Loading...
2003 JUL 15 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 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, JULY 15, 2003 — 5:00 P.M. Next Resolution # 4314 Next Ordinance # 1365 5:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 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)) — 2 matters. 1. Bressi v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. BC288292 2. 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 2. 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. 2 AGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items 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, JULY 15, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. Next Resolution # 4314 Next Ordinance # 1365 7:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION — Pastor Rich Reid of El Segundo Christian Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Kelly McDowell PRESENTATIONS — ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250. 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. Recommendation — Approval. 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, Recommendation — (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. C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 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) Recommendation — (1) Approve the Hyperion Monitoring Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City; or, (2) 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. 3. 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. 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. 4. City Council Meeting Minutes of July 1, 2003 and Special Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2003. Recommendation — Approval. 5. Consideration and possible action regarding the acceptance of the FY 2003 -04 Estimated Revenue and Appropriation Assum tions. Recommendation — (1) Direct staff to proceed with FY 2003 -04 Estimated Revenue and Appropriation Assumptions; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 6. Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project 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 — (Contraet AMnlm♦ Q99A eee oVt Recommendation — (1) Accept the work as complete; in the amount of $28,221.37; (3) Authorize the City Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office; other action related to this item. (2) Approve Change Order No. 1 Clerk to file the City Engineer's (4) Alternatively, discuss and take 7. Consideration and possible action regarding approval of 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. 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 - M 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 sec.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under 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: T ' Al& %y/� NAME: EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003 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). -- -- — •••...�..uw UUUNGIL ACTION: 1) Approve the Hyperion Monitoring Agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City; or, 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: In March 1992, an environmental settlement agreement along with a mitigation monitoring implementation plan (MMIP) was entered into between the City of El Segundo and the City of Los Angeles for the purposes of monitoring and mitigating the environmental impacts of the expansion and upgrade of HTP. The MMIP document provided a mechanism to address and resolve impacts during the expansion of the plant. Each party had a representative that served as a mitigation monitor and was responsible for the communication and resolution of impacts during the expansion of the plant. Per the agreement, the City of Los Angeles paid for El Segundo's mitigation monitor (currently under contract with RBF Consulting). The MMIP agreement also provided for a monthly Hyperion Citizens Forum. This successful forum has been in existence for over 10 years and is attended by El Segundo Council Members, residents, and Hyperion staff to openly discuss ongoing impacts, such as odors. (Continued on next page) ETTArurn .: -•-• • .. 1 uvu UUUUMENTS: Hyperion Monitoring Agreement FISCAL IMPnrT Operating Budget: $62,150 Amount Requested: $24,000 (Revenue) Account Number: 117- 300 - 0000 -3728 (Annual contribution from the City Of LOS Angeles) Project Phase: N/A Appropriation Required: —Yes X No and DATE: 7/x/03 %63 2 Ol�l BACKGROUND &DISCUSSION continued The expansion of the HTP was completed in November of 2000 which resulted in the Cit of Los Angeles terminating funding for El Segundo's mitigation monitoring y aily operation of the plant continues to impact the El Segundo community. To address he current and potential impacts a new agreement is needed to continue the open communication t has been established over the last 10 years. hat The attached Hyperion Monitoring Agreement (HMA) will provide an effective tool for both cities. The goal of the HMA is to give the City of El Segundo an opportunity and address current and potential impacts caused by the operation of HTP Specifically, the agreement will continue the Hyperion Citizens Forum and the use of mitigation monitors as in the previous agreement. In addition, the City of El Segundo will be compensated $24,000 annually by the City of Los Angeles for expenses related to the City of El Segundo's mitigation monitor. The HMA was negotiated between the two cities and will be in effect until December 31, 2007. Prior to the expiration both parties will enter in good faith negotiations for the purpose of extending this agreement. This agreement does not give up the City of El Segundo's right to file a legal action if the City believes the City of Los Angeles is not in conformance to federal, state, or local laws. OUP HYPERION MONITORING AGREEMENT This HYPERION MONITORING AGREEMENT ( "Agreement ") is entered into this day of 2003, between the City of Los Angeles ( "Los Angeles") and the City of El Segundo (`EI Segundo"). RECITALS WHEREAS, in or about March 1992, an `ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ( "Settlement Agreement')" and its companion document the "MITIGATION MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE HYPERION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ( 'MMIP' )„ (collectively "MMIP Agreements ") were entered into between Los Angeles and El Segundo for purposes of monitoring and mitigating the environmental impacts of the upgrade project for the Hyperion Waste Treatment Plant ( "Hyperion ") El Segundo; and that is located at the Northwest border of WHEREAS the construction of the upgrade project which was contemplated by the MMIP Agreements has been completed, but Hyperion requires, and is contemplated to continue to require modification and maintenance, including repairs related to the Operation of Hyperion; and WHEREAS the operation of Hyperion can result in potential impacts on the residents and businesses located within El Segundo and accordingly the parties desire to continue the process of obtaining information, assessi communicating regarding such issues; and ng operational issues and WHEREAS the parties are desirous of meeting on a regular basis to discuss Potential impacts and mitigation relating to the operation of Hyperion as this formal Process has proven constructive in the past; and WHEREAS the parties are desirous of continuing a process whereby the parties attempt to resolve disputes that may arise relating to the potential impac regarding the operation of Hyperion; and ts and mitigation NOW THEREFORE the parties do agree as follows: Section 1. Effective Date and Term. This Agreement shall become a binding agreement as of its execution date and the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall take effect commencing upon full execution of this document and shall remain in full force and effect through and including December 31, 2007 unless terminated earlier by mutual agreement of the parties. Prior to the expiration of this Agreement, the parties shall meet and enter into good faith negotiations for purposes of attempting to negotiate an extension to this Agreement or a new agreement regarding the potential operational impacts of Hyperion. LA #112435 13 _I_ UUJ Section 2. Purpose of Agreement. During the term of this Agreement the parties agree to undertake the obligations set forth herein for purposes of Hypo(n) Attempting to minimize the potential impacts' of operation of (b) Facilitating cooperation, exchange of information between and Participation by the parties Hyperion; in mitigating potential relating to the operation of (c) Attempting to ensure the adequate assessment of potential impacts of the operation of Hyperion; and (d) Recognizing and attempting to resolve conflicts between the parties with respect to potential impacts Hyperion; and mitigation relating to the operation of Section 3, Mitigation Monitors. Each party shall during the term of this agreement ensure that it has in place a qualified perso mitigation monitor ( "Mitigation Monitor ") to assist . carrying of its own choosing, to act as a out the purposes set forth in this Agreement and fulfill the obligations and exercise the rights set forth herein. Section 3.1. Reimbursement of Costs. Los Angeles shall pay El annual sum of $24,000 to defray the costs incurred by El Segundo re Segundo, on or before January 31 of each year during the term of this Agreement; the ating to the Mitigation Monitor and related costs. The annual payment shall be made in one lump sum. The payments shall be begin in and for calendar year 2003 and cont inue lnue annually through calendar year 2007 for a total of five annual payments. Compensation to El Segundo shall not exceed $120,000.00 for the term of this Agreement. Section 3.2. General Authority and Obligations: The authority of the Mitigation Monitors and/or designee shall include, but is not limited to: (a) Assisting in the exchange of information between the parties. (b) Reviewing public records related to the operation of Hyperion; as set forth in section 5, herein. (c) Assisting in resolving disputes as set forth in section 6, herein. 1 The term "potential impacts" is used throughout this agreement and shall refer to: impacts related to air quality; noise and vibration; public health and safety; and visual character; aesthetics; traffic; light and glare; and vector control. LA #112435 v3 -2 � U (d) Determining the form and specific content of the monthly meetings referred to in Section 4, herein. (e) Attending sampling and testing events (where feasible) and receiving sampling and testing results. (f) The Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor shall be responsible for day -to -day field mitigation monitoring activities relating to potential impacts associated with the operation of Hyperion. The Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor or his/her designee shall be present at Hyperion or reasonably available to observe the potential impacts and mitigation relating to the operation of Hyperion. (g) The Mitigation Monitors shall be reasonably available to consult on matters whiclrare related to the mitigating potential impacts of the operation of Hyperion and shall make themselves r to each other during the term of this Agreement, easonably available (h) The Mitigation Monitors or their designees shall meet upon request as necessary to or the potential impacts and mitigation of such impacts and shall at the monthly meetings required by Section 4 hereof. At least one week prior to each such monthly meeting, the Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor or designee will provide to the El Segundo Mitigation Monitor, by fax and or first class United "States Mail, a drat} agenda and background information. Following each monthly meeting, the Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor or designee shall be responsible for the preparation of written minutes of the monthly meeting. A copy shall be furnished to the El Segundo Mitigation Monitor, and to other interested parties upon request. (i) The Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor or designee shall produce • quarterly newsletter that shall contain a status report on capital projects; • section describing the various processes at the plant including improvements and other items that may by of interest to the community. This newsletter shall be mailed to the El Segundo Mitigation Monitor as well as anyone that requests a copy. 6) The Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor shall oversee a telephone hotline maintained by Los Angeles for purposes of receiving complaints from residents and businesses located within El Segundo on a twenty-hour per day, seven days a week basis, regarding potential impacts relating to the operation of Hyperion. The Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor or designee shall respond to all complaints in a timely manner. All telephone complaints shall be logged with a description of the complaint and a summary of any response given. All written complaints shall be responded to timely in writing by the Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor or designee. LA #112435 v3 -3- 005 The El Segundo Mitigation Monitor shall have access to the above - referenced telephone complaint logs, complaints. complaints and responses to The El Segundo Mitigation Monitor may comment on the adequacy of a written or oral response by the Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor to a complaint received. (k) The Los Angeles Mitigation Monitor shall, within 8 hours, notify the El Segundo Mitigation Monitor and the City of Et Segundo of any event or occurrence that has resulted in, or that is likely to result in, an impact. 3.1.2. Access to Facility: The El Segundo Mitigation Monitor or his/her authorized representative shall-be allowed access to Hyperion at upon 48 hours prior notice (where practical), reasonable times for purposes consistent with this Agreement, subject to any reasonable safety requirements. Such access shall be for the purpose of reviewing the potential impacts and any mitigation efforts of Hyperion and to carry out the rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement. Los Angeles shall be responsible for ensuring access to the plant. Section 4. Meetings. The parties shall agree to a regular meeting date and time for purposes of conducting monthly regular meetings, to be determined by the parties during the term to this Agreement, which shall be attended by the parties, including the Mitigation Monitors, and shall be open to the public for purposes of discussing concerns and issues relating to the environmental impacts relating to the operation of Hyperion. Section 5. Records. During the term of this Agreement, the parti es agree to make available and maintain records (as defined by the Public Records Act, Code Section 6250 et. Spec .) as set forth below: Government Section 5.1. Availability of Records. Each party shall promptly make available upon request to the other party all records relating to the potential impacts cl the operation of Hyperion, except for those records that are exempt from disclosure pursuant 6250 et seq.). to the Public Records Act (Government Code Section Section 5.2. Preservation of Records. Despite any document retention Policy to the contrary, Los Angeles shall preserve, for a minimum of three years, all tests results relating to the potential impacts of the operation of Hyperion. Section 6. Dispute Resolution. In the event that a dispute arises between the parties hereto relating to potential impacts and mitigation relating to such impacts the operation of Hyperion, either party can request in writing that the other party participate in a non - binding mediation process subject to the protections afforded by California Evidence Code Section 1152 and 1152.5. If the other party agrees in a written instrument LA #1 12435 v3 -4- of 1 j within 30 days of the date it received the request for mediation from the party requesng the mediation, then the parties shall mutually select a mediator and conduct and conclude a mediation by the later of either 120 days from the date the mediation was requested or a date mutually agreed to in writing by the parties In the event the parties participate in a mediation process, any and all applicable statute of limitations shall be tolled from the date of the request for mediation until 30 days following the conclusion of the mediation process. The parties participation or decision not to participate in a mediation process shall not in any way act as a bar to either party asserting its equitable and legal rights before any governmental entity or agency and/or a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 7. Notices: Notice to the parties pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by first class mail certified receipt requested as follows: City of Los Angeles: Hyperion Plant Manager City of Los Angeles 12000 Vista Del Mar Playa Del Rey, California 90293 With Copy to: Christopher M. Westhoff, Assistant City Attorney City Attorney's Office, City of Los Angeles 1800 City Hall East Los Angeles, California 90012 City of El Segundo: Hyperion Mitigation Monitor City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 With Copy to: City Attorney City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 Section 8. Amendment or Modification of Agreement. This agreement shall only be amended in a written document properly executed by the parties hereto. Section 9. Agreement not a Release. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a bar or release from any claim of whatsoever kind or nature, cause of action, demand in law or equity that either party may currently have, if any, or may acquire in the future, against the other party hereto. LA #112435 v3 -5- 00 Section 10. Waiver. A failure to enforce any right that either party may possess under this agreement shall not constitute an ongoing waiv shall not cause a party to forfeit the right to en r other right and thereafter. force er of such the same or other right that may arise Section 11. Counterparts, This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and will in such case be of the same force and effect as though the same original Agreement had been originally executed by the parties hereto. Section 12. No Presumption Drafter. Both parties had the opportunity to Participate in the drafting of this Agreement and it shall be interpreted as being jointly drafted by the parties hereto. L1 #112435 v3 1 no G0$ WITNESS THE EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT 200_. ON THE _day of CITY OF LOS ANGELES L• TITLE: DATE- Approved as to Form: ROCKARD J. DELGADILLO City Attorney m DATE: Attest: MIKE CAREY City Clerk M DATE: LA #112435 v3 _- CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Approved as to Form: MARK D. HENSELY City Attorney T Attest: CINDY MORTESEN City Clerk 009 REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2003 — 5:00 P.M. 5:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Gordon at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Gordon - Mayor ProTem Jacobs Present - Council Member Gaines - Present Present Council Member McDowell- Present Council Member Wernick - Arrived at 5:05 p.m. CLOSED SESSION: The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et seq.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators; as follows: 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. El Segundo v. South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority, LASC No. YC040688 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 2. 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. RECESS — The City Council recessed at 5:55 p.m. to convene in Open Session for interviews of candidates for various commissions. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1. 2003 PAGE NO. 1 vIti 6:00 PM SESSION At 6:00 p.m. the Council moved into open session for the purpose of interviewing Candidates for the Recreation and Parks Commission and to the El Segundo Library Board of Trustees. There was Council consensus for appointments as follows: Margie Randall to the Recreation and Parks Commission for a full term expiring May 30, 2007; Appoint Darcy Lee Fulmer to the Library Board of Trustees for full term expiring June 30, 2006 and Donna McCarthy and Kathleen an Coonan to partial terms expiring June 30, 2004. RECESS — The City Council recessed at 6:55 p.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1, 2003 PAGED. n �j J REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 1, 2003 — 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Gordon at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION — Fr. Jim Anguiano of St. Anthony Catholic Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member John Gaines PRESENTATIONS — (a) Mayor Gordon made a presentation to Wendy Doty, Ed. D, Superintendent, for her dedicated service to the El Segundo Unified School District and her contribution to the Progress of our community. (b) Council Member Gaines presented a Proclamation proclaiming July 20, 2003 as "Parents Day in El Segundo ". (c) Mayor ProTem Jacobs presented a Proclamation to the El Segundo Interact and Key Club Members proclaiming the 4th Annual Beach Cities Relay for Life to be held on July 19 -20, 2003, at Aviation Park in Redondo Beach, to honor those who have survived cancer as well as to memorialize those who have died of the disease. (d) Council Member McDowell presented a Proclamation celebrating July, 2003 as the 4th anniversary month of the successful El Segundo Farmers Market to be presented to one of the founding vendors of our Market, Art Miltenberger, El Segundo Bakery. (e) Council Member Wernick presented a Proclamation to Stacia Mancini, Recreation and Parks Director, proclaiming the month of July, 2003 as Recreation & Parks month in the City of El Segundo. ROLL CALL Mayor Gordon _ Mayor ProTem Jacobs Present Council Member Gaines Present Council Member McDowell- Present Council Member Wernick - Present Present MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1, 2003 PAGE NO. 3 0 .t 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 Gaines, SECONDED by Council Member Wernick, 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 C• UNFINISHED BUSINESS D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 1 • Consideration and possible action regarding the interviews of candidates to the Recreation & Parks Commission and to the El Segundo Library Board of Trustees. Mayor Gordon announced the following appointments: Margie Randall to the Recreation and Parks Commission for a full term expiring May 30, 2007; Darcy Lee Fulmer to the Library Board of Trustees for full term expiring June 30, 2006 and Donna McCarthy and Kathleen Coonan to partial terms expiring June 30, 2004. 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. 2• Approved Warrant Numbers 2534219 to 2534506 on Register No. 18 in the total amount of $905,391.75 and Wire Transfers from 6/7/2003 through 6/20/2003 in the total amount of $1,056,043.18. Authorized staff to release. Ratified: Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and /or adjustments; wire transfers. 3• Approved City Council Meeting Minutes of June 17, 2003. 4. Adopted the City's Investment Policy as submitted. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1, 2003 �j PAGE NO. 4 5• Adopted Ordinance No. 1364 to implement an Administrative Citation Program for enforcing the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Adopted revised penalty Resolution No. 4313. structures — 6. Awarded Contract No. 3200 to Sancon Engineering for lining of sanitary sewer access Cost $66,170)pAuthori Authorized the City rMa Manager to ex a ute the contract ct o1n behalf (Estimated the i y. MOVED by Council Member McDowell, SECONDED by Council Member Wernick to a the City. consent agenda items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0 Council Member Gaines abstaining on item number three (3). approve CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA F. NEW BUSINESS — �• Consideration and possible action regarding approval of a contract between the City of El Segundo and Randall Funding & Development, Inc, to provide grant writing services on behalf of the City. (Fiscal Impact $3,000 to $5,000) Mary Strenn, City Manager gave a report. MOVED by Council Member McDowell, SECONDED by Council Member Gaines to approve Contract No. 3201 for professional services between the City of El Segundo and Randall Funding & Development, Inc. Approved the use of funds from the Asset Forfeiture account. Authorized the City Manager to execute the contract on behalf of the City, G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — NONE H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY — NONE 1• REPORTS — CITY CLERK — NONE J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — NONE K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member McDowell — Reported on ICRMA Seminar on Workers Compensation and the beauty and the beach clean -up. Council Member Gaines — Spoke on the President's Budget for Homeland Security, and the monies earmarked for Cities. Requested the grant firm, Randall Funding and Development, Inc. look at the grants available on Homeland Security. Council Member Wernick — Reported on the graduation ceremonies at the High School. Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs — Spoke on the Mariachi's visit over the 4th of July weekend. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1, 2003 PAGE NO. 5 0 1 Mayor Gordon — Spoke on the July 4th celebration, and the recognition of the servicemen returning and serving in Iraq. Reported on "Clutters Bluff'. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related minute limit total) Individuals who Mavereceive value of $50 or m ento 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. Joe Brandon, resident, spoke regarding the proposed expenditure of $120,000 for the stone cross walks at Main and Grand Ave. Liz Garnholz, resident, spoke regarding the Air Force Base Closures, and information that was placed on her door step. She announced the website for information on base closures www. G2mil.com /2005.htm Juli Potter, resident, spoke regarding a political campaign fund raiser. MEMORIALS — NONE CLOSED SESSION - NONE ADJOURNMENT at 8:46 p.m, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1, 2003 PAGE NO. 6 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL HILTON GARDEN INN, MARIPOSA MEETING ROOM - 2100 EAST MARIPOSA AVENUE EL SEGUNDO, CA 7:15 A.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Gordon at 8:10 a.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Gordon Mayor ProTem Jacobs Present Council Member Gaines Present Council Member McDowell- Absent Council Member Wernick - Present Present PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — minute limit total) Individuals who navee 5 minute limit per person 30 received , d 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. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS — Status Reports from staff, discussion and direction from Council on current approved projects: 1. RSI Construction Management Contract Support 2• LAX 3. City Hall elevator 4• Streaming Video of City Council meetings 5. Appraisal /Implementation Services for GASB #34 6. Risk Management Enhancement Program Contract Services 7. Information Systems Project Management Consulting Support 8. Tuberculosis and Hepatitis B testing and inoculations 9. Intern Program 10. Outsourcing — integration of scanned documents into imaging and records Management system 11. Circulation Element update 12. Downtown Construction and Mitigation Information Program 13. Permit issuance over the city website 14. Self- assessment Process 15. Fire Station No. 2 16. Update of Radio Frequencies - Consulting Services 17. Consulting Services for Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) 18. Motorola Radio Maintenance Contract Renewal 19. Annual Water Main Replacement 20. Street Lights - Nash Street - Park Place 21. New sidewalks 22. Storm Water Pump Station No. 16 23. Annual Sewer Main Repair 24. Trash Receptacle Maintenance 25. Maintenance E.O.C. Telephone Equipment 26. Annual Maintenance of Circulation, Filtration and Heating System at Urho Saari Plunge 27. Engineering Consultant 28. Project Inspector Consulting Services 29• Water Well Project 30. GIS /Auto -CAD Implementation Consulting Services 31. Storm Drain 300 Block Virginia 32. Lakes Parking Lot Landscaping 33. Recreation Park Water /Sewer Line Replacement 34. Aquatic Master Plan 35. Community Center 36. Library Meeting Rooms Strategic Planning Session to discuss, prioritize and direction from the Council on the following proposed projects and budget issues: 1) Capital Improvement Proiects A. General Fund Projects 1. Fire Station No. 2 2. 3• Aquatic Facilities Improvements Elimination of Sewer /Storm 4. Connections Playground Replacement 5• Sewer Main Repair 6. 7. Center Street Recreational Field Study Main /Imperial Irrigation 8. 9. Replacement Recreation Park Electrical - Phase III Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation 10. 11. Water/Wastewater Telemetry Civic Center Plaza 12. 13. Fiber Optic Installation Water Main Replacement 14. 15. Program Water Tank Cathodic Protection Recreation Park - Parking Lots B. Gas Tax Fund Projects O1 9 2 I. Street Improvements - 500 Block East Sycamore 2. Five (5) Year Street Reconstruction 3. Maple -Nash Drainage Study 4. Sidewalk Reconstruction C. Grant Fund Projects I. Rosecrans Avenue Rehabilitation — Sepulveda Boulevard to Highland Avenue 2. Smoky Hollow Sewer Improvements 3. Playground Replacement 2) Technology Proiects I. Scanning of existing original maps by a consultant firm 2. Class Software System 3. Content Management System and Modules 4. Funding for GIS Analyst and supplies to maintain the City-wide 5• Solution to Connectivity between Main Library & School Libraries lFiber Optic 6. Alternative Connectivity between Main Library & School Libraries T1 Line 7. Questys Web Server Module 8. Silanis "APPROVIT" Electronic Approval Management Software Maintenance & Support Subscription, Training 9. Phase 4 of Document Imaging Project 3) New Program Requests 1 • Additional Audit Services for the transition of The Lakes Golf Course to a new management company in FY 03 -04 2. Risk Management Enhancement Program Contract Services 3• Replacement of Saturn EV1 with compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle 4. Consulting Support (City dispatch service) 5. Consulting Support (addition of radio frequencies to existing radio system) 6. Study and analysis of fees in progress 7. Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update 8. Development of El Segundo Skate Park — Phase 1 9. Parking Lot Improvements near the Scout House 10. Advertising Bid Notices for construction of RSI improvements 11. Repairs and maintenance on RSI Demonstration Home at 910 Hillcrest Street. 12. Proposed sale of RSI Demonstration House at 910 Hillcrest Street 13. Beverage Container Recycling Fund 14. Mandated Bacteria Monitoring Program 15. Mandated Transit Stop Trash Receptacles and Waste Hauler Service Program 16. NC4 (Internet Emergency Service Program) 17. Employee Banquet expenditure Others: New program requests by Council Members (identify for discussion at future Council meeting) 4) Potential Budget Cuts 1. Animal Control 2. Crossing Guards I Trap Officer 4. Other Staff Position Savings Council discussed and rated the projects. ADJOURNMENT at 11:50 a.m. Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk 021 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 7/15/03 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding the acceptance of the FY 2003 -04 Estimated Revenue and Appropriation assumptions. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Direct staff to proceed with FY 2003 -2004 Estimated Revenue and Appropriation Assumptions; (2) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: This is the step in the budgetary process to review the revenue and appropriation assumptions for the upcoming fiscal year. Staff is in process of preparing the FY 2003- 2004 Preliminary Budget and currently total General Fund expenditures are estimated $2.0 to $2.5 million higher than FY 2002 -2003, while revenues are estimated to be $1.5 to $2.0 million less than FY 2002 -2003. This combination has produced an estimated FY 2003- 2004 gap of approximately $3.75 million. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget: Amount Requested: Account Number: Project Phase: Appropriation Required: _Yes X No • r� X,e 'It, Bret M. Plumlee, Director of Administrative Services BY: 9�3 Mary renn, City Manager 5 11_- BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (Continued): General Fund Expenditures The increase in expenditures is attributable to a number of factors outside of the City's direct control. The State of California is continuing to anticipate a FY 2003 -2004 deficit of just over $38 billion. This may have a potential impact on the City of up to $1.5 million mainly in a possible reduction in Vehicle License fees. The CalPers investment portfolio, which assumed 8.25% increases, has taken losses the past three years. This is having a substantial impact on both safety and non - safety employer rates from PERS. Staff had anticipated increases in the future rates and set aside some funds each of the past two fiscal years to help offset the costs. Health costs have increased over 50% the past two fiscal years and will increase 18% effective January 1, 2004 with anticipated increases ranging from 12% to 20% each of the next four years. Worker's compensation, liability and property insurance premiums have continued to rise. General Fund Revenues On the revenue side, sales tax is estimated to decrease $750,000 in FY 2003 -2004. Other sources of revenue estimated lower in FY 2003 -2004 include a decrease of franchise fees of $500,000; business license fees of $200,000; and communication center fees of $434,000. Additionally, there were a number of one -time revenue sources included in the FY 2002 -2003 budget that are not included in FY 2003 -2004. These one -time revenue sources total approximately $1,400,000. These decreases will be somewhat offset by anticipated increases in property taxes of $400,000, transient occupancy taxes of $200,000; and gas utility user taxes of $750,000. While El Segundo continues to be well diversified and positioned for the future, we are taking extra precautions for at least the next two fiscal years that will be reflected in the budget assumptions. FY 2003 -2004 APPROPRIATION ASSUMPTIONS Included below is a list of FY 2003 -2004 revenue budget assumptions. It is not expected that these assumptions will change much as we progress through the budget process. ➢ The objective of the budget is to maintain service levels through current staffing and appropriate contracted services; however, no new positions will be funded and many vacant positions will be frozen and unbudgeted. Scheduled maintenance programs for streets, trees, parks and parkway activities will be continued. !1 2 3 ➢ PERS safety employer costs increased 11.1 % or $1.3 million July 1, 2003 and an additional 14.0% or $1.68 million July 1, 2004 while miscellaneous rates will increase from 0% to 6.1% July 1, 2004. ➢ Worker's compensation rate increases ranging from 20% to 50% are reflected in every department's operational budget. ➢ Non - safety departments have been asked to reduce their budgets 5% across the board and there are a number of safety and non - safety positions that will be frozen, eliminated, or reorganized. Total estimated budget savings from these reductions are just over $1.2 million. ➢ Either extending the life or eliminating obsolete equipment from the list will reduce Equipment Replacement General Fund charges to all departments. Total estimated budget savings from these reductions is just over $450,000. ➢ Liability charges to the General Fund have been reduced $200,000 based on historical payments. ➢ Health costs will increase 18 %, or $650,000 effective January 1, 2004. They are estimated to increase an additional 12 to 20% each of the next four years. ➢ General Liability and Workers' Compensation premiums are estimated to increase significantly for the second year in a row. The worker's compensation self- insured retention has been reduced and future premium increases have been mitigated attributable to the City of El Segundo joining the ICRMA Worker's Compensation Pool January 1, 2003. Twenty -three out of the twenty -eight member cities in the ICRMA pool have joined this program as of July 1, 2003. As a result, the City's self- insured retention has been reduced from $750,000 to $350,000. ➢ Combined Capital improvement appropriations totaling $1,915,000 from all funding sources is recommended by the Capital Improvement Project Committee, City Council and staff. ➢ General Fund transfers to the Capital Improvement Fund have been reduced 50% or $750,000. ➢ General Fund transfer to the Infrastructure Replacement Fund will be reduced up to $500,000 if necessary to balance the budget. ➢ New programs appropriations totaling $241,600 is recommended by the City Council and staff. Of these programs, the General Fund will fund only $20,600. ➢ Budget will include $2.3 million in funding for the Residential Sound Insulation program to complete an additional estimated 100 homes. �i24 ➢ Sales tax is estimated to decrease $750,000 or 8 %. This is mainly attributable to a substantial reduction in the top 10 sales tax producers and the business to business sales, which make up over 60% of total sales tax. ➢ Property Taxes are assumed to increase 6 %, which is the estimated increase in assessed valuation for the entire Los Angeles County. This percentage change will be revised prior to budget adoption when staff receives the City's specific increase in assessed valuation. ➢ Utility User's Tax (UUT) revenues, which have continued to come in higher than anticipated, are estimated to increase $630,000 from the FY 2002 -2003 budget. Cc generated electricity is estimated at $950,000, which is slightly higher than historical levels. ➢ Transient Occupancy taxes are estimated to increase $200,000 in FY 2003 -2004 mainly attributable to an increase in occupancy while the rates remain lower than historical levels. ➢ Business License taxes are assumed to decrease $180,000 based on an estimated net job loss of 1,900. Since there is no cost of living indexing, this revenue source is expected to gradually erode. ➢ The cost of natural gas has returned to normal levels after two years of record highs and California is no longer experiencing electric energy shortages. Franchise fees will decrease an estimated $500,000 in FY 2003 -2004 attributable to a reduction in the extent of pooling of the gas municipal surcharges that occurred in FY 2002- 2003. ➢ Budget assumes a $79 million improvement valuation related to new commercial and industrial construction projects. This is roughly equivalent to the estimated increase in assessed valuation in FY 2002 -2003 and therefore will reflect only a minor increase in estimated building and plan check revenues in FY 2003 -2004. ➢ Property Taxes based on this new construction are estimated to be $57,600. ➢ The Water Fund will be evaluated to include an increase. A Task Force of El Segundo residents and business owners will be formed to analyze the need and recommendation for future water and sewer rate increases. This Task Force will be formed once the water and sewer rate studies are completed by AKM. The FY 2003 -2004 Preliminary Budget will reflect at least a 15% anticipated increase in these rates. ➢ Due to the concerns of the State's budget and the possibility of balancing the budget at the expense of local agencies, VLF is estimated to be $652,000 or the same as the FY 2003 -2004 Budget. This reflects a 25% decrease from historical levels of revenue received. ➢ The State of California has significantly reduced reimbursements of state mandated costs. These reductions are reflected in the FY 2002 -2003 Adopted Budget and will continue reflect a net reduction of $30,000 in the FY 2003 -2004 Preliminary Budget. 025 ➢ The State has also reduced Library PLF funds for the second year in a row an estimated $7,000 to $10,000. ➢ $100,000 in COPS grants funding provided by the State is fully funded at this time. If the State reduces this revenue source, staff will reflect the reduction in the adopted budget. ➢ Revenues generated from the Corporate Campus project are not estimated to be significant until at least FY 2004 -2005. ➢ $250,000 will be transferred from a $750,000 dry period fund for each of the next three fiscal years to partially fund the PERS employer rate increases. 026 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project forthe 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). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Recommendation — (1) Accept the work as complete; (2) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $28,221.37; (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 December 17, 2002, awarded a contract in the amount of $196,434.00 to 2H Construction. The work included installing one interior ADA approved elevator for use between the basement and the first floor. (Background & discussion continues on the next page....) ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Notice of Completion. FISCAL IMPACT: Capital Improvement Program: $325,000.00 (CDBG funds - $150,000.00) Amount Requested: $224,655.37 Account Number: 301 - 400 - 8201 -8475; 111 - 400 - 2779 -8475 Project Phase: Accept the work as complete Appropriation Required: No ORIGINATED BY:� DATE: July 8, 2003 Andres Santamaria, Director o ublic Works REVIEWED BY:r, UAI t: M . -n City Mnnaner 7�j3 r 200307 15 — Acceptance for installation of an ADA elevator at City Hall — PW 02-1 !Q12'-( BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (continued) The work has now been completed to the satisfaction of staff. Staff recommends acceptance of this project and approval of the Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $28,221.37. Retrofitting this elevator into City Hall was a complex assignment. The basement concrete was required to be waterproofed similarto the work done in the City Hall basement adjacentto Standard Street. Multiple voice and data conduits and cables, which were not shown on the plans, had to be rerouted. Due to the confined space, the hydraulic tank needed to be relocated. Also, structural components needed to be added to the elevator pit. To maximize the effective use of space, a wall was also constructed to enclose an area proposed to be used for record retention. Below is a breakdown of change order costs: Waterproofing of concrete = $9,562 Rerouting of conduits /cables = $6,981 Structural shaft support = $2,263 Insertion of dowels into elevator pit = $ 502 Hydraulic tank relocation = $6,156 Wall construction = $1,437 Door plus hardware = $ 176 Shut -off valve relocation = $ 484 Specialized inspection service = $ 660.37 $28,221.37 !i2$ 20030715 — Acceptance for installation of an ADA elevator at City Hall — M 02 -18 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: Installation of ADA Elevator at City Hall Project No.: PW 02 -18 Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 at seq that: Dated: 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 Building 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: Installation of interior elevator 6. On July 15, 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: 2H Construction 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 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 ri2`� Macellaneoua�HW'ce INCampl¢Wn- InWllatianMADA EIevabr al Clly Hall - PW 03 -08 �" � EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Anpridn Consideration and possible action regarding approval of 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. 0 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. BACKGROUND & DISCUSStnu• The Planning Division has experienced a staffing shortage due to the recent retirement of the Planning Manager. Staff expects this position to remain vacant for approximately six months. On May 13, 2003, the City entered into a professional services agreement with Willdan (not to exceed $9,995) to assist the Planning Division on a part-time basis. As part of the original selection process, staff reviewed proposals and qualifications from several consultants and interviewed two firms before selecting Willdan. Willdan has provided contract planning services in the past for the Planning Division and staff has been very satisfied with the capabilities of the personnel that has been assigned to El Segundo. There are number of complicated projects, including Mattel, Inc. and Aerospace Corporation that require the assistance of an experienced planner on an interim basis. Staff is requesting approval of an extension of this contract for an additional $50,000 making the total contract amount not to exceed $59,995. Staff proposes to utilize salary and benefit savings, which will be approximately $60,000 over the next six months, from the vacant Planning Manager Position to fund this contract. 1. Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement 2. Scope of Work and Compensation Exhibits Operating Budget: Amount Requested: Account Number: Project Phase: Ma $9,995 $50,000 001 -000 - 2402 -4101 None =Yes X No risen, Director of DATE: July 10, 2003 and 70 R Planning & Building Safety4illdan 0ontract.ais.7- 15 -01doc II '7 AMENENT NUMBER ONE TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT NO. 3178 FOR PLANNING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND WILLDAN THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ( "Amendment') is made and entered into this 15`h day of July, 2003, by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a general law city and municipal corporation existing under the laws of California ( "CITY "), and WILLDAN, ( "CONSULTANT'). 1. Pursuant to Section 10 of Agreement No. 3178 ( "Agreement'), a new Section 37 is added to read as follows: 37. ADDITIC)NAI zrnop nF SFRVir rc Consultant agrees to perform the additional services in attached Exhibit "C ", which is incorporated by reference. 2. Compensation for these services are listed in attached Exhibit "D ", which is incorporated by reference. 3. This Amendment may be executed in any number or counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together constitute one instrument executed on the same date. 4. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of Agreement No. 3178 remain the same. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO By: Mary Strenn, City Manager ATTEST: Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk APPROVED A 'O' M: Mark D. Heennom y, e By: i r Karl Berge , Assistan it yAttomey WILLDAN 0 William C. Pagett, Senior Vice - President (7�i EXHIBIT C SCOPE OF SERVICES The tasks that may be performed by Willdan in providing permit processing and other planning services to the City of El Segundo, include the following: • Conduct project site visits and communicate directly with applicants regarding the specific requirements and /or information necessary to process applications; • Review and determine completeness of applications received; • Review proposed development plans for compliance with City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable design guidelines or Specific Plan requirements; • Review proposed development plans for conformance to the City's development policies and standards contained in the General plan and Zoning Ordinance, respectively; • Coordinate the City's interdepartmental review of proposed projects; • Meet with applicants to discuss their projects and any suggested design changes, as necessary; • Prepare Initial Studies and Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); • Process Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), Subsequent EIRs, Supplemental EIRs, or EIR Addendums prepared by other consultants; • Prepare staff reports, action Planning it approval Council; recommendations, for consideration by the Commiss on and City • Prepare Planning Commission and City Council resolutions and /or ordinances related to Proposed development projects and CEQA document certification; • Prepare and coordinate the posting, publication and mailing of all required public notices; • Coordinate the distribution of project - related documents to outside agencies, as required; • Schedule and assist in conducting public workshops /EIR scoping meetings, as deemed necessary; • Schedule and assist in conducting public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council; • Coordinate the preparation and filing of all required notices with the State Clearinghouse and /or County Clerk; • Respond to public inquiries for zoning and other planning related information and otherwise assist with the operation of the City's one stop permit center; and • Perform other related tasks as assigned by the Planning Manager. 0132 EXHIBIT D COMPENSATION Willdan shall provide the permit processing and other planning services described in Exhibit C on an hourly basis. The maximum compensation shall not exceed $50,000.00 without prior City Council approval. The hourly rates to be charged for the classifications of planners that may be involved in providing the services shall be as follows: Planning Technician $45.00 - $55.00 Assistant Planner $55.00 - $65.00 Associate Planner $70.00 - $85.00 03 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003 AGENDA DESCRIPTION: AGENDA HEADING: Consent 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 RE('OMMFUtnon (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. Raruron The police department patrol division vehicles currently are equipped with the Datalux Mobile Data Computer systems. The department utilizes MDC systems in each patrol unit as a tool for sending and receiving information to and from the communications center, as well as other informational databases including the DMV, CLETS, NCIC, and WPS. As any computer system, they often become outdated within a few years. The current systems were purchased in 1999. They consist of a 233 MHz Pentium MMX PC with 32 MB of RAM memory and a 2 GB hard drive. These specifications are no longer useful because of the following reasons: • They require constant service, which requires the units be sent to Virginia. Current specifications will not be useable with the proposed Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL) upgrade. • Minimum 500 MHz PC is needed with the AVL system. Screen is not viewable with daylight. Continued... ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget: $100,000 (COPS grant) / $75,000 (CLEEP grant) Amount Requested: $116,000 ($93,000 from COPS grant/ $23,000 from CLEEP grant) Account Number: 120 -400- 000 -8104 (COPS), 001 -400- 3101 -8104 (CLEEP) Project Phase: N/A Required: —x Yes No C�� Wayt, of of Police TE: M ryCityManager 7op3 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION CONTINUED: Police department staff conducted research and tested several computers currently on the market. Some of the criteria used in evaluating the systems were: 1. Minimum operating technical specifications, i.e. minimum 500 MHz PC, RAM, and hard drive space. increased 2. Compatibility to upgraded Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and AVL systems. 3. Ergonomics 4. Sunlight viewable screen 5. Reliability 6. Service record The proposed system is manufactured and sold solely by Data 911. It consists of four separate components: I. SunView display unit 2. Keyboard 3. Power Supply 4. Processor unit Separation of the system in these modules provides more flexible mounting options, better ergonomics, and the complete accommodation of airbag safety restrictions. The current system is a one -piece unit. When the unit needs to be sent for service, the enti unit is taken out of service. A modular system would allow more effective t re roubleshooting when problems arise. It would allow a portion of the computer to be sent for service instead of the entire unit. Funds for the purchase of these computers would be made with COPS grant and CLEEP grant funds. The COPS grant was established during the 1996 California legislative session when the state government adopted legislation to provide a block grant for law enforcement purposes. These funds are part of the property taxes collected in California. All funds.received under this grant must be utilized to supplement local law enforcement activities and cannot be used to supplant existing funding. The grant guidelines state the funds may be used for "front line law enforcement," including hiring officers, buying equipment or computers, or paying for anti - crime programs. The purchase of these computers using COPS funds would fall within grant guidelines. The main provision of the California Law Enforcement Equipment Program grant indicates that funds shall be used for purchase of high - technology equipment. This equipment falls within that provision. This purchase has been reviewed and approved by the city technology committee. 03 1, a BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION CONTINUED: COSTS 15 Data 911 M5 Mobile Data Computer Systems @ $6083.45 ea, totaling $91,251.75 plus related equipment, installation, and warranty for a grand total Of $114,701.08. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the police department purchase the MDC's from Data 911 using COPS grant funds and newly appropriated CLEEP grant funds. MAYOR: MAYOR: CLERK: MAYOR: CL MAYOR: SCRIPT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #1 FOR JULY 10, 2003 To consider certification of an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Los Angeles Air Force Base Land Conveyance, Development Project (Environmental Assessment No. 577) and consideration of LAFCO Application and Reorganization Agreement. y Construction, and MAC Proper notice of the public hearing was done. THIS PUBLIC HEARING? Rl l 1 1 No written communications were hearing. PRESENTAT N After the Presentation: MAYOR: After public: Council discussion and then MAYOR: Mov I of � A �l MAYOR: MAYOR: CONT /NUED ON NEXT PAGE received by the City Clerk's Office regarding this public MAYOR: MAYOR: MAYOR: AND SAMS VENTURE LL EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT MEETING DATE: July 15, 2003 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 Aqreement. KEGOMMENDED 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 Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Distributed Separately) FISCAL Operating Budget: N/A Amount Requested: N/A Account Number: N/A Project Phase: N/A Appropriation Required: N/A Hansen, Director of Mary Sti eiV City Manager and -1 ;P0;_ STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) 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 agreementladopts 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 UUR STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 3 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) 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 City 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 forthe 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 003 STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 4 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) 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. 004 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 00") 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. 006 STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 7 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) 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 transferthe 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 r STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) southern boundary of Area A. c) Reorganization Agreement ;me 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. G 0 8 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 for the 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: 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 0 0 �) 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 clearthat there are actions which are outside the control of the City of El Segundo that are critical forthe project to move forward and forthe 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. 0 10 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 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 affect the 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 G i I STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 12 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) 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 for the 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 staffs 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 012 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 /orArea 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 project to 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 consider the 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 staff's 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. 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 OI",i STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 14 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) have been identified by staff. 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 relatincl 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 014 STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 15 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) 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 Inclusiona Housin Hawthorne General Fund Costs $ 115.0 million $ 12.2 million $ 3.3 Million Land Values Area A $58 million Lawndale Annex $20 million Sun Valle $ 2 million Lu_blic Fundin 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 staffs 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 Lot 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. �J a) 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 I AFCO 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 0 16 STAFF REPORT: July 15, 2003 Page 17 BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.) hearing on the reorganization action 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 I AAFB 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. PAPlanning & Building Safety\PROJECTS\ 576 - 599\ EA- 577\EA- 577.7- 15- 03.ais.3g.doc y if � t RESOLUTION 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. BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of El Segundo that having received, reviewed, and considered the following information as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the City Council of the City of El Segundo hereby finds, determines, and declares as follows: PROJECT DESCRIPTION. A. Project Location. The Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "LAAFB ") consists of seven separate areas that are located within industrial, commercial and residential portions of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area. These seven areas include two within the City of El Segundo (the "City "). The USAF property located at the southeast corner of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard in the City is referred to as "Area A ". The USAF property located at the northwest corner of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard in the City is referred to as "Area B ". The USAF property located on Aviation Boulevard north of Marine Avenue in the City of Hawthorne ( "Hawthorne ") is referred to as the "Lawndale Annex ", and a USAF property within the Sun Valley Community of the City of Los Angeles referred to as the "Sun Valley property ". Three other USAF properties within the San Pedro community of the City of Los Angeles (Fort MacArthur Middle Reservation, Pacific Crest Housing Area and Pacific Heights Housing Area comprise the remainder of the LAAFB. B. Project History and CEQA Process. 1. Pursuant to the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106 -398) as amended by Section 2841 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the United States Air Force ( "USAF') has partnered with SAMS Venture, LLC (the "Developer ") to build new USAF facilities on Area B in exchange for the USAF conveying Area A, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley property to the Developer (the 'Proposed Action" or 'Project'). The three San Pedro sites are not included in the proposed land exchange between the USAF and the Developer. The new development on Area B will house the Space and Missile Systems ( "SAMS ") Center. n v��7 2. The Proposed Action generally includes the following: (1) conveyance of Area A, the Lawndale Annex, the Sun Valley property to the Developer; (2) construction of new seismically -safe, state -of- the -art SAMS facilities for the USAF on Area B; (3) relocation of existing USAF functions into the new facilities on Area B; and (4) private development of Area A and the Lawndale Annex by the Developer, which could include the following activities: (a) detachment of Area A from the City and annexation of Area A into Hawthorne; and (b) granting of land use entitlements, permits and other discretionary actions by Hawthorne to permit the private development of the conveyed land. 3. Originally, detachment of Area A from the City and annexation of Area A into Hawthorne was not included in the Project; the Developer and the USAF contemplated the development of commercial retail uses on Area A and submitted applications to the City for approval of commercial development of Area A. The City assumed the role of Lead Agency under California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and, in July, 2002, the City initiated CEQA review for approvals and entitlements, which would allow commercial development of Area A. The City prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "2002 Draft EIR ") for agency and public comment between September 30, 2002 and November 13, 2002. In addition, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2002 Draft EIR on November 14, 2002, at which public input and comments were taken regarding the 2002 Draft EIR. 4. The City received comments pertaining to the 2002 Draft EIR, which suggested that the nature of the commercial Project on Area A be changed. Many of the comments suggested that a joint Environmental Impacts Statement / Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the Project and that the Project description should be revised to reflect residential development of Area A, rather than its commercial development. As a result of the comments received on the 2002 Draft EIR and from input during community meetings, the City and the Developer undertook additional consultation and coordination with the USAF and Hawthorne, as well as with homeowner organizations and residents located in the areas adjacent to Area A. This process resulted in a new residential Project proposed to be studied on Area A. 5. The City, as a policy, does not desire residential development on Area A within its City boundaries, therefore additional consultation was undertaken with the Hawthorne and the Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO ") to consider initiating a reorganization of territory in which Area A would be detached from the City and annexed into Hawthorne. On January 13, 2003, the Hawthorne City Council of the City adopted Resolution No. 6771, advising LAFCO that the City was considering initiating annexation Reorganization proceedings for the Area j tJ '�i -2- A. On January 21, 2003, the City Council adopted a resolution advising LAFCO that El Segundo was considering initiating detachment of Area A. 6. The City Community, Economic and Development Services determined that a new Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") be prepared to determine the individual and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Project as revised to anticipate residential development of Area A. The Project description involved up to 850 residential units proposed for development on Area A and up to 300 residential units on the Lawndale Annex. 7. Because the City began as Lead Agency for the Project and because the City will be the first public agency to act on the Project, the City remained Lead Agency for the Project. Hawthorne was identified as a Responsible Agency under CEQA because the Project involves subsequent approvals within Hawthorne's jurisdiction. 8. The Project will also involve federal action by the USAF. The Project is therefore also subject to the National Environmental Protection Act ( "NEPA "). For those components of the Project requiring action, the USAF is lead agency under NEPA. For purposes of NEPA, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Statement ( "EIS ") be prepared jointly with an EIR. 9. The City Community, Economic and Development Services prepared an Initial Study (the "Initial Study "). Based on the Initial Study the City Community, Economic and Development Services and the USAF consulted with Hawthorne officials and staff and determined to prepare a joint EIS /EIR as provided in CEQA and NEPA. 10. The objectives of the Project are as follows a) To relocate the LAAFB facilities currently on Area A, including the SAMS facility from facilities in severe disrepair which do not meet current building codes for fire and earthquake safety to a new state -of- the -art facility which will generate approximately $3.5 million in annual operations and maintenance savings for the USAF on Area B; b) To achieve the goals of recently- enacted special federal legislation allowing the USAF to fund its relocation by conveying land for the development of new facilities for the USAF on Area B; c) To provide development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex at a density sufficient to assist in addressing the approximate $65 million gap between the value of the USAF's conveyed land and the cost of constructing new facilities for the USAF on Area B. 11. The Project requires the following discretionary actions by the City: �i ,_' u Sc3 a) Resolution No. _, requesting the LAFCO to detach Area A from the City for annexation of Area A into Hawthorne. b) Ordinance No. , granting the Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency the authority to include Area A within Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2; c) Resolution No. _, approving a Reorganization Agreement among the City, Hawthorne, and the Developer regarding LAFCO and annexation of Area A into Hawthorne. 12.A Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the Draft EIS /EIR was prepared and circulated for a 30 -day public review period beginning on January 2, 2003. Based on public comments in response to the NOP and a review of environmental issues by the El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and Development Services, the Draft EIS /EIR analyzed the following environmental impact areas: a) Population, Housing and Employment b) Land Use c) Aesthetics d) Shade /Shadow e) Transportation f) Public Utilities g) Public Services h) Hazardous Materials And Hazardous Waste Management i) Soils and Geology j) Water Resources k) Air Quality 1) Noise m) Cultural Resources 13. The City Community, Economic and Development Services held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on January 30, 2003 to receive public input and comments regarding the scope of the environmental impacts that should be studied regarding the Project. 14.The Draft EIS /EIR was prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates under contract to the City and under the supervision of the City 021 -4- Community, Economic and Development Services, and circulated for review from April 11, 2003 to May 27, 2003. 15.The City received approximately 25 comments on the Draft EIS /EIR from public agencies, groups and individuals. 16.The Hawthorne Planning Commission and the USAF held a duly noticed joint public hearing to receive public comment regarding the Draft EIS /EIR on May 7, 2003. 17.The City Planning Commission held a duly noticed joint public hearing to receive public comment regarding the Draft EIS /EIR on May 22, 2003, and adopted Resolution No. 2450 recommending approval of the project. 18. Responses to comments were prepared and included in the Final EIS /EIR. 19.As a result of public input on the Project, the Project description was revised to lower the residential density and the maximum height of buildings along the southern property line of Area A. The maximum density of Area A was reduced from 850 residential units to 750 residential units. The maximum density of the Lawndale Annex was reduced from 300 residential units to 280 residential units. The maximum height of the structures along the southern property line of Area A was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. 20.A Final EIS /EIR has been prepared, which includes the NOP, NOP Comments, the Draft EIS /EIR, comments regarding the Draft EIS /EIR and written responses to such comments, a summary of changes to the Draft EIS /EIR, and all technical appendices (the "Final EIS /EIR "). 21. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2003 to consider the adequacy of the Final EIS /EIR, certify the Final EIS /EIR, and adopt findings (attached hereto as Exhibit "A "), including a Statement of Overriding Considerations. II. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. A. The City, acting as lead agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the Draft EIS /EIR and the Final EIS /EIR to reflect its own independent judgment to the extent of its ability, including reliance on concerned City technical personnel from other departments as well as professional consultants retained by the City in order to provide technical advice an assistance in evaluating environmental impacts associated with the Project. B. Pursuant to Public Resources Code 21082.1(c)(3) the City hereby finds that the Final EIS /EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency. III. CERTIFICATION. 5 022 A. The City has reviewed the Final EIS /EIR for the Project and has considered the public record on the Project, including without limitation the following: 1. Staff reports prepared by the Community, Economic and Development Services and the Draft and Final EIS /EIR prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates for the City; 2. Staff presentations at public hearings; 3. All applicable regulations and codes; 4. Public comments, both written and oral, received and /or submitted at or prior to the public hearings, supporting or opposing the applicant's request; 5. Testimony and /or comments from the applicant and its representatives submitted to the City in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearings; 6. All related documents received and /or submitted at or prior to the public hearings. B. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record upon which these findings are based is the City Community, Economic and Development Services. The record is available for public review at the City Community, Economic and Development Services, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. C. The City Council hereby certifies that Final EIS /EIR SCH No. 2002071106, dated July 2003 for the Project described below is adequate and has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the City of El Segundo, and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of the City of El Segundo, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2003 ATTEST: Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Mike Gordon, Mayor IN 023 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley City Attorney CERTIFICATION 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 the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being RESOLUTION NO. was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the 15th day of July, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTION: NOT PARTICIPATING: WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of July 2003. Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Of the City of El Segundo, California (SEAL) PAPlanning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS\ 576 - 599 \EA- 577\Ea- 577.reso.cc.cega.doc 024 RESOLUTION No. Exhibit A The City Council that having received, reviewed, and considered the followin information as well as all other information in the record of proceedings in this matter, finds, determines, and declares as follows: I. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA. Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require a public agency, prior to approving a project, to identify significant impacts of the project and make one or more of three allowable findings on the basis of substantial evidence in the record for each of the significant impacts: A. The first allowable finding is that "changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)). B. The second allowable finding is that "such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(2)). C. The third allowable finding is that "specific economic, social, or other considerations make unfeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final El R" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)). A. Potential Impacts Found to be Insignificant by the Initial Study. The environmental effects listed below were identified as not potentially significant based upon the Initial Study. The City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Natural Resources (Endangered Species, Wetlands, or Habitat). 2. Agricultural Resources. 3. Coastal Resources. 1 Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms in this Exhibit A have the same meaning as identical terms in the body of the Resolution. 1 02:- 4. Archeological Resources. 5. Paleontological Resources. B. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study But Which Did Not Exceed Significance Thresholds in the DEIS /EIR. The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were identified as potentially significant based upon the Initial Study, the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Population, Housing and Employment. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction of the Proposed Action would result in increased employment opportunities in the construction field, which would not result in significant demand for housing or population growth. (2) Existing Area personnel would be relocated to Area B upon completion of the new SAMS facilities in Area B, with no net change in employment. No new housing would be required to accommodate existing employees. (3) The Proposed Action involves the development of new housing stock and the improvement of the LAAFB facilities that would not create new employment opportunities. Consequently, the Project would not involve new land uses that would change the amount of existing employment. (4) Employment at the Sun Valley Property would not increase; buildings could be reoccupied at previous land use and density. (5) The additional residential units on Area A and the Lawndale Annex would slightly exceed Southern California Association of Governments ( "SCAG ") forecasts for the Hawthorne and Region of Influence, but would be consistent with SCAG's population Projections for the South Bay Cities Subregion. (6) Population and housing growth on the Lawndale Annex and Area A together would be consistent with population and housing Projections for the Subregion. b) : No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. 2 0 2(")' c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to population, housing and employment. 2. Land Use. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. (2) Development on Area A and the Lawndale Annex would be consistent with the Hawthorne General Plan as amended, the Redevelopment Plan as amended, the Hawthorne Zoning Code as amended, and the SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. (3) Area B would remain under federal jurisdiction as part of LAAFB. Area B would not be subject to the provisions of the El Segundo General Plan or the City's Zoning Code. However, these types of uses currently exist on LAAFB Area B and are not in conflict with the surrounding land uses. (4) No impacts to land use compatibility or consistency with adopted plans or policies at the Sun Valley Property would occu r. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to land use. 3. Aesthetics. a) Facts (1) Short-term impacts would involve the demolition, grading, and construction activities at Areas A and B and the Lawndale Annex. The construction period would create temporary visual conditions typically associated with construction operations. (2) No significant public views or viewsheds are associated with Area A that could be affected by development under the Proposed Action. 3 0 2'7 (3) Loss of potential views of arriving aircraft at LAX from approximately three to five residences that currently have views between Building 115 and the Ramada Inn would be less than significant due to the small number of residences involved. (4) Views within and through Area B after development of the Project would be similar to the existing views. (5) No significant public views or viewsheds are associated with the Lawndale Annex that would be affected by development under the Proposed Action. (6) No change to the Sun Valley Property would occur under the Proposed Action. (7) With the use of non -glare glass, the new SAMS buildings in Area B will not be a source of glare from reflected sunlight. (8) New sources of lighting could be introduced on Areas A and B and the Lawndale Annex as a result of the Proposed Action, but the impact would not be significant due to the ambient night lighting that already exists. (9) As described in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, visual impacts along the southern property of Area A will change significantly after development of the Project. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts associated with Area B, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley Property below a level of significance. c) Finding: With the exception of visual impacts along the southerly boundary of Area A, which will change significantly and unavoidable as described in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, the City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to aesthetics. 4. Shade /Shadow. a) Facts /Effects. (1) In Area A the winter shadows cast by the Proposed Action would remain within the boundaries of the Project site or would not extend beyond the adjacent roadway to affect sensitive uses off -site. (2) In Area A neither the winter nor the summer shadows that could be cast by the Project buildings would extend 4 028 beyond the boundaries of the property to affect any off -site shadow sensitive uses. (3) In Area B the proposed development will have a maximum height limit of 45 feet, which would cast a maximum shadow length of 136 feet. The nearest off -site shadow - sensitive use is approximately 300 feet away. (4) In the Lawndale Annex neither the winter nor the summer shadows that could be cast by the Project buildings would extend beyond the property affect any off -site shadow sensitive uses. (5) In the Sun Valley Property, no demolition or construction would occur and so no shade or shadow impacts would occur. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to shade and shadow. 5. Transportation. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The DEIS /EIR studied Project - related impacts on 37 intersections and four freeway segments using Intersection Capacity Utilization values and corresponding Level of Service ( "LOS ") analyses. (2) The Proposed Action would not exceed the significance thresholds of either the City or Hawthorne for the intersections or freeway segments analyzed, other than at Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard. (3) As described in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, significant unavoidable impacts to the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard are expected to occur. b) Mitigation: Except for a significant unavoidable impact to Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, which is discussed in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, no mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that, except for an unavoidable impact to Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, the 5 029 FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to transportation. 6. Public Utilities -- Sewer. a) Facts /Effects. (1) An estimated 165,750 gpd of wastewater would be generated at Area A, 112,000 gpd of wastewater would be generated by Area B and estimated 58,500 gpd of wastewater would be generated by the Lawndale Annex, compared to existing generation of 177,690 gpd. The net total of Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex would increase the flow to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant ( "JWPCP ") by 0.04 percent with a net increase of 158,560 gpd. JWPCP has sufficient treatment capacity to accommodate the sewage flow, and there is sufficient remaining capacity in the trunk sewers. (2) The Sun Valley Property would generate approximately 1,490 gpd upon reoccupation. The sewage would represent an increase of 0.0004 in the daily flow to the Hyperion Treatment Plant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to sewers. 7. Public Utilities -- Water. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Water consumption on Area A would decrease by 1,500 gpd, and would increase by 134,016 gpd on Area B and 63,000 gpd on the Lawndale Annex. (2) According to the Southern California Water Company, sufficient supply is available to meet the water demand on Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. (3) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand on the water supply. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to water supply. 8. Public Utilities —Solid Waste. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Daily solid waste associated with the residential uses at Area A would be approximately 4,250 pounds per day. This would be 760 pounds less per day than currently generated by the office buildings. (2) Daily solid waste associated with the office use on Area B would be approximately 3,360 pounds per day. The solid waste generated at Area B would be 3,350 pounds per day more than the existing office buildings. (3) Daily solid waste associated with the residential uses at the Lawndale Annex would be approximately 1,500 pounds per day. The solid waste generated at the Lawndale Annex would be 1,320 pounds per day more than the existing office buildings. (4) Because there is available capacity, debris generated during demolition and construction of the Project on Areas A and B and the Lawndale Annex as well as solid waste generated with the new uses on those sites can be accommodated by existing landfills. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand on landfills. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to solid waste. 9. Public Utilities — Natural Gas. a) Facts /Effects. (1) According to the Southern California Gas Company, the demand for natural gas can be accommodated by the existing natural gas supply. The Proposed Action is 7 031 estimated to consume 133,334 net cubic feet of natural gas per day. The existing gas mains are adequate to serve the current demand and would be upgraded if required to serve the residents of the Proposed Action at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. (2) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for natural gas. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to natural gas resources. 10. Public Utilities -- Electricity. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action would have a net decrease of 16,522 kilowatt hours per day on Area A and a net increase of 19,609 kilowatt hours per day on Area B and 3,561 kilowatt hours per day on the Lawndale Annex. SCE has indicated that they can accommodate the electricity demands of the Proposed Action. (2) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for electricity. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to electricity. 11. Police Protection. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Development plans for Area A and the Lawndale Annex will be subject to mandatory review by the Hawthorne Police Department ( "HPD ") to assure that design features reduce the opportunity for crime and provide adequate emergency access. 8 032 (2) Although the population increase caused by the Project would increase demand for police services and equipment, the Project will not result in the need for substantial amounts of new equipment or substantially diminish the status of adequacy within the HPD. (3) On Area B, the military police would handle all on -site incidents on Area B, unless a police report is filed or if backup service is requested from the El Segundo Police Department. Military police would adjust their staffing and equipment as necessary. (4) Although the HPD initially indicated that the Project could result in the need for three or four additional police officers, the HPD subsequently indicated that there is no presently anticipated need for additional personnel. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for police services. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to police services. 12. Fire Protection. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Los Angeles County Fire Department ( "LACED ") Stations 160 and 161 could absorb the additional demand associated with development of Area A and the Lawndale Annex. (2) The Project will be designed to provide all necessary fire - flows, provide adequate emergency vehicle access, and comply with all applicable fire prevention codes and requirements. (3) Area B is served by the City of El Segundo Fire Department ( "ESFD "). There would be a net decrease in building area served by the ESFD. (4) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for fire protection services. 9 033 (5) Compliance with fire codes and LACFD approval of emergency access are incorporated as part of the Project. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to fire protection and services. 13. Schools. a) Facts /Effects. (1)The Proposed Action is elementary school students, and 103 high school students. projected to generate 241 108 middle school students, (2) The development of the Proposed Action for Area B would have no impact on schools. (3) The Wiseburn Elementary School District would receive a total of 349 elementary and middle school students. The district currently serves 1,700 students, of whom 30 percent come from outside of the district. The District could accommodate the projected increase in enrollment through developer fees, reopening of closed facilities and /or modifications in transfer policy. (4) The Centinela Valley Union High School District would receive a total of 103 high school students. Through developer fees and other means of funding, the district expects to be able to accommodate the increase in students. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand on the school system. (6) State law requires that the Developer pay statutory developer fees to Wiseburn Elementary School District or otherwise enter into an agreement with the district. (7) State law requires that the Developer pay statutory developer fees to Centinela Valley Union High School District or otherwise enter into an agreement with the district. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. 10 03 Ill C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to school impacts. 14. Hazardous Materials & Waste. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The current six aboveground storage tanks ( "ASTs ") at Area A will be removed, subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations, under the Proposed Action, thus minimizing the potential for environmental consequences. Nine underground storage tanks ( "USTs ") have been removed with no further action required. (2) Three USTs and three ASTs on Area B may remain in place. New storage tanks may also be put in place. All storage tanks are subject to applicable federal, state and local regulations. (3) No storage tanks are located on the Lawndale Annex or the Sun Valley Property (4) Small arms ammunition are not stored at Area A, the Lawndale Annex, or the Sun Valley Property; nor would they be stored at these sites under the Proposed Action. (5) An armory is located in the Security Forces Operations portion of Building 241. According to site personnel, the armory is the only area where munitions are stored at Area B. Real Property Accountable Records indicate that former Building 221 was at one time used to store explosives. A bunker located east of Building 221 was used to calibrate aircraft gun sights (via test firing) during US Navy occupation of the site. After diligent research, no documentation was found regarding the closure or decommissioning of the structure. (6) Radon is not present in appreciable concentrations at LAAFB. (7) There is no presence of or generation of medical and biohazardous waste on Area A, the Lawndale Annex or the Sun Valley Property. The Medical /Dental Clinic located in Building 200 in Area B disposes of the waste through a licensed medical waste contractor using an approved method. 11 _ 035 (8) Existing structures may include building materials containing Asbestos Containing Materials ( "ACM"). The ACM materials will be managed and dealt with under the Base's Asbestos Management Plan and South Coast Air Quality Management District ( "SCAQMD ") regulations prior to demolition or renovation. (9) Existing structures may include building materials containing lead -based paint. Any limited lead -based paint encountered during construction activities will be dealt with under the base's Lead -Based Paint Management Plan and applicable CalOSHA and DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substance Control) regulations. (10) All PCB - contaminated electrical equipment whose dielectric fluid contains greater than 50 ppm PCBs have been removed or replaced with non -PCB containing equipment. (11) On the basis of community notifications made under Proposition 65, possible emissions of an air toxic, Hexavalent Chromium [Cr(VI)], may migrate from their source at the adjacent Northrop Grumman plant to the Child Development Center ( "CDC "), a sensitive receptor on Area B. A review of health risk assessment data shows that projected levels of Cr(VI) are considered acceptable based on the guidelines of the U.S. EPA, California EPA, and SCAQMD. Because projected emissions were based on very conservative assumptions, it can be concluded that potential Cr(VI) exposures at the CDC are not a health concern. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to hazardous materials. 15. Air Quality— Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1)Construction activities that generate pollutants include demolition, grading, construction vehicular emissions, fuel consumption, and architectural coating. (2) No construction activity is proposed for the Sun Valley Property. 12 0 33 (3) Construction emissions of Carbon Monoxide ('W") and Particulate Matter ( "PM10,,) would not exceed the thresholds during any year of construction. (4) As discussed in Sections II.D and II.F of this Exhibit A, construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Nitrogen Oxides ( "NOx ") in 2004 and 2006, and would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases ( "ROG ") emissions in 2005 and 2007. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce CO and PM10 impacts below a level of significance. C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to construction emissions of CO and PM10. 16.Air Quality— Operational. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Long -term Project - related emissions would be generated by both stationary sources and mobile sources such as motor vehicles. (2) Motor vehicles are the predominate source of operational emissions and air quality impacts. (3) Operational emissions of PM10 would not exceed significance thresholds. (4) As discussed in Section II.D and II.F. of this Exhibit A, operational emissions of NOx, CO, and ROG would result in significant and unavoidable project and cumulative impacts to air quality. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce PM10 impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to operational emissions of PM10. 13 037 17. Noise -- Operational. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Area A and the Lawndale Annex are located in high ambient noise areas. (2) Traffic noise impacts contributing to the ambient noise in the existing environment would be inaudible and below thresholds of significance. (3) There is a potential that parking - related noise, such as car alarms, door closing, and the starting of car engines, would be audible at nearby residential uses. However, these sources would be no different than are currently associated with the surface parking lots located within Area A and the Lawndale Annex, along with noise associated with activity on the recreational field at the Lawndale Annex. (4) With the construction of a sound wall, the Lawndale Annex will not be impacted by noise from the Metro Rail Green Line. (5) A 6 -8 foot high wall is proposed along the southerly boundary of Area A. The southerly boundary adjoins a railroad right -of -way. There will be an increase of 0.5 dB in the CNEL due to train noise reflecting off of the wall. An increase of less than 1dB in CNEL is not noticeable. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to operational noise impacts. 18. Noise -- Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) No construction activity is proposed at the Sun Valley Property. (2) As discussed in Section II.D of this Exhibit A, noise construction impacts on Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex will be significant and unavoidable. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts on the Sun Valley Property below a level of significance. 14 038 c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to noise construction impacts on the Sun Valley Property. C. The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were identified as potentially significant in the FEIS /EIR, changes or alterations within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City have been adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agency to avoid or lessen the potential significant environmental effects listed below to a level of insignificance. 1. Soils and Geology. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The potential for surface fault rupture at the four Project sites is low. Additionally, no actions or changes would occur at the Sun Valley Property. (2) The four sites are not identified as being located within areas at risk for landslides or as having the potential for seismic slope instability. However, all four sites are located within the Southern California region that is known for seismic activity and groundshaking. (3) Liquefaction will not be a significant impact at the Project sites. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not result in or expose people to significant impacts related to seismic settlement and differential compaction. (4) There are no significant impacts related to flooding at Areas A & B. (5) The Lawndale Annex is located within a 500 -year floodplain. However, flooding impacts would be less than significant. (6) The Sun Valley Property is not located in a 100 -year floodplain but it is located in an area with minimal to moderate flooding. However, no physical changes to the site are anticipated or planned under the Proposed Action that would result expose people to any significant impacts related to flooding. 15 039 (7) Elevated levels of methane gas have been observed at Area B of LAAFB, in the vicinity of the Fitness Center. Since significant levels of methane have been detected in Area B and since a portion of Area A is within an oil field and there are documented producing wells nearby, there is a potential for significant levels of methane to be present at Area A and Area B. No information regarding methane gas is available for the Lawndale Annex or the Sun Valley Property. (8) Expansive or corrosive soils could have a significant impact on the Proposed Action at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. (9) Grading is not anticipated to have a significant impact at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex under the Proposed Action. No grading would occur at the Sun Valley Property. (10) The stability of the proposed slopes will be analyzed during the comprehensive geotechnical investigation for the Proposed Action as required by the City of Hawthorne and the Air Force to ensure that the Proposed Action does not result in any significant slope stability impacts at Area A, Area B, or the Lawndale Annex. (11) The potential for erosion or for the volume of runoff to increase at these sites as a result of the Proposed Action is not considered significant. b) Mitigation: (1) A comprehensive geotechnical report shall be prepared for Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex. Specific design recommendations presented in the comprehensive geotechnical report for all Project sites shall be incorporated into the final design and construction of the Proposed Action. The comprehensive geotechnical report shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following geotechnical hazards: ground shaking, slope stability, and expansive /corrosive soils. (2) On -site grading shall be performed in accordance with applicable codes so that erosion of graded areas will not occur. All areas of construction shall be fine - graded to drain in conformance with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements and direct permissible runoff to the street or to the nearest available storm drain. No runoff within the Property boundaries shall be allowed to flow uncontrolled 16 040 over any existing slopes. All permanent slopes shall be Planted in conformance with current grading codes. (3) Although liquefaction is not considered to be a significant impact at the Project sites, the comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall use site - specific soil and groundwater data to specifically evaluate the potential for liquefaction at each site. If there is a medium to high potential, specific recommendations shall be included in the geotechnical report to minimize the potential for damage from liquefaction. (4) The recommendations presented in the comprehensive geotechnical investigation report for design of walls below grade to support the lateral earth pressure and the additional surcharges from adjacent buildings and traffic shall be followed. (5) A site specific methane gas study shall be performed at Area A, Area B, and the Lawndale Annex to characterize the levels of methane and other volatile gases that may be present at these locations and to evaluate the level of impact that hazardous gases might have on the Project. An approved methane gas consultant shall be retained for the site - specific methane gas study. The methane consultant would be approved by the local government entity with jurisdiction over the specific Project site. If levels of methane are detected at the site, a permanent methane gas control system may be necessary beneath the proposed buildings. The potential for methane gas to have a significant impact at the site can be reduced to a less than significant level by installation of a permanent gas control system at the site, if necessary. An approved methane specialist, as described above, shall be retained for the design of a methane gas control system. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the -USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on soils and geology. 17 041 2. Water Resources. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The proposed storm drain system for Area A would connect to existing storm drains. The parking lot detention system for the Proposed Action at Area A will be designed to store a minimum of 350 cubic feet of detained runoff. The drainage system would be designed to the Hawthorne and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works standards, and all storm drains would be designed for a 25 -year frequency storm event. The Proposed Action at Area A would not result in any significant hydrology impacts. Provided the mitigation measures listed below are implemented, the Proposed Action at Area A would not result in significant hydrology impacts. (2) Although impervious surfaces on Area B are expected to decrease as a result of increased open space, there may be a need for on -site detention of storm water. (3) The Lawndale Annex will be developed as residential with a required imperviousness of 0.9 per County standards. Runoff of 38 cfs will result, which will exceed the allowable 13 cfs. As such, a detention of 13,330 cubic feet must be provided on -site. This level of detention and runoff can be accommodated at parking lots at the site. (4) No new development would occur at the Sun Valley Property under the Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant surface hydrology, flooding or groundwater impacts would be created by the Proposed Action. (5) The Proposed Action at Area A, Area B and Lawndale Annex does not involve deep excavations that have the potential to intercept existing aquifers, nor would it involve direct additions or withdrawals of groundwater. Therefore, impacts to groundwater are anticipated to be less than significant. (6) Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex are not located within a 100 -year floodplain. There are no significant impacts related to flooding and the Proposed Action would not result in or expose people to significant impacts related to flooding. (7) Since the Proposed Action involves clearing, grading, and excavation of one or more acres, a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit must be obtained prior to the start of construction. A Storm Water Pollution 18 041'- Prevention Plan ( "SWPPP ") must be prepared that identifies which structural and nonstructural Best Management Practices ( "BMPs ") will be implemented, such as sandbag barriers, temporary desilting basins near inlets, gravel driveways, dust controls, employee training, and general good housekeeping practices. With the implementation of the BMPs, short-term water quality impacts would be less than significant. (8) The Proposed Action will provide structural or treatment control BMPs designed to mitigate storm water runoff. While some infiltration through landscape areas will occur, the Proposed Action will primarily rely on the implementation of Treatment Control BMPs. As required by the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan ( "SUSMP "), detailed plans for the Project's compliance with the SUSMP will be submitted to the City of Hawthorne as part of the development plan approval process prior to issuance of building and grading permits. With compliance with the SUSMP requirements, the Proposed Action's operational impacts on storm water quality will be less than significant. b) Mitigation. (1) The Developer shall prepare a master drainage plan for Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex. This plan shall include detailed hydrology /hydraulic calculations and drainage improvements, showing quantitatively how the Project will eliminate potential for downstream flooding due to increased storm water runoff. These plans will also identify the proposed Best Management Practices to be implemented in compliance with the requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and applicable codes. Such plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Hawthorne and the LACDPW. (2) The Developer shall design a conveyance and detainment system to meet the LACDPW limits on the storm drains that would convey the discharge from Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex. (3) The Project applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent ( "NOI") for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") General Permit for Construction Activities with the California State Water Resources Board. Compliance with the NPDES general permit shall be certified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. 19 043 (4) During construction and operations, all waste shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Properly labeled recycling bins shall be utilized for recyclable construction materials including solvents, water -based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and concrete, wood, and vegetation. Non - recyclable materials and wastes must be taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed, regulated disposal site by a licensed waste - hauler. (5) All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction shall 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. (6) If materials spills occur, they should not be hosed down. Dry cleaning methods shall be employed whenever possible. (7) Construction dumpsters shall be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting if left uncovered for extended periods. All dumpsters shall be well maintained. (8) The Developer shall conduct inspections of the Project site before and after storm events to determine whether BMPs to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan are adequate and properly implemented. (9) The Developer shall conduct daily street sweeping and truck wheel cleaning to prevent dirt in storm water. (10) The Developer or its successor -in- interest shall provide regular sweeping of private streets and parking lots within the Project site with equipment designed for removal of hydrocarbon compounds. (11) The Developer or its successor -in- interest shall maintain all structural or treatment control Best Management Practices for the life of the Project. c) Finding: The City Council finds- that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on water resources. 20 G4 f# 3. Cultural Resources. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Grading and excavation activities could potentially, although unlikely, encounter archaeological resources. (2) Native American resources such as sacred sites or traditional use locations associated with the Gabrielino- Tongva are not expected to occur. There is a low probability that subsurface deposits or burial sites may exist which could be encountered during grading or excavation operations. (3) No adverse impacts to historic resources would result from the implementation of the Proposed Action. b) Mitigation: (1) In the event that archaeological or traditional resources are encountered during the course of grading or construction, all activities must temporarily cease in these areas until the resources are properly assessed and subsequent recommendations are determined by a qualified consultant. (2) In the event that human remains are discovered, there shall be no disposition of such human remains, other than in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 800.13, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. These code provisions require notification of the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission, who in turn must notify those persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American for appropriate disposition of the remains. Excavation or disturbance may continue in other areas of the Project site that are not reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains or cultural resources. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect on cultural resources. 21 04J D. Significant Unavoidable Effects that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance. The City Council finds that in response to each adverse impact identified below, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project, which lessen the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. 