what is ordinarily and reasonably expected of such employees.
17(1-)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF
COMPENSATION TO EXECUTIVE, MANAGEMENT, AND
OTHER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES SERVING THE CITY'S
EMERGENCY SERVICES ORGANIZATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of El Segundo as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City of El Segundo has a high potential of emergencies or
disasters caused by natural, technological, and man -made causes;
B. The City's geographic location, situated next to a major petroleum
refinery, Los Angeles International Airport ( "LAX "), the Los Angeles Air
Force Base, and the Hyperion wastewater treatment plant, makes it
likely that the City and its residents would be significantly affected in
the event of an act of domestic terrorism, accident, or other type of
emergency;
C. In light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the recent
conflict in Iraq, and the Nation's overall heightened state of alert, it is
apparent that the City may be required to activate its Emergency
Operations Plan ( "EOP ") on a regular basis;
D. Activation of the "EOP" and as needed the Emergency Operations
Center ( "EOC "), often requires the City's employees to work beyond
their regular schedules in order to be available for emergency
operations in accordance with the City's Standardized Emergency
Management System ( "SEMS "). While most public safety employees
are compensated for this additional time, executive, management, and
other exempt level employees are not entitled to additional
compensation;
E. It is in the public interest for the City to fairly compensate its executive,
management and other exempt staff when those individuals are
required to provide services beyond what is ordinarily required in the
course of their duties.
SECTION 2:The City Manager, as part of the duties set forth in El Segundo
Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 2 -2 -5, is authorized to establish policies and procedures
for compensating executive, management, and other exempt level employees for
extended emergency services. Extended emergency services are defined as a
period exceeding at least twelve (12) or more hours. Compensation to the
Page 1 of 4 IL 7 f
employee may be provided through "compensatory time" or other pay, at straight
time or overtime rates of pay as determined solely by the City Manager and as
approved by the City Council.
SECTION 3. The executive, management, and other exempt employee pay policy
will be established by the city manager and attached as an appendix to the City's
Emergency Operations Plan. The management, executive, and other exempt
employee pay policy will be developed in accord with the Federal Fair Labor
Standard Act and other applicable federal, state, and local statutes. The policy will
ensure that executive, management, and other exempt staff qualifying for overtime
pay meet the standardized emergency management system training guidelines
established within the City's Emergency Operations Plan.
SECTION 4 :In adopting such policies and procedures, the city manager should
consider the following criteria:
A. Whether the "EOP" was activated in accordance with the ESMC;
B. All overtime compensation must be related to the emergency event;
C. Whether the Director of Emergency Services has declared a local emergency
in accordance with ESMC § 2 -2 -1;
D. The policy must include methods for invoking the policy, after twelve (12)
hours including, without limitation, emergency conditions that require two or
more City departments to respond and the severity of which may exceed the
City's ability to control;
E. Whether a state of emergency was declared in accordance with applicable
federal or state law;
F. This policy may be invoked by the City Manager irrespective of whether or
not the County of Los Angeles Operational Area or State of California
disaster proclamation is in effect.
G. Whether the nature of the emergency will require the presence of executive,
management, and other exempt level employees for a period of time beyond
what is ordinarily and reasonably expected of such employees.
H. Nothing in this Resolution is intended to, nor will it, restrict the City's ability to
seek reimbursement from state and federal agencies for the compensation
paid in accord with this Resolution and the polices promulgated by the City
Manager in accord with this Resolution.
! v
Page 2 of 4 1
SECTION 5 : The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution,;
record this Resolution in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a
minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the City Council's records and the
minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 6: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and
will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
2003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
Mike Gordon,
Mayor
Page 3 of 4 i 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the
foregoing Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City
Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City
Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of
, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED ,- C
Mark D. He y,
By:
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City,
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action on the purchase and installation of a replacement Range
Ball Dispenser at the Lakes Golf Course. Purchase and installation will come from the
remaining FY 2002 -2003 Golf Course capital outlay budget, not to exceed $16,000.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation - (1) City Council waive the formal bidding process per the Municipal Code
for the purchase and installation of a Range Ball Dispenser on a sole source basis; (2)
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract between the City and Range Servant
America (manufacturer); (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The Range Ball Dispenser is the heart of the range operation at the golf course. The current
machine manufactured by Range Servant America has now outlasted its useful life. All the
inner mechanical workings have eroded to the point they can no longer be repaired. Only one
side of the machine is currently working. If the other side goes down, we will have no way to
dispense golf balls to customers. The replacement ball dispenser would be purchased on a
sole source basis, due to it being and integral part of a larger ball delivery system. This is an
emergency request because it will take three weeks for delivery and installation.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $65,000
Account Number: 503 -400- 5306 -8103
Amount Requested: $16,000
Project Phase: NIA
Appropriation Required: _Yes x No
ORIGINATED: DATE:
Stacia Mancini, Recreation and Parks Director
REVIEWED BY:
Mary Strenn, Cit)CManager
DATE:
�j
�D3
12
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to waive the formal bidding process on the purchase of 13
Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) status - mapping systems, RADCOM client licenses,
antennas, and related equipment, for the police department patrol division. Fiscal impact is
approximately $19,604 in grant funds.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Approve the purchase of the AVL status mapping systems and RADCOM client licenses
using funds from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) account.
(2) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) systems are currently being used by some law enforcement
departments to remotely track the location of agency units via Global Positioning Satellite
systems (GPS). AVL combines GPS technology, wireless communications, street -level
mapping with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and a user interface. Ideally, a system
would work as follows: when a call for service is received, the data is input into the Computer
Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and the GIS identifies the coordinates for the location. The AVL
then provides information on agency unit location and the CAD draws upon the GIS and AVL
to assist in formulating a response strategy.
An AVL system would best serve a purpose in the police department patrol division. It would
be installed as a satellite based unit that allows the end user to instantly locate any vehicle.
Each patrol unit would have a vehicle locator unit installed that transmits and receives the
messages. The software locates and tracks the position of vehicles and relays this information
to our terminals and to other vehicles with the mapping program. The vehicles can be seen on
a GIS map with their addresses displayed in the data window. The map also allows us to
navigate between different maps. Or you can zoom out to see several adjacent areas all at
once.
Continued..
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $19,604 (Local Law Enforcement Block Grant [LLEBG])
Amount Requested: $19,604
Account Number: 109 - 400 - 3105 -8108 (LLEBG grant)
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: x Yes No
ORIGIN / " Y: ••//// DATE: July 29, 2003
�Wayf�,'Clfr;f of Police
BY:/;7 DATE:
Ma Str ,City Manager ��,� 13
i��
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION CONTINUED:
Currently, the police department fields 13 patrol division vehicles, which include the K -9 and
supervisor units. These units currently utilize a modem with a built in GPS box. The box
would only need a program and antenna to make it functional. Staff contacted numerous
departments that are currently using an AVL system. There are numerous companies that are
manufacturing stand -alone systems and integrated AVL systems. The best option would be to
purchase a system that integrates with our current CAD system. This option would allow the
AVL status bar to change with the CAD information.
PST Technologies is the company that updates and maintains our mobile CAD system. They
have recently upgraded their CAD software with an AVL option that would easily integrate with
our current CAD. This is important because no other company researched could guarantee
integration with our CAD.
Funds for the purchase would come from the Bureau of Justice Assistance Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant ( LLEBG), which awarded $16,941 in grant funding with a $1,882
cash match from the asset forfeiture funds plus accrued income. The use of LLEBG funds
were reviewed and approved by an advisory board which consisted of a member from each of
the following organizations: law enforcement agency, prosecutor's office, court system, school
system, and a nonprofit organization. Police department staff has worked with the Information
Systems Department and the Technology Advisory Group to ensure the selected program is
fully compatible with city standards and is consistent with the city's Technology Master Plan.
COST
The cost for the equipment is approximately $19,604, which includes related
equipment/supplies, i.e. cabling and GPS antennas.
RECOMMENDATION
An AVL system is a useful officer safety tool. It would allow dispatchers, supervisors, and field
units to instantly see where any vehicle is located. An officer would be able to push an
emergency button, which would notify dispatchers of the emergency and immediately give a
location
The recommendation is to purchase and utilize an AVL system. The optimal option would be
to upgrade the current West Covina system with their proposed AVL option from PST
Technologies. This would allow a seamless integration with our CAD.
1 ��
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the acceptance of $160,232.41 in cumulative
grant funding from the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and County of Los
Angeles Office of Emergency Management (OEM). Fiscal Impact: $160,232.41 which will be
fully reimbursable.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Receive and file report;
2) Accept all SHSGP grant awards issued to date through Los Angeles County OEM;
3) Authorize the Administrative Services Department to establish an account for the
purchase of grant related equipment;
4) Authorize the Fire Department to coordinate the acquisition and purchase of equipment
as authorized under the grant;
5) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Throughout 2003, the City of El Segundo's Office of Emergency Services applied for series of
grants through the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). There were a total of
four grants (SHSGP FY2001, SHSGP FY2002, SHSGP FY2003 Pt. I, and SHSGP FY 2003
Pt. II), totaling over $37 million, that was distributed to Los Angeles County, City of Los
Angeles, and 87 cities, including the City of El Segundo.
The grants are 100% federally funded and stored in a special account designated by Congress
and the Department of Homeland Security. The first round of grants (SHSGP FY2001)
- Continued on next page -
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Master Grant Award Matrices FY 2001, FY2002, FY2003
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required
0
$160,250
001 - 300 - 0000 -3735 (Revenue)
001 - 400 - 3202 -8104 (Expenditure)
X Yes _ No
ORIGINATED: DATE:
c?
Norman An elo, Fire Chief
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, Otanager /OJ
14
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
provided $21,285.00 directly to the City of El Segundo in an advancement check received on
July 17, 2003. Under the modified rules established by Congress and Department of
Homeland Security, the State of California may not deposit any grant funds into the general
fund, and they may no longer issue grant funding to cities prior to purchase due to restrictions
on the collection of interest on any grant funding. All future grant allotments are reimbursable
only, meaning the local governments must encumber the funds before payment is received.
The State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) is the grant funding
coordinator. State OES will process all reimbursements in coordination with the Los Angeles
County Office of Emergency Management (OEM). The reimbursement window is
approximately 60 to 120 days.
The Fire Department advised the Council, in requesting permission to apply for grant funding
under the SHSGP and Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) grant programs, that it would
return for approval to accept any official grant awards.
El Segundo has been tentatively awarded (approved) in the remaining grants for FY2002 and
FY2003 to spend $160,232.41 primarily toward personal protective equipment (PPE), and
radiation and chemical /biological detection equipment. The City's Emergency Services
Coordinator maintains a master equipment approval list that details all approved expenditures
under the various grants.
The Fire Department will bring to the Council all purchase requests under this grant for
purchases exceeding $10,000.00. Much of the equipment will be purchased through single
source vendors due to the technical specificity of the equipment. The Fire Department will
return to the Council for approval in any future awards and to provide regular updates on the
improvements to the City's first response and emergency readiness elements.
The grant awards will equip up to 70 police personnel with protective chemical suits,
respiratory protection and filters, radiation detection equipment, and nerve agent antidotes. Up
to 30 fire personnel will be provided similar equipment. All on -duty public safety personnel will
have access to the equipment in the field. All of the equipment will be kept in the field in police
and fire vehicles for use in first response. The Fire Department's Environmental Safety
Division will be provided with a variety of detection devices that will monitor and identify
numerous chemical (nerve), biological (anthrax, ricin, etc.), radiological (alpha, beta, gamma
radiation), and incendiary agents in the field.
At the completion of the purchasing process, the police and fire departments will have made
significant improvements to its field communication systems, and obtained a substantial level
of improved personal protection and detection capability if an act of domestic terrorism were to
occur in the greater South Bay Area. In addition, the City of El Segundo will be able to provide
mutual aid support to other jurisdictions under the goals and objectives of the Domestic
Terrorism Readiness grant funding. The Fire Department, through the Emergency Services
Division, will continue to seek grant funding wherever available and bring to the City Council,
through the City Manager, all requests to accept any future grant awards.
i ��a
8
W
Q
Q
O 3
L
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of the new City of El Segundo SEMS
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP). This plan has been approved by the Governor's Office of
Emergency Services (OES). Fiscal Impact: None
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Adopt Resolution;
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
In 1997, the City of El Segundo adopted its first SEMS -based Emergency Operations Plan. A
revised draft was completed in the summer of 2001. Staff completed training in SEMS and the
draft plan was being prepared for the City Council. On September 11, 2001, all local
government agencies were compelled to re- examine and review all local emergency
management plans that address natural, technological, and man -made disasters, and
incorporate the potential impact of domestic and international terrorism, and implement
homeland security as a new and permanent element of a local plan.
As a result of the significant and broad changes in the infrastructure of the federal, state,
county, and local emergency management programs and the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) by President Bush in 2003, the City of El Segundo has made a
- Continued on next page -
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Resolution
City of El Segundo Emergency Operations Plan — Executive Summary
Governor's Office of Emergency Services letter of approval (dated June 12, 2003)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: _Yes X No
ORIGINATED:
Norm Angelo, Fire Chief
DATE:
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Stre n, City ager
15
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
complete overhaul of its emergency operations plan. The plan has been exercised in 2001
and 2002 to identify strengths and weaknesses and adjusted accordingly.
The entire plan was re- formatted to enhance the effectiveness of the emergency organization.
The January 2001 crash of Alaska Airlines Flight #261 prompted creation of an aviation
element of the emergency plan as well.
The attached Executive Summary provides a detailed layout of the new emergency plan.
The Governor's Office of Emergency Services with no modifications, recommendations or
changes approved the plan on June 12, 2003. The new plan addresses the following major
components:
1. New design that creates an Administrative and Operational Element. Emergency
Services Organization personnel can quickly locate and use only the elements needed
in their specific area or function.