1. Aesthetics. a) Facts (1) Under the Proposed Action, Area A buildings could extend up to 25 feet above the eight of the existing buildings. The maximum height of the buildings along the southern property line of Area A have been reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet in the specific plan for Area A., thereby reducing the severity of the visual impact from 25 feet to 15 feet. b) Mitigation: Even with the reduction in height, development of Area A would result in a significant impact to views from the residential area located to the south of the site. No mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City finds that although the aesthetic impact of the Project on the residential area to the south of Area A will remain significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 2. Transportation. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action is expected to produce one Project related significant traffic impact during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. This impact would occur at the intersection of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard. b) Mitigation. (1) A northbound right turn lane shall be installed on Aviation Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard. Land shall be dedicated on the east side of Aviation Boulevard south of El Segundo Boulevard from Area A to create sufficient right -of -way for the installation of a right turn lane. 22 046 c) Finding: The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and incorporated into the Project to reduce the impact at Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, but the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 3. Libraries. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Development would increase the permanent residential Population by approximately 2,530 persons occupying Area A and the Lawndale Annex. (2) The Proposed Action for all four sites would have less than significant impacts on the El Segundo and City of Los Angeles libraries, but would have a potentially significant impact on the Los Angeles County Public Library ( "LACPL ") system. (3) The LACLP Wiseburn, Hawthorne and Lawndale libraries, which would serve Area A and the Lawndale Annex residents, are adequately supplied with books and materials to meet the new demand. However, the size of the Wiseburn Library, the closest facility, may not be adequate to accommodate the approximately 2,530 additional residents, which could result in the need for constructing a new library facility. (4) Although developer fees for LACPL impacts may be imposed upon projects in unincorporated Los Angeles County territory, LACPL does not require mitigation fees for projects that are developed within municipal boundaries. No developer fees have been established in the City or in Hawthorne to mitigate impacts to LACPL libraries. (5) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for library services. b) Mitigation: (1) LACPL has requested that the City establish and impose a developer fee to mitigate impacts to the LACPL system. 23 04 7 c) Finding. (1) The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. However, Hawthorne may find that the imposition of a developer fee to mitigate impacts to the LACPL system would be economically unfeasible, because it would exacerbate an existing gap between the collective value of Area A, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley Property and the cost of the SAMS Center on Area B. Widening the gap is also inconsistent with the Project objectives. (2) LACPL funding sources (e.g. property tax, general fund, parcel tax, grants, etc.) should reduce the severity of the impact that the Proposed Action could have on the LACPL system. However, this funding may not reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. (3) The City finds that the impact of the Project on the LACPL library system would remain significant and unavoidable without the imposition of a developer fee, as no other feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 4. Parks. a) Facts /Effects. (1) The Proposed Action would result in an increase in approximately 2,530 persons on Area A and the Lawndale Annex, which would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks with the potential to accelerate the physical deterioration of the facilities. Because Hawthorne is park deficient, the addition of approximately 2,530 permanent residents would further exacerbate an already substandard park service ration. (2) Hawthorne includes public parks as a component of development impact fees to mitigate impacts to parks. (3) Under the Proposed Action, existing USAF activities on Area A would be relocated to Area B. This would not result in additional demands on the City's park system. (4) The Sun Valley Property could be reoccupied at the same intensity of use and so would not create an increased demand for park services. 24 048 b) Mitigation: A developer fee could be imposed to mitigate the impact of Area A and the Lawndale Annex on the Hawthorne park system. c) Finding: (1) The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. However, Hawthorne may find that the imposition of a developer fee to mitigate impacts to the Hawthorne park system would be economically unfeasible, because it would exacerbate an existing gap between the collective value of Area A, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley Property and the cost of the SAMS Center on Area B. Widening the gap is also inconsistent with the Project objectives. (2) The City finds that the impact of the Project on the Hawthorne park system would remain significant and unavoidable without the imposition of a developer fee, as no other feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact. 5. Air Quality -- Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Nitrogen Oxides ( "NOx ") in 2004 and 2006. (2) Construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases ( "ROG ") emissions in 2005 and 2007. (3) State law requires that the Developer implement SCAQMD Rule 481 to control ROG emissions. b) Mitigation. (1) Construction contracts shall stipulate that diesel powered construction equipment shall be shut off when not in direct use. (2) Diesel engines, motors, or equipment shall be located as far away as possible from existing residential areas. 25 049 (3) Construction contracts shall explicitly stipulate that all diesel power equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained. c) Finding: The City finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and incorporated into the Project to reduce construction air quality impacts. However, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 6. Air Quality- Operational. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Operational emissions would exceed significance thresholds for regional NOx, CO and ROG emissions. (2) The predominate source of such operational NOx, CO, and ROG emissions are motor vehicles associated with the traffic trip generation of the Project. b) Mitigation: No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce operational air quality impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding. The City finds that although operational air quality impacts of the Project remain significant and unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen these impacts below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 7. Noise -- Construction. a) Facts /Effects. (1) Construction activities within Area A would result in significant impacts related to construction noise at two locations (Del Aire Park and Wiseburn Ave), while construction activities on the Lawndale Annex would result in significant impacts related to construction noise at one location (town home residential complex located immediately south of the Lawndale Annex). (2) Construction activities on Area B would result in significant construction noise impacts at one receptor location (LAAFB Child Development Center). 26 C50 b) Mitigation. (1) Construction contracts shall specify that all construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and other suitable noise attenuation devices. (2) All residential units and other sensitive receptors located within 400 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule of the Project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. (3) A "noise disturbance coordinator" position shall be established for the Project. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad mufflers, etc.) and would be required to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. All notices that are sent to residential units within 400 feet of the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator. c) Finding: The City Council finds that incorporation of such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Hawthorne for Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the USAF for Area B, and not the City. Such changes have been adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF or can and should be adopted by Hawthorne and the USAF and incorporated into the Project to reduce construction noise impacts. However, these construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. E. Insicinificant Cumulative Impacts. The City Council finds that the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence which identifies significant adverse cumulative environmental effects associated with the Project in conjunction with the related Projects identified in Section 2.6 of the DEIS /EIR (collectively, the "Related Projects ") with respect to the areas listed below. a) Population, Housing and Employment b) Land Use 27 051 C) Aesthetics d) Shade /Shadow e) Public Utilities (Sewer, Water, Natural Gas, and Electricity) f) Public Services (Fire Protection, Police Protection, and Schools) g) Hazardous Materials And Hazardous Waste Management h) Soils and Geology i) Water Resources j) Operational Noise k) Cultural Resources F. Significant Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts. The City Council finds that in response to each impact identified below, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project, which lessen the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. The Project's contribution to these impacts would be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 1. Transportation. a) Facts (1) The impacts of cumulative traffic growth were incorporated into the traffic modeling for the Project. (2) The level of service is expected to decline to unacceptable levels at 27 of the 37 intersections studied in the DFIS /EIR whether or not the Project is approved. (3) No sub - regional traffic impact fee has been established or proposed for "fair- share" contributions to regional transportation improvements that might reduce the severity of cumulative traffic impacts. b) Finding: The City Council finds that although mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to reduce the severity of the Project - specific traffic impact, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impacts. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable cumulative impacts. 28 0 J n 2. Solid Waste. a) Fact/Effects. (1) With mandatory source reduction and recycling programs, the Project and Related Projects would not produce an amount of solid waste that exceeds available landfill capacity. (2) The Project together with Related Project could contribute to a significant unavoidable cumulative impact on solid waste disposal capacity caused by regional growth. (3) Such impacts cannot by reduced below a level significance by Project- specific mitigation measures. b) Finding: The City Council finds that while mitigation is not needed to reduce Project - specific solid waste impacts, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts caused by solid waste generation. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 3. Libraries. a) Facts (1) The majority of Related Projects are commercial, and commercial projects do not typically generate a significant demand for library services. (2) The imposition of library impact fees upon residential Related Projects is not expected to reduce the cumulative impact of residential development upon the LACPL system to a level of less than significant. b) Finding: The City Council finds that since mitigation is not feasible to reduce the Project- specific impact on libraries, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on the LACPL system. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 4. Parks. a) Facts (1) The majority of Related Projects are commercial, and commercial projects do not typically generate a significant demand for park services. 29 053 (2) Impacts caused by the residential Related Projects could be reduced through developer fees or parkland contributions. (3) None of the residential Related Projects are proposed to be located in Hawthorne. However, because Hawthorne is already parkland deficient, the imposition of park impact fees upon Related Projects is not expected to reduce the cumulative impact of residential development upon Hawthorne's park system to a level of less than significant. b) Finding: The City Council finds that since mitigation is not feasible to reduce the Project- specific impact on parks, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on Hawthorne's park system. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 5. Air Quality— Construction. a) Facts (1) If construction of Related Projects overlap construction of the Project, a temporary increase in short-term PMio, CO, ROG and NOx emissions would occur. (2) Although Project- specific mitigation measures have been imposed upon the Project and may be imposed upon the Related Projects, because the South Coast Air Quality basin is in non - attainment status for these pollutants, any contribution is considered cumulatively significant. b) Finding: The City Council finds that although mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to reduce the severity of Project - specific air quality impacts due to construction, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts due to construction. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 6. Air Quality— Operation. a) Facts (1)The Project together with Related Projects will exceed the cumulative significance thresholds for CO, ROG, and NOx. 30 `-i -4 (2) No feasible mitigation measures are available to implement regional reductions in operational air quality impacts below significant levels. b) Finding: The City Council finds that since mitigation is not feasible to reduce Project- specific impacts on air quality related to operations, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impacts related to operations. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. 7. Noise — Construction. a) Facts (1) If construction of Related Projects overlap construction of the Project, cumulative noise impacts would contribute temporarily to the existing ambient noise levels of the area and exceed the threshold of significance. (2) Although project- specific mitigation measures have been imposed upon the Project and similar measures may be imposed upon Related Projects, no mitigation measures are available to implement regional reductions in construction noise impacts below the level of significance. b) Finding: The City Council finds that although mitigation can be incorporated into the Project to reduce the severity of the Project - specific noise impact on sensitive receptors, no feasible mitigation measures exist to address significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impacts on such receptors. The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh these significant unavoidable impacts. G. Project Alternatives. 1. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration. Various alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered and dismissed without further study because they failed to accomplish the objectives of the Project or were otherwise not feasible. One alternative involved selling Area A and the Sun Valley Property as well as building new facilities on Area B and upgrading Building 80 on the Lawndale Annex to meet seismic requirements using traditional USAF funding. This alternative was considered and evaluated in the Draft EA prepared by the Air Force in September, 2002 (Alternative #2). However, the USAF concluded that the lead time required to include the financial requirements associated with this alternative in the federal budget would 31 055 not feasibly lead to the provision of seismically safe facilities in a reasonable period of time and would thus have the potential to result in mission degradation. Another alternative involved development of Area A with residential units within the boundaries of the City. This alternative was considered, but eliminated from further consideration, because the City would not be able to provide adequate public services to residential development located on Area A. Presently, all residential development within the City is located west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The City has planned for and deployed, primarily on the west side of the City, the resources associated with the major infrastructure and public services that it provides to reflect this land use pattern. Another alternative would include development of office or industrial uses on Area A. This alternative was considered and eliminated from further consideration because the potential environmental impacts associated with this alternative would exceed those associated with developing a commercial center on Area A, particularly with respect to traffic, air quality, noise and, potentially, the use of hazardous materials in conjunction with an industrial use. Finally, the alternative of locating the proposed private land uses identified in the Proposed Action at an alternate location was considered and dismissed. The feasibility of the concept, which the USAF is pursuing under the SAMS Project, depends upon the development of the sites that would be conveyed by the USAF with private uses that generate sufficient value to support the construction of the new facilities for the USAF on Area B at no cost to the federal government. Therefore, development of the specific sites evaluated in the DEIS /EIR is integral to the Proposed Action. Alternative locations would not meet the needs of the Proposed Action or the Project Objectives. 2. No Action Alternative. a) Description. The No Action alternative allows local governmental decision - makers to compare the impacts of approving the Proposed Action with the impacts of not approving the Proposed Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the USAF would continue to maintain and operate existing facilities at LAAFB in their current configuration. Seismic retrofits to existing facilities would be planned to occur over time to the maximum extent possible. Repair of primary building systems, roads, parking and primary utilities would not be accomplished unless traditional military ( "MILCON ") or Operations and Maintenance ( "O &M ") funding becomes available. No such funding for these repairs and upgrades is included in any current or foreseeable budget. For the foreseeable future, therefore, USAF personnel would continue working in existing buildings that do not meet building and safety codes, which would result in mission degradation for the LAAFB. If USAF facilities were upgraded as part of the No Action Alternative, construction activity would be primarily limited to interior work and would not include major demolition, grading or construction activities. The appearance of Area A, Area B, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley Property would not change substantially under the No Action Alternative. Existing LAAFB employment would not change under this 32 056 alternative and therefore no changes in traffic generation or utility consumption would be associated with the No Action Alternative. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the No Action Alternative would not result in any of the significant impacts associated with the Project. The No Action Alternative would, however, result in a short-term significant impact to soils and geology. In addition, seismic safety and hazardous materials impacts under the No Action Alternative would be greater than the Project. Nevertheless, the significant impacts associated with Project would be substantially avoided by the implementation of the No Action Alternative, but this alternative would not implement the Project objectives. However, the No Action Alternative could result in the closing or relocation of the LAAFB out of southern California as part of the federal Base Relocation And Closure ('BRAG') process. The next BRAC process is scheduled to start in 2004. The condition of the buildings, which is exemplified by deteriorating facilities, and substandard seismic and life safety building standards, such as exist on the LAAFB, is an important criterion under the BRAC process for determining whether a military facility should be closed. Closure of the LAAFB or its relocation outside of Southern California would be contrary to the Project objectives. 3. El Segundo Commercial Alternative. a) Description. Under the El Segundo Commercial Alternative, Area A would be conveyed by the USAF for private development with a commercial shopping center of up to 750,000 gross square feet, including up to 4,000 square feet of fast food uses. The reorganization process, by which Area A would be detached from the City and annexed to Hawthorne would not occur. All existing buildings on Area A (835,000 sq. ft.) would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development under this Alternative. El Segundo would be responsible for granting land use entitlements required to construct the commercial shopping center on Area A. Uses within the shopping center would include but not necessarily be limited to several anchor retail tenants with a mix of other merchandise stores, restaurants, service and /or fast food uses. A building height limit would be established along the southern boundary of Area A that would limit building height to 65 feet along the eastern 40% of this boundary and 35 feet along the western 60% of this boundary. Building heights along El Segundo Boulevard would be limited to 65 feet. Buildings would be required to be set back at least 100 feet from the southern boundary of the Project site. Design features would be required in this Alternative to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. To minimize noise, dust and lighting impacts on the Hollyglen community located to the south of the Project site, the existing chain link fence located along the southern edge of the Project site would be replaced with an eight -foot high concrete block wall. Landscaping would also be provided throughout Area A. Development of Area A under this Alternative would be anticipated to commence in 2006 and be completed in 2007. 33 0 51 Under the El Segundo Commercial Alternative, development of Area B would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Development of the Lawndale Annex by the Developer would be the same as under the Proposed Action; the land use entitlements would also be granted by Hawthorne. The Sun Valley Property would be conveyed by the USAF to the Developer, and the use would be the same as under the Proposed Action. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the El Segundo Commercial Alternative would not substantially reduce or avoid the significant impacts associated with the Project. The El Segundo Commercial Alternative would result in all the same significant unavoidable impacts as the Project, as well as an additional significant unavoidable impact arising from localized CO concentrations. In addition, significant unavoidable traffic and aesthetic impacts are more severe under the Commercial Alternative than under the Project. 4. Renovation Alternative. a) Description. The Renovation Alternative involves renovating existing substandard SAMS facilities on Area A (Buildings 100, 105, 115,120 and 125) by the USAF using traditional MILITARY or O &M funding as it becomes available. Renovation activities would include seismic retrofits, removal of interior walls and partitions to reconfigure space, replacement of primary building systems, removal of lead based paint and asbestos, installation of fire suppression systems and other actions required to fully meet seismic and life safety requirements within these buildings. This alternative would require the vacating of facilities during the renovation. Under this Alternative, right sizing would take place, and primary utilities would also be repaired or replaced. Under the Renovation Alternative, no new development or renovation activities would take place in Area B. Current LAAFB employees located on Area A would not be relocated to Area B under this Alternative. Under this Alternative, the Lawndale Annex would be retained by the USAF and would continue to be used for RV storage, parking and recreational uses. Building 80, located on the Lawndale Annex, would be upgraded by the USAF using MILCON or O &M funding as it becomes available to meet seismic and safety requirements. The Sun Valley Property would be disposed of through the traditional process of federal government excess property disposal administered by the General Services Administration. No demolition or construction activities would be anticipated to occur on this site in the reasonably foreseeable future, and no discretionary actions would be requested from the City of Los Angeles as part of this Alternative. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the Renovation Alternative would not result in any of the significant impacts associated with the Project. The Renovation 34 058 Alternative would, however, result in a short-term significant impact to soils and geology. Nevertheless, the significant impacts associated with Project would be substantially avoided by the implementation of the Renovation Alternative. However, the Renovation Alternative could result in the closing or relocation of the LAAFB out of southern California as part of the federal Base Relocation And Closure ('BRAC") process. The next BRAC process is scheduled to start in 2004. The condition of the buildings, which is exemplified by deteriorating facilities and substandard seismic and life safety building standards, such as exist on the LAAFB, is an important criterion under the BRAC process for determining whether a military facility should be closed. Closure of the LAAFB or its relocation outside of Southern California would be contrary to the Project objectives 5. Reduced Residential Alternative a) Description. Under the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the same land uses proposed for Area A under the Proposed Action would be constructed by the Developer, at a development density approximately 20% lower than under the Proposed Action. This would result in the construction of 600 residential condominium units on Area A. Area A would be reorganized from the City into Hawthorne. Project entitlements would be processed by Hawthorne. The same land use approvals and development standards designed to minimize impacts to the Hollyglen neighborhood to the south of Area A (block wall and canopy of mature trees) would be incorporated into this Alternative. Height limits would be reduced to 32 feet along the southern boundary of the site, increasing to 45 feet along El Segundo Boulevard. The same level of development as would occur under the Proposed Action would occur on Area B under the responsibility of the USAF. Under the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the same land uses proposed for the Lawndale Annex under the Proposed Action would be constructed by the Developer, at a development density approximately 20% lower than under the Proposed Action. This would result in the construction of 233 residential condominium units on the Lawndale Annex. Height limits would be reduced to 45 feet on the Lawndale Annex under this alternative. Under this Alternative, the Sun Valley Property will be conveyed by the Air Force to the private developer. However, no demolition or construction activities would be anticipated to occur on this site in the reasonably foreseeable future, and no discretionary actions would be requested from the City of Los Angeles as part of this Alternative. Under the Reduced Residential Density Alternative, the Sun Valley Property could be re- occupied with the same land uses (i.e., industrial /warehouse) under the same development intensity as previously associated with this site. b) Comparison to Project. As shown in Table S -1 of the DEIS /EIR, the Reduced Density Alternative would reduce or avoid the some of significant impacts associated with the Project. The 35 059 Reduced Density Alternative would avoid the Project's significant unavoidable impact to aesthetics, but would not avoid any other significant unavoidable impacts arising from the Project. Nevertheless, the severity of such impacts would be reduced in rough proportionality to the reduction in the density of development associated with this Alternative. 6. Findings Regarding Alternatives. a) Reasonable Range of Alternatives. The City Council finds that that (a) the FEIS /EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the Project; and (b) the City Council evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the Project. b) Environmentally Superior Alternative. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to the Project shall identify one alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Furthermore, if the environmentally superior alternative is the "No Project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. From a strictly environmental standpoint, the No Action Alternative is superior to all others. It leaves the existing buildings intact and avoids the significant impacts associated with the Project. The No Action Alternative would be temporary in nature, however, as it would not necessarily preserve the LAAFB in the southern California region. Even if the LAAFB remained in its present location, the No Action Alternative provides no mechanism for upgrading the USAF facilities. Consequently, the No Action Alternative would not fulfill the objectives of the Project. The Renovation Alternative is also environmentally superior to the Project. This alternative, however, depends upon MILCON and O &M funding to implement LAAFB facility improvements as does the No Action Alternative. The Project was authorized by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106 -398) as amended by Section 2841 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 because MILCON and O &M funding was too speculative to reasonably assure the renovation of LAAFB facilities. Currently no MILCON or O &M funding is allocated for LAAFB retrofitting or renovation. By letter dated May 27, 2003, the USAF informed the City that entire military construction budget for 9 major installments and 87 geographically separated sites worldwide averages $58 million per year. The cost to renovate the existing LAAFB facilities is estimated to be $134 million. Currently, there is no funding available to build the SAMS Center. It was this shortage of funds that first prompted the USAF to pursue what it describes as the unique process of exchanging land for new LAAFB facilities. Consequently, LAAFB retrofitting or renovation is economically infeasible. Other than the No Action Alternative and the Renovation Alternative, and based upon the evaluation of all environmental impacts associated with the Project and all 36 x`60 alternatives, the DEIS /EIR identified environmentally superior alternative as the Reduced Density Alternative. Under this alternative, one of the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts would be avoided and the remaining significant impacts would be reduced in severity. From an environmental standpoint this alternative is superior to the Project and all other Project alternatives. The Reduced Density Alternative, however, would fail to meet the objectives of the Project because a 20% reduction in development density on Areas A and C would fail to provide a density sufficient to assist in addressing the approximate $35 million gap between the value of the USAF's conveyed land and the cost of constructing new facilities for the USAF on Area B. Despite the environmental superiority of the Reduced Density Alternative, it is not economically feasible to implement and would have the identical practical effect of the No Action Alternative. The City, therefore, finds that specific economic, social, or other considerations make unfeasible the environmentally superior Project alternatives identified in the FEIS /EIR. The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter that: A. Growth Inducing Impacts The Project is an in -fill development within a highly developed urban setting. As described in the FEIS /EIR, construction of the Project would result in increased population and short-term employment opportunities in the construction field. The Project would foster economic growth by increasing the number of residents in the Project area, who could, in turn, also patronize local businesses and services. The Project would not induce growth in an area that is not already developed with infrastructure to accommodate such growth. Thus, the Project would not result in significant growth inducing impacts. B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. Construction of the Project would require the use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., wood, sand, gravel, fossil fuels) for building materials and to fuel construction vehicles and equipment. Subsequent use and maintenance of the Project would also require the long -term consumption of these nonrenewable resources at reduced levels typical for such developments. Long -term increases in ambient air pollution and noise levels would also occur as a result of the Project. The Project would also add traffic to local roads. Potential irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the Project are unlikely and will be avoided by compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR as well as existing city, county, state and federal safety regulations. 37 061 IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project and the unavoidable significant cumulative impacts are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project for the following reasons: A. 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. 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. B. 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 $8.5 billion and expected to increase to $10 billion. Most of the jobs and contracts created by the LAAFB exist in the City, Hawthorne, Manhattan Beach, and surrounding communities. C. The Project replaces currently underutilized USAF sites and replaces unsafe USAF building s with private uses that generate sufficient value to support the construction of the new facilities for the USAF no cost to the federal government. D. 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. E. The Project will improve the region's jobs /housing balance by providing new housing close to major employers. F. The Project facilitates of the long -term economic health of the City and it's neighboring cities and communities. G. 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 the City with assurances with respect to the use of tax revenues derived from Area A. Thus, the "transfer" of Area A from the City has been accomplished through a mutually beneficial agreement. 38 062 V. RECIRCULATION. A. Facts. 1. The fundamental nature of the project studied in the 2002 Draft EIR was changed in response to public comment, resulting in the Proposed Action set forth in the DEIS /EIR. 2. The City received comments on the DEIS /EIR from members of the public and from public agencies in both written and oral form. The FEIS /EIR contains written responses to all comments ('Responses to Comments ") received on the DEIS /EIR as of July 3, 2003. Some comments were incorporated into the FEIS /EIR as factual corrections and minor changes. Chapter 11.5 of the FEIS /EIR sets forth all factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR. 3. As a result of public input on the Project, the Project was revised to lower the residential density of Area A and the Lawndale Annex and the maximum height of buildings along the southern property line of Area A. The maximum density of Area A was reduced from 850 residential units to 750 residential units. The maximum density of the Lawndale Annex was reduced from 300 residential units to 280 residential units. The maximum height of the structures along the southern property line of Area A was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. 4. These reductions were incorporated into the Project after public circulation of the DEIS /EIR. The analysis of environmental impacts associated with residential density, such as traffic impacts and air quality impacts, was not revised from the higher residential densities studied in the DEIS /EIR. Similarly, the environmental impacts analysis of the height of structures along the southern property line of Area A was not revised from the higher building heights studied in the DEIS /EIR. Thus the environmental impacts set forth in the FEIS /EIR with respect to these impacts is greater than is anticipated as a result of further reductions in residential density and building height. 5. In addition to density and height reductions, changes in financing and implementation strategies of the Project have substantially reduced the approximate $65 million gap between the value of the land to be conveyed by the USAF and the cost of constructing new facilities for the USAF on Area B. Nevertheless, an approximate $35 million gap remains between the value of the land and the cost of the new facilities. B. Finding. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15088.5 and Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and based on the FEIS /EIR and the record of proceedings in this matter, the City Council finds that: 39 :1 U v 1. Factual corrections and minor changes are set forth as additions and corrections to the DEIS /EIR; and 2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR are not substantial changes in the DEIS /EIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a feasible Project alternative; and 3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR will not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the significant effects previously disclosed in the DEIS /EIR; and 4. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR will not involve mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIS /EIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment; and 5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR do not render the DEIS /EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. Thus, the City Council finds that none of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guideline 15088.5 or Public Resources Code 21092.1 requiring recirculation of a draft environmental impact report have been met. The City Council further finds that incorporation of the factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIS /EIR into the FEIS /EIR does not require that the FEIS /EIR to be recirculated for public comment. PAPlanning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS \576- 599 \EA - 577\ Ea- 577.reso.cc.cega findings- soc.7- 8- 03.doc 40 06, 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 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of El Segundo that: WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for a reorganization that would concurrently detach territory from the City of El Segundo and annex the territory to the City of Hawthorne, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" to this resolution. WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows: (a) The United States Air Force maintains facilities in the greater Los Angeles region known as the Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "the LAAFB"). (b) Portions of the LAAFB facilities are currently located in the Sun Valley community of the City of Los Angeles ( "the Sun Valley Site "), in a section of the City of Hawthorne ( "the Lawndale Annex ") and on two sites in the City of El Segundo ( "Area A" and "Area B "). (c) The LAAFB presently employees more than 4,000 military and civilian personnel and their jobs are important to the economic vitality of Southern California and the local aerospace defense industry in particular. (d) The United States Air Force intends to consolidate and upgrade the LAAFB through the implementation of a unique public - private partnership, whereby the Sun Valley Site, the Lawndale Annex and Area A will be conveyed to a private developer in exchange for new facilities constructed by the developer on Area B from revenue generated by the developer. (e) Area A is located east of Sepulveda Boulevard at the southeast corner of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards and adjacent to the El Segundo Boulevard on- and -off ramps to the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway in an area of the City of El Segundo that is zoned and developed with commercial and industrial uses. (e) As part of its revenue plan, the developer originally proposed to develop Area A with commercial uses, and the developer and the City of El Segundo LA #108237 v2 -1- 065 commenced the preparation of a specific plan and environmental impact report for such a project. (f) During public review of the project, local residents, including residents of the City of Hawthorne who live in a neighborhood that abuts the southern boundary of Area A ( "the Hollyglen Neighborhood ") objected to commercial development and called for residential development instead. (g) The developer was willing to heed the residents concerns; however, to promote the efficient delivery of public services to its residents, the City of El Segundo has a long- standing policy against permitting residential development east of Sepulveda Boulevard. (h) In order to do all that they can to retain the LAAFB and to satisfy the concerns of local residents, including the Hollyglen Neighborhood, the City of El Segundo has conditionally agreed (pursuant to a Reorganization Agreement entered into with the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency, and the Developer entered into concurrently with the passage of this Resolution) to detach Area A for residential development only and the City of Hawthorne has agreed to annex Area A for residential development only. WHEREAS, the agencies that would be affected by the proposed reorganization as follows: FUNCTION CURRENT #County E AGENCY /DISTRICT CY /DISTRICT Sewer County Sanitation District No. 5 Sanitation District Water Southern Californi a Water Comparn California Water Solid Waste None- private hauler H &C Disposal (single source Natural Gas The Gas Company The Gas Companv o�uuiarn �anrorma Loison Southern California Ed :Library El Segundo Public Library County of Los Angeles Libra S stem Police Segundo Police Department Hawthorne Police Fire I EI Segundo Fire Department I County of Los Angeles Fire Department (Hawthorne is LA #108237 Q -2- 06 WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is Uninhabited and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and by this referenced are incorporated herein. WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed reorganization be subject to terms and conditions to be determined through the application process. WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence as Proposed to be amended for consistency with the proposed new city boundary line between the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne. WHEREAS, prior to action by the Local Agency Formation Commission on the Proposed reorganization and consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the El Segundo has certified an environmental impact report for the project and will transmit the certified report to the Commission concurrently with this resolution. WHEREAS for reasons set forth in the recitals section of the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C, " Hawthorne and El Segundo entered into such agreement. WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo consents to a waiver of protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 57000 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of El Segundo and the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to take LA #108237 Q -3- t�67 contract City) Schools K -8 Wiseburn School District Wiseburn School District School (9 -12) Centinela Valley Union High School District Centinela Valley Union High School District Community Colle a El Camino Community College District El Camino Community Colle a District Street Lighting Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Lighting District Traffic Signal Maintenance Los Angeles County Public Works Los Angeles County Public Works Storm Drain Catch Basin Maintenance Los Angeles County Flood Control Los Angeles County Flood Control WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is Uninhabited and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and by this referenced are incorporated herein. WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed reorganization be subject to terms and conditions to be determined through the application process. WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence as Proposed to be amended for consistency with the proposed new city boundary line between the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne. WHEREAS, prior to action by the Local Agency Formation Commission on the Proposed reorganization and consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the El Segundo has certified an environmental impact report for the project and will transmit the certified report to the Commission concurrently with this resolution. WHEREAS for reasons set forth in the recitals section of the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C, " Hawthorne and El Segundo entered into such agreement. WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo consents to a waiver of protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 57000 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of El Segundo and the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to take LA #108237 Q -3- t�67 proceedings for the proposed reorganization as authorized and in the manner provided by the Cortese - Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not become effective unless Hawthorne and El Segundo have fully executed the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C" on before July 19, 2003 and Hawthorne has adopted a resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" on or before July 19, 2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that El Segundo is requesting that LAFCO include the following terms and condition as part of the Reorganization and set forth such terms and conditions in the Certificate of Completion: (i) The Reorganization shall only become effective if on or before April 30, 2004, LAFCO has received written notification from the Hawthorne and El Segundo City Councils acknowledging that the terms and conditions set forth in Section 2 of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied. The effective date of the Reorganization shall be the date that LAFCO receives such notification; (ii) So long as El Segundo and Hawthorne have not provided LAFCO with the notification acknowledging that the terms and conditions of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied, the El Segundo City Council and Hawthorne City Council shall each have the right to notify LAFCO that a term or condition of the Reorganization Agreement has not been met to its satisfaction and that such shall cause the Reorganization to not become effective and Area A shall remain within El Segundo's territorial boundaries; (iii) The payment obligations by Hawthorne and the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency to the City of El Segundo, as set forth in Section 2.b. of the Reorganization Agreement, are incorporated into the Certificate of Completion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if LAFCO is not willing to include it its and terms and conditions of approval of the Reorganization those terms and conditions requested by this resolution, El Segundo requests that LAFCO not approve the Reorganization. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the City of El Segundo, and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of the City of El Segundo, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2003. LA #108237 Q Mike Gordon, Mayor lE 068 ATTEST: Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley City Attorney CERTIFICATION 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, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of members of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being RESOLUTION NO. was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the 15th day of July, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTION: NOT PARTICIPATING: WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this 2003. day of July LA #108237 v2 Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Of the City of El Segundo, California (SEAL) -5- 069 EXHIBIT A CITY OF EL SEGUNDO REORGANIZATION NO. 2003-01 Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 34 of Tract No. 16663, in the City of Hawthorne, County of Los Angeles, as shown on map recorded in Book 511, Pages 15 through 19, inclusive, of Maps, records of said County, said comer being on the southeasterly line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company's 80.00 foot right of way, said comer being a common point in the boundaries of the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne, as both boundaries existed on April 15, 2003 and having established grid coordinates of North 1,791,789.84 feet, Easting 6,449,118.06 feet, Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence along said southeasterly line, South 62 °25'00" West 2659.14 feet to the westerly line of the northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 of the Superior Court of the State of California; thence along said westerly line, North 00 °13'08" East 1188.48 feet to a line parallel with and 25.00 feet northwesterly of the southeasterly line of the land described in Book 4215, Page 316 of said Deeds; thence along said parallel line North 11 °21'00" East 421.61 feet to the northerly line of said Section 17; thence along said northerly line, South 89 °45'00" East 1211.46 feet to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Isis Avenue, 60 feet wide, as shown on Tract No 14749, in the City of El Segundo, as per map recorded in Book 368, pages 18 through 22, inclusive of said Maps; thence along said southerly prolongation, South 00 °11'19" West 50.00 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of said northerly line of Section 17; thence along said parallel line, South 89 °45'00" East 477.18 feet to the . westerly line of the "Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne as same existed on March 14, 1957, said westerly line being the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 140.00 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears South 89 °27'05" West; thence along said most westerly line of the "Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne, the following three courses: Southeasterly 245.85 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 98 °34'09 ", North 81 °23'56" East 348.02 feet, South 18 °34'12" East 250.23 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 50.10 acres, more or less. C1 / R bo ert C. Olson, PIS 5490 Psomas Page I of 1 W\LAAFB\ 54156 \IKEA0201W urvey\LAFCOWNNP -EL _SBGUNDO.I. Apn1 15. 2003 JDC:J& e O¢. /!o. ZO4>3 Date L,0 Scale: 1' — 300' City of El Segundo Sheet I 1 Sheet Reorganization No. 2003 -01 Cant,nin9 50.10 Acrea Count 1 Y o Loa Angeles. Slate of Colitornio 300' 0' 300' 600' GRAPHI CAL I" = 300' S 18'34'12" 250.23' I LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD N 81'23'56" E 348.02' A= 98'34'09 R= 140.00' L= 245.85' S 89'45'00" E 477.18' S 0'05'53" 50.00' W Z 0 F 4 0 4� N l9 w N 11'21'00" E P.0 N 1 \ I VICINIVICINI -MA P NOT TO SCALE W'lo and Sf'IV tin —SPACE TECHNOLDGY --1--� AVIATION BOULE YARDS ^ Of Bk 421ST P� - - -- TERRI DRY ANNEXATION P9 316, Deeds 8/-14/60 8/20/81 Annexation Area DATE: 01/21/03 REVISED ON: 04/15/03 E JOB No: IKEA020100 Task 116 P S 0 M A S REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT This Reorganization Agreement (this "Agreement ") is made this _ day of July, 2003, by and between the City of Hawthorne, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the general laws of the State of California ( "Hawthorne "), the Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency ( "Agency "), the City of El Segundo, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the general laws of the State of California ( "El Segundo ") and SAMS Venture, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Developer "). El Segundo, Hawthorne, Agency and the Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Parties" and each may be referred to as a "Party". RECITALS A. The Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "LAAFB") is one of the key economic engines in the region, providing approximately 65,000 jobs directly and indirectly through annual government contracts to local aerospace companies, currently valued at $8,500,000,000, and expected to increase to $10,000,000,000. The LAAFB presently employs more than 4,000 military and civilian personnel and their jobs are important to the economic vitality of Southern California and the local aerospace defense industry. B. United States Air Force ( "USAF ") currently finds itself confronted with the problem of upgrading facilities at the LAAFB in severe disrepair which do not meet current building codes for fire and earthquake safety with limited federal funds. With extensive renovations needed to the LAAFB's 1950s era buildings, El Segundo and Hawthorne are concerned that the base could be closed and relocated to another state rather than undergoing a major renovation. C. The USAF has partnered with SAMS Venture, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Developer) to build new USAF facilities on one of the existing USAF sites (referred to as "Area B" and located at the Northwest corner of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard in El Segundo and depicted on Exhibit "A" in exchange for conveyance of three properties: Area A, Area C and a small industrial property referred to as the Sun Valley property). Area A is comprised of approximately 39.24 acres located in El Segundo, immediately adjacent to Hawthorne, legally described in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement and diagramed in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement. Area C is comprised of approximately 13.93 acres of land located on Aviation Boulevard, North or Marine Avenue in Hawthorne. D. El Segundo and Hawthorne recognize the importance of the LAAFB remaining in the community; El Segundo and Hawthorne are therefore entering into this Agreement to assist the USAF in maximizing the possibility that new USAF facilities are built on Area B, and that successful and beneficial residential projects are built in Hawthorne at Areas A and C and at densities sufficient to assist in funding the $35 million dollar gap between the value of the USAF's excess land and the cost of constructing a new facilities on Area B. The new USAF development on Area B will house the Space and Missile Systems Center ( "SAMS" or "SAMS Project ") and be a state of the art facility with construction costs estimated at $115,000,000 that will save approximately $3,500,000 in annual operations and maintenance for the USAF. 619020.02/LA % f� M6971- 004 /7 -10 -03 /sjr/kt i—/ • �.. E. Developer was awarded the exclusive right to negotiate with the USAF to develop the new SAMS facility in exchange for Area A, Area C and the Sun Valley property pursuant to the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106- 398) as amended by Section 2841 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. F. The Developer and the USAF are negotiating an agreement (the "Developer - USAF Agreement') that the USAF will convey to the Developer LAAFB Area A, Area C and the Sun Valley Property currently owned by the USAF in exchange for the Developer constructing the new SAMS Project facilities for the USAF on Area B. G. Originally, the City of El Segundo, the Developer and the USAF contemplated the development of commercial retail uses on Area A and submitted applications to El Segundo for approval of commercial development of Area A. In July, 2002, El Segundo initiated an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") for approvals and entitlements which would have allowed commercial development of Area A. El Segundo prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "2002 Draft EIR ") for agency and public comment between September 30, 2002 and November 13, 2002. In addition, the El Segundo Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2002 Draft EIR on November 14, 2002, at which public input and comments were taken regarding the 2002 Draft EIR. H. El Segundo received a substantial number of comments from residents and property owners of the City of Hawthorne pertaining to the 2002 Draft EIR which suggested that the nature of the Project be changed. Specifically, some of the comments suggested that a joint EIS/EIR be prepared for the project and that the project description should be revised to reflect residential development of Area A, rather than its commercial development. As a result of the comments received on the 2002 Draft EIR, El Segundo and the Developer undertook additional consultation and coordination with the USAF and Hawthorne, as well as with homeowner organizations and residents located in the areas adjacent to Area A. This process resulted in concurrence among all parties that a new residential project be studied for development on Area A (the "Project "). I. The USAF and El Segundo are lead agencies for purposes of compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act ( "NEPA ") for those components of the Project requiring Federal action. J. Because El Segundo, as a policy, does not desire residential development on Area A, additional consultation was undertaken with Hawthorne and the Local Agency Formation Commission ( "LAFCO ") to consider initiating a reorganization of territory, which is a process by which Area A would be detached from El Segundo and annexed to Hawthorne, subject to conditions agreed -upon between Hawthorne and El Segundo (collectively, all changes of boundary are referred to herein as "Reorganization "). Hawthorne and El Segundo, upon certification of the EIS/EIR by El Segundo and Hawthorne and provided that: (1) El Segundo and Hawthorne each find that the EIS /EIR is adequate, and (2) Hawthorne approves a prezone ordinance for Area A, may determine to commence Reorganization of the Site to Hawthorne in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Hawthorne Code, and the applicable provisions of the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (the 619020.02/LA M6971- 004 /7- 10- 03 /sjr/ki _ z 073 Reorganization Act "). On January 13, 2003, the Hawthorne City Council adopted Resolution No. 6771, advising LAFCO that Hawthorne was considering initiating annexation Reorganization proceedings for Area A. On January 21, 2003, the El Segundo City Council adopted Resolution No. 4293 advising LAFCO that El Segundo was considering initiating detachment of Area A. In addition, Hawthorne and El Segundo agreed with the USAF that a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ( "EIS/EIR ") be prepared in accordance with applicable regulations of CEQA and NEPA. K. The Draft EIS /EIR was prepared by the El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and Development Services and circulated for public and agency review and comment from April 11 to May 27, 2003. The El Segundo City Council certified the Final EIS/EIR at a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2003. L. On July 16, 2003, at a public meeting and after considering all appropriate documentation and circumstances, the Hawthorne adopted resolutions and approved the entitlements set forth below (collectively, the "Project Approvals "): 1. Hawthorne Resolution No. 03 -_, and (El Segundo adopted Resolution No. on July 15, 2003) adopting findings regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report Sch. No. 2002071106 ( "EIS/EIR "), and Mitigation Monitoring Program 2. Resolution No. 6812 General Plan Application Amendment No. G.P.A 2003 -03; 3. Resolution No. 6813 Zoning Code Amendment No. Z.C. 2003 -01A; 4. Ordinance No. 1780 Zone Change Application No. C.Z. 2003 -04; 2003-0113; 5. Ordinance No. 1781 Zoning Code Amendment Application No. Z.C. 6. Resolution No. PC 2003 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map 54156; 7. Ordinance No. 1782 approving the Pacific Glen Development Agreement. 8. Resolution No. 6810 General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -04; 9. Resolution No. 6811 Zoning Code Amendment No. 2003 -02A Willow Glen Specific Plan; 10. Ordinance No. 1777 Zone Change Application No. Z.C. 2003 -05; 2003 -02B; 11. Ordinance No. 1778 Zoning Code Amendment Application No. Z.C. 12. Resolution No. _ approving the Developer's Vesting Tentative Tract Map 54294 for the Property; and, 619020.02/LA M6991- 004/7- 10- 03 /sj,/kt -3- 074 13. Ordinance No. 1779 approving the Willow Glen Development Agreement. M. The Hawthorne Planning Commission and the Hawthorne City Council have given notice of their intention to consider the Project Approvals, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to CEQA, the California Government Code and the Hawthorne Code, and have found that the Project Approvals and the Development Project are: (1) consistent with the General Plan (as amended), adopted plans, codes, ordinances and policies; (2) consistent with all other ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, laws, plans and policies applicable to Area A and Area C; and (3) in the best interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the Hawthorne, its residents, and the general public. N. Following approval of this Agreement but prior to the effectiveness of the Reorganization, Hawthorne intends to consider adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No. 2 that would add Areas A and B to the Redevelopment Project Area. Such an amendment also needs to be approved by the El Segundo City Council. O. Hawthorne agrees and understands that El Segundo would not pursue the Reorganization and give up valuable benefits it would receive (for example, tax revenues and local employment opportunities) from the commercial development of Area A but for its desire to have the LAAFB remain in the region and specifically on Area B. Accordingly, El Segundo is willing to transfer its legal and equitable interests (including but not limited to, land use authority, taxing authority, police powers, eminent domain powers) in Area A to the City of Hawthorne subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Hawthorne acknowledges these substantial interests of El Segundo and the significant benefit Hawthorne, its residents and property owners are receiving from the potential Reorganization. P. The Developer desires to entitle and subdivide Area A, the Pacific Glen site, in order to develop no more than 750 residential units; and Area C, the Willow Glen Site, in order to develop 280 residential units Q. For the purposes of this Agreement, the aforementioned development of Areas A, B, C shall be referred to as the "Development Project' or "Project, "). R. The parties intend that this Agreement will survive beyond the term or terms of the present Hawthorne and El Segundo Councils and shall bind Hawthorne and El Segundo and future Hawthorne and El Segundo Councils to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement. S. The parties understand that Hawthorne may incur inclusionary housing obligations for Areas A and C if the Developer -USAF Agreement is executed and the Development of Area A and C are developed in accordance with the SAMS Project. U7 619020.02/LA M6971 -004 /7_10- 03 /sjr/kt -4- AGREEMENTS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PROMISES OF EL SEGUNDO, HAWTHORNE, AGENCY AND THE DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective on the date that all of the Parties have executed this Agreement and shall terminate if the Reorganization does not become effective 2. Reorganization of Area A. a. The Parties agree that Hawthorne and El Segundo shall submit resolutions to LAFCO in the forms attached hereto as Exhibits C and D respectively and that Developer shall submit a letter to LAFCO in the Form attached hereto as Exhibit E no later than July 25, 2003. Should any of the terms and conditions of the Reorganization described in this Section 2.a.(i) — (vii) below not occur to the sole satisfaction of either Hawthorne or El Segundo on or before the dates set forth below, Hawthorne and El Segundo shall each have the right, but not the obligation, to notify LAFCO by April 30, 2004, that a term and condition of the Reorganization has not been met which shall cause the Reorganization to not become effective, and Area A shall remain within the territorial boundaries of El Segundo: (i) Adoption of ordinances on or before February 15, 2004 by the Hawthorne and El Segundo City Councils amending and approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No.2 ('Redevelopment Plan") to include Areas A and B within the Redevelopment Project Area. (ii) Adoption of an ordinance on or before February 15, 2004 by the Hawthorne City Council pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2) amending the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate the time limit on incurring indebtedness. (iii) Approval of an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA ") on or before February 15, 2004 between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne and the Developer containing the terms and conditions under which the Agency will provide certain defined financial assistance for the construction of publicly owned facilities on Areas A, B and C. (iv) The approval by the Agency of a Financing Plan on or before February 15, 2004 pursuant to the terms of the OPA. (v) Full execution of the April 15, 2004 which shall unconditionally obligate Ithe Developer to develop the SAMS Project for the LAAFB on Area B. (vi) Amendment of that certain agreement by and between the Agency and the County of Los Angeles ( "County ") dated June 9, 1986 (Agency Resolution No. 175; - the "Pass- Through Agreement ") on or before February 15, 2003, to provide for the Agency to retain 619020.02/LA 1 M6991- 004/7- 10- 03 /.jd -5- kt 07 6 tax increment from Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No. 2 otherwise allocable to the County under the Pass - Through Agreement in an amount equal to the amount of tax increment the County will receive from Areas A and C pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33607.5. (vii) Adoption of the Project Approvals by Hawthorne, on or before August 31, 2003. (viii) No legal actions are filed relating to: any of the Project Approvals; the actions described in (i) through (viii) above; or any other action taken by the parties hereto or the LAAFB related to the Project or the SAMS Project; within the applicable statute of limitation period which are not settled or resolved by April 15, 2004. Upon completion of all of the terms and conditions identified above, the El Segundo and Hawthorne City Councils shall each take an action acknowledging that the terms and conditions of the Reorganization have been satisfied and then cause notification of such action to be immediately conveyed to LAFCO and the County Recorder's Office. The parties will cooperate to accomplish this process through an escrow process or other process agreed to by the parties. b. If the Developer -USAF Agreement is terminated or amended such that the Developer does not have to construct the SAMS Project on Area B and the Developer has not already constructed the building foundations for the SAMS Project on Area B; or, the Developer has not commenced construction of the SAMS Project on or before December 31, 2007; Hawthorne and the Agency shall remit to El Segundo on an annual basis for ninety -nine years, unless and until the SAMS Project is constructed, payments as follows: (i) If Area A, or any portion thereof, is developed for residential uses, annual payments shall be made in an amount equal to fifty percent (50 %) of the amount of annual property taxes that Hawthorne and the Agency receive from the residential development from Area in excess of the costs of providing all city services to the residential uses on Area A and, if Area C is developed in accordance with the intent and purpose of the SAMS Project, any required inclusionary housing costs for Area C that are in excess of the amount of property taxes that are legally required to be set -aside for funding inclusionary housing costs for Area C ( "Residential Service and Housing Costs "). In the event that El Segundo and Hawthorne cannot agree on the calculation of the Residential Service and Housing Costs, then they shall resolve such disagreement through binding arbitration; and, in addition to such payments; (ii) If Area A, or any portion thereof, is developed for non - residential purposes, annual payments shall be made in an amount equal to the sum of thirty -seven and one - half percent (37.5 %) of all property taxes, and fifty percent (50 %) of all other taxes, of whatsoever kind or nature, that Hawthorne and the Agency receive from the non - residential development of Area A on an annual basis. (iii) The annual payments shall be calculated on a calendar year basis and made on or before the 1 st day of the February of each year commencing on the first 1 st day of February that immediately follows the occurrence of any of the events identified in this Section 2.b. that require Hawthorne to make the payment described herein. Hawthorne shall have the option of extinguishing its payment obligation under this section by causing Area A, U 619020.02/LA M6971- 004 /7- 10- 03 /sjr/kl -6- and the other properties that are the subject to this Reorganization, to be annexed back into the territorial boundaries of El Segundo. Hawthorne's and the Agency's obligations to make such payments to El Segundo will be extinguished concurrently with the effective date of an action by LAFCO detaching Area A, and the other properties that are subject to the Reorganization, from Hawthorne and annexing such back to El Segundo. El Segundo shall be required to undertake all lawful actions that it may be required to undertake to cause LAFCO to detach Area A, and the other properties that are subject to the Reorganization, from Hawthorne and annex it back into El Segundo. Otherwise El Segundo shall forfeit its right to receive the payments set forth in this section 2.b. El Segundo shall be obligated to subordinate its rights to any payments identified in this Section to any bond issuance that is made to achieve the goals of the SAMS Project. C. Provided that the Reorganization becomes effective: (1) Hawthorne and the Agency shall take all legal actions within their control to carry out their obligations under the Project Approvals, the OPA and conditions imposed by LAFCO with regard to the Reorganization, and (2) El Segundo shall take all legal actions within its control to cant' out any conditions imposed by LAFCO with regard to the Reorganization. In consideration of Hawthorne's and El Segundo's agreements contained in this Agreement, the Developer hereby consents to, and shall continue to assist Hawthorne and El Segundo in taking all legal actions within its control to fulfill the conditions of the Reorganization. However, none of the parties to this Agreement are obligated to take any particular action with respect to those items identified in Section 2.a. (i) through (viii) above. 