2. Updated Emergency Services Organization that reflects day -to -day supervisory
relationships and the standardized emergency management system.
3. Federal Threat Advisory System.
4. Robust mapping using the City's ESRI -based GIS mapping systems.
5. A complete and detailed threat assessment:
a. Incorporates an aviation element and federal guidelines to support a multi -
agency response to an aviation emergency;
b. Incorporates a pipeline emergency and haz mat area plans;
c. Updated domestic terrorism element;
d. Tsunami and tsunami response guidance; and
e. Public Health Emergencies — A new element to address the challenges
associated with chemical, biological, and other emergency responses.
6. Complete reference of essential legal documents and emergency reference, including
guidelines for the movement and containment of people (evacuation and quarantine).
7. A detailed recovery element (new).
8. Detailed SEMS functions and checklists:
a. Reflects the re- organization of all City departments;
b. Reflects the day -today relationships related to operations, planning and
intelligence, finance, and logistical needs;
c. Creation of a new law enforcement intelligence function;
d. Creation of a Business and Industry Liaison position, recognized by FEMA as a
"Smart Practice" in coordination with the business and industry community;
e. Succession of the office of City Manager and City department heads.
1 �S Fj
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ELSEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE
STANDARDIZED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
(SEMS) EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of El Segundo as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City of El Segundo has a substantial risk of natural, technological, and
man -made emergencies.
B. The El Segundo City Council adopted the Standardized Emergency
Management System (SEMS) in 1997.
C. As a result of the coordinated terrorist attacks on the nation on September
11, 2001, the City of El Segundo was compelled to reassess its entire
emergency management system, response, and operations policies and
procedures.
D. The passage of the Homeland Security Act and creation of the Department of
Homeland Security on January 24, 2003 was the most extensive
reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.
E. On February 7, 2003, the Governor of the State of California created the
California Department of Homeland Security with the Director's of the Office
of Emergency Services and the Office of Criminal Justice and Planning
reporting to the Governor's Office through the Director of the Office of
Homeland Security.
F. The result of these substantial changes to the infrastructure of the state of
California and FEMA, and many other federal emergency management
systems required the City of El Segundo to replace its existing plan and
incorporate additional elements addressing domestic terrorism and public
health emergencies.
G. The City of El Segundo emergency organization has tested and exercised
draft elements of the EOP.
H. The new EOP significantly improves the capability of Emergency Services
Organization to manage and respond to future emergencies.
SECTION 2: The City Council does hereby adopt the SEMS Emergency Operations
Plan dated July 3, 2003 as the management system and plan for all multi -
jurisdictional and multi- agency emergency responses for the City of El Segundo.
SECTION 3: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution;
record this Resolution in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a
minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the City Council's records and the
minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 4: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and
will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
2003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
Mike Gordon,
Mayor
i c�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the
Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of , 2003, and the same was so passed
and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED �WT$2'FORM:
Mark D. H ev:,b-6V -Aftorr
i
Karl H. Berge`
Assistant City Attorney
City of E1 Segundo
Standardized
Emergency
Management
System
Emergency Operations Plan
Executive Summary
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This SEMS Emergency Operations Plan (Plan) reflects several recent advances in emergency
management capabilities and changes in the Emergency Services Act (ESA), as well as the creation of
the United States Department of Homeland Security, and reorganization of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The Plan addresses the four fundamental elements of comprehensive
emergency management:
1. Mitigation
2. Preparedness
3. Response
4. Recovery
The Plan addresses the City of El Segundo's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations,
and incorporates the newly constructed Emergency Operations Center (EOC), phone systems, and other
infrastructure changes that have occurred since 1997, when the I't Edition of the SEMS Multi- Hazard
Functional Plan was created.
The Plan addresses the consolidation of the City's Departments from 1999 to 2001, and the personnel
changes reflected in the consolidation. The Plan organizes the tasks, assignments, and supervision in a
manner that reflects day -to -day relationships as much as possible, yet remains fully compliant with the
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) guidance and standards. The Plan has evolved
into a modern emergency operations plan, and has adopted the terminology changes reflected by the
name of the current Plan from the "Multi- Hazard Functional Plan" nomenclature.
The objective of the Plan is to centralize coordination of all necessary personnel and facilities of the City
into an organization capable of responding to AU emergency.
This Plan is a preparedness document — designed to be read, understood, and exercised prior to an
emergency. It:
1. Establishes the emergency organization;
2. Assigns tasks, specifies policies and procedures; and
3. Provides for coordination of planning efforts of the various emergency staff utilizing the
Standardized Emergency Management System.
State of California SEMS Model
� '193
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 1
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions are the basis of the Plan:
• Mitigation activities conducted prior to the occurrence of a disaster result in a potential reduction
in loss of life, injuries, damage to property, preservation of the environment; and
• The City of El Segundo is primarily responsible for emergency actions and will commit all
available resources to save lives, minimize injury to persons, and minimize damage to the
environment and property;
• Mutual Aid is requested when needed and provided as available;
• The City of El Segundo maintains operational control and responsibility for emergency
management activities within the city, unless otherwise superseded by statute or agreement; and
• Supporting plans and procedures are updated and maintained by responsible parties.
OPERATIONAL PRIORITIES
The following operational priorities are inherit within the Plan:
• Mitigating hazards that pose a threat to life, the environment, and property;
• Protecting life (highest priority after an incident), the environment, and property;
• Meeting the immediate emergency needs of people, to secure the resources necessary to provide
for rescue, medical care, food, shelter, and health and social services.
• Temporarily restoring facilities that are essential to the health, safety, and welfare of people (i.e.
medical, sanitation, sewage, water, electricity, and emergency road repair);
• Provide for the rapid resumption of impacted businesses and community services; and
• Provide accurate documentation and records required for cost recovery efforts; and
• Provide factual information and communicate with the community on the nature, impact, and
pnonties of the emergency organization in a timely manner.
• The City of El Segundo will use all available means to provide information to the community
(through news (press releases), newsletters, public notices, information stations, Internet,
Community Cable, and radio).
-1 y -z
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 2
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
THREAT ADVISORY SYSTEM
The City of El Segundo does not utilize the Federal Department of Homeland Security Threat Advisory
System (color -coded system). The system is based on classified Intelligence Information and is too
subjective in nature to be applied at the local government level. The State of California and County of
Los Angeles Operational Area is creating a localized Threat Advisory System. When the system is
adopted locally under standardized policy, procedures and guidance, the City of El Segundo will adopt a
threat advisory system and incorporate it into the Plan.
The City of El Segundo will monitor federal advisories and determine the local impact, if any, on the
nature of any potential threat, and provide public safety services in accordance with the direction
provided by the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager) under local Ordinance and the Plan.
The city maintains an alert and information process through the Office of Emergency Services website
at: http: / /www.elsegundo.or cityservices /safety /fire /emergency /alerts.php
Information is available from the city's Emergency Services Coordinator at (310) 524 -2252.
ACTIVATION OF THE PLAN:
Under direction of the City Manager, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is opened and the Plan is
activated.
PROCLAMATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY
To qualify for assistance under the State of California Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA), a
proclamation must be made within 10 days of the event. The City of El Segundo may formally proclaim
the emergency or the Los Angeles County Operational Area may proclaim a blanket State of Emergency
if two or more cities proclaim a state of emergency.
A Local State of Emergency may be proclaimed by the City Council or City Manager. A Local
Emergency proclaimed by the City Manager must be ratified by the City Council within seven days.
The City Council may convene an emergency Council session.
2. The City Council if meeting weekly, must review the need for continuing the Local Emergency
Proclamation at least every 14 days.
3. The Proclamation of a Local Emergency may be in the form of a Resolution adopted by the City
Council.
4. The Proclamation of Local Emergency:
a. Gives employees and the city certain legal immunities for emergency actions taken.
b. Enables the city to request state assistance under the State NDAA.
193
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 3
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
c. Gives the City Manager the authority to:
i. Establish curfews
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
ii. Take any measures necessary to protect and preserve public health and safety.
iii. Exercise all powers and authority granted by Local Ordinance.
APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION
The plan was updated and formatted by the City's Emergency Services Coordinator. The City Attorney
has reviewed and reviewed and approved the Administrative Elements of the Plan. This Plan was
reviewed by all departments /agencies assigned a primary function; each department representative has
submitted a statement of concurrence based on their review of the Plan. The Plan has been reviewed by
the State of California Office of Emergency Services, follows the Local Emergency Planning Guidance
(LEPG), and has been approved by the City Manager. Upon review and concurrence by the City
Council, the Plan will be officially adopted and promulgated.
TRAINING, EXERCISING, AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EMERGENCY
OPERATIONS PLAN:
• The Emergency Services Coordinator (ESC) is responsible for coordination and scheduling of
training and exercising of this Plan. The Plan will be reviewed annually to ensure that plan
elements are valid and current. Each department will participate in the update and review process
and/or modify the plan as required under the supervision of the Emergency Services Coordinator.
Modifications will be based in identified deficiencies experienced in drills, exercises, actual
occurrences, statutory /regulatory revisions or policies that mandate such changes.
• DISASTER SERVICE WORKERS: Chapter 8 of Division 4 of Title 1, Section 3100 of the
California Government Code states... "all public employees are hereby declared to be disaster
service workers subject to such disaster service activities as may assigned to them by their
superiors or by law." All employees in the City of El Segundo have been informed of their
requirement to respond in the event of an emergency.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 4
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
CITY PLAN: CONFIGURATION
The Plan is divided into three elements as noted below and is summarized in the following pages:
1. Administrative Element (Part I)
• Table of Contents
• Chapter 1 - Introduction
• Chapter 2 - Administrative Features
• Chapter 3 - Hazard Analysis
• Chapter 4 - Emergency Operations Center
• Chapter 5 - Legal Documents & Reference
2. Operational Element (Part II)
Chapter 6 - SEMS Functions and Checklists
Chapter 7 - Recovery Operations
3. Appendix (Part III)
The Appendix is maintained for reference, supporting documents, and policy /procedural issues
that are an extension of the Plan. The elements of the Appendix may change without impacting
the overall content of the Plan.
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 5
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT
PART
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 6
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
ADMINISTRATIVE ELEMENT (Part 1)
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
The Administrative Element comprises the reference elements of the Plan. It addresses all
administrative issues, background, policy, procedures, and statutory requirements in the Plan.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1. Contains the Foreword and Assumptions of the Plan.
2. Activation and Maintenance Standards are defined.
a. Activation of the Plan is based on a proclamation of a Local Emergency under the
options listed under the Emergency Services Act (Government Code §§ 8550, et seq).
b. Annual review of the Plan.
3. Intended Audience - Emergency management professionals from the city, special districts, and
volunteer agencies.
4. Planning Process and Format
a. Seven Chapters and an appendix
b. Compliance with the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).
5. The Plan Use and Standard Operating Procedures are defined.
6. Promulgation and Approval
a. Review by all Departments in the City of El Segundo.
b. Letter of Promulgation signed by all principal departments /agencies.
c. Letter of Promulgation signed by the Mayor on approval of the City Council.
7. Plan Updates and Schedules are defined.
8. Distribution List is defined (who gets a copy of the Plan)
9. Training, Documentation and Exercises
a. Defines minimum standards for city personnel related to SEMS, exercises, and EOC
policy and procedures.
10. Hazard Mitigation — identifies the role, responsibilities, and commitment of the city to mitigate
known hazards, the hazard mitigation process, provision of public assistance, and the application
standards under Presidentially Declared Disasters for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
11. Mutual Aid — defines the Mutual Aid processes at the local, state, and federal levels. It also
includes the role of volunteer and private agencies that support emergency and recovery
operations in an emergency.
A variety of mutual aid systems are available to the city:
• Police • Medical/Health (RDMHC) • Veterinary
• Fire • Emergency Managers (EMMA) • Coroner
• Public Works • Building Inspectors • CERT
Mutual Aid Systems and Processes are defined on the preceding pages:
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 7
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
LOCAL MUTUAL AID PROCESS
FLOW OF REQUESTS
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 8
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
MUTUAL AID SYSTEM FLOW CHART
Resource Requests
CA - Operational Area
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 9
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
MUTUAL AID COORDINATORS FLOW CHART
Mutual Aid Coordinators:
General Flow of Resource Requests and Information
SEMS
Emergency
LEVEL
Services
STATE
VDIrector
OES
Regional
Administrator
REGIONAL
I
Emergency
Management
OPERATIONAL
Staff
AREA
1
I
Emergency
Management
LOCAL
staff
GOVERNMENT
DisciDline- specific Mutual Aid Svstems
Fire & Rescue Law Disaster
System Enforcement Medical/
System Health System
Chief,
Fire &
Rescue
Coordinator
Fire &
Rescue
Coordinator
Fire &
Rescue
Coordinator
Fire Chief
Resource Requests
Information Flow &
Coordination
Law
Enforcement
Coordinator
Law
Enforcement
Coordinator
Law
Enforcement
Coordinator
Law
Enforcement
Coordinator
Disaster
Medical/
Health
Coordinator
Disaster
Medical/
Health
Coordinator
Disaster
Medical/
Health
Coordinator
Disaster
Medical
Coordinator
Other
Systems
as developed
Functional
Coordinator
Functional
Coordinator
Functional
Coordinator
Functional
Coordinator
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 10
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 - Introduction, cont'd
12. Emergency Proclamations — defines the process for declaration of local emergencies, the types
of declarations available, and authorities granted in a declaration.
13. Authorities and References — the statutory and procedural references used in the development
of the Plan:
• Local Ordinances and Policies
• State Plans and Statutory guidance (SEMS & Emergency Services Act)
• Federal mandates, rules, policies, and statute (Stafford Act)
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 11
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
CHAPTER 2 - Administrative Features of the Plan
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
1. City of El Segundo Emergency Organization — defines the overall management and
coordination of emergency response and recovery activities within the jurisdiction.
2. Goals of Emergency Management:
a. Provide for effective life- safety measures, reduce property loss, and protect the
environment.
b. Provide for rapid resumption of impacted businesses and community services.
c. Provide accurate documentation and records required for cost recovery efforts.
3. Continuity of Government — guidance for resumption of government services.
Major elements that are addressed in the Plan:
1. Pre - delegation of emergency authorities to key officials
2. Emergency action steps provided in the emergency action plans
3. Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
4. Alternate EOC facilities
5. Alternate Seats of Government
6. Safeguarding Vital Records
7. Protection of government resources, facilities, and personnel
4. Lines of Succession — under the authority of the Emergency Services Act, and in accordance
with the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC), successors to the position of Director of
Emergency Services (City Manager) are appointed by approval of the Plan. The Plan defines the
following line of succession:
a. First Alternate: Assistant City Manager
b. Second Alternate: Chief of Police
c. Third Alternate: Chief of Fire
The Plan notes the City Manager reserves the right to appoint a successor from any of the above
listed alternates if an acting City Manager needs to be identified.
5. Lines of Succession for El Segundo Departments are identified in the Plan.
6. Alternate Seat of Government — the Plan identifies the provisions outlined in Section 23600 of
the Government Code to establish a temporary seat of government under emergency conditions.
7. Vital Record Protection — identifies the preservation methods and practices utilized by the City
Clerk in protecting and storing the city's vital records.
8. Phases of Emergency Management — identifies the four phases of emergency management;
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation phases, events that may trigger increased
readiness, response and recovery activities.
9. Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) — identifies the SEMS guidance and
framework, and how the system is be utilized in the County of Los Angeles Operational Area. 22 0 4
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 12
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
10. City of El Segundo's Responsibilities under SEMS — defines the guidelines under which the
City of El Segundo will practice and follow the SEMS guidelines in accordance with the
Emergency Services Act.
11. SEMS Emergency Plan, Training, and Exercises — defines the participation in the Operational
Area, training requirements for all levels of SEMS instruction, and how exercises will be
conducted. Requires an annual EOC exercise, and semi - annual field exercises.
12. Emergency Organization under SEMS:
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
CITY MANAGETi - ADMIN
MANAGEMENT/POLICY GROUP EOC DIRECTOR
POLICE CHIEF FIRE CHIEF PW DIRECTOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT HEADS I I H AD SA STRY OF ICER
(AS NEEDED) ES
CRY ATTORNEY AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE
(AS NEEDED) AMERICAN RED CROSS
EL SEGUNDO UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST
PUBLIC INFORMATION UNIT LIAISON OFFICER
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO CITY MGR
POLICE PIO
POUCE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PIO
FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY CABLE
RECREATION A PARKS DEPT
OPERATIONS CE S��O �F PLANNICOAMUNITY& ECONOMIC CHIEF I LOGISTICS DEPARTMENT AADM STRATIVE SERVICES DEPT
(1 NCIDENT SPECIFIC) DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
LAW BRANCH
INTELLIGENCE UNIT COMMUNICATIONS UNIT
PERSONNEL UNIT
POLICE DEPARTMENT
POLICE DEPT POLICE DEPARTMENT
ADMI NISTRATNE SERVICES DEPT
(AS NE EDED)
FIRE BRANCH
SITUATION STATUS UNIT / EMIS
PURCHASING UNIT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY A ECONOMIC PHONE SYSTEMS(PD/EOC)
PDMI NISTRATIVE SERVICESDEPT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT POUCE DEPARTMENT
PUBLIC WORKS
ACQUISITION 8 DEPLOYMENT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS UNIT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT
BUSINESS • INDUSTRY LIAISON PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPT
-SNESS A INDUSTRY REP
CARE AND SHELTER
DOCUMENTATION UNIT FACILITIES UNIT
RECREATION A PARKS DEPT
COMMUNITY A ECONOMIC PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT
ISO/COMPUTERS
H
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPT
BUILDING SAFETY UNIT RESOURCES UNIT
COST ANALYSIS UNIT
COMMUNITY A ECONOMIC PUBU C WORKS DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVESERVICESDEPT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION UNIT
COST RECOVERY UNIT
SAFETY ASSESSMENT UNIT RECBPARKS DEPARTMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPT
CEDS
ADVANCED PLANNING UNIT
COMPENSATION 8 CLAIMS UNIT
COMMUNITY A ECONOMIC
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RECOVERY PLANNING UNIT
TIME UNIT
COMMUNITY A ECONOMIC
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPT
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DEMOBILIZATION UNIT
FIRE DEPARTMENT
NOTES:
Management Section The Assistant City Manager manages the Public Information Unit, reporting directly to the City Manager in the Management
Section The Planning & Intelligence Section will provide support to the PIO function All Rumor control, press releases, Internet and Community Cable
advisories will be coordinated under the PIO Unit, with the approval of the City Manager This ensures information has been adequately screened, is
factual, and approved prior to release to the public and media
Operations Section Los Angeles County may assume some of the jurisdictional functions under Operations (Coroner, Medical/Health, and Veterinary)
When done so, a unified command structure may be utilized El Segundo may support these functions until County resources are in place
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 13
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY `) U 5
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
13. EOC Action Plans — defines the process of using an EOC Action Plan to provide guidance on
the goals and objectives of the emergency organization when the EOC is activated.
14. Multi- Agency and Inter - Agency Coordination — defines how the departments and outside
agencies will coordinate to address priorities for response, coordination of resources, and
communication practices.
15. Coordination with the Field Response Level — defines the use of department operations
centers (DOC), and incident command teams in the field.
16. Coordination with the Los Angeles Operational Area — defines the coordination between
El Segundo and Los Angeles County.
17. Special District Involvement — defines the use of liaisons and coordination with special
district agency staff when the EOC is activated.
18. Coordination with Volunteer and Private Agencies — defines the use and coordination of
volunteer agencies such as the American Red Cross and how the city will liaison with these
entities.
19. Statewide Emergency Management — defines the Statewide Levels of coordination,
beginning with the local response area, Area G, Regional, State, and coordination with
Federal agencies.
See attached chart
(Next page)
20. Alerting and Warning Systems used in greater Los Angeles County Operational Area —
defines all of the various systems utilized within the County and by local government.
Major systems include:
1) Community Alert Network (CAN)
2) Low Power AM Radio Station — city activated radio system.
3) Cable TV — Community Cable Channels 3 & 22
4) Internet — City's web page, Special Alert pages housed in the Emergency
Services Division.
5) Emergency Alert System (EAS) Stations — AM 1070 KNX, and 980 AM
KFWB.
6) El Segundo Amateur Radio Group (ESARG) — local organization of ham
(amateur) radio operators that have communication links to the Emergency
Operations Centers (EOC).
Phone Bank: The city has a phone bank in the EOC with up to 34 telephone lines that
can be used for public information and outreach in an emergency or major incident
(Amber Alert).
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 14
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 2 u
City of El Segundo
SEMS LEVELS
State
Region
Operational
Area
Local
Field
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
CALIFORNIA EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION
Governor
California Emergency Council
Volunteer
Organizations Business Individual
PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES
Emergency Management Lines of Authority
Emergency Resource Coordination /Support
- - - -- - -- Coordination Per FEMA/OES MOU- Federal State Agreement
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
of
Governor's
Cabinet
FEMA
Director
Director of
Federal -- Office of Emergency ..
State Agencies
Agencies Services
OES Administrative
Region
Mutual Aid
Regions ..............
State Agency
Operational Areas .............
Field Units:
Region
and
AREA G COORDINATORS
Local
Cities, Counties,
Offices
and
Other Local ............•
Jurisdictions
Incident
Commander
Volunteer
Organizations Business Individual
PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES
Emergency Management Lines of Authority
Emergency Resource Coordination /Support
- - - -- - -- Coordination Per FEMA/OES MOU- Federal State Agreement
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
of
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3 — Hazard (Threat) Analysis for the City of El Segundo
General Summary of the City - defines the overall geographic makeup of the city, its
residential and industry populations, and public safety services available in the city.
2. Overview of Water and Sewage Systems.
3. Overview of Hazardous Materials — response, coordination, training, and oversight.
4. Types of Businesses — general summary of locations that pose an above average risk of
hazardous materials incident handling Class I and Class II flammable liquids and substances.
5. Airports — defines the local airports serving the greater Los Angeles area.
6. Civil Unrest — general summary of civil unrest activity in the greater South Bay Area.
7. Nuclear Event — general summary of planning for nuclear event.
8. Detailed Threat Assessments — detailed planning and coordination for the threats most likely to
be encountered in the City of El Segundo:
I. Threat Assessment 1— Earthquake
• General Situation — earthquakes and disaster recovery issues.
• Hazard Mitigation — goals the city has in reducing known hazards.
• Worst Case Scenario
• Damage to Vital Public Services, Systems, and Facilities
• Public Safety Communications Center
• Police and Fire Department Communications
• Dam/Flood Control Channels
• Electrical Power
• Energy Emergency
• Fire Operations
• Highways and Bridges
• Natural Gas
• Mitigation Measures
• Maps — various maps are provided for reference and planning
II. Threat Assessment 2 — Hazardous Material Incident
• General Situation — provides and assessment and overview of the plans (Area Haz-
Mat Plan & Materials Response Plan) that exist and general responses issues.
• Specific Situations — identifies 7 sources for hazardous materials incidents, and
references the map of known hazardous materials handlers.
• Freeway/Transportation Routes — identifies the routes and general summary for the
potentials of incidents occurring on these routes.
• Air Transportation — overview of the threat for aviation incidents involving carriers,
which would create a haz -mat incident in El Segundo.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 16
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 2 0 V
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
• Pipelines — References that El Segundo has many pipelines running throughout the
city and provides mapping of pipelines in the city.
• Fixed facility — references 250 known manufacturing and storage facilities in the
city.
• Clandestine Dumping — identifies the risk of dumping and potential impact on the
city.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
III. Threat Assessment 2A — Pipeline Emergency
• General Situation — provides an overview of the pipelines running in the city and
discusses various risks associated with the pipelines.
• Evacuation Routes — Identifies the city has prepared an evacuation plan and
identifies and references maps for evacuations.
• County Response — references that many agencies from within Los Angeles County
and the State of California may respond to a pipeline emergency. Many of these
agencies have regulatory oversight and jurisdiction for pipeline emergencies.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
IV. Threat Assessment 3 — Severe Weather
• General Situation — provides an overview of the city as a "Zone C" city. References
the sites to monitor in a severe storm (100 year Flood Boundary). Identifies priorities
for storm management — rescue, securing utilities, removing debris, cordoning off
flooded areas, crowd and traffic control measures, and evacuations if necessary.
• Evacuation Routes — Identifies the city has prepared an evacuation plan and
identifies and references maps for evacuations.
• County Response — references that many agencies from within Los Angeles County
and the State of California may respond to a pipeline emergency.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
• References include maps for sewage systems and pumping stations.
V. Threat Assessment 4 — Transportation/Major Air Crash
• General Situation — provides an overview of the city as a "Zone C" city. References
the sites to monitor in a severe storm (100 year Flood Boundary). Identifies priorities
for storm management — rescue, securing utilities, removing debris, cordoning off
flooded areas, crowd and traffic control measures, and evacuations if necessary.
• Specific Situation — General summary of the local airports and history of aviation
emergencies in the greater South Bay Area.
• Emergency Response Actions — addresses the primary coordination issues involved
in an aviation emergency:
o Incident and Unified Command
o On -Scene Coordination — mutual aid (Area G), exercises, and
communications.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 17
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Uj
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
• Coordination with the airport — family assistance, damage surveys, relief
organizations, media, and Public Information.
• Long -term, extended operations issues are addressed.
• Need and use of liaisons, tours, VIP's, in addressing impact area(s).
• References Aviation Emergency Plan, and Federal Family Assistance Act.
VI. Threat Assessment 5 — Transportation: Commercial Transportation Incident
• General Situation — provides a general summary that a major transportation incident
involving rail and/or trucking may result in property damage, injury, or loss of life.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
VII. Threat Assessment 6 — Civil Unrest
• General Situation — provides a general summary that civil unrest incidents can result
in property damage, injury, or loss of life.
• Specific Situations — references that El Segundo has faced or been impacted by civil
unrest in various forms (Watts 1964 and Rodney King Trial 1992).
• Emergency Response Actions — Identifies the Police Department is incident
commander in these events and response may involve a unified command with
agencies providing support. References Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and Checklists
for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
VIII. Threat Assessment 7 — National Security Emergency
• General Situation — provides a general summary that terrorist activities and
radiological events can trigger a national security emergency. Identifies various
potential threats.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies
includes evacuation, and shelter -in- place.
IX. Threat Assessment 8 — Domestic Terrorism
• General Situation — provides a general summary what terrorism, its objectives
include disruption of services, media coverage, and may result in property damage,
injury, or loss of life.
• Specific Situations — addresses obvious targets, potential targets and special events
that may trigger or attract terrorism.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 18
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
X. Threat Assessment 9 — Tsunami
• General Situation — provides a general summary on tsunami damage potential on the
West Coast. What constitutes a tsunami, and the projection of a worst -case scenario
of an 18 -meter wave (54 feet) and runup in the El Segundo coastal area. Reviews the
history of Tsunami's in California and the tsunami threat in Southern California.
• References the Tsunami Inundation Map.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
XI. Threat Assessment 10 — Fire
General Situation — provides a general summary of the fire threat in El Segundo.
Fires may result in property damage, injury, or loss of life. Identifies that the highest
structure in El Segundo is presently 24 stories and strict ordinances govern building,
safety, and fire codes for the city.
Specific Situations — identifies 3 major threats; residential fires, hi -rise fires, and
commercial - industrial fires.
Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
XII. Threat Assessment 11— Public Health Emergency
• General Situation — provides a general summary of the public health threats most
likely to impact the City of El Segundo and Los Angeles County. Public
epidemiology is conducted for 83 diseases.
• General Overview of the Public Health System in California
o Potential threats; pandemic (flu, influenza), terrorism — smallpox, anthrax, and
other biological hazards, and the surveillance efforts of the county health
system.
• Bioterrorism Preparations — identifies what the city is doing to prepare for public
health emergencies. References include the State of California plans for quarantine
and evacuations.
• Emergency Response Actions — references Chapter 6, SEMS Functions and
Checklists for the operational issues and coordination of these types of emergencies.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 19
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 211
City of El Segundo
CHAPTER 4 — Emergency Operations Center
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Purpose and Function — identifies the facility as the central point of coordination to manage
overall city response to major disasters and long -term emergencies.
2. Departmental Operations Centers (DOC) — identifies the use of a DOC for departmental
coordination of field personnel, incident command posts and resources.
EOC Activation and Deactivation — identifies who has the authority to activate the EOC, and
which events may trigger an automatic activation. Identifies the selection of the EOC Section
Chief by discipline and nature /type of incident.
4. Primary and Alternate EOC — identifies the primary EOC at 348 Main Street — Public Safety
Communications Center and facilities that may be considered for secondary EOC use if
needed. Identifies the Emergency Services Coordinator as responsible for maintaining the
EOC in a state of readiness.
S. EOC Management — identifies the Director of Emergency Services as responsible party to
direct overall emergency management policy and coordination. Provides a detailed overview
of the EOC Management Section its primary responsibilities.
6. EOC Levels of Activation — identifies the level of activation and staffing requirements under
each level.
7. EOC Notification Procedures — identifies the appropriate notifications based on the levels of
activation
8. Emergency Response Policy — identifies all city employees as Disaster Service Workers and
required support for emergency services planning and coordination under local Ordinance and
Emergency Services Act.
9. Emergency Personnel Assignments — defines the responsibility of Department Heads to
assign employees to one of three categories; Essential, Back -Up, or Stand -by.
10. Emergency Reporting Procedures — directs staff requirements to report to the EOC upon
notification using the personnel assignments, and the systems available to determine if need is
present. Directs staff where to report, on -duty and off -duty issues that may affect ability to
report.
11. Child Care — Child Care policy is defined for staff working in the EOC and in support of the
emergency organization. Policy also defines the facilities and resources available to support
this operation.
12. Public Safety Communications Center — provides an overview of the systems used in the 9-
11 response, emergency generation, computer and phone backup systems, and use of the
message center in the EOC.
13. Volunteer Agencies — identifies the agencies that would support the city in an EOC activation.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 20 „ 1 r;
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
14. Position Description and EOC Assignments — provides a general description of the EOC
position assignments and identifies the vest color assignments for each Section and Branch
assignment in the EOC.
15. Department Emergency Management Responsibilities — provides an overview of the
various assignments city personnel are likely to be assigned in an EOC activation.
16. Resources — diagrams of the analog and digital phones systems, phone assignments, EOC
setup instructions, organization charts for each department are provided as reference.
CHAPTER 5 — Legal Documents, Authorities and References
Provides a detailed overview of the documents, statutory authorities under local, state, and federal law,
and reference materials used to put the Plan together.
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
PART II
OPERATIONAL ELEMENT
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 22 21
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
CHAPTER 6 — SEMS Functions and Checklists
Chapter 6 defines the various levels of SEMS, Sections, and defined duties and responsibilities
performed in the operation of the Emergency Organization.
A detailed outline for each function is provided. The general layout of the Standardized Emergency
Management System is comprised of 5 functions using the principals established under the Incident
Command System (ICS):
Department Staffing
Responsibility:
-'Police Department
✓ Fire Department
✓ Public Works
Department
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Department Staffing
Responsibility:
✓ Conlinunity &
Economic
Development
Department
Department Staffing
Responsibility:
-'Public Works
Department
✓ Recreation & Parks
Department
Department Staffing
Responsibility:
✓Administrative
Services Department
Director Of Emergency Services (Management Section)
Responsible for overall emergency management policy and coordination through the joint efforts of
governmental agencies and private organizations. The EOC Director will either activate appropriate
sections or perform their functions as needed.
Operations Section
Responsible for coordinating all jurisdictional operations in support of the emergency response through
implementation of the city's EOC Action Plan.
Planning/Intelligence Section
Responsible for collecting, evaluating and disseminating information; developing the city's EOC Action
Plan in coordination with other sections; initiating and preparation of the city's After - Action Report and
maintaining documentation.
Logistics Section
Responsible for providing communications, facilities, services, personnel, equipment, supplies and
materials.
Finance/Administration Section
Responsible for financial activities and other administrative aspects.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 23
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 215
City of El Segundo
MANAGEMENT SECTION
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Coordination
Direction/Supervision
Note: Under SEMS (ICS), positions are filled as needed based on the incident. Positions are filled incrementally
to solve planning and staffing associated needs. Most positions will not be staffed for most events.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 24
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
MANAGEMENT SECTION OVERVIEW
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Management is responsible for overall emergency policy and coordination through the joint efforts of
governmental agencies and private organizations.
MANAGEMENT SECTION OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of emergency management is to ensure the effective management of response forces and
resources in preparing for and responding to situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents
and national security emergencies. To carry out its responsibilities, the Management Section will accomplish the
following objectives during a disaster /emergency:
• Overall management and coordination of emergency response and recovery operations, including on-
scene incident management as required.
• Coordinate and liaison with appropriate federal, state and other local government agencies, as well as
applicable segments of private sector entities and volunteer agencies.
• Establish priorities and resolve any conflicting demands for support.
• Prepare and disseminate emergency public information to inform, alert and warn the public.
• Disseminate damage information and other essential data.
Primary Management Functions (summarized)
1. Director of Emergency Services - Responsibility: Overall management of the City of El
Segundo's emergency response and recovery effort.
2. EOC Policy Group (comprised of the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director, and
other Department Heads as needed). Tasked with assisting the Director of Emergency Services
in the development of rules, regulations, proclamations and orders.
3. PIO Unit Leader — Ensure that information support is provided on request; that information
released is consistent, accurate, and timely and that appropriate information is provided to all
required agencies (co- linked with the Planning & Intelligence Section).
a. Public Information Officer - Serve as the dissemination point for all media releases
within the affected area. Other agencies wishing to release information to the public
should coordinate through the Public Information function.
b. Rumor Control Unit — Ensure that information support is provided on request; that
information released is consistent, accurate, and timely and that appropriate information
is provided to all parties who request it.
4. EOC Director — Facilitate the overall functioning of the EOC, coordinate with other agencies
and SEMS levels and serve as a resource to the Director of Emergency Services.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 25
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
�.1
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
5. EOC Legal Officer — Act as the City Attorney; provide legal advice to the Director of
Emergency Services in al legal matters relative to the emergency and assist in the proclamation
of an emergency.
6. Legislative Liaison — Work closely with the Director of Emergency Services to ensure proper
support from all legislative entities.
7. Liaison Officer — Serve as the point of contact for Agency Representatives from assisting
organizations and agencies outside the city government structure; aid in coordinating the efforts
of these outside agencies to reduce the risk of their operating independently.
8. Safety Officer - Identify and mitigate safety hazards and situations of potential City liability
during EOC operations and ensure a safe working environment in the EOC.
9. EOC Security Officer — Security of all EOC facilities and personnel access.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 26
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY ti 1
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
CITY MANAGER
OPERATIONS SECTION CHIEF
ADMIN. BATTALION CHIEF
POLICE CAPTAIN
(INCIDENT SPECIFIC)
LAW BRANCH
POLICE LIEUTENANT
OR DESIGNEE
CORONER'S UNIT
CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER
(LA COUNTY CORONER)
FIRE BRANCH
BATTALION CHIEF
OR DESIGNEE
MEDICAL/ HEALTH BRANCH
LA COUNTY EMS AGENCY
OR DESIGNEE
PUBLIC WORKS
UTILITIES MANAGER
OR DESIGNEE
WATER UNIT
UTILITIES MANAGER
OR DESIGNEE
CARE AND SHELTER BRANCH
RECREATION & PARKS DIRECTOR
OR DESIGNEE
City of El Segundo
OPERATIONS SECTION OVERVIEW
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
The EOC Operations Section's primary responsibility is to manage the tactical operation of various
response elements involved in the disaster /emergency. These elements may include:
• Fire/Rescue/Hazardous Materials
• Law /Coroner
• Medical/Health
• Care and Shelter
• Public Works
• Building and Safety
The Administrative Battalion Chief/Battalion Chief or designee, Police Captain/designee, or Public
Works Director /designee may fill the position of EOC Operations Section Chief. The EOC Operations
Section Chief is determined by the nature of the incident and the agency with jurisdictional /investigative
authority. The identified Fire, Police, and Public Works designees shall serve as first alternate. The
Director of Emergency Services also may designate the EOC Section Chief.
The EOC Operations Section Chief will determine, based on present and projected requirements, the
need for establishing specific and/or specialized branches /units. The following branches /units may be
established as the need arises:
• Fire Branch
• Law Branch
• Coroner's Unit (County Coordinated Resource)
• Medical/Health Branch (County Coordinated Resource)
• Care and Shelter Branch
• Public Works Branch
• Building and Safety Branch (in coordination w/Planning & Intelligence Section)
The EOC Operations Section Chief may activate additional units as necessary to fulfill an expanded
role.
OPERATIONS SECTION OBJECTIVES
The Operations Section is responsible for coordination of all response elements applied to the
disaster /emergency. The EOC Operations Section carries out the objectives of the EOC Action Plan and
requests additional resources as needed.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 28
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 2 1
City of El Segundo
Primary Operations Section Functions (summarized)
EOC Operations Section Coordinator
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
The EOC Operations Section Chief, a member of the Director of Emergency Service's General
(Management) Staff, is responsible for coordinating all jurisdictional operations in support of the
emergency response through implementation of the City's EOC Action Plan and for coordinating all
requests for mutual aid and other operational resources. The Coordinator is responsible for:
• Understanding the current situation.
• Predicting probable resource needs.
• Preparing alternative strategies for procurement and resources management.
Fire Branch
The Fire Branch is responsible for coordinating personnel, equipment and resources committed to the
fire, field medical, search and rescue and hazardous materials elements of the incident.
Law Branch
The Law Branch is responsible for alerting and warning the public, coordinating evacuations, enforcing
laws and emergency orders, establishing safe traffic routes, ensuring that security is provided at incident
facilities, ensuring access control to damaged areas, ordering and coordinating appropriate mutual aid
resources and assuming responsibility for the Coroner function in the absence of the Los Angeles
County Coroner.
Medical/Health Branch
The Medical/Health Branch is a liaison position and will coordinate with Los Angeles County
Operational Area for appropriate medical/health response and is responsible for managing personnel,
equipment and resources to provide the best patient care possible and coordinating the provision of
public health and sanitation.
Care and Shelter Branch
The Care and Shelter Branch is responsible for providing care and shelter for disaster victims and will
coordinate efforts with the American Red Cross and other volunteer agencies.
Public Works Branch
The Public Works Branch is responsible for coordinating all Public Works operations; maintaining
public facilities, surviving utilities and services, as well as restoring those that are damaged or
destroyed; assisting other functions with traffic issues, search and rescue, transportation, etc. as needed.
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 29
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 221
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC INFORMATION UNIT (PIO)
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
POLICE LIEUTENANT OR DESIGNEE
PLANNING & INTEL SECTION CHIEF
C.E.D. DIRECTOR (PLANNING)
BUILDING OFFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE UNIT
POLICE DEPARTMENT DESIGNEE
(AS NEEDED BASED ON INCIDENT)
SITUATION STATUS UNIT
LIBRARY DIRECTOR
PLANNING MANAGER
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY LIAISON
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY REP
DOCUMENTATION UNIT
ECONOMIC DEV. MANAGER
LICENSE PERMIT TECHNICIAN
BUILDING SAFETY UNIT
BUILDING OFFICIAL
SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
SAFETY ASSESSMENT UNIT
BUILDING OFFICIAL
SENIOR BUILDING INSPECTOR
ADVANCED PLANNING UNIT
PLANNING MANAGER
ECONOMIC DEV. MANAGER
RECOVERY PLANNING UNIT
ECONOMIC DEV. MANAGER
CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE
DEMOBILIZATION UNIT
FIRE DEPT. DESIGNEE
City of El Segundo
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
PLANNING AND INTELLIGENCE SECTION OVERVIEW
The EOC Planning/Intelligence Section's primary responsibility is to collect, evaluate, display and
disseminate incident information and status of resources. This Section functions as the primary support
for decision - making to the overall emergency organization. This Section also provides anticipatory
appraisals and develops plans necessary to cope with changing field events. During a
disaster /emergency, other department heads will advise the EOC Planning/Intelligence Chief on various
courses of action from their departmental level perspective.
PLANNING AND INTELLIGENCE SECTION OBJECTIVES
The EOC Planning/Intelligence Section ensures that safety /damage assessment information is compiled,
assembled and reported in an expeditious manner to the various EOC sections, City departments and the
Los Angeles County Operational Area via the Lennox Sheriff's Station EOC or Watch Commander, and
or using the Emergency Management Information System (EMIS). The EOC Planning/Intelligence
Section is also responsible for the detailed recording (Documentation Unit) of the entire response effort
and the preservation of these records during and following the disaster. The EOC Planning/Intelligence
Section will accomplish the following specific objectives during a disaster /emergency:
• Collect initial situation and safety /damage assessment information.
• Display situation and operational information in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) using
maps and visual aids.
• Disseminate intelligence information to the Director of Emergency Services, EOC Director,
Public Information Officer, General Staff and the Los Angeles County Operational Area via the
Lennox Sheriff's Station EOC or Watch Commander and or by using EMIS.
• Conduct mapping and recording operations.
• Prepare summary safety /damage assessment reports for dissemination to other sections, City
departments, State OES, FEMA and the Los Angeles County Operational Area via the Lennox
Sheriff's Station EOC or Watch Commander.
• Prepare required reports identifying the extent of damage and financial losses.
• Determine the City's post -event condition.
• Provide Planning/Intelligence support to other sections.
• Ensure accurate recording and documentation of the incident.
• Prepare the City's EOC Action Plan.
• Prepare the City's After - Action Report.
• Prepare a post- disaster recovery plan.
• Maintain proper and accurate documentation of all actions taken to ensure that all required records are
preserved for future use and State OES and FEMA filing requirements.
• Acquire technical experts for special interest topics or special technical knowledge subjects.
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 31
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 2
City of El Segundo
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Primary Planning & Intelligence Section Functions (summarized)
EOC Planning/Intelligence Section Chief
The EOC Planning/Intelligence Section Chief, a member of the Director of Emergency Service's
General Staff, is responsible for the collection, evaluation, forecasting, dissemination and use of
information about the development of the incident and status of resources. Information is needed to:
• Understand the current situation.
• Predict probable course of incident events.
• Prepare alternative strategies for the incident.
Situation Status Unit
The Situation Status Unit is responsible for the collection and organization of incident status and
situation information. The Unit is also responsible for the evaluation, analysis and display of
information for use by EOC staff.
Business & Industry Liaison
Under the supervision of the Situation Status Unit, and in coordination with the Public Information Unit,
the Business & Industry Liaison will gather information from local business and industry officials on the
status of their facilities, damage assessments, immediate needs, and other impacts from the incident. In
addition, they will relay information from the City of El Segundo to local business and industry officials
to facilitate the flow of information, address rumor control issues, evacuations, business closures, and
other major issues.
Documentation Unit
The Documentation Unit is responsible for initiating and preparing the City's EOC Action Plans and
After - Action Reports; maintaining accurate and complete incident files; establishing and operating an
EOC Message Center; providing copying services to EOC personnel and preserving incident files for
legal, analytical and historical purposes.
Building Safety Branch
The Building Safety Branch is responsible for the evaluation of all city -owned and private structures
damaged in an incident. This will be accomplished by identifying damage in the community, collecting
reports from the Operations Section, and assembling teams of engineers, inspectors and planners to
evaluate and tag damaged buildings. This unit prepares detailed records of damage information and
supporting the documentation process. This unit submits its findings to the Safety Assessment Unit.
Safety Assessment Unit
The Safety Assessment Unit compiles all records of damage assessed by the Building Safety Branch and
Operations Sections. It is important to differentiate between two processes (damage assessment and
safety assessment), as all safety assessment activity is reimbursable — damage assessment is not. The
Building Safety Branch compiles the costs of damage and submits this information to the Operational
Area, State, and Federal agencies. The Safety Assessment Unit responds to all known damage scenes,
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 32
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 2 24'
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
conducts assessments to determine fitness for occupancy, safety, and immediate needs (water, gas,
utilities, etc.) and any environmental safety issues that may pose a threat to the safety of individuals.
Advance Planning Unit
The Advance Planning Unit is responsible for developing reports and recommendations for future time
periods and for preparing reports and briefings for use in strategy and/or planning meetings.
Recovery Planning Unit
The Recovery Unit is responsible for ensuring that the City receives all emergency assistance and
disaster recovery costs for which it is eligible. The Unit is also responsible for all initial recovery
operations and for preparing the EOC organization for transition to a recovery operations organization to
restore the City to pre - disaster condition as quickly and effectively as possible.
Technical Specialist
Technical Specialists are advisors with special skills needed to support a field or function not addressed
elsewhere or by any other discipline. Technical Specialists (which may or may not be an employee of a
public or private agency) may report to the EOC Planning/Intelligence Section Chief; may function
within an existing unit such as the Situation Status Unit; form a separate unit if required or be reassigned
to other parts of the organization, i.e. Operations, Logistics, or Finance /Administration.
Demobilization Unit
The Demobilization Unit is responsible for preparing a Demobilization Plan to ensure an orderly, safe
and cost - effective release of personnel and equipment.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page r ,•-
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY �C. kl
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
CITY MANAGER
LOGISTICS SECTION CHIEF
GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER
EQUIP. MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
COMMUNICATIONS UNIT
POLICE LIEUTENANT
DISPATCH SUPERVISOR
PHONE SYSTEMS
POLICE ANALYST II
ACQUISITION & DEPLOYMENT UNIT
GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
FACILITIES UNIT
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
SYSTEMS MECHANIC
RESOURCES UNIT
GENERAL SERVICES MANAGER
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
TRANSPORTATION UNIT
RECREATION SUPERVISOR (TRANSPORT)
RECREATION SUPERVISOR (OPS)
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
LOGISTICS SECTION OVERVIEW
The EOC Logistics Section's primary responsibility is to ensure the acquisition, transportation and
mobilization of resources to support the response effort at the disaster sites, public shelters, EOCs, etc.
This Section provides all necessary personnel, supplies and equipment procurement support. Methods
for obtaining and using facilities, equipment, supplies, services and other resources to support
emergency response at all operational sites during emergency /disaster conditions will be the same as that
used during normal operations unless authorized by the Director of Emergency Services or emergency
orders of the City Council.
LOGISTICS SECTION OBJECTIVES
The EOC Logistics Section ensures that all other sections are supported for the duration of the incident.
Any personnel, equipment, supplies or services required by the other sections will be ordered through
the EOC Logistics Section.
The EOC Logistics Section will accomplish the following specific objectives during a
disaster /emergency:
• Collect information from other sections to determine needs and prepare for expected operations.
• Coordinate provision of logistical support with the Director of Emergency Services.
• Prepare required reports identifying the activities performed by the EOC Logistics Section.
• Determine the City's logistical support needs and plan for both immediate and long -term
requirements.
• Maintain proper and accurate documentation of all actions taken and all items procured to ensure
that all required records are preserved for future use and State OES and FEMA filing
requirements.
Primary Logistics Section Functions (summarized)
EOC Logistics Section Chief
The Logistics Section Chief, a member of the Director of Emergency Service's General Staff, is
responsible for supporting the response effort and the acquisition, transportation and mobilization of
resources.
Information is needed to:
• Understand the current situation.
• Predict probable resource needs.
Prepare alternative strategies for procurement and resources management.
Communications Unit
The Communications Unit manages all radio, data, and telephone needs of the EOC.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 35
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY 2 2 '
City of EI Segundo
Acquisition & Deployment Unit
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
The Acquisition & Deployment Unit is responsible for obtaining all non -fire and non -law enforcement
mutual aid materials, equipment and supplies to support emergency operations and arranging for
delivery of those resources.
Facilities Unit
The Facilities Unit is responsible for ensuring that adequate facilities are provided for the response
effort, including securing access to the facility and providing staff, furniture, supplies and materials
necessary to configure the facility in a manner adequate to accomplish the mission.
Resources Unit
The Resources Unit is responsible for maintaining detailed tracking records of resources allocation and
use (resources already in place, resources requested but not yet on scene and estimates of future resource
needs); for maintaining logs and invoices to support the documentation process and for resources
information displays in the EOC. It cooperates closely with the Operations Section (to determine
resources currently in place and resources needed) and with the Planning/Intelligence Section (to
provide resources information to the EOC Action Plan).
Transportation Unit
The Transportation Unit is responsible for transportation of emergency personnel, equipment and
supplies and for coordinating the Disaster Route Priority Plan.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 36
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY ;,
DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
CITY MANAGER
ADMIN /FINANCE SECTION CHIEF
ADMIN SERVICES DIRECTOR
FINANCE DIRECTOR
PERSONNEL UNIT
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST
PURCHASING UNIT
PURCHASING AGENT
BUSINESS SERVICES MANAGER
INFORMATION SYSTEMS UNIT
ISD MANAGER
NETWORK TECHNICIAN
ISD /COMPUTERS
ISD SPECIALIST
TECH SERVICES SPECIALIST
COST ANALYSIS UNIT
ACCOUNTING MANAGER
SENIOR ACCOUNTANT
COST RECOVERY UNIT
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
ACCOUNTING MANAGER
COMPENSATION & CLAIMS UNIT
HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCES SPECIALIST
TIME UNIT
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR
ACCOUNTING MANAGER
City of El Segundo
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
FINANCE AND ADMINSTRATION SECTION OVERVIEW
The EOC Finance /Administration Section's primary responsibility is to maintain to the greatest extent possible
the financial systems necessary to keep the City functioning during a disaster /emergency. These systems include:
Payroll Payments Revenue collection
Claim processing
Cost recovery documentation
The Section also supervises the negotiation and administration of vendor and supply contracts and procedures.
The extent of the disaster /emergency will determine the extent to which the EOC Finance /Administration Section
will mobilize. In a low -level emergency, only part of the section will mobilize. In a wide- spread disaster that
damages communications and systems, the entire section will mobilize.
FINANCE AND ADMINSTRATION SECTION OBJECTIVES
The EOC Finance /Administration Section acts in a support role in all disasters /emergencies to ensure that all
required records are preserved for future use and State OES and FEMA filing requirements through maintenance
of proper and accurate documentation of all actions taken. To carry out its responsibilities, the EOC
Finance /Administration Section will accomplish the following objectives during a disaster /emergency:
EOC Finance /Administration Section Coordinator
The EOC Finance /Administration Section Chief supervises the fiscal management of response and
recovery for the disaster /emergency; ensures that the payroll and revenue collection process continues
and activates the Disaster Accounting System.
Personnel Unit
The Personnel Unit is responsible for obtaining, coordinating and allocating all non -fire and non -law
enforcement mutual aid personnel support requests received; for registering volunteers as Disaster
Services Workers and for managing EOC personnel issues and requests.
Purchasing Unit
The Purchasing Unit is responsible for administering all financial matters pertaining to purchases,
vendor contracts, leases, fiscal agreements and tracking expenditures. The Purchasing Unit is
responsible for identifying sources of equipment, preparation and signing equipment rental agreements,
and processing all administrative paperwork associated with equipment rental and supply contracts,
including incoming and outgoing mutual aid resources. The Purchasing Unit is also responsible for
ensuring that all records identify scope of work and site - specific work location.
Information Systems Branch
The Information Systems Branch is responsible for managing all radio, data, and telephone needs of the
EOC staff. This unit will work in close coordination with the Communications Unit in Logistics to
obtain whatever resources are necessary to support EOC and field operations.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 38
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
City of El Segundo
ISD /Computer Unit
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
The ISD /Computer Unit is responsible for establishing and managing all necessary computer support to
the EOC staff and field units.
Cost Analysis Unit
The Cost Analysis Unit is responsible for providing cost analysis data for the incident to help the
planning and recovery efforts. The Unit must ensure that all pieces of equipment and personnel that
require payment are properly identified; obtain and record all cost data; analyze and prepare estimates of
incident costs and maintain accurate records of incident costs.
The Cost Analysis Unit will be increasingly tasked to support the planning function in terms of cost
estimates of resources used. The Unit must maintain accurate information on the actual costs for the use
of all assigned resources.
Cost Recovery Unit
The Cost Recovery Unit should be activated at the onset of any disaster /emergency and is responsible
for maintaining the Disaster Accounting System and procedures to capture and document costs relating
to a disaster /emergency in coordination with other sections and departments. The Unit also acts as
liaison with the disaster assistance agencies and coordinates the recovery of costs as allowed by law.
Maintenance of records in such a manner that will pass audit is also an extremely important task of this
Unit. Accurate and timely documentation is essential to financial recovery.
Compensation/Claims Unit
The Compensation/Claims Unit is responsible for managing the investigation and compensation of
physical injuries and property damage claims involving the City of El Segundo arising out of an
emergency /disaster, including completing all forms required by worker's compensations programs and
local agencies, maintaining a file of injuries and illnesses associated with the incident and for providing
investigative support of claims and for issuing checks upon settlement of claims.
Time Unit
The Time Unit is responsible for tracking hours worked by paid personnel, volunteers, contract labor,
mutual aid and all others and ensuring that daily personnel time recording documents are prepared and
compliance to agency's time policy is being met. The Time Unit is responsible for ensuring that time
and equipment use records identify scope of work and site - specific work location consistent with initial
safety /damage assessment records, sites and Damage Survey Reports (DSRs).
Personnel time and equipment use records should be collected and processed for each operational period
as necessary. Records must be verified, checked for accuracy and posted according to existing policy.
Excess hours worked must also be determined and separate logs maintained. Time and equipment use
records must be compiled in appropriate format for cost recovery purposes.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 39
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY r)
City of El Segundo
RECOVERY OPERATIONS
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Recovery Operations will address providing assistance individuals, families, and businesses to recover
by ensuring that the following services are available, and by seeking additional resources if the
community needs them:
• Assessment of the extent and severity of damage to homes and other property;
• Restoration of services such as water, food and medical assistance, utilities, etc.;
• Providing coordination and assistance to the community to allow the community access to
information about how to address the repair of damaged homes, businesses, and other personal
property;
• Provide or request professional counseling services when the sudden changes from the
emergency have resulted in mental anguish and inability to cope.
The city's response to an emergency is driven by the type and magnitude of the emergency. The
Recovery Section is not a stand -alone unit; rather it is likely to be a combination of efforts from already
established from the 5 primary SEMSIICS functional elements (Management, Operations, Planning &
Intelligence, Logistics, and Finance & Administration).
Because of the complex nature of recovery, and the political and economic issues that will drive
recovery efforts, the Director of Emergency Services and the City Council will take primary leadership
in this area. These elements will establish policy, assign personnel, and establish the goals and
objectives through policy decisions made by the Council. The Mayor, under local Ordinance, may
convene the Disaster Council, or establish recovery type subcommittees to address the short and long
terms issues affecting recovery.
It is the Recovery Section's responsibility to determine which units should be activated for the recovery
effort. The following units may be established to support a Recovery Section as the need is identified
and their primary responsibilities are:
Planning Unit (Planning & Intelligence Section):
• Land use and zoning or re- zoning for development of damaged areas.
• Environmental assessment.
• Housing programs and assistance.
Building Safety Unit (Operations Section)
• Building and Safety inspections
• Demolition and debris removal
• Restoration of utility services
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 40
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
��G
City of El Segundo SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Finance and Administration Section
• Accounting and claims processing
• Contracting for recovery service and supplies
• Applications for disaster financial assistance
• Liaison with assistance providers
• Disaster financial assistance project management
• On -site recovery support
Mental Health Unit
• Mental health services to city employees
• Mental health services to the community (Operations)
Recovery Activities - Common terms for recovery activities are listed below:
• Category A: Debris Clearance
Clearance of debris, wreckage, demolition, and removal of buildings damaged beyond
repair.
• Category B: Protective Measures
Measures to eliminate or lessen immediate threats to life, and public health, and
safety.
• Category C: Roads & Bridges
All non - emergency work and any that may require more time for decision - making,
preparation of detailed design, construction plans, cost estimates, and schedules.
• Category D: Water Control Facilities
Includes flood control, drainage, levees, dams, dikes, irrigation works, seawalls, and
bulkheads.
• Category E: Public Buildings and Equipment
Buildings, vehicles or other equipment, transportation systems, fire stations, supplies or
inventory, higher education facilities, libraries, and schools.
• Category F: Utilities
Water supply systems, sanitary sewerage treatment plants, storm drainage,
light/power.
JUL Y 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 41
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
23
City of El Segundo
• Category G: Other
SEMS Emergency Operations Plan
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Park facilities, piers, boat ramps, public and private non - profit facilities, recreational
facilities, playground equipment.
Recovery occurs in two phases: short and long term.
Short Term Recovery
Begins during the response phase of the emergency. The major objectives include:
• Debris removal and clean up; and
• Coordinated restoration of essential services (electricity, water, gas, and sewage systems).
Long Term Recovery
Begins after the emergency, or concurrently (depending on the resources available). The major
objectives are:
• Coordinate with the Operational Area (the County of Los Angeles) to provide for long -term
social and health services.
• Re- establish the city's local economy to pre- disaster levels;
• Recovery of the city disaster response costs; and
• Identify future mitigation strategies.
JULY 3, 2003 SEMS EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Page 42
EXECUTIVE PLAN SUMMARY
434
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRA) DAVIS Governor
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Q E s
Southern Region C A L I F O R N I A
4671 Liberty A,.enue 71C
Los Alamitos, CA 90720 -5155
„,. ♦ (562) 795 -2900 �
Governor's Once of
Emergency Services
June 12, 2003
Mary Strenn
City Manager
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245 -3895
Dear Ms Strenn:
My staff has completed their review of your jurisdiction's draft Emergency
Operations Plan (EOP). I have reviewed the attached staff report and concur with its
findings and recommendations. Accordingly, I have determined that El Segundo's EOP
is acceptable in accordance with the requirements of the Emergency Services Act (ESA)
and the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). This plan is also
consistent with state and federal guidance available at the time the plan was developed.
This acceptance is contingent upon the adoption of this EOP by your governing
body or their designee.
Please return the signed Letter of Promulgation and Signed Concurrence by
Principle Departments /Agencies as soon as it becomes available.
Thank you for your planning effort. I encourage you to continue developing
supporting emergency standard operating procedures and to exercise your plan. If you
have any questions or require any assistance, please contact my staff, Mary C.
Montgomery at (562) 795 -2906.
Sincerely,
Keith Harrison
Deputy Regional Administrator
Southern Region
3J
State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services
MEMORANDUM
TO: Keith Harrison
Deputy Regional Administrator
FROM: Mary C. Montgomery, ESC
OES Southern Region i
DATE: - June 12, 2003
SUBJECT: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (EOP) FOR EL SEGUNDO
Attached is the EOP submitted by the city of El Segundo. Mary Ann Klemundt reviewed
the plan using the Optional Checklist for Reviewing Emergency Plans. Her review and comments
are included with the draft plan.
The plan is consistent with the State Emergency Plan and federal guidance as reflected in
the checklist The City of El Segundo's EOP adequately describes the threat facing the
jurisdiction and the legal basis of the plan. The method of activating, managing, coordinating the
City of El Segundo's emergency organization and requesting mutual aid and other assistance is
likewise adequately described except as noted below.
I recommend that we determine the City of El Segundo's revised EOP as acceptable
under the conditions and requirements' existing at the time the draft was submitted under the
following conditions:
1. That the Emergency Operations Plan be approved by the jurisdiction governing body
or designated representative.
2 That the plan be updated every three years.
If you have any concerns or questions, please let me know
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of the Emergency Management Mutual
Aid (EMMA) Plan. Fiscal Impact: None
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Adopt the Resolution;
2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
In 1994, the Northridge earthquake significantly impacted greater Los Angeles, Santa Monica,
and other locales. Local emergency managers became overwhelmed. It was assessed that a
standardized plan needed to be created to meet the needs of local, county, and state
emergency management officials in an emergency or local disaster.
In November 1997, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services created a plan called the
Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) Plan. It was designed to provide a resource to
affected local government officials in an emergency and allows unaffected local government's
to provide resources to affected areas.
In 2001, the crash of Alaska Airlines Flight #261 immediately overwhelmed Ventura County
emergency management officials and was the first real test of the EMMA Plan. The purpose
of the plan was to support disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional
emergency management personnel. The goal of the plan was met and Ventura County
- Continued on next page -
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Draft Resolution
Emergency Management Mutual Aid Plan (November 1997)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: _Yes X No
ORIGINATED:
DATE:
Norm Angelo, Fire Chief %�C2`.�l C�kr� % —� ��0�
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City Mana er 4103
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
officials received qualified personnel from the County of Los Angeles, Orange and San
Bernardino counties in matter of hours.
The EMMA plan and the Resolution provide guidance and gives the City Manager the
discretion to offer or request services of a specialized nature. It enables the City Manager to
hold or withdraw its resources if they are needed in the City of El Segundo. The EMMA plan
provides a standardized method to request assistance and also provides for a timely
response of experienced and skilled personnel. These personnel are trained to address a
variety of emergency management response, operational, and recovery issues:
1. It provides a system, including an organization, information, and forms necessary to
coordinate the formal request, reception, assignment, and training of assigned
personnel.
2. Provides for the coordination of training for emergency managers including SEMS
training, emergency management course work in recovery, plans and administration,
finance, and operations.
3. it promotes professionalism in emergency management and a critical resource to local
government agencies.
Mutual Aid requested or provided under this plan will follow normal mutual aid channels
similar to the fire and law enforcement mutual aid systems, the master mutual aid agreement,
and standardized emergency management system. Requests are handled through the
County (Operational Area) and submitted to the State of California, that assigns a regional
EMMA coordinator through a regional office or REOC.
For El Segundo, the request for mutual aid would come through the County of Los Angeles
Office of Emergency Management to the local area disaster management area coordinator
(Area G). The Area G coordinator would poll qualified emergency managers and provide a
list of available resources to the county. Typical assignments are 7 (minimum) to 14 days
(maximum).
If El Segundo needed assistance, the request would be relayed to the LA County OEM, and a
similar poll would be conducted as above through any of the state's six mutual aid regions, as
needed.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ELSEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT MUTUAL AID "EMMA" PLAN
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of El Segundo as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City of El Segundo has a substantial risk of natural, technological, and
man -made emergencies.
B. The City of El Segundo like most local governments has limited capacities to
staff long -term emergency management functions.
C. Emergency management functions are unique and require highly specialized
skills and training.
D. In the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake (1994), emergency managers
became overwhelmed and needed professional emergency management
assistance from their colleagues.
E. As a result, the State of California in 1997 developed a coordinated
emergency management concept called the Emergency Managers Mutual
Aid (EMMA) system.
F. The purpose of EMMA is to support disaster operations in affected
jurisdictions by providing professionally trained emergency management
personnel.
G. The EMMA Plan was utilized successfully during the crash of Alaska Airlines
Flight #261 (2000). Ventura County requested assistance from local, state,
and federal emergency management agencies.
H. The City of El Segundo recognizes this mutual aid concept and adopts the
Emergency Management Mutual Aid (EMMA) System as a component of the
City of El Segundo Emergency Operations Plan.
I. The City of El Segundo agrees to participate in the EMMA system and if able,
to provide emergency management assistance to other jurisdictions as
requested, or request assistance from other jurisdictions as needed.
SECTION 2: The City Manager, as part of the duties set forth in El Segundo
Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 2 -2 -5, is authorized as the Director of Emergency
Services to provide or request EMMA mutual aid services to support the emergency
services organization or other jurisdictions.
SECTION 3: In requesting or providing such mutual aid services, and procedures,
n
the city manager should consider the following criteria:
A. The nature of the event — whether its impacts a single jurisdiction, wide
geographic or regional area;
B. The City of El Segundo is not likely to be significantly affected by the
temporary loss of its full -time emergency management staff;
C. Mutual aid assignments for declared emergencies will be for a 7 to 14 day
period, or longer with approval of the city manager.
D. All associated costs incurred by any jurisdiction providing assistance will be
eligible for reimbursement as part of "emergency protective measures"
(Category B) described in the State Natural Disaster Assistance Act when a
state of emergency has been declared and by Public Law (PL) 93 -288 when
there is a Presidential declaration of a major disaster. The providing
jurisdiction must document all costs and invoice the requesting jurisdiction.
E. EMMA personnel assignments will be restricted to local government and
operational area Emergency Operations Centers, Regional Emergency
Operations Centers, and Disaster Service Centers.
F. Requesting jurisdictions are able to provide lodging, food, and other essential
resources to its personnel providing mutual aid assistance;
G. The City of El Segundo is able to provide lodging, food and other essential
resources to the personnel responding to a request for assistance;
H. The personnel providing mutual aid resources or responding to support
the City of El Segundo are adequately trained in accordance with the
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS).
SECTION 4: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution,;
record this Resolution in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a
minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the City Council's records and the
minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and
will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.
2003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
Mike Gordon,
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 1
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the
Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of , 2003, and the same was so passed
and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS 10 FORM:
Mark D. Hensley",,Attorney
% !
sy:
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City Attorney
-' 4
State of California
EMERGENCY Y MANAGEMENT
1VIUT
UAL AID SYSTEM
(EMMA)
November 1997
�, 4 2
Emergency Managers Mutual Aid Plan
Table of Contents
T p Page
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
Objectives 1
BACKGROUND 1
AUTHORITIES 2
ASSUMPTIONS 2
ORGANIZATION 2
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 3
General 3
Personnel 4
Liability 5
Training 5
RESPONSIBILITIES 6
Local Government & Operational Areas 6
State Office of Emergency Services 6
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS 6
Activation 6
Deactivation 7
STANDARDIZED EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SEMS) 7
REFERENCES
El.
2 4
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
Emergency Managers Mutual Aid Plan
Introduction
Purpose The purpose of Emergency Managers Mutual Aid (EMMA) is to support
disaster operations in affected jurisdictions by providing professional
emergency management personnel.
Objectives The objectives of the EMMA Plan include:
Background
Providing emergency management personnel from unaffected areas to
support local jurisdictions, Operational Areas, and regional
emergency operations during proclaimed emergencies.
2. Providing a system, including an organization, information, and forms
necessary to coordinate the formal request, reception, assignment, and
training of assigned personnel.
3. Establishing a structure to maintain this document (the Emergency
Managers Mutual Aid Plan) and its procedures.
4. Providing for the coordination of training for emergency managers,
including Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)
training, emergency management course work, exercises, and disaster
response procedures.
5. Promoting professionalism in emergency management.
In accordance with the Master Mutual Aid Agreement, local and state
emergency managers have responded in support of each other under a
variety of plans and procedures. Immediately following the 1994
Northridge earthquake, city and county emergency managers in the Office
of Emergency Services (OES) Coastal, Southern, and Inland Regions
developed a coordinated emergency management concept called the
Emergency Managers Mutual Aid (EMMA) system. EMMA provided a
valuable service in the emergency response and recovery efforts at the
Southern Regional Emergency Operations Center (REOC), local
Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs), the Disaster Field Office (DFO),
and community service centers.
November, 1997 Page 1
�4��
Authorities
Assumptions
Organization
November, 1997
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
Master Mutual Aid Agreement
• Sections 2400 -2450 of Title 19, Division 2 of the California Code of
Regulations (Standardized Emergency Management System - SEMS)
• California Emergency Services Act (Gov. Code Section 8550 et seq.)
• California Labor Code, Section 3211.92 (Disaster Services Workers)
The Emergency Managers Mutual Aid Plan is based on the following
assumptions:
The main tenet of mutual aid operations is that there is full
commitment of resources by the requesting jurisdiction prior to the
initiation of a mutual aid request. This does not require actual
exhaustion of all resources, but it does anticipate full mobilization and
commitment to the emergency.
2. When needed, the OES Regional Administrator, or designee, will
designate an EMMA Coordinator at the regional level. The EMMA
Coordinator at each SEMS level will facilitate the assignment of
EMMA resources.
Requests for mutual aid will follow normal mutual aid channels,
consistent with the Master Mutual Aid Agreement and SEMS.
4. Local government must use SEMS in order to be eligible for possible
state funding of response - related personnel costs pursuant to activities
identified in the California Code of Regulations.
The EMMA system is composed of emergency management personnel
from local and state government. The process for the allocation of
resources is as follows:
• The county, cities, and special districts will forward their requests for
mutual aid through the Operational Area.
Page 2
2 ! ='
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
The Operational Area will act as the coordination point between the
county, cities, and special districts and the OES region.
• The OES regional offices (or REOCs) will act as the coordination
point and facilitate mutual aid among Operational Areas.
• The State Office of Emergency Services headquarters (or the SOC)
will facilitate the provision of mutual aid among OES regions.
Policies and Procedures
General The general policies and procedures guiding EMMA include the
following:
November, 1997
1. Mutual aid is requested and provided because it is needed to respond
to an emergency, not because it is anticipated that local government
will be reimbursed by state or federal disaster funds.
2. State OES will train its regional personnel on the procedures and
information contained in this plan. At the time of an event, OES may
request a knowledgeable local emergency management official to
assist with EMMA requests as part of the Logistics Section during
REOC and State Operations Center activation.
3. The State Office of Emergency Services coordinates mutual aid (from
requester to responder jurisdiction), primarily drawing from local
government sources. As necessary, OES may provide state agency
employees in response to mutual aid requests.
4. Assignments of EMMA personnel will normally be to local
government and Operational Area Emergency Operations Centers,
Regional Emergency Operations Centers, and community service
centers staffed by federal, state, and local officials.
5. Response Information Management System (RIMS) forms will be
utilized to the fullest extent possible.
6. Under certain circumstances, mutual aid costs may be reimbursable.
Individuals providing mutual aid will be responsible for maintaining
their own logs, time sheets, travel claims, and other documentation
necessary for reimbursement. This documentation will be submitted
to their agency. Associated costs incurred by the jurisdictions
providing assistance may be eligible for reimbursement under the
Natural Disaster Assistance Act (NDAA), when a state of emergency
has been proclaimed; and by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, P.L. 93 -288 as amended, when there
is a Presidential Declaration.
Page 3
246
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
7. Mutual aid between local jurisdictions will be for a specific, agreed
upon period of time for each local emergency response. Normally,
days (minimum) to 14 days (maximum) will be the standard
commitment period.
During the first three years of implementing the EMMA Plan, in an
effort to assist with its maintenance and improvement, exit survey and
evaluation forms will be completed by EMMA participants. These
forms will be forwarded to the Regional Administrator of the affected
jurisdictions. Upon review by the Mutual Aid Regional Advisory
Committee (MARAC), recommendations for any changes will be
forwarded to State OES Planning Section.
Personnel The following principles guide the selection and use of EMMA personnel:
November, 1997
The primary source of volunteers for EMMA positions will be from
emergency management personnel, defined as: "A state or local
government employee responsible for managing, planning, operating,
or providing logistical or finance /administrative support to emergency
activities or programs."
2. Emergency personnel will have, at a minimum, completed the
"Introduction to SEMS" and "Emergency Operations Center" courses
or equivalent training. Typical assignment positions are: EOC
management staff (PIO and Safety Officer), Administrative Support,
Section Chiefs, Branch Coordinators, and Technical Specialists.
3. The requesting jurisdiction is to make special arrangements with the
responding jurisdiction, in coordination with the REOC, to continue
the duty assignments of an EMMA mutual aid person for more than
14 calendar days.
4. All emergency management personnel will receive a general
information sheet prior to being dispatched to an assignment.
5. The requesting jurisdiction will brief assigned personnel and provide a
procedure manual, all paperwork, tools, and equipment necessary to
perform EMMA assignments.
6. The requesting jurisdiction may provide identification badges, if
needed locally, to EMMA personnel upon their arrival. There is no
requirement for special identification.
7. The position of EMMA Coordinator will be part of the Logistics
Section (Personnel Branch).
8. In order to increase the number of experienced emergency
management personnel available for mutual aid service, a "trainee"
Page 4
w
fro. 4
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
position to assist the requesting jurisdiction during the emergency
may be established with the consent of all parties.
a) The definition for a trainee is a person with limited actual
disaster response experience who accompanies and works
under the general direction of an experienced EMMA
Mutual Aid responder on a given assignment.
b) The conditions of the trainees' assignment will include a
statement of the general duties to be performed and the
length of assignment.
The requesting local jurisdictions will forward release notification
upon completion of the assignment to the receiving Operational Areas
(OAs). The OAs will forward the release notifications to the Region.
The Region will forward notification to the responding OAs, who will
forward the same to the appropriate responding local government.
The SOC will be kept informed via RIMS for tracking purposes.
Liability Emergency management personnel provided under the EMMA plan are
public employees who, during disaster situations, are considered Disaster
Service Workers. Work- related injuries to EMMA personnel will be
handled by the responding jurisdiction under Workers Compensation.
EMMA personnel act as Disaster Service Workers of the providing
jurisdiction, and as such are provided the immunities, protections, and
benefits of Disaster Service Workers, as provided in the California
Emergency Services Act and the Master Mutual Aid Agreement. As
between the jurisdictions receiving and providing assistance, the liability
for the acts or omissions of EMMA personnel, if any, shall be determined
by the particular nature of those acts or omissions accomplished while
providing or receiving mutual aid.
The cost to repair extraordinary damage to a personal or local
jurisdiction's vehicle, when the vehicle is being used in the performance of
a specific assignment, will be provided by the requesting jurisdiction.
Normal wear and tear is excluded.
Training Upon adoption of the EMMA plan by the California Emergency Council,
the State OES will assemble a group to assess training needs, select and
recommend course materials, and include training on the EMMA Plan and
related procedures in emergency response and REOC training.
November, 1997
Page 5
14g
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
Responsibilities
Local Government Local government and Operational Areas are responsible for:
&Operational Areas
1. Reviewing and understanding the policies and procedures of the
EMMA Plan.
2. Identifying staff and procedures to integrate the position of EMMA
Coordinator into their emergency organization.
3. Participating in exercises of the system.
4. Coordinating information between local government and the
Operational Area, and between Operational Areas and OES Regions,
as provided in SEMS to ensure timely resource information.
State Office of The State Office of Emergency Services, through the Administrative
Emergency Services Regions, is responsible for:
1. Training state and regional Emergency Operations Center personnel
on use of the EMMA system and the functions of an EMMA
Coordinator.
2. Facilitating mutual aid among the regions and Operational Areas.
Appointing an EMMA Coordinator to the REOC /SOC Logistics
Section, when needed, for the purpose of coordinating mutual aid
requests.
4. Providing a system to coordinate information between Operational
Areas and the OES Regions; and to coordinate and process
information from the OES Regions to the State Operations Center.
Concept of Operations
Activation Activation involves the following:
1. The system can be activated for small, single jurisdictional
emergencies or for large -scale disasters involving multiple
jurisdictions.
2. Local government requests for mutual aid are made to the
Operational Area. The Operational Area is responsible for
coordinating mutual aid within its area.
3. Mutual aid requests that an Operational Area is unable to fill are
forwarded to the OES Region.
November, 1997 Page 6
r)4:;
� .i
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
4. When mutual aid is needed from another region, the request is made
by the affected OES Region, through the SOC, to another OES
Region.
5. During a multi - regional incident, requests for mutual aid are
coordinated with the SOC by the OES Regions.
6. During all levels of activation, local jurisdictions coordinate
information on resource utilization through their respective
Operational Areas.
Deactivation Deactivation involves the following:
1. Each person assigned to provide mutual aid assistance will submit all
reimbursement documentation to their agency's finance manager.
2. The EMMA Coordinator or the personnel branch coordinator at each
affected SEMS level will submit copies of an EMMA exit survey
(completed by EMMA response personnel) and an EMMA evaluation
(completed by the receiving jurisdiction) to the Emergency
Operations Center manager, with recommendations for
improvements.
3. Prior to deactivation, each individual providing mutual aid will
complete the requesting agency's deactivation paper work and submit
it to the requesting jurisdiction.
4. The Operational Area Logistics Section Chief will provide the OES
Regional Administrator with an evaluation for EMMA response
personnel.
5. The OES Regional Administrator will forward copies of the forms to
the State OES Planning Section.
Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)
The Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) incorporates
the five functions - management, planning/intelligence, operations,
logistics, and finance /administration - consistently, from the field level to
the state level. All phases of the EMMA system are to operate consistent
with SEMS regulations.
November, 1997 Page 7
050
References
November, 1997
EMERGENCY MANAGERS MUTUAL AID PLAN
Master Mutual Aid Agreement
Sections 2400 - 2450 of Title 19, Division 2 of the California Code of
Regulations (Standardized Emergency Management Systems -
SEMS)
• California Labor Code, Section 3211.92 (Disaster Service Worker)
Natural Disaster Assistance Act, Chapter 7.5 of Division 1 of Title 2
of the Government Code
• Section 8655 and 8656 of the California Emergency Services Act,
Article 17, Chapter 7 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code
Page 8
5 ��
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to approve cost sharing agreement between the Cities of
El Segundo and Manhattan Beach for Rosecrans Avenue Improvements between
Sepulveda Boulevard and Highland Avenue — (estimated cost to El Segundo = $250,000).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Approve cost sharing agreement; (2) Authorize the City Manager
to execute the agreement on behalf of the City; (3) Alternatively discuss and take other
action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
(Background and discussion begins on the next page............)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Cost sharing agreement.
2. Location map.
FISCAL IMPACT: $250,000 from Proposition `rC" local return revenues
Capital Improvement Program: To be budgeted
Amount Requested: $250,000
Account Number: To be assigned
Project Phase: Design and construction
Appropriation Required: Yes — From Proposition "Crr revenues
ORIGINATED BY: // DATE: July 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
7
Mary Strenn, City anager
20030603 — Approve Cost Shang Agreement between El Segundo and Manhattan Beach
for Rosecrans Avenue Improvements between Sepulveda Boulevard and Hghland Avenue
17
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
In 2001, the Cities of Manhattan Beach and El Segundo had jointly requested Los Angeles
County Supervisor Don Knabe of the 4th District to participate in an estimated $1 million
project to improve Rosecrans Avenue between Sepulveda Boulevard and Highland
Avenue, which falls within both Cities. Generally, the southerly half of Rosecrans Avenue
is in Manhattan Beach and the northerly half is in El Segundo.
In response, Supervisor Knabe has offered a County contribution of $500,000 with the
understanding that the two (2) Cities contribute $250,000 each.
The scope of work includes pavement rehabilitation and new irrigation and landscaping
within the median islands. El Segundo's share of up to $250,000 includes $140,000 for
resurfacing the north half of the deteriorated pavement of Rosecrans Avenue and
$110,000 for median landscape rehabilitation within El Segundo City limits. Manhattan
Beach has agreed to be the lead agency for project design and construction.
The enclosed cost sharing agreement has been approved as to form by the City Attorney.
The agreement commits El Segundo for a payment of up to $250,000 based on final
project costs for work within El Segundo. The agreement also provides for a similar
commitment from Manhattan Beach for a future project on Rosecrans Avenue, east of
Sepulveda Boulevard that may be proposed by El Segundo.
El Segundo's payment is proposed to be made from County Proposition "C" local return
revenues.
20030603 — Approve Coat Sharing Agreement between El Segundo and Manhattan Beach
for Rosecrans Avenue Improvements between Sepulveda Boulevard and Highland Avenue
Agreement No.
AGREEMENT FOR COST SHARING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND
THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
This AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
, 2 by and between the
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ( "EL SEGUNDO") and the CITY OF
MANHATTAN BEACH ( "MANHATTAN BEACk ").
1. RECITALS. This Agreement is entered into with reference to
the following facts and objectives:
A. MANHATTAN BEACH and EL SEGUNDO are working with the Los
Angeles County Public Works Department to develop a_
project for resurfacing Rosecrans Avenue from Highland
Avenue to Sepulveda Boulevard ( "Project "). Rosecrans
Avenue consists of three lanes westbound and two lanes
eastbound with parking lanes, curbs, gutters, and a
raised median. The Project would intersect the
jurisdictional boundaries of both Parties.
B. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for cost
sharing between the Parties of all necessary and
reasonable expenses relating to the preparation of plans
and specifications, geotechnical and material
investigations, public works bids and contract documents
and construction costs for the Project.
2. ALLOCATION OF COSTS
A. MANHATTAN BEACH agrees that it will, without limitation,
cause all plans and specifications to be prepared for the
Project and advertise and administer the construction
contract. MANHATTAN BEACH will be the lead agency for
any environmental review needed for the Project and for
making progress payments to its design consultant and
construction contractor.
B. Such plans and specifications should include, at a
minimum, the following:
i. Recommendations on removing and restoring curb,
gutter, and sidewalks within the Project area;
il. Resurfacing /reconstructing Rosecrans Avenue;
iii. A traffic detour and striping plan;
iv. Bus pads at the location of all existing bus stops
within the limits of construction; I-)
Page 2 of 5
V. Renovation of the medians including, without
limitation, landscaping and irrigation plans;
vi. Preliminary and final construction cost estimates.
MANHATTAN BEACH will submit plans and specifications for review
by EL SEGUNDO and incorporate EL SEGUNDO'S comments for work
within its City limits prior to advertising the project for
construction bids.
It is understood that the total project cost including design,
construction and construction management is budgeted for
$1,000,000. The County's share is $500,000 and the two Cities
will contribute up to $250,000 each, except that at its sole
discretion, a City may authorize an additional amount.
The County's share in the amount of $500,000.00 will be applied
to the project costs first; after it has been exhausted then the
Cities will contribute their shares of the construction cost
using the same ratio as that detailed in Exhibit "A ".
EL SEGUNDO agrees to pay MANHATTAN BEACH, upon execution of this
Agreement and within thirty calendar days of receipt of the bid
result, its share of up to $250,000.
Each City shall be solely responsible for the review and approval
or denial of any change order within its own city limits. Each
city shall approve or deny such change order within 5 working
days from the date submitted by the contractor. EL SEGUNDO agrees
to pay MANHATTAN BEACH the cost of any change order work approved
by El Segundo within 40 calendar days after project acceptance
and a final cost report furnished by Manhattan Beach. In the
event a change order results in a delay claim brought on by the
contractor, each city agrees to be responsible for that delay
claim.
3. NO ADDITIONAL COST - SHARING IMPLIED. The Parties agree that
the payment of the amounts described above does not imply the
existence of a partnership, joint venture or similar joint
enterprise, and the fact that the parties have chosen to share
expenses for the Project neither creates, evidences nor
implies any obligation to expend or share any future expenses
related to the Project except as otherwise specifically
provided in this Agreement.
Page 3 of 5
4. FUTURE COST SHARING AGREEMENT. Manhattan Beach agrees that it
will enter into a similar cost sharing agreement with El
Segundo to implement a future project that may be proposed by
El Segundo for Rosecrans Avenue between Sepulveda Boulevard
and Aviation Boulevard. Such improvement may include pavement
rehabilitation, restriping, sidewalk, median landscaping and
irrigation, and traffic signal improvements. Each city is
responsible for the cost of the design and construction of the
improvements within its own jurisdictional limit. E1 Segundo
will be the lead agency for implementation of the project.
Both parties agree to provide mutual cogperation and support
for implementing such project including, without limitation,
seeking monetary support for the project from Los Angeles
County and /or the Metropolitan Transit Authority.
The parties agree that they will commit up to $250,000 each to
pay for such a future'project. At its sole discretion a City
may authorize an additional amount for design and construction
of additional improvements within its own jurisdictional
limits.
5. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS. Copies of all documents, data, studies,
drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports including,
without limitation, record drawings, prepared by or on behalf of
MANHATTAN BEACH under this Agreement will be provided to EL
SEGUNDO.
6. NOTICES. All communication to either party by the other party
will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective
name and address as follows:
EL SEGUNDO
Director of Public Works
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
E1 Segundo, CA 90245
Fax: 310/640.0489
MANHATTAN BEACH
Director of Public Works
City of Manhattan Beach
1400 Highland Avenue
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Fax: 310/802.5301
Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively
deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit
thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly
addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will
be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be
made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to
be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this
paragraph.
7. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in, and will be
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California,
and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will
be in Los Angeles County.
Page 4 of 5
B. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement sets forth the entire
understanding of the Parties. There are no other understandings,
terms, or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written.
This Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties
to this Agreement and any subsequent successors and assigns.
9. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to
independently review this Agreement with legal counsel.
Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole,
and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be
interpreted strictly for or against either-Party.
10. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unenforceable, the such portion will be deemed modified to the
extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such
portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the
balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect.
11. AUTHORITY /MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant
that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to
authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage
in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified
by written amendment. CITY'S city manager may execute any such
amendment on behalf of CITY.
12. ACCEPTANCE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that
this Agreement, agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and
related documents to be entered into in connection with this
Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party
is delivered by facsimile transmission. Such facsimile signature
will be treated in all respect as having the same effect as an
original signature.
13. INDEMNIFICATION. Each of the Cities shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless each other, and each other's agents, officers
and employees, from and against any and all liability, expense,
damage, injury, cause of action or judgment arising from or
connected with the indemnifying city's wrongful or negligent
actions or omissions in connection with its performance under
this Agreement.
��Y�,
Page 5 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this
contract the day and year first hereinabove written.
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
Mary Strenn
City Manager
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen
City Clerk
APPROVED AS
Mark D. H lje
By '
Karl H. B
Assistanl�
y Attorney
er
ty Attorney
CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH
Geoff Dolan
City Manager
ATTEST:
Liza Tamura
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Robert V. Wadden, Jr.
City Attorney
to �
O W I AiNnOO S3139NV SOI •AMA 3NkiOH1MtlH d0 1110
y 2 I OA�e v� 00310 NVS
Q I 3N313 y�
U V1 I u
a
V W
V
U- C)
V
Q
CL
i
c3
2
ill
NOIIVIAV
v03A1nd39I14
M 3M 71v0
N
= 3AV 1112 1+.
O
=7AV 3NId
='3Av inNwin y
=:ZaN VI1132NIOd t
= 3AV 11ivd V
= 3AV TNT"
C 3AV 31llovd
3AV l3tlnvl
='OV UNhonoii
= vtl 3N3NVIS
N
M
N
fA
H
Z
11!
J
V
Vl
"G%%y "NO
O
0
Z
D
:D
Ld
LL N
O J
W
a.
Q LL
M O
}
4
v •
r_
2�
W:3
V
vo
t
W
=3AV OON003tl
AVM Iltivd =
V
d
W
\�
GO
2
d
1-
-
F
a
v03A1nd39I14
M 3M 71v0
N
= 3AV 1112 1+.
O
=7AV 3NId
='3Av inNwin y
=:ZaN VI1132NIOd t
= 3AV 11ivd V
= 3AV TNT"
C 3AV 31llovd
3AV l3tlnvl
='OV UNhonoii
= vtl 3N3NVIS
N
M
N
fA
H
Z
11!
J
V
Vl
"G%%y "NO
O
0
Z
D
:D
Ld
LL N
O J
W
a.
Q LL
M O
}
4
v •
r_
2�
W:3
V
vo
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action awarding contract to Civil Works Corporation for the 2003-
2004 Annual Contract for P.C.C. Curb, Curb and Gutter, Sidewalk and Other Minor
Improvements - Project No. PW 03 -07 — (Fiscal Impact = $50,000).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Civil Works
Corporation, in the amount of $50,000; (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract
on behalf of the City; (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On May 6, 2003 the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized staff to
advertise the project for receipt of construction bids. The project is an annual contract for curb
and sidewalk repair throughout the City.
The City Clerk on June 3, 2003 received and opened three (3) bids. Staff contacted the
references for Civil Works Corporation and they were favorable. Civil Works Corporation has
successfully completed similar projects.
Staff recommends award of contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Civil Works Corporation.
The scope of the project was adjusted to match the budgeted amount of $50,000.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Bid results.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $50,000
Amount Requested: $50,000
Account Number: 001 - 400 - 4202 -6206
Project Phase: Award of contract
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY: A DATE: July 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
Mary Strenn,
DATE:
&f/ 7
20030805 — Award Contract to Ci%nl Works Corporation for 2002 -03
Annual Contract for Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Repair — PW 03 -07
EK
ti 6 1
BID RESULTS
Civil Works Corporation $82,040.00
EBS, Inc.
$86,425.00
Damon Construction Company $92,050.00
20030805 — Award Contract to Civil Works Corporation for 2002 -03
Annual Contract for Curb. Gutter and Sidewalk Repair— PW 03 -07
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to authorize an additional $30,000 to the City -CBM
Contract No. 3019 for providing construction inspection services for the Grand Avenue /
Sepulveda Boulevard intersection improvement project - Approved Capital Improvement
Program - (estimated cost = $30,000).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to authorize an additional $30,000 to
the City -CBM contract; (2) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
(Background & discussion begins on the next page.....)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Capital Improvement Program: $387,500
Amount Requested: $ 30,000
Account Number: 702 - 400 - 8141 -8948
Project Phase: Construction
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY:� DATE: July 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City ager
20030805 - Authorize AddMnal $30,000 to Coy,CBM Contract No 3019
for Inspection Services for Grand - Sepulveda Intersection Project 19
0 f;,-,
4 „ I y
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
On August 6, 2002, the City Council awarded a contract to Excel Paving Company for a
City - Caltrans cooperative project to improve the Grand Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard
intersection. The project included the following work:
Left turn phasing for eastbound Grand Avenue and El Segundo Boulevard at
Sepulveda Boulevard.
2. Dual left turn pocket for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard, including removal of the
Sepulveda Boulevard median island and the median secondary signal. The signal
pole at the northeast corner to be replaced by a new pole with a longer mast arm.
3. Dual left turn pocket for westbound Grand Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard,
including removal of the portions of the Grand Avenue median island.
4. Increasing the turning radius at the northwest corner of the Sepulveda Boulevard /
Grand Avenue intersection.
Subsequent to start of project construction, it was noted that Chevron Oil pipe lines had a
40' wide easement on the eastside of Sepulveda Boulevard, and that the new signal and
footing pole proposed at the northeast corner of the Grand Avenue intersection was
considered as a structural interference with the easement. Chevron required a lengthy
redesign and approval process which would have delayed project construction. Caltrans
and City staff have agreed to delete this work (item 2 above) from the project scope to
avoid structural work within the Chevron easement and the project is now ready to
proceed. All other work will be implemented as originally intended.
The City currently has a contract with CBM Associates to provide construction inspection
services for the recently completed Sepulveda Boulevard median landscaping project. The
project inspector for that project is currently available and has experience in construction
on State Highways. Staff is requesting retaining this individual for a fee of not to exceed
$30,000 to provide inspection services. The City - Caltrans cooperative agreement provides
for Caltrans to reimburse the City 46% ($13,800) of these inspection costs.
The current City -CBM contract provides for the City Manager to authorize additional work.
Staff is requesting City Council approval for the City Manager to authorize additional work
for a not to exceed amount of $30,000.
20030805- AuthomeAddKon2lf30,000to CRyCBMCorttraci No 3018
for Inspechon Services for Grand - Sepulveda Intersect on Project
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 5, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project for City Hall
Improvements— Phase 1 —Approved Capital Improvement Program — Project No. PW 01 -17 —
(Project cost = $210,861).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Accept the work as complete; (2) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the
amount of $43,656; (3) Authorize the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of
Completion in the County Recorder's Office; (4) Alternatively discuss and take other action
related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The City Council, on October 1, 2002, awarded a contract in the amount of $167,205 to Gaff
Group, Inc. The project included refurbishment and remodeling of several rooms in City Hall,
addition of new office space, and modifications to rooms.
(Background & discussion continued on the next page....)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Notice of Completion.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Capital Improvement Program: $666,350
Amount Requested: $210,861
Account Number: 301 - 400 - 8201 -8475
Project Phase: Accept the work as complete
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY: �A � � DATE: July 28, 2003
Its arbt�[.
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
Mary Strenn, City Mafi1ger
DATE:
20
20030805— Acceptance of City Hall Improvements— Phase 1 — PW 01 -17
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
The intent of this project was to reclaim office space from lightly used storage areas.
Retrofitting City Hall to accommodate the new offices was challenging.
The first step on this project was to box and remove all records and remove surplus equipment
from the rooms to be modified. The floors then had to be waterproofed. This project included
demolition, wall and window additions, new data and electrical conduits, extensive HVAC
system installation, and construction of an ADA compatible restroom.
After the construction was completed, new carpeting and furniture was installed.
In the process of completing this project, several unforeseen items had to be addressed and
are included in Change Order No. 1. These items and costs were:
ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1. Construct an additional wall in basement. 1,265
2. Furr out existing beams in basement. 378
3. Replace additional windows in basement 1,926
to match others.
4. Install vision light frames in two (2) doors. 799
5. Install two (2) additional windows. 879
6. N /A. - - --
7. Change handrail material to brushed aluminum. 1,974
8. Provide extra soundproofing for ADA restroom. 443
9. Install variable volume /temperature HVAC to 17,179
to provide three (3) sensors to monitor temperatures.
(This item was overlooked in the bid proposal).
10. Install window in computer room to maintain. 1,086
constant temperature.
20030805— Acceptance of City Hall Improvements— Phase 1 — PW 01 -17
/) P'
\)
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued):
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
11.
Install heavy duty electrical outlets in computer
5,813
room for servers.
12.
Install 4" conduit for appropriate connections.
1,625
13.
Install ceiling panels in stairwell.
539
14.
Skim stairwell walls to match other walls.
1,310
15.
N /A.
- - - --
16.
Provide 2' x 2' ceiling panels in all basement
636
rooms for conformity in lighting.
17.
N /A.
- - - --
18.
Paint hall along on south wall.
818
19.
Provide electrical plugs and switches in
950
human resource area.
20.
Install plan holder cabinet in Building & Safety.
2,471
21.
Install additional window in human resource area.
1,110
22.
Provide additional electrical work in basement
1,407
rooms.
23.
Provide additional casework in plan room.
1,048
TOTAL: $43,656
The work has now been completed to the satisfaction of staff. Staff recommends acceptance
of this project and approval of Change Order No. 1 for a final contract amount of $210,861.
20030805- Acceptance of City Hall Improvements- Phase 1 - PW 01 -17 r
n i
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: City Hall Improvements — Phase 1
Project No.: PW 01 -17
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 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: Government Budding
5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the
City Engineer on June 30, 2003. The work done was: Interior remodel
6. On August 5, 2003, 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: Gaff Group, 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:
El Segundo City Hall
9. The street address of said property is: 350 Main Street
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 , 2003 at El Segundo, California.
Bellur K. Devaraj
City Engineer
VlwcellaneousWot" of Completon - City Hall Improvements- Phase 1 - PW 01 -17
4-6/