3. Legal Challenges— Indemnity. a. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of Litigation (( "Litigation" means litigation brought by third parties challenging, which does not include validation actions brought by Hawthorne or El Segundo, the Project Approvals, the Redevelopment Plan as amended, the Reorganization, the Reorganization Agreement, or the OPA (collectively, the "Project Actions and Agreements "), or any subsequent approval or amendment thereof contemplated in this Agreement or the Project Actions and Agreements, including legal challenges to the Project Actions and Agreements brought by initiative or referendum. For purposes of this Agreement, Litigation does not include litigation brought by either Hawthorne or El Segundo challenging the Reorganization or the Reorganization Agreement.)) the Parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate and join in defending against any and all actions brought by any third party or parties in such Litigation. Except as provided herein, the parties shall each bear their own respective costs, if any, arising from such defense of Litigation. Likewise, Hawthorne and El Segundo agree to and shall cooperate fully and join in the defense by the Developer of such action. b. Defense and Indemnification. The Developer hereby agrees to provide Hawthorne's and El Segundo's legal defense and to indemnify, save and hold the Hawthorne and El Segundo and their respective elected and appointed representatives, boards, commissions, commissioners, council members, officers, agents and employees, all personally and in their official capacities, harmless from any liability for damage or claims which may arise in Litigation. This provision shall survive and continue after the termination of this Agreement. p i 118 619020.02/LA M6971- 004 /7- 10- 0Mjr1kt -7- C. Joint Defense and Costs. hi the event any Litigation should arise, the Developer shall retain and appoint legal counsel ( "Counsel ") with respect to the Litigation. The Parties agree that their choice of Counsel to provide the City's and the Developer's legal defense in any Litigation is the law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP or another firm approved by the Developer and the City. The Developer shall retain the law firm of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP or another firm approved by the Developer and the City as Counsel for both the City and the Developer in any Litigation. The Parties acknowledge that Counsel will appear and represent both the Developer, Hawthorne and El Segundo in connection with such Litigation and such Counsel shall, at the request of the respective City Attorneys, cooperate with each City Attorney in the preparation of all pleadings, motions and other Litigation - related documents for Hawthorne and El Segundo, coordinate legal strategy and otherwise cooperate with the Hawthorne and El Segundo in connection with the Litigation, all at the Developer's cost and expense. The Developer shall also pay all filing fees, court costs and similar out -of- pocket expenses required for the Hawthorne and El Segundo to defend the Litigation. If the City Attorneys elects to appear in any Litigation, the City Attorneys or his designee shall appear on behalf their respective City in any such Litigation and shall at all times retain final authority and control over all documents to be filed on their respective City's behalf and all actions to be taken by their respective City with respect to Litigation. The Developer shall not be responsible for paying (i) fees of the City Attorney or any attorneys hired by Hawthorne or El Segundo in connection with such Litigation, except as otherwise set forth herein; or (ii) any fees, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses resulting from unreasonable actions taken by Hawthorne or El Segundo against the written advice of Counsel. Hawthorne and El Segundo shall cooperate with Counsel's defense of the Litigation, and shall make their records (other than documents privileged from disclosure) and personnel available to Counsel as may be reasonably requested by Counsel in connection with the Litigation. d. Legal Conflicts. If a legally recognizable conflict of interest arises, which requires that each Party be represented by separate counsel, the Developer shall retain the law firms of Richards, Watkins & Gershon, LLP for Hawthorne and Burke, Williams & Sorensen for El Segundo, or other law firms of similar stature and pricing structure reasonably acceptable to Hawthorne and El Segundo to represent and defend Hawthorne and El Segundo in Litigation. If another firm is retained, Developer shall pay the costs as set forth in subsection (c) immediately above. e. Scone of Defense. The Developer, Hawthorne, and El Segundo understand that the requirements of cooperation contained in this Agreement apply only as to matters reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the defense of the Litigation and shared information is intended to be, and must be, kept confidential. 4. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when hand delivered by a Party or that Party's messenger or upon receipt by a Party after deposit in the United States mail as registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by commercial express delivery such as Federal Express, to the following representatives of the Parties at the addresses indicated below or to such other addresses as one Party may provide to the other from time to time: 619020.02/LA 079 M6971- 004 /7- 10 -03 /sjr/kt -$- If to Hawthorne or Agency: City of Hawthorne 4455 W. 126`h Street Hawthorne, CA 90250 Attention: Charles Herbertson, City Manager With a Copy to: City of Hawthorne 4455 W. 126"' Street Hawthorne, CA 90250 Attention: Glen Shishido, City Attorney If to El Segundo City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 Attention: City Clerk With a Copy to: City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 Attention: City Attorney If to Developer: SAMS Venture LLC Kearny Real Estate Company 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Attention: Jeff Dritley, Managing Partner With a Copy to: Catellus Residential Group, Inc. 4000 Westerly Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attention: Tom Marshall, SNR, Vice President With a Copy to: Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP 515 South Figueroa, 7th floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Attention: Sonia Ransom, Esq. Any Party may, from time to time, by written notice to the other, designate a different address which shall be substituted for the one above specified. 5. Amendment or Cancellation. This Agreement may be only amended from time to time, or canceled in whole or in part, by mutual consent of El Segundo, Hawthorne and the Developer, or their respective successors in interest by written agreement executed by the El Segundo and Hawthorne Councils', or their duly authorized designees, and the Developer. 619020.02/LA M6971- 004 /7- 10- 03 /sjr/kl -9- 6. Waiver. Except as otherwise provided herein, no waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section. No waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy in respect of any other occurrence or event. 7. Interpretation and Governing State Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objective and purposes of the Parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting Party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, both Parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. In the event that any section, particular obligation or portion thereof is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, such shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other section, particular obligation, or portion thereof, of this Agreement and the Court shall have the authority to alter any section or particular obligation to provide the maximum consideration possible to the affected party or parties. 8. Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who, now or hereafter, owns or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Site is, and shall be, conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Site. 9. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the Parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 10. Attorneys' Fees. If either Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission hereof, or for specific performance of the breach hereof, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to its reasonable and actual attorneys fees and costs. 11. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and each of which shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each Party signs each such counterpart. 619020.02/LA M6971- 004 /7- 10- 0Mi,/kt -t�- 12. Entire Agreement. This agreement is executed in three (3) duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original. This Agreement consists of eleven (13) pages and five (5) Exhibits which are identified as follows: Exhibit A: Area B Map Exhibit B: Area A Legal Description and Diagram Exhibit C: Hawthorne LAFCO Application Resolution Exhibit D: El Segundo LAFCO Application Resolution Exhibit E: Developer LAFCO Letter This Agreement represents the final expression of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior oral and written understandings respecting the subject matter hereof. Additionally, this Agreement shall be controlling to the extent that any other agreement or understanding executed or agreed to by less than all of the parties hereto is in conflict with any provision hereof. [SIGNATURES APPEAR FOLLOWING PAGE] 619020.02/LA 082 M6971- 004 /7- 10- 03 /sjr/kt -t t- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have each executed this Agreement consisting pages, including all signature pages, but excluding exhibits, as of the date first above written. HAWTHORNE: CITY OF HAWTHORNE, Approved as to form By: Glen Shishido, City Attorney AGENCY Approved as to Form: By: Glen Shishido, Agency Counsel EL SEGUNDO: Approved as to form By: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney DEVELOPER: a municipal corporation By: Larry Guidi, Mayor Attest: By: Daniel D. Juarez, City Clerk By: Attest: By: Secretary CITY OF EL SEGUNDO By: Mike Gordon, Mayor Attest: By: . Cindy Mortensen, City Clerk SAMS Venture LLC, a California limited liability corporation By: in Its: 619020.02/LA 083 M6971- 004 /7 -10 -03 /sjr/kt -12- FFM Ma In Eo Its: Its: Its: P:\Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \576- 599\EA- 577 \Reorganization Agreement.7- 10- 03.ccpacket.DOC 11 1 619020.02/1-A 0 ''{ M6971- 004/7- 10- 03 /sg/kl -13- Reorganization Agreement EXHIBIT Los Angeles Air Force Base Area B N 170 340 680 1,020 1,360 08j— + Feet E S Reorganization Agreement Exhibit B CITY OF EL SEGUNDO REORGANIZATION NO. 2003-01 Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 34 of Tract No. 16663, in the City of Hawthorne, County of Los Angeles, as shown on map recorded in Book 511, Pages 15 through 19, inclusive, of Maps, records of said County, said comer being on the southeasterly line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company's 80.00 foot right of way, said corner being A common point in the boundaries of the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne, as both boundaries existed on April 15, 2003 and having established grid coordinates of North 1,791,789.84 feet, Pasting 6,449,118.06 feet, Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence along said southeasterly line, South 62025'00" West 2659.14 feet to the westerly line of the northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 of the Superior Court of the State of California; thence along said westerly line, North 00013'08" East 1188.48 feet to a line parallel with and 25.00 feet northwesterly of the southeasterly line of the land described in Book 4215, Page 316 of said Deeds; thence along said parallel line North 11'21'00" East 421.61 feet to the northerly line of said Section 17; thence along said northerly line, South 89045'00" East 1211.46 feet to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Isis Avenue, 60 feet wide, as shown on Tract No 14749, in the City of El Segundo, as per map recorded in Book 368, pages 18 through 22, inclusive of said Maps; thence along said southerly prolongation, South 00011119" West 50.00 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of said northerly line of Section 17; thence along said parallel line, South 89 °45'00" East 477.18 feet to the . westerly line of the "Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne as same existed on March 14, 1957, said westerly line being the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 140.00 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears South 89 027'05" West; thence along said most westerly line of the "Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne, the following three courses: Southeasterly 245.85 feet along said curve, through a central angle of 98 °34'09 ", North 81023'56" East 348.02 feet, South 18034'12" East 250.23 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 50.10 acres, more or less. ���C � O� /lo. 2003 Robert C. Olson, PIS 5490 Date Psomas Page 1 of 1 WSLAAF" 4156 \IKEA020100\SurveyU AECO\ANNEX_EL_SEGUNDOAo Apn[ 15, 2003 IDCj& No. 5490 I9 FAD. 9-30 -2004 / U�t; REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT Scale: 1' = 300' moo. S 89'45'00" E —/ ' s' ' ' : ' : ' :: ; 4- 477.18' 92 a0, LS S 0'05'53" W— 50.00' o ISIS �. AVENUE w 7 Q m F. :3 ;APIV;41'45= 4007_g0j; ; Q zzzo 0 3, Q� 7 N Z 0a 0 e.d. o1a fntn ' N 1792165.87 .N.'. ... 1 E 6446e45.56 :AV-IATI ON : : BOUL�EVARD \ ;. N 11'21'00" E 421.61' N 0'13'08" E 1188.48' 'I n SPACE TECHNOLOGY AVIATION SOUI '^ TERRITORY of Bk 4215 P9 316, Deeds 8/14/50 ANNEXATI 8/28/81 DATE: 01/21/03 REVISED ON- Annexation Area JOB No: IKEA020100 Task 116 "VARDJ !J 04/15/03 087 City of El Segundo Sheet I of 15heet Reorganization Noe 2003 -01 Cootoin;ng 50.10 Acres County of Los Angeles, State of California 300' a, l 300 ' 600' GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " = 300'" = 300' S 18'34'12" E- 405 SAN DIEGO FREEWAY 250.23' o i rc °� z < P.O.B. PROJECT D, 9 °� �1�q a W Iw/1 N 1791789.84 SITE a 09� w Q E 6449118.06 wm ° LA CIENEGA <t> BOULEVARD IZm ; : : AVIATION BOULEVARD N 81'23'56" E— 348.02' t!) ..� 6= 963409f VICINITY MAP R= 140.00' I Fes`-. NOT TTO SCALE L= 245.85' .::::.::.`�iS (Rod),. moo. S 89'45'00" E —/ ' s' ' ' : ' : ' :: ; 4- 477.18' 92 a0, LS S 0'05'53" W— 50.00' o ISIS �. AVENUE w 7 Q m F. :3 ;APIV;41'45= 4007_g0j; ; Q zzzo 0 3, Q� 7 N Z 0a 0 e.d. o1a fntn ' N 1792165.87 .N.'. ... 1 E 6446e45.56 :AV-IATI ON : : BOUL�EVARD \ ;. N 11'21'00" E 421.61' N 0'13'08" E 1188.48' 'I n SPACE TECHNOLOGY AVIATION SOUI '^ TERRITORY of Bk 4215 P9 316, Deeds 8/14/50 ANNEXATI 8/28/81 DATE: 01/21/03 REVISED ON- Annexation Area JOB No: IKEA020100 Task 116 "VARDJ !J 04/15/03 087 REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hawthorne that: WHEREAS, the City of Hawthorne desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for a reorganization that would concurrently detach territory from the City of El Segundo and annex the territory to the City of Hawthorne, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit `B" to this resolution. WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows: (a) The United States Air Force maintains facilities in the greater Los Angeles region known as the Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "the LAAFB"). (b) Portions of the LAAFB facilities are currently located in the Sun Valley community of the City of Los Angeles ( "the Sun Valley Site "), in a section of the City of Hawthorne ( "the Lawndale Annex ") and on two sites in the City of El Segundo ( "Area A" and "Area B "). (c) The LAAFB presently employees more than 4,000 military and civilian personnel and their jobs are important to the economic vitality of Southern California and the local aerospace defense industry in particular. (d) The United States Air Force intends to consolidate and upgrade the LAAFB through the implementation of a unique public - private partnership, whereby the Sun Valley Site, the Lawndale Annex and Area A will be conveyed to a private developer in exchange for new facilities constructed by the developer on Area B from revenue generated by the developer. (e) Area A is located east of Sepulveda Boulevard at the southeast corner of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards and adjacent to the El Segundo Boulevard on- and -off ramps to the San Diego (I -405) Freeway in an area of the City of El Segundo that is zoned and developed with commercial and industrial uses. LA #108237 Q -1- 088 (e) As part of its revenue plan, the developer originally proposed to develop Area A with commercial uses, and the developer and the City of El Segundo commenced the preparation of a specific plan and environmental impact report for such a project. (f) During public review of the project, local residents, including residents of the City of Hawthorne who live in a neighborhood that abuts the southern boundary of Area A ( "the Hollyglen Neighborhood ") objected to commercial development and called for residential development instead. (g) The developer was willing to heed the residents concerns; however, to promote the efficient delivery of public services to its residents, the City of El Segundo has a long- standing policy against permitting residential development east of Sepulveda Boulevard. (h) In order to do all that they can to retain the LAAFB and to satisfy the concerns of local residents, including the Hollyglen Neighborhood, the City of El Segundo has conditionally agreed (pursuant to a Reorganization Agreement entered into with the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency, and the Developer entered into concurrently with the passage of this Resolution) to detach Area A for residential development only and the City of Hawthorne has agreed to annex Area A for residential development only. WHEREAS, the agencies that would be affected by the proposed reorganization are as follows: FUNCTION CURRENT AGENCY/DISTRICT FUTURE AGENCY/DISTRICT Sewer County Sanitation District No. 5 County Sanitation District No. 5 Water Southern California Water Company (private) Southern California Water Company (private) Solid Waste None- private hauler H &C Disposal (single source) Natural Gas The Gas Company The Gas Company Electricity Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Library El Segundo Public Library County of Los Angeles Library S stem Police El Segundo Police De artment Hawthorne Police Department Fire El Segundo Fire Department County of Los Angeles Fire Department (Hawthorne is contract City) Schools (K -8) Wisebum School District Wiseburn School District LA #108237 v2 -2- School (9 -12) Centinela Valley Union High School Centinela Valley Union High District School District Community El Camino Community College District El Camino Community College Colle e District Street Lighting Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Lighting District Traffic Signal Los Angeles County Public Works Los Angeles County Public Maintenance Works Storm Drain Los Angeles County Flood Control Los Angeles County Flood Catch Basin Control Maintenance WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is Uninhabited and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and by this referenced are incorporated herein. WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed reorganization be subject to terms and conditions to be determined through the application process. WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence as proposed to be amended for consistency with the proposed new city boundary line between the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne. WHEREAS, prior to action by the Local Agency Formation Commission on the proposed reorganization and consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the El Segundo has certified an environmental impact report for the project and will transmit the certified report to the Commission concurrently with this resolution. WHEREAS for reasons set forth in the recitals section of the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C, " Hawthorne and El Segundo entered into such agreement. WHEREAS, the City of Hawthorne consents to a waiver of protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 57000 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hawthorne and the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to take proceedings for the proposed reorganization as authorized and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not become effective unless Hawthorne and El Segundo have fully executed the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto LA #108237 Q -3- 090 as Exhibit "C" on before July 19, 2003 and El Segundo has adopted a resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" on or before July 19, 2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Hawthorne is requesting that LAFCO include the following terms and condition as part of the Reorganization and set forth such terms and conditions in the Certificate of Completion: (i) The Reorganization shall only become effective if on or before April 30, 2004, LAFCO has received written notification from the Hawthorne and El Segundo City Councils acknowledging that the terms and conditions set forth in Section 2 of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied. The effective date of the Reorganization shall be the date that LAFCO receives such notification; (ii) So long as El Segundo and Hawthorne have not provided LAFCO with the notification acknowledging that the terms and conditions of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied, the El Segundo City Council and Hawthorne City Council shall each have the right to notify LAFCO that a term or condition of the Reorganization Agreement has not been met to its satisfaction and that such shall cause the Reorganization to not become effective and Area A, and the other properties subject to the Reorganization shall remain within El Segundo's territorial boundaries; (iii) The payment obligations by Hawthorne and the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency to the City of El Segundo, as set forth in Section 2.b. of the Reorganization Agreement, are incorporated into the Certificate of Completion: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if LAFCO is not willing to include in its terms and conditions of approval of the Reorganization those terms and conditions requested by this AFCO resolution, Hawthorne requests that L not approve the Reorganization. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the City of Hawthorne, and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Hawthorne, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: DANIEL D. JUAREZ, C.M.C. /AAE City of Hawthorne, California LA #108237 v2 LARRY M. GUIDI, M pYA R, City of Hawthorne, California me 091 APPROVED AS TO FORM: GLEN E. SHISHIDO, City Attorney City of Hawthorne, California CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF HAWTHORNE 1 I, , City Clerk of the City of Hawthorne, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of members of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being RESOLUTION NO. was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTION: NOT PARTICIPATING: WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of July 2003. Daniel D. Juarez, City Clerk Of the City of Hawthorne, California (SEAL) LA #108237 v2 092 REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT EXHIBIT D 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 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of El Segundo that: WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for a reorganization that would concurrently detach territory from the City of El Segundo and annex the territory to the City of Hawthorne, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" to this resolution. WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows: (a) The United States Air Force maintains facilities in the greater Los Angeles region known as the Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "the LAAFB"). (b) Portions of the LAAFB facilities are currently located in the Sun Valley community of the City of Los Angeles ( "the Sun Valley Site "), in a section of the City of Hawthorne ( "the Lawndale Annex ") and on two sites in the City of El Segundo ( "Area A" and "Area B"). (c) The LAAFB presently employees more than 4,000 military and civilian personnel and their jobs are important to the economic vitality of Southern California and the local aerospace defense industry in particular. (d) The United States Air Force intends to consolidate and upgrade the LAAFB through the implementation of a unique public - private partnership, whereby the Sun Valley Site, the Lawndale Annex and Area A will be conveyed to a private developer in exchange for new facilities constructed by the developer on Area B from revenue generated by the developer. (e) Area A is located east of Sepulveda Boulevard at the southeast corner of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards and adjacent to the El Segundo Boulevard on- and -off ramps to the San Diego (I -405) Freeway in an area of the City of El Segundo that is zoned and developed with commercial and industrial uses. LA #108237 Q 4- 093 (e) As part of its revenue plan, the developer originally proposed to develop Area A with commercial uses, and the developer and the City of El Segundo commenced the preparation of a specific plan and environmental impact report for such a project. (f) During public review of the project, local residents, including residents of the City of Hawthorne who live in a neighborhood that abuts the southern boundary of Area A ( "the Hollyglen Neighborhood ") objected to commercial development and called for residential development instead. (g) The developer was willing to heed the residents concerns; however, to promote the efficient delivery of public services to its residents, the City of El Segundo has a long- standing policy against permitting residential development east of Sepulveda Boulevard. (h) In order to do all that they can to retain the LAAFB and to satisfy the concerns of local residents, including the Hollyglen Neighborhood, the City of El Segundo has conditionally agreed (pursuant to a Reorganization Agreement entered into with the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency, and the Developer entered into concurrently with the passage of this Resolution) to detach Area A for residential development only and the City of Hawthorne has agreed to annex Area A for residential development only. WHEREAS, the agencies that would be affected by the proposed reorganization are as follows: FUNCTION CURRENT FUTURE AGENCY /DISTRICT AGENCY/DISTRICT Sewer County Sanitation District No. 5 County Sanitation District No. 5 Water Southern California Water Company Southern California Water (private) Company (private) Solid Waste None- private hauler H &C Disposal single source) Natural Gas The Gas Company The Gas Company Electricity Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Library El Segundo Public Library County of Los Angeles Library S stem Police El Segundo Police Department Hawthorne Police Department Fire El Segundo Fire Department County of Los Angeles Fire Department (Hawthorne is contract city) Schools (K -8) Wiseburn School District Wiseburn School District LA #108237 Q -2- (J 9 �+ School (9 -12) Centinela Valley Union High School Centinela Valley Union High District School District Community El Camino Community College District El Camino Community College College District Street Lighting Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Lighting Distri ct Traffic Signal Los Angeles County Public Works Los Angeles County Public Maintenance Works Storm Drain Los Angeles County Flood Control Los Angeles County Flood Catch Basin Control Maintenance WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is Uninhabited and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and by this referenced are incorporated herein. WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed reorganization be subject to terms and conditions to be determined through the application process. WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence as proposed to be amended for consistency with the proposed new city boundary line between the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne. WHEREAS, prior to action by the Local Agency Formation Commission on the proposed reorganization and consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the El Segundo has certified an environmental impact report for the project and will transmit the certified report to the Commission concurrently with this resolution. WHEREAS for reasons set forth in the recitals section of the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C, " Hawthorne and El Segundo entered into such agreement. WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo consents to a waiver of protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 57000 et seq. NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of El Segundo and the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to take proceedings for the proposed reorganization as authorized and in the manner provided by the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not become effective unless Hawthorne and El Segundo have fully executed the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto LA #108237 Q as Exhibit "C" on before July 19, 2003 and Hawthorne has adopted a resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" on or before July 19, 2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that El Segundo is requesting that LAFCO include the following terms and condition as part of the Reorganization and set forth such terns and conditions in the Certificate of Completion: (i) The Reorganization shall only become effective if on or before April 30, 2004, LAFCO has received written notification from the Hawthorne and El Segundo City Councils acknowledging that the terms and conditions set forth in Section 2 of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied. The effective date of the Reorganization shall be the date that LAFCO receives such notification; (ii) So long as El Segundo and Hawthorne have not provided LAFCO with the notification acknowledging that the terms and conditions of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied, the El Segundo City Council and Hawthorne City Council shall each have the right to notify LAFCO that a term or condition of the Reorganization Agreement has not been met to its satisfaction and that such shall cause the Reorganization to not become effective and Area A shall remain within El Segundo's territorial boundaries; (iii) The payment obligations by Hawthorne and the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency to the City of El Segundo, as set forth in Section 2.b. of the Reorganization Agreement, are incorporated into the Certificate of Completion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if LAFCO is not willing to include it its and terms and conditions of approval of the Reorganization those terms and conditions requested by this resolution, El Segundo requests that LAFCO not approve the Reorganization. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the City of El Segundo, and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of the City of El Segundo, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2003. Mike Gordon, Mayor ATTEST: Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk LA #108237 Q 4 U9�i APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley City Attorney CERTIFICATION 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, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of members of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being RESOLUTION NO. was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the 15th day of July, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTION: NOT PARTICIPATING: WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of July 2003. LA #108237 Q Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Of the City of El Segundo, California (SEAL) P9Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS\576- 599\EA- 577\LAFCO Resolution.Exc D to Reorg Agr. ES.cc- packet..DOC -5- RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT D A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hawthorne that: WHEREAS, the City of Hawthorne desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese- Knox - Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for a reorganization that would concurrently detach territory from the City of El Segundo and annex the territory to the City of Hawthorne, as described in Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" to this resolution. WHEREAS, the principal reasons for the proposed reorganization are as follows: (a) The United States Air Force maintains facilities in the greater Los Angeles region known as the Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "the LAAFB"). (b) Portions of the LAAFB facilities are currently located in the Sun Valley community of the City of Los Angeles ( "the Sun Valley Site "), in a section of the City of Hawthorne ( "the Lawndale Annex ") and on two sites in the City of El Segundo ( "Area A" and "Area B "). (c) The LAAFB presently employees more than 4,000 military and civilian personnel and their jobs are important to the economic vitality of Southern California and the local aerospace defense industry in particular. (d) The United States Air Force intends to consolidate and upgrade the LAAFB through the implementation of a unique public - private partnership, whereby the Sun Valley Site, the Lawndale Annex and Area A will be conveyed to a private developer in exchange for new facilities constructed by the developer on Area B from revenue generated by the developer. (e) Area A is located east of Sepulveda Boulevard at the southeast corner of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards and adjacent to the El Segundo Boulevard on- and -off ramps to the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway in an area of the City of El Segundo that is zoned and developed with commercial and industrial uses. LA #108237 Q A- 0 (� ( (e) As part of its revenue plan, the developer originally proposed to develop Area A with commercial uses, and the developer and the City of El Segundo commenced the preparation of a specific plan and environmental impact report for such a project. (f) During public review of the project, local residents, including residents of the City of Hawthorne who live in a neighborhood that abuts the southern boundary of Area A ( "the Hollyglen Neighborhood ") objected to commercial development and called for residential development instead. (g) The developer was willing to heed the residents concerns; however, to promote the efficient delivery of public services to its residents, the City of El Segundo has a long- standing policy against permitting residential development east of Sepulveda Boulevard. (h) In order to do all that they can to retain the LAAFB and to satisfy the concerns of local residents, including the Hollyglen Neighborhood, the City of El Segundo has conditionally agreed (pursuant to a Reorganization Agreement entered into with the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency, and the Developer entered into concurrently with the passage of this Resolution) to detach Area A for residential development only and the City of Hawthorne has agreed to annex Area A for residential development only. WHEREAS, the agencies that would be affected by the proposed reorganization are as follows: FUNCTION CURRENT FUTURE AGENCY /DISTRICT AGENCY /DISTRICT Sewer County Sanitation District No. 5 County Sanitation District No. 5 Water Southern California Water Company Southern California Water (private) Company (private) Solid Waste None- private hauler H &C Disposal (single source Natural Gas The Gas Company The Gas Company Electricity Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Library El Segundo Public Library County of Los Angeles Library S stem Police El Segundo Police Department Hawthorne Police De artment LA #108237 v2 -2- ()99 Fire El Segundo Fire Department i County of Los Angeles Fire Department (Hawthorne is contract City) Schools K -8 Wiseburn School District Wiseburn School District School (9 -12) Centinela Valley Union High School Centinela Valley Union High District School District Community El Camino Community College El Camino Community College District College District Street Lighting Southern California Edison Southern California Edison Li htin District Traffic Signal Los Angeles County Public Works Los Angeles County Public Maintenance Works Storm Drain Los Angeles County Flood Control Los Angeles County Flood Catch Basin Control Maintenance WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be reorganized is Uninhabited and a map and description of the boundaries of the territory are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and by this referenced are incorporated herein. WHEREAS, it is desired to provide that the proposed reorganization be subject to terms and conditions to be determined through the application process. WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence as proposed to be amended for consistency with the proposed new city boundary line between the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne. WHEREAS, prior to action by the Local Agency Formation Commission on the proposed reorganization and consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council of the El Segundo has certified an environmental impact report for the project and will transmit the certified report to the Commission concurrently with this resolution. WHEREAS for reasons set forth in the recitals section of the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C, " Hawthorne and El Segundo entered into such agreement. WHEREAS, the City of Hawthorne consents to a waiver of protest proceedings pursuant to Government Code section 57000 et seq. LA #108237 Q -3- 100 NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of Hawthorne and the Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles is hereby requested to take proceedings for the proposed reorganization as authorized and in the manner provided by the Cortese - Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not become effective unless Hawthorne and El Segundo have fully executed the Reorganization Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "C" on before July 19, 2003 and El Segundo has adopted a resolution in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" on or before July 19, 2003; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Hawthorne is requesting that LAFCO include the following terms and condition as part of the Reorganization and set forth such terms and conditions in the Certificate of Completion: (i) The Reorganization shall only become effective if on or before April 30, 2004, LAFCO has received written notification from the Hawthorne and El Segundo City Councils acknowledging that the terms and conditions set forth in Section 2 of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied. The effective date of the Reorganization shall be the date that LAFCO receives such notification; (ii) So long as El Segundo and Hawthorne have not provided LAFCO with the notification acknowledging that the terms and conditions of the Reorganization Agreement have been satisfied, the El Segundo City Council and Hawthorne City Council shall each have the right to notify LAFCO that a term or condition of the Reorganization Agreement has not been met to its satisfaction and that such shall cause the Reorganization to not become effective and Area A, and the other properties subject to the Reorganization shall remain within El Segundo's territorial boundaries; (iii) The payment obligations by Hawthorne and the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency to the City of El Segundo, as set forth in Section 2.b. of the Reorganization Agreement, are incorporated into the Certificate of Completion. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if LAFCO is not willing to include in its terms and conditions of approval of the Reorganization those terms and conditions requested by this resolution, Hawthorne requests that LAFCO not approve the Reorganization. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of the City of Hawthorne, and will make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of the City of Hawthorne, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 15th day of July, 2003. LARRY M. GUIDI, MAYOR, City of Hawthorne, California LA #108237 v2 _4_ 101 ATTEST: DANIEL D. JUAREZ, C.M.C.IAAE City of Hawthorne, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: GLEN E. SHISHIDO, City Attorney City of Hawthorne, California LA #108237 v2 -5- 102 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF HAWTHORNE ) I , City Clerk of the City of Hawthorne, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of members of the City Council of the said City is five; that the foregoing resolution, being RESOLUTION NO. was duly passed and adopted by the said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the 21 st day of July, 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTION: NOT PARTICIPATING: WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this day of July 2003. Daniel D. Juarez, City Clerk Of the City of Hawthorne, California (SEAL) LA 11108237 v2 -O- i.0 EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING: May 22, 2003 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 577 APPLICANT: City of El Segundo DEVELOPER: SAMS Venture, LLC (Kearny /Catellus /MSREF) PROPERTY OWNER: United States Air Force, Caltrans, Union Pacific Railroad (Area A) United States Air Force, Catellus (Area B) REQUEST: Los Angeles Air Force Base Land Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project PROPERTY INVOLVED: 2400 -2460 East El Segundo Boulevard (Area A) 200 N. Douglas Street (Area B) 14800 Aviation Boulevard (Lawndale Annex in Hawthorne) 10888 W. La Tuna Canyon Road (Sun Valley) I. Introduction The proposed project consists of a series of actions related to the possible conveyance, development, and use of four properties currently belonging to Los Angeles Air Force Base ( LAAFB), which are referred to as: Area A, Area B, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley property. LAAFB houses several commands which encompass functions related to research, development, and procurement of military space systems. LAAFB does not include an airfield and has no requirement for flight operations capability. Under the proposed concept, Area A, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley property will be conveyed to a private developer SAMS Venture, LLC (a partnership of Kearny Real Estate Company, Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund IV, and Catellus) in exchange for constructing new buildings for the Air Force on Area B. As part of the Proposed Action, the developer would construct a maximum of 850 townhouse style condominiums on Area A and a maximum of 330 townhouse style condominiums on the Lawndale Annex. No new development would occur on the Sun Valley site. 104 The proposed concept will help ensure that the LAAFB stays in El Segundo and does not become subject to any future round of base closures by the federal government. The LAAFB is a vital part of the City, and South Bay economy. The base manages approximately $8.5 billion in annual contracts to defense contractors. Many of these companies, including Boeing Satellite Systems, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin are located in El Segundo. The Aerospace Corporation, which employs 2,500 people in EI Segundo, is also dependant on the base. Ensuring the base's long -term future in the area is a regional concern that the proposed concept helps to facilitate. II. Recommendation Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the facts as contained within this report, and adopt Resolution No. 2540 (Exhibit A) recommending that the City Council certify Environmental Assessment No. 577 for the Los Air Force Base Land Conveyance, Construction and Development Project. III. Protect Activities Subject To Action By the City of El Segundo The following activities require action by the City of El Segundo 1) Environmental Assessment No. 577 (EA No. 577) - A joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) has been prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review and comment period for the Draft EIS /EIR extends from April 11, 2003 to May 27, 2003. Because the City has been designated as the lead agency for purposes of CEQA, the Final EIR/EIS is subject to certification by the City Council. 2) Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) Reorganization —Area A of the LAAFB, the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way to the south of Area A, and the Caltrans 1 -405 Freeway onramp at El Segundo Boulevard together with portions of the public right -of -way in El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards are proposed to be detached from the City of El Segundo and annexed into the City of Hawthorne. This reorganization is subject to approval by LAFCO upon application by the City Council in conjunction with an application by the Hawthorne City Council. 3) Redevelopment Agency Amendment The City Council has agreed to allow Hawthorne to study the inclusion of Areas A and B of the LAAFB in the Hawthorne Redevelopment Area No. 2 as a mechanism to facilitate the financing of the new Air Force facilities on Area B. A final decision by Hawthorne to amend Area No. 2 to include Areas A and B is subject to approval by ordinance of the City Council. , �i� z 1 � Only the Draft EIS /EIR requires review and recommendations by the Planning Commission. The LAFCO application and the redevelopment ordinance are at the sole discretion of the City Council. However, the City Council cannot act on the application or the ordinance until it has certified the Final EIS /EIR The City of Hawthorne is concurrently processing entitlement applications for the proposed residential development of Area A (also known as Pacific Glen) and the Lawndale Annex property (also known as Willow Glen) together with a General Plan amendment and specific plans that will serve as the zoning for Area A and the Lawndale Annex. However, Hawthorne cannot act on the General Plan amendment, specific plans or entitlements until the Final EIS /EIR has been certified by the City Council. IV. Background There are currently no entitlements in place for development on any of the four sites that make up the LAAFB. Pursuant to CEQA, the City of El Segundo prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the original commercial project proposed for Area A as part of the Air Force modernization project. The Air Force prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to NEPA, which primarily focused on the impacts of development of the Air Force's proposed new facilities on Area B of the LAFFB. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the City's Draft EIR last year. However, after consultation with the Air Force, the City of Hawthorne, and the developer, the City determined that instead of completing the review of the original project, a new joint EIS /EIR would be prepared with the Air Force to analyze the impacts of the entire LAAFB land conveyance, construction, and development project in one comprehensive EIS /EIR. V. Analysis Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses (Exhibit B — Vicinity Map) Area A The approximately 39.24 -acre, triangular- shaped Area A site is located at the eastern edge of the City of El Segundo, and is bounded by El Segundo Boulevard to the north, Union Pacific railroad tracks to the south, the San Diego Freeway (1 -405) to the east, and Aviation Boulevard to the west (Exhibit C). Area A is located approximately two miles east of downtown El Segundo and approximately one mile south of the Los Angeles International Airport ( "LAX "). Regional access to the site and vicinity is provided from 1 -405, which is located immediately east of the project site, and the Century Freeway (1 -105), located approximately one mile north of the project site. An existing on -ramp and off - ramp to and from 1-405 is located on El Segundo Boulevard, just east of Area A. Major arterials that provide access to the Area A include Aviation Boulevard to the west and El Segundo Boulevard to the north. Area A is currently occupied with six two -story and one six -story office buildings totaling approximately iUb 3 835,000 square feet. These seven buildings are identified as Building Nos. 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, and 130 which house engineering, research and administrative offices, and a laboratory. Area A is located within an area of the City of El Segundo containing a mix of commercial and industrial land uses. Adjacent land uses to the north, across El Segundo Boulevard, include a Lockheed Martin facility, a Big 5 retail store (and corporate headquarters), other commercial properties, and single - family residential properties located within the unincorporated Los Angeles County community of Del Aire. The adjacent land uses to the east of Area A include a freeway ramp and a Ramada Inn. Land uses to the south include the Union Pacific railroad right -of -way and single - family residential uses within the Hollyglen neighborhood of the City of Hawthorne. Land uses to the west include Xerox, Inc., Catalina Pacific Concrete, and The Aerospace Corporation. Other land uses in the immediate area include single - family residential neighborhoods, the Los Angeles County Del Aire Park, and Anza Elementary School to the north. To the east of the project area is a freeway right -of -way (1- 405) and single - family residential uses, which are located to the east of the freeway right -of -way, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Three schools, Juan Cabrillo Elementary School, Richard Henry Dana Middle School, and Burnett School are located south of the project area, in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Industrial and light industrial uses and the Chevron Oil Refinery are located approximately one mile to the west of the project area. Area B Area B is approximately 54 acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of El Segundo Boulevard and Douglas Street, in the City of El Segundo. Area B is located directly northwest of Area A and is bounded by El Segundo Boulevard to the south, Aviation Boulevard to the east, Douglas Street to the west, and the Northrop Grumman Corporation to the north (Exhibit D). Area B presently contains support facilities for Air Force personnel assigned to the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and the 61st Air Base Group (ABG), including a child development center, commissary, base exchange /gas station, a fitness center, and a medical /dental clinic. Area B is located within an area of the City of El Segundo that contains commercial and industrial uses. Directly north of Area B is the Northrop Grumman facility. North of Imperial Highway are the LAX airline /airport cargo facilities. Northeast of the project site, on the corner of Imperial Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard, is a Metro Rail Green Line station and parking for public transportation users. East of the Air Force property is a long narrow property owned by The Aerospace Corporation. The Aerospace property was acquired from Extra Space Storage, which had received City approvals to construct a self - storage facility on the property. This property is proposed to be used as parking for the LAAFB. The City has acquired a portion of the property from Extra Space Storage for the construction of a municipal water well. At the northwest corner of 4 107 Area B is also a long narrow property owned by Catellus, one of the project developers. A portion of this property is also proposed to be used by the Air Force Base for parking. East of these properties is a Burlington North Santa Fe railroad right -of -way. Land uses to the east of Area B, on the east side of Aviation Boulevard, include a variety of small businesses including motels, restaurants, and liquor stores; small office buildings (e.g., AAA and The Aerospace Corporation), and single - family residences in the unincorporated Del Aire community. Lawndale Annex The Lawndale Annex site is approximately 13 acres and is located in the southwest portion of the City of Hawthorne on the east side of Aviation Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine Avenue (Exhibit E). The Lawndale Annex is already included within the City of Hawthorne's Redevelopment Area No. 2. The Lawndale Annex is currently occupied by a paved parking lot used for long -term vehicle parking and recreational vehicle storage, a 30,000 square foot, small metal frame commercial building (Building 80), staff parking area for personnel in Building 80, and recreational facilities, including a football /softball field, running track, and picnic /recreation pavilion and a family camping area commonly referred to as FamCamp. The Lawndale Annex is located in an area of mixed uses including public, commercial, and industrial facilities. Light industry, regional bus and rail transportation facilities, and major highway and utilities infrastructure are some of the activities that surround the Lawndale Annex. Land uses to the north of the Lawndale Annex include the Hawthorne Greenline Maintenance Yard and Shop, a hotel, self- storage and office buildings. To the east of the Lawndale Annex is Southern California Edison's (SCE) El Nido Substation. To the southeast is a townhome condominium development. Land uses to the south include the Federal Aviation Administration building and additional office buildings south of Marine Avenue. Land uses to the west include office buildings and a Chevron service station. Southwest of the Lawndale Annex, in the City of Manhattan Beach, are single - family residences and several park/recreation facilities, respectively. Sun Valley The Sun Valley property is approximately 3.7 acres and is located at 10888 W. La Tuna Canyon Road in the Sun Valley community of the City of Los Angeles. The Golden State Freeway (1 -5), the Hollywood Freeway (SR 170), and the Foothill Freeway (1 -210) provide regional access to the site (Exhibit F). The Sun Valley property is currently developed with an approximately 59,600- square foot industrial building, which is currently vacant. Land uses surrounding the Sun Valley property include industrial and commercial facilities. Industrial activities include manufacturing facilities, equipment storage, and electrical transmission and vehicle dismantling /parts 5 l0 facilities. Commercial activities include a public self- storage facility and food stores. Single- family homes are located approximately 300 feet east of the Sun Valley property, and Burbank - Glendale- Pasadena Airport is located two miles southeast of the site. Project Characteristics Studied In The EIS /EIR Area A: Under the Proposed Action, development on Area A would consist of an "upscale" gated residential condominium development, with a density up to 22 units per acre for a maximum of 850 units (Exhibit C). The residential condominium development would include townhouse style units with a mix of two- to three -story buildings above at -grade parking (which will result in the building being three to four stories in height), along the southern property line (adjacent to the railroad right -of -way) rising incrementally to a maximum height of six stories, including at -grade parking, along El Segundo Boulevard. The southerly property line, adjacent to the railroad right -of -way, will be treated with a block wall and canopy of mature trees (the screening will address the privacy of the single - family residential neighborhood located south of the railroad tracks). The project would be developed with on -site resident and guest parking facilities, private open spaces and recreational areas, and access improvements. Primary access to the project site will be provided from El Segundo Boulevard and secondary access will be provided from Aviation Boulevard. The units will be for sale. They may include a combination of detached units and townhouse style units as well as condominium units, and may include subterranean and /or structured parking. Some units may also be used for senior housing or housing for the military. The existing 835,000 square feet of buildings on the project site would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. Development of Area A is anticipated to commence in 2006 and be completed in 2008. Area B: The Proposed Action on this property consists of the enhancement of the existing 54 -acre site, which would remain under Federal jurisdiction. Area B currently contains facilities for support of Air Force personnel assigned to Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and Air Force retirees, as well as a child development center, commissary, base exchange /gas station, medical /dental clinic, and physical fitness center. Under the proposed Systems Acquisition and Management Support (SAMS) agreements, new facilities would be constructed by the developer in Area B to house current base functions that would be transferred from Area A. As currently envisioned, the proposed additional development on the Area B property would include the demolition of some existing structures and construction of approximately 560,000 square feet of new administrative and special purpose facilities, in buildings up to five stories in height (Exhibit D). Development of Area B is anticipated to commence construction in 2003 and be completed in 2005. 6 109 Lawndale Annex: Under the Proposed Action, development on this property consists of the removal of existing improvements on the site and the development of a maximum of 300 residential units, with associated parking, landscaping and access improvements (Exhibit E). The site development may include subterranean and /or structured parking. Access to the project site would be provided from Aviation Boulevard. The units would be for sale, and may include a combination of condominium and townhouse style units with a maximum height of four stories. Development of this site is anticipated to commence in 2004 and be completed in 2005. Sun Valley Property: This site is presently developed with an approximately 59,600- square foot industrial building, which is currently vacant (Exhibit F). While the property will be conveyed to the private developer as part of this project, no demolition or construction activities are anticipated to occur on this site in the reasonably foreseeable future. Alternative Land Uses The Draft EIS /EIR studies the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and several project alternatives. One alternative would replace the 850 -unit residential development on Area A with a 750,000 square foot commercial shopping center. There would be no hotels included in this alternative and Area A would not be annexed into the City of Hawthorne or included in Hawthorne's Redevelopment Agency. The other alternatives studied in the Draft EIS /EIR include a No Action Alternative, Renovation Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing LAAFB facilities would remain on each of the four project sites. The Renovation Alternative includes the seismic and building upgrades of the existing Air Force buildings on Area A through traditional military funding sources. Under this alternative, the existing facilities on Area B, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley site would remain as is. The Reduced Density Residential Alternative includes the same uses as the Proposed Action with a 30% reduction in the maximum number of residential units on Area A (680) and the Lawndale Annex (230). VI. General Plan Consistency The El Segundo General Plan land use designation for Areas A and B is currently Federal Government. This designation only permits "a U.S. Government facility that is consistent with surrounding uses." Despite the land use designation, the City does not have land use control over either Area, because they are federally owned. 110 As a federal government facility, Area B would continue to be outside of the land use jurisdiction of the City of El Segundo. Nevertheless, the use of the proposed Air Force facilities on Area B would be in conformance with the Federal Government land use designation in the El Segundo General Plan and, therefore, consistent with the El Segundo General Plan. The potential effect of including Area B in the Hawthorne Redevelopment Area No. 2 is to transfer land use authority of Area B from the City of El Segundo to the City of Hawthorne, even though the land would remain a part of the City of El Segundo. However, since the federal government, as a higher government agency, is exempt from local land use regulations, the Air Force would not be subject to Hawthorne's land use control through the redevelopment agency either. Because Area A is to be conveyed to a private developer, future development of the property is subject to local land use control. The developer originally proposed a commercial center for the property. However, as a result of community input, the developer agreed to pursue residential development of the property. However, the City has a policy against residential development east of Sepulveda Boulevard. Thus, the City Council agreed to pursue the proposed reorganization, so that Area A could be developed for residential use within the City of Hawthorne. Zoning Consistency For the same reasons as mentioned above, the development of Area B is outside the land use control of the City of El Segundo. Consequently, the Air Force is exempt complying with the El Segundo Municipal Code. As previously mentioned, the Proposed Action involves the detachment of Area A from the City of El Segundo and its annexation into the City of Hawthorne. As a result, the City of Hawthorne will be responsible for establishing specific development standards for Area A and making zoning consistency findings. VII. Comments On The Draft EIS /EIR No comments on the Draft EIS /EIR were received from City departments. Comments from other public agencies and interested parties are attached as Exhibit G. As additional comments are received before the May 22, 2003 public hearing, they will be forwarded to the Commission in a Supplemental Staff Report. The City's environmental consultant, Christopher A. Joseph and Associates, will provide a list of all revisions to the Draft EIR and written responses to all comments received by May 27, 2003, in the Final EIR prior to review by the City Council. VIII. Environmental Review A joint Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and CEQA (Exhibit H). The City hired the firm of Christopher A. Joseph and Associates (CAJA) to prepare the EIS /EIR. The City independently reviewed all 8 111 work products prepared by CAJA. Pursuant to NEPA and CEQA requirements, a Notice of Preparation /Notice of Intent (NOI/NOP) to prepare the EIS /EIR was circulated for public review from January 2, 2003 to February 2, 2003. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIS /EIR extends from April 11, 2003 to May 27, 2003. The City of Hawthorne and the Air Force conducted a joint public hearing on May 7, 2003 to receive public testimony on the Draft EIS /EIR. In accordance with the El Segundo's local CEQA guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805), the Planning Commission is conducting a public hearing to take public testimony on the Draft EIS /EIR and make recommendations on the EIS /EIR to the City council. This hearing is a joint public hearing with the Air Force to maximize the opportunity for public comment on the Draft EIS /EIR. Revisions to the Draft EIS /EIR and responses to comments received from the public, governmental agencies, and other interested parties during the public review period, which ends on May 27, 2003, will be prepared and will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Final EIS /EIR). The responses to comments received by May .27, 2003 will be distributed to the public who request a copy and all public agencies who comment on the Draft EIS /EIR 10 days prior to the City Council hearing on the Final EIS /EIR. The City Council action will be to determine whether or not to certify the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to conduct the public hearing on July 16, 2003. Summary of EIR Conclusions Based on public comments in response to the NOI/NOP and a review of environmental issues by staff, it was determined that the Draft EIS /EIR would analyze the following environmental impact areas: community setting, land use and aesthetics, transportation, public utilities, public services, hazardous materials management, soil and geology, water resources, air quality, noise and cultural resources. The Draft EIS /EIR also includes a discussion of environmental justice and protection of children as required by NEPA. It is important to note that there are different thresholds of significance under NEPA and CEQA. The Draft EIS /EIR defines the significant threshold under NEPA and CEQA for each topic studied. Due to the threshold differences, it is common for significant impacts under CEQA to not be significant under NEPA. For the purposes of CEQA, the Draft EIS /EIR concluded that all potentially significant direct project related impacts identified in the Draft EIS /EIR, with the exception of aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short-term soils and geology, air quality impacts, short-term construction noise, and operational noise, are at a less than significant level due to the application of relevant City Policies and regulations and the imposition of project - specific mitigation measures. Table 2 -2 (page 2 -35) of the Draft EIS /EIR summarizes the potential environmental impacts, the proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of each potential impact after mitigation. Below is a discussion of the 9 112 environmental areas with significant unavoidable impacts. Issue Threshold Standard Preferred No Action Commercial Renovation R sident al NEPA: Pro'ect Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Aesthetics CEQA: None Si nificant None None None one Traffic NEPA: None None None Si nificant Significant None Significant CEQA: Si nificant None Si nificant None None None Si Libraries NEPA: None None None None nificant None CEQA: NEPA: Si nificant None Significant one Si nificant Parks CEQA: None Si nificant None None None None None Short-term NEPA: Potentially Significant Si nificant Potentially None Significant Si nificant Soils & Significant Significant Potentially Geolo CEQA: None Si nificant None Si nificant Significant Air Quality NEPA: None None None None None Short -term CEQA: NEPA: Significant Significant None Si nificant None None Si nificant None Sionifinanf kl�� None Aesthetics None As indicated in the table above, The Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative and Reduced Density Residential Alternative would result in a significant CEQA unavoidable aesthetic and view impacts. The views from the residential areas to the south of Area A would be impacted by the perceived loss of privacy due to the proximity and height of the residential development (up to 50 feet) and the 65 -foot height of the proposed retail buildings under the Commercial Alternative. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to address these impacts that would be consistent with the project objectives. This impact is not considered significant under NEPA. Traffic The Draft EIS /EIR identified significant and unavoidable CEQA impacts related to traffic for the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative and Reduced Density Residential Alternative. The Proposed Action and Reduced Density Residential Alternative would result in an unmitigatable traffic impact at the intersection of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 -1, to add a northbound right turn lane at the intersection, would help reduce the potential impact, but would not reduce the impact below the City's significance threshold. The Commercial Alternative would have significant and unavoidable impacts at 10 intersections and one freeway location (southbound 1- 405, south of 1 -105). Feasible mitigation is available to help reduce impacts at three of those intersections: Aviation Blvd./El Segundo Blvd., El Segundo Blvd. /Isis Ave., and Aviation Blvd. /Marine Ave. The Draft EIS /EIR concludes that the mitigation at El Segundo Blvd. /Isis Ave. would reduce the impact to less than 10 113 significant, but the other two mitigation measures would not reduce the impacts below the significance thresholds. As a result, nine intersections and one freeway location would remain with significant and unavoidable CEQA impacts. Mitigation would apply under NEPA for indirect impacts of the Commercial Alternative. However, since implementation of the mitigation measures requires the approval of multiple jurisdictions, they will not be included in the Air Force's record of decision as enforceable conditions by the Air Force. Libraries The Draft EIS /EIR analysis of the impact of the project on libraries concluded that there would be a significant and unavoidable CEQA impact on the Los Angeles County Library system related to the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative. This impact is the result of the additional residential population that would be added on Area A and the Lawndale Annex through the residential development of those sites. The Wisebum Library, which is the closest library to Area A and the Lawndale annex, would not be able to adequately serve each of these alternatives. There is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact. There are no library impact fees required in incorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Any requirement to pay impact fees would be unreasonable because it would make the project financially infeasible due to the large funding gap already. Consequently, the CEQA impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There would be no impact on the El Segundo Library from any of the project alternatives and there would be no impact under NEPA. Parks The impact on the existing neighborhood and regional parks (increased use with the potential to accelerate the physical deterioration of the facilities) associated with the Proposed Action (2,530 new residents), Commercial Alternative (1,274 residents) was found the to Reduced significant Residential voidabletempact n2 he D new raft EIS /EIR. As with libraries, the impact is related to the increase in population associated with residential development on Area A and the Lawndale annex. No developer fees in Hawthorne have been established to mitigate impacts on parks Any requirement to pay impact fees would be unreasonable because it would make the project financially infeasible due to the large funding gap already Consequently, the CEQA impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There would be no impact on parks in El Segundo and no impact under NEPA. Short-term Soils & Geology Under both NEPA and CEQA, the Draft EIS /EIR concluded that there would be a short-term significant unavoidable impact on seismicity for the No Action and Renovation Alternative for the existing buildings on Area A. In both these alternatives, the existing buildings, which do not meet current seismic safety standards, would remain. This could result in a greater potential for building damage in an earthquake than buildings that would meet current seismic �t 1- standards. Under both alternatives, the existing buildings would be renovated or replaced over time, ultimately correcting the potential impact. It is not known when renovation or replacement might occur. As a result, the seismic impact is considered short-term. There is no feasible mitigation until the buildings are renovated or replaced. Air Quality According to the Draft EIS /EIR, the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative would have negative air quality impacts associated with project related mobile source emissions under CEQA. When comparing the proposed emissions from mobile sources with the South Coast Air Quality Management's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, the draft EIS /EIR concluded that the project would exceed the thresholds for Carbon Monoxide (CO2) Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and Nitrous Oxides (N%) at buildout in 2008. Because the degree of "excess" emissions substantially exceeds the strict SCAQMD limits, the Draft EIS /EIR concluded that there was little potential for any mitigation measures to reduce the project's mobile emissions. As a result, the project's impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. Additionally, the Draft EIS /EIR found that the Commercial Alternative would exceed the State's 8 -hour CO concentration "hotspot" standard at three intersections (El Segundo Blvd. /Isis Ave., El Segundo Blvd. /Hawthorne Blvd., and Marine Ave. /Hawthorne Blvd.). These CO "hotspot " impacts are related to vehicle trips associated with the Commercial Alternative. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact under CEQA and NEPA. Short-term Noise The Draft EIS /EIR concluded that construction noise associated with the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative and Reduced Density Residential Alternative under NEPA and CEQA would be a short-term significant impact at three identified sensitive receptors. With all feasible mitigation measures implemented as identified in the Draft EIS /EIR, significant short-term construction noise impacts would remain at the following receptors: single - family residences along Wiseburn Avenue south of Area A, the existing LAAFB child development center on Area B, and the existing townhouse residential complex south of the Lawndale Annex. Operational Noise The Draft EIS /EIR also concluded that noise from loading dock activities on Area A as part of the operations of the Commercial Alternative, partially mitigated by the construction of an eight -foot tall block wall along the south boundary of Area A and other mitigation (4.4.4 -4 and 4.4.4 -5) limiting truck idling during loading activities, would remain a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA. 12 11:7 Cumulative Impacts The Draft EIS /EIR identified several cumulative CEQA impacts, to which the proposed project would contribute. The proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would contribute to a significant unavoidable cumulative traffic and regional solid waste impact. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact on mobile source air emissions. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the cumulative, traffic, regional solid waste, or regional air quality impacts. Statement of Overriding Considerations As indicated above, the Draft EIS /EIR identifies significant unavoidable project - related aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short term soils and geology, air quality, short-term construction noise, and operational noise impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. In such cases, CEQA requires that the project cannot be approved unless special findings of overriding considerations can be made by the City Council. There is no similar requirement under NEPA. CEQA Section 15093(a) states: "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 effects may be considered 'acceptable'." Unless the project is modified by the developer to avoid the significant impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the City Council stating the specific reasons why the project's benefits outweigh its significant environmental impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would indicate that all feasible mitigation measures were incorporated into the project. As an alternative to a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the applicant would have to develop other feasible mitigation measures that could be incorporated into the project as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report and reduce the identified impacts to a level of insignificance. Ix. Application Findings There are no related project applications for which the Planning Commission must take actions. Since the Proposed Action would place Area A in the City of Hawthorne, the Hawthorne City Council would be responsible for adopting findings necessary to approve the entitlements for the new residential development. Hawthorne would also be responsible for processing the entitlement applications for the residential development of the Lawndale Annex. 13 11 ti Only if the Commercial Alternative were pursued as the preferred project, would the City of El Segundo be required to process development entitlements, since Area A would remain in El Segundo under the Commercial Alternative. In order for the Proposed Action to be approved, the City Council must take certain actions related to the proposal. The Planning Commission's responsibility is to make recommendations to the City Council related to CEQA. CEQA Findings 1. The Draft EIS /EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. (Section 15090) A joint EIS /EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. A Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIS /EIR was prepared and circulated for public review from January 3, 2003 to February 3, 2003. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIS /EIR extends from April 11, 2003 to May 27, 2003. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 10, 2003. 2. The Final EIS /EIR will be presented to the City Council, which will review and consider information contained in the Final EIS /EIR before approving or denying the project (Section 15090). Pursuant to City CEQA Regulations, the Final EIS /EIR will be prepared, distributed, and presented for City Council approval. 3. The record on which the Commission's findings are based is located at the Department of Community, Economic and Development Services, City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. The custodian of the record is the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services. (Section 15091). 4. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIS /EIR prepared for the Project. (Section 15090). This Draft EIS /EIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Draft EIS /EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Final EIS /EIR will be prepared under the direction of the City of El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and Development Services and the Unites States Air Force and will reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts and comments received on the Draft EIS /EIR. 5. The Draft EIS /EIR was made available for public review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by NEPA and CEQA. The Draft EIS /EIR concluded that with mitigation the proposed project would not have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, with the exception of aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short-term soils and geology, air quality impacts, short-term construction noise, and operational noise. 6. That when considering the whole record, there is no evidence that the project 14 11 14 will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends, because the project is in a built -out urban environment. X. Annexation As mentioned earlier, the Proposed Action will include an application by the City of El Segundo to LAFCO for the detachment of Area A from the City of El Segundo and annexation into the City of Hawthorne. In addition to the Air Force property, the annexation would include the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way on the south side of Area A and the freeway onramp to the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway on the east side of Area A. The public streets and sidewalks from the Area A property line to the street center lines in front of Area A on El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards are also included in the annexation area. The City of El Segundo would continue to maintain the landscaped median island on El Segundo Boulevard City and the City of Hawthorne has agreed to maintain the median island in Aviation Boulevard. Hawthorne would take over the provision of public services such as police, fire, water, and libraries. Children of residents of Area A would attend schools in the Wiseburn School District and Centinela Valley Unified School District. LAFCO will be responsible for processing the reorganization request and is charged with ensuring that Hawthorne has the ability to provide public services to the site. XI. Conclusion XII. Based on the foregoing analysis, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2540 recommending that the City Council certify the EIS /EIR for the proposed project. XIII. Exhibits B. Vicinity Map C. Area A Maps D. Area B Maps E. Lawndale Annex Maps F. Sun Valley Maps I. LAFCO Application Opal Paul Garry, I^Acting anning Manager J me M. Hansen, Director om unity, Economic, and Development Services PAPlanning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS \576- 599\EA- 577 \EA- 577.SR.3.doc 15 118 EXHIBIT B Is ClJ } LL u Lu V) U 0 Lr) CL) E\ m ol Lu V) C Lu m r 0 E �- C V) 0 -5 u Uj AV \ \Ad: ve k ƒ, x LJ a) N AVIATION BLVD FL AI cc —j 17 . 1 11 AV AV hl 3H a —Vi, VN < qc ClJ } LL u Lu V) U 0 Lr) CL) E\ m ol Lu V) C Lu m r 0 E �- C V) 0 -5 u Uj EXHIBIT C n w� M Q N tII N FD � Q 0)� LL O L a m m 0 0 L N w Q Vs O� L @ Q(D C� CL m w m N c OE of w� C OE F— c N_ p F' .> C Vw fa7 f0 N Q \ � \ / § ( 5 R L/) / ( G :»\ <»: 77\ X ®` . /N E�\t (� \\ ' �2 \/z %� \ p. e -% � 5 / �� � z P -° im�_ qj o . Mir / o• { 00:� �. � o § @ q � � EXHIBIT : \�\ vl \ N n v \ � \ \ a 3 N@LLV by �\ 12 \� ƒ\ } 0 \ /� \ƒ \� -0 &/ /� /r \a ,u \ \ ■ o\ � > {C\l w a 3 N@LLV by �\ 12 \� ƒ\ } 0 \ /� \ƒ \� -0 &/ /� /r \a ,u \ \ ■ :111 EXHIBIT D LTMM r i i = =Q u amp 4 9 _ , ��l w 1L yl W, H 'rn•� -n�rc � •�u�n - �ure,�ru i WLAAFB Afi3 Aerospace � MI Catellus seal �a� j rl Source: Nsesl Arc�eeub lnc., MeroI, 3003. iL—�_ 3ili e 4� co I I I II I I I I III % I IIIII'' 'IIII u I I � 0 ji j I kiiCHRISTOPHER A. JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES Environmental Planning and Research C la Figure B onceptual Site Plan forArea B o a cs. `M R � - r�r3 c �g .r EXHIBIT E r____.. _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..= _.._.._.._tl......_. w_ - ..._... K i i 11 °: v I t z ..w..........�.,.r.,....ow+'f� � /.11.� ti ❑ OAP F. COOLS iID E N> '•! ❑a m o !i 1 1 ❑' � 1 t 1 i ❑� 1 1� ii %❑ co W.- Lilt ? lOp N ❑ E O� � � � 1 1 F4 a! C f F. � , !❑ y ❑ !❑ € pia 1 ❑S � � N >g S I 1 TEF F pY� s ONVAMOG NOLLVIAV �I 12,5 X T IV CV c c fU Q 7 CU OI N i- a mm J IO c m d Q) U) (Q L1 CU c c 0 r N Li Q Ur O " N N Q� C6 2 � IL m wM to c O 'c � c Q Of — 0_ wm 2 c F C L Q 2 c Vw sm POW je Aims..: ,• ,- n IF } Y•r"" K 4 �' a,�,<•. '" .. .•,,wn * ,. - :y �" t._ % �./ ilk .M 'y`�}- Y APPLICATION TO INITIATE PROCEEDING FOR CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION/REORGANIZATION/ SPECIAL REORGANIZATION (Pursuant to the Conese- Knox - Herzberg Local Govemment Reorganiution Act of 2000, Division 3, Title 5 Commencing with Section 56000, ofthe Govemment Code TO: LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION County of Los Angeles Room 383, Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012 DESIGNATION OF PROPOSAL: Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) Reorganization AFFECTED CITY/DISTRICT: City of El Segundo — Detachment RELATED JURISDICTIONAL CHANGES: City of Hawthorne — Annexation GENERAL LOCATION OF PRO and El Segundo Boulevards) THOMAS GUIDE PAGE(S): 732 -733 COORDINATES: J -2- A -2 PROPOSAL INITIATED BY: X Resolution LandownerNoter Petition APPLICANT: City ofCity of E—dD (CITY, DISTRICT OR CHIEF PETITIONER) 350350 Main Street (ADDRESS) El Segundo CA 90245-3895 (CITY. STATE. ZIP), SIGNED- 74 T ` TITLE, if any Mary Str nn City Manager TE L EPH ONE: 310-524-2300 DATE: Janua r27,2003 124 I. THE SUBJECT AREA A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1. Acres or Square Miles: 50.10 Acres 2 What major highways and streets serve the area: _San Diego (I -405) Freewav El Segundo Boulevard Aviation Boulevard 3. Topography: Flat 4. Physical boundaries, if any (rivers, freeways, etc.): North — El Segundo Boulevard East San Diego (I -405 Freewav onramp) South -Residential properties south of Union Pacific Ratl Road _ n2ht- of -wav_ WPzr _ e.,:�,; n ..,__.__� -- B. POPULATION AND HOUSING I . Estimated Population: Current population — None. Future Population 2,925 (3.0 per unit) 2. Number of Registered Voters: None Give source and date of information: Not Applicabl e 3. Number and type of dwelling unit: The subiect area currently does not have residential uses. Future development rnay include approximately 975 units 25 per acre on 39.24 acre LAAFI Area A site) C. LAND USE AND ZONING [if applicable] 1. what is the present land use in the subject area9 remaining a roximately 3.2 acres of the 50. l0-acre subject area, 2 128 2. What is the land use in the surrounding area? av u1GL1LJ 111 L11C l.. Segundo. North of the site includes commercial uses with residential uses in the uninPmmrirat A f,1, t , miles east of the subject area 3. If annexation to a city is involved as a part of this proposal, what is the city's general plan designation for the area? Area A and freewthn a on-ram onions ofthe subject area are desi mate as "Federal Govermnent" In n _ area have no general Plan or zoning designation 4. Describe any proposed change inland use and zoning as a result of this proposal (including, if applicable, prezoning by an affected city): subject area 5. If this proposal will result in development of property, describe the type of development proposed (type of business or industry, single- or multi - family residential, etc.; number of units or facilities): townhouse style units as well as condominiums 6. What effect would denial of this proposal have on the proposed development, if any: Protect the LA AFB workforce and Promote efficiency in operations. 3 121) 7. Is the subject area proposed to be included within a redevelopment project area upon completion of this proposal? II. THE PROPOSAL A. What are the reasons for initiation of this proposal? which is preferred and seen as a compatible land use by the City of Hawthorne B. What are the alternate courses of action, if any? (Include the names of other local agencies having the authority to provide the same or similar services as those proposed) Parties are not in agreement over a strategv for keeping LAAFBrin El Segundo to C. Plan for Providing Services Describe the services to be extended to the subject area, the range and level of those services, when the services can be extended to the area, and how the services will be financed, including any improvement or upgrading of structures, roads, sewer or water facilities or other conditions which would be imposed or required by the local agency within the subject area if this proposal is completed: City of Hawthorne shall be paid by the de � ate, eloper developer before a permit to connect to the sewer is ute corn s issued 4 L to consider the proPosed 975 residential units the County Fire Department will review the development and water. cvctr. ., _ __ continue to be served by the purveyor aZreement or agreements with the City of Hawthome Natural Gas- The sub ect area will continue to be served by The Gas Comi3any. and serviced by Southem California Edison DMartmentof Pub lic Works Angeles Flood Control District School District Abatement District - Hawthome Annex. D. List the division, acquisition, improvement, disposition, sale or transfer of any property, real or personal, belonging to a city or district that is involved in this proposal: None 131 E. List the disposition, transfer or division of any money or funds and any other obligations of a city or district involved as part of this proposal: None To what extent will residents or landowners within the subject area be liable or remain liable for any existing indebtedness of the city or district to or from which annexation, detachment, or detachment and incorporation is proposed: y landowners have liability for any existing indebtedness of the City of E1 Segundo. G. What services and/or costs to residents or landowners in the area would be increased, reduced, or eliminated as a result of this proposal? services. These future residents will also be responsible for costs typically asocia ed with tuuci residential develo menu includin ro pertv taxes utility user taxes charges for trash 1)ick-up, st sweeping, a street lighting district, and other property based municipal fees and charges I i. List any terms or conditions requested as part of this proposal: the sub ect area. III. GENERAL A Lise names and addresses of any persons, organization or agencies (mown to you who maybe opposed to this proposal: None 13 ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU MAY WISH TO MAKE [Attach additional pages if necessary] : None C. Names and addresses of persons who are to receive notice of heating, staff report and minutes: 14 City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street CA 90245 126th Street Hawthorne CA 90250 IV. INCORPORATION OF INSTRUCTIONS By submitting this Application to Initiate Proceedings, the applicant acknowledges receipt of the Instruction for Filg Application for Change of Organization/ Reorganization/Special Reorganization@ and agrees [o be bound by same, in including, but not limited to the provisions contained therein regarding filing and processing fees, and defense and indemnification of the Commission. Back to To Back to Forms pace Contact Person: James M. Hansen Director of Community, Economic and Develo ment Services (Name) 350 Main Street (Address) El Segundo CA 90245 310 -524 -2300 (Telephone) P:\Planning & Building SafetylPRO JECTS1576- 5991EA- 577\LAFCO application .1- 28- 03.Uean.blank -7.doc 7 3 �% LAFCO PARTY DISCLOSURE FORM hrrp:// www .lalafco.Org/Forms/form06 -3.1; LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PARTY DISCLOSURE FORM DESIGNATED TITLE OF PROPOSAL: REORGANIZATION OF EL SEGUNOD FOR LAAFB PARTY'S NAME: City of El Segundo CHECK THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE AND COMPLETE AND SIGN THIS FORM. RETURN IT WITH THE LAFCO APPLICATION. PLEASE USE ONE FORM PER RESPONDENT. X I have not made a contribution greater than $250 to any member of the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission ( LAFCO) listed below within twelve (12) months of the LAFCO filing date of January 24, 2003 I have made the following contribution(s) greater than $250 to the following member(s) of LAFCO within twelve (12) months of the LAFCO filing date of NAME OF MEMBER I DATE OF CONTRIBUTION AMOUNT Signature: Mary StrenP Commissioner Henri Pellissier, Chair Beatrice Proo, Vice Chair Carol Herrera Cindy Miscikowski Yvonne Brathwaite -Burke Zev Yaroslaysky James DiGiuseppe E.G. Gladbach William Wentworth Hal Bemson Don Knabe Cristina Cruz - Madrid Kenneth Chappell Richard Close Robert W. Goldsworthy Date: 1/23/03 ty Manager RenresentlnE General Public at large City of Pico Rivera City of Diamond Bar City of Los Angeles Supervisor, Second Supervisorial District Supervisor, Third Supervisorial District General Public -San FemandoValley Castaic Lake Water Agency Walnut Valley Water District City of Los Angeles, Alternate Supervisor, Fourth Supervisorial District, Alternate City of Azusa, Alternate General Public, Alternate San Fernando Valley Statistical Area, Alternate Water Replenishment District of Southern California, Alternate This form must be complete and filed with your application. Back to Forms PaL, Back to Tonics Page of I 134 1/23/03 8:08 AM Scale: 1' - 300' Sheet I OF I 'ity of Hawthorne Sheet Annexation No 03- Gonloininq 50,10 Acres Coun Mq�N Count' of Lae x. Stott of ,aj;j nic 300' 0' 300' 600' GRAPHIC SCALE I" = 300' S 18'26'24" E- j w - 250.12' z0 F Q x LA CIENEGA �a BOULEVARD 1?m N 81'31'44" E 348.02' 6= 97'55'21 R= 140.00' L= 239.27' S 89'54'07" E 477.18' S A z 0 F c r, W ZO 2ta Q a: N Z Z N W J — P.O.B. N 1791789.84 'E 6449118.06 s VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N 11'18'32" E 421.61 ElAnnexation Area SPACE TECHNOLOGY AVIATION BOULEVARD) TERRITORY ANN')CATION 8/74/60 6/20/61 DATE: 1/21/03 REVISED ON: JOB No: IKEA020100 Task 116 3 C n 35 EXHIBIT 4 HAWTHORNE POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMITTED TO SERVICE WITH RESPECT INTER- OFFICE COMMUNICATION TO: MICHAEL GOODSON DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REDEVELOPMENT FROM: STEPHEN R. PO � CHIEF OF POLI DATE: JUNE 12, 2003 SUBJECT: LAAFB PROJECT PLANNING POLICE SERVICES The purpose of this memo is to hopefully have a better understanding of the proposed project(s) and to determine an appropriate amount of public safety services for our new residents. Councilman Parsons has been very helpful in providing the Police Department with current information regarding the size and scope of the residential projects. In essence, they have shrunk since our first review. I understand that the Los Angeles County Fire Department has reserved the option to assess an impact on their services until the project(s) are actually built. If that is true, then the Police Department can live with the same understanding providing there is an acknowledgement that the two residential projects will impact the Police Department in a manner that may require additional resources. As I wrote before, our crime rate is at an all time low, Hawthorne continues to develop and grow. The public's demand for our services will not decrease with the future. xc: Charles Herbertson, City Manager 137 Hr OF to ,, },'III ,.r �nl EXHIBIT 5 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND Colonel James S. Brackett HQ AFSPC/CEP 150 Vandenberg St, Suite 1105 Peterson AFB, CO 80914 -4150 Mr. Paul Gary Scnior Planner Community, Economic and Development Services 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Gary 27 May 2003 Thank you for passing on the concerns about the SAMS alternatives bring analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Air Force will not make a final decision on alternatives until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is complete. However, to address the concerns raised, I would like to provide sonic clarifying information in regards to the alternatives analyzed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Los Angela Air Force Base (LA AFB) Modernization, specifically the no-action and the Military Construction (MMCON) alternatives. The no -action alternative is analyzed because it is required by law. The intent of the no-action alternative is to establish a base line to compare the proposed action and/or other alternatives. The Air Force is not required to select the no -action alternative and in the case of LA AFB, the no -action alterative does not seem to be a viable option. This is because the facilities at LA AFB do not meet current seismic or life- safety codes and the Air Force believes it is unacceptable to leave its people in deficient facilities. We evaluated the cost of renovating our existing facilities and found it significantly more costly than relocating the work force to new facilities. Not only is the renovation alternative the least cost effective, it exceeds a congressional threshold that precludes the Services from executing renovations that exceed 70 percent of the facility replacement costs. Even if the Air Force were to receive a waiver to the threshold limit from the Congress, the magnitude of the renovation costs make it impractical to use limited operations and maintenance (O&M) funds; forcing the Air Force to look to the MILCON appropriation for funding. The entire Space Command MILCON program for 9 major installations and 87 geographically separated sites worldwide averages only S58M per year (FY99 -03). The costs to renovate the existing facilities are estimated to be $134M and the MILCON replacement alternative is estimated at $122M. Currently there is no MMCON funding available for the SAMS program nor is it reasonable to expect there will be. In fact, it was the shortage of funds, both O &M and MILCON, which first prompted the Air Force to pursue the unique concept of exchanging land for new facilities at LA AFB. For these reasons, the SAMS project is our preferred alternative in the EIS. Sincerely JAMES S. BRACKETT, Colonel, USAF Chief, Programs Division GUARDIANS OF THE HIGH FRONTIER D L r t} P t% l5 MAY 2 9 2603. D PI-4 iu , .;;VISION 138 NAJD EXHIBIT 6 Page 1 of 7 Ri I w RESOURCE CENTER Hotlinks NAID is the leading source of information on base closure, reuse and issues related to out- sourcing and privatization. This is a diverse field where information is essential. That is why we have put together a resource center with links to hundreds of Web sites where you can find valuable Information. Links will be added on a regular basis. If you have a suggestion for a link, please email info @naid.org. Acronyms Decoded Dealing with the military means one thing - a mess of acronyms. We have gathered as many acronyms as we could to help you learn the "language" of base redevelopment and DoD. For general economic development information, check out our partner's Web site, IEDC -- the homepage for economic development. This is the leading economic development resources on the web. NAID a -News Archives • Timeline. for BRAC 2005 Round • BRAC. Selection Criteria • New Senate Committee Members Pledge Support for Next BRAC Round • DuBois. Hints at Reforming. Reuse Process for BRAC 2005 • 2005 BRAC Memo Released • New GAO Report Base. Closure Savings At $16.7 Billion • Download updated Copy of BRAC law,. including 2001 changes 13 http:/ /www.naid.org/resource_top.html 6/5/03 I> Page 2 of 7 Timeline for BRAC 2005 Round Dec. 31, 2003: Draft base selection criteria published with at least 30 days for comment. Feb. 16, 2004: Final base selection criteria published. January- February 2004: Secretary of Defense releases Force Structure Plan, including an inventory and capacity analysis, as part of the DOD budget. The secretary also must provide an economic analysis of the costs associated with BRAC, certifying that the 2005 round will produce savings by 2011. March 15, 2005: President nominates nine - member BRAC Commission. May 15, 2005: Secretary of Defense releases recommendations of military bases for BRAC Commission to consider; adding other bases requires support of seven commission members. July 1, 2005: General Accounting Office releases review of DOD's recommendations. Sept. 8, 2005: President receives recommendations from BRAC Commission. Sept. 23, 2005: President approves /disapproves BRAC Commission base list. Oct. 20, 2005: Commission's revised recommendations submitted to president. Nov. 7, 2005: President submits revised list to Congress (if necessary). o Back to Archives list BRAC Selection Criteria DOD used eight selection criteria to put together its recommended list of base closures and realignments during the 1991, 1993 and 1995 rounds: Military Value (given overall priority consideration) 1. Current and future mission requirements and the impact on operational readiness of the Department of Defense's total force. C 2. Availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace at both the existing and potential receiving locations. yy l4U http:/ /www.naid.org /resource_top.html 6/5/03 NAID Page 3 of 7 3. Ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, and future total force requirements at both the existing and potential receiving locations. 4. Cost and manpower implications. Return on Investment 1. Extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years - beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment - for the savings to exceed the costs. Impacts 1. Economic impact on communities. 2. Ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and personnel. 3. Environmental impact. Source: DOD Office of Economic Adjustment The FY 2002 defense authorization act provides additional guidance to DOD for developing the criteria for the 2005 round. (In some cases, the guidelines are the same as the criteria used in past rounds.): Military Value as Primary Consideration The selection criteria shall ensure that military value is the primary consideration in the making of recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations in 2005. Military value shall include at a minimum the following: 1. Preservation of training areas suitable for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces to guarantee future availability of such areas to ensure the readiness of the Armed Forces. 2. Preservation of military installations in the United States as staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions. 3. Preservation of military installations throughout a diversity of climate and terrain in the United States for training purposes. 4. The impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness. S. Contingency, mobilization, and future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training. Return on Investment The selection criteria shall also address at a minimum: I. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years - beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment - for the savings to exceed the costs. 2. The effect of the proposed closure or realignment on the costs of any other DOD activity or any other federal agency that may be required to assume responsibility for activities at the military installations. Impacts The selection criteria shall also address at a minimum: 141 http:/ /www.naid.org /resource_top.html 6/5/03 NAID Page 4 of 7 1. The economic impact on existing communities In the vicinity of military installations. 2. The ability of both existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions, and personnel. 3. The impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The Secretary of Defense is required to publish draft selection criteria by Dec. 31, 2003, and allow the public 30 days for comment. By Feb. 16, 2004, the secretary must release the final criteria DOD will use. » Back to Archives list New Senate Committee Members Pledge Support for Next BRAC Round Four new Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee said they supported Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's drive to reform the military, including the 2005 round of base closure. "I hope we'll rise to the occasion," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) after describing Rumsfeld's challenge to the four senators at a Jan. 16 breakfast meeting to support base closings. "Politically that would be difficult, but he has indicated to us that they have a lot of assets under their control they have to manage and pay for that are probably not as productive as they should be," he added. The four senators - Graham along with John Ensign (Nev.), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) - spoke at a press conference at the Pentagon following the meeting with Rumsfeld and other senior DOD officials. Graham, Dole and Chambliss are first -term senators elected last November. Graham and Chambliss previously served on the House Armed Services Committee. Ensign echoed Graham's comments: "But I think we, as senators, have to look - and we just can't be worried about protecting jobs when it costs the entire country a lot more money. I mean, there's about 20 percent of the bases, probably, domestically, that need to be closed. That's going to cause a lot of political heartburn." The Pentagon will consider closing overseas bases as well as domestic ones, he added. "I think if we're going to do a good'job for the future of taxpayers and manage the war well, we're going to have to listen to change," Graham stated. In addition to the four senators who met with Rumsfeld, two other newly elected, Republican senators have been added to the Armed Services Committee: Jim Talent (Mo.) and John Cornyn (Texas). Gone on the Republican side are Strom Thurmond (S.C.), who retired; Rick Santorum (Pa.), who changed committee assignments; and Tim Hutchinson (Ark.) and Bob Smith (N.H), both of whom lost their re- election bids. New Democrats on the committee are: Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Evan ,I 1 R�. http:/ /www.naid.org /reSOurCe_top.html 6/5/03 1 Economic Vftaiiry, Trade & lobs 444 S. Flower St. 34^ Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 t: 213.622.4300 f. 213.622.7100 www.laedc.org EXHIBIT 7 Los Angeles Air Force Base Economic Impact Summary Jobs Current Projected LAAFB - Direct 3,200 3,200 LAAFB - Indirect 1,367 1,367 LAAFB Contracts - Direct & Indirect 54,145 63,700 Aerospace Corp - Direct 3,384 3,384 Aerospace Corp - Indirect 3,259' 3,259 Total 65,355 74,910 Wages Estimated Total Payroll (All Workers) $3,326,000,000 $3,803,000,000 Annual County Taxes (By Source) Sales Taxes Share from Direct & Indirect Employee Spending LAAFB $148,000 $148,000 LAAFB Contracts $1,631,000 $1,919,000 Aerospace Corp $225,000 $225,000 Other Sales Taxes Aerospace Corp. Purchases $23,000 $23,000 Transportation Sales Taxes from Direct and Indirect Employee Spending LAAFB $591,000 $591,000 LAAFB Contracts $6,524,000 $7,676,000 Aerospace Corp. $899,000 $899,000 Other Transportation Sales Taxes Aerospace Corp. Purchases $92,000 $92,000 Property Tax Aerospace Corp. $494,000 $494,000 .. ...........� ,.x r ,uuzce June -o3 Key Assumptions: - LAAFB annual new contracts: $8.5 billion (Current), $10.0 billion (Projected) - 70 percent of LAAFB contracts are awarded in L.A. County . - Contracts and Aerospace Corp. would leave L.A. County if LAAFB were to leave. Sources: Aeorspace Corp.; LAAFS (preliminary estimates) `I;ONLi TNI;LM, ENA B...AT1[In 35(1 South Figueroa $C, Suite 172 One World Trade. (.enter, Suite 295 Loe AN,.EI.ic Low. BrAnz Los Angeles, Califurnta 90071 USA Long Beech. CaliforNa 90831 USA t: 213.680.1888 1 '. 211680.1878 L 562.495.7070 1 562.495.7071 in(ala @wtwnm,or8 m(olh@wtaneL,vg 14 Los Angeles Air Force Base Economic Impact Economic Vitality, Trade & lobs 444 S. Flower St. 348^ Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 t: 213.622.4300 f: 213.622.7100 www.laedc.org Jobs Current Projected LAAFB - Direct 3,200 3,200 LAAFB - Indirect 1,367 1,367 LAAFB Contracts - Direct & Indirect 54,145 63,700 Aerospace Corp - Direct 3,384 3,384 Aerospace Corp - Indirect 3,259 3,259 Total 65,355 74,910 Wages Estimated Total Payroll (All Workers) $3,326,000,000 $3,803,000,000 Annual County Taxes (By Source) Sales Taxes Share from Direct & Indirect Employee Spending LAAFB $148,000 $148,000 LAAFB Contracts $1,631,000 $1,919,000 Aerospace Corp $225,000 $225,000 Other Sales Taxes Aerospace Corp. Purchases $23,000 $23,000 Transportation Sales Taxes from Direct and Indirect Employee Spending LAAFB $591,000 $591,000 LAAFB Contracts $6,524,000 $7,676,000 Aerospace Corp. $899,000 $899,000 Other Transportation Sales Taxes Aerospace Corp. Purchases $92,000 $92,000 Property Tax Aerospace Corp. $494,000 $494,000 1 1`tziJu 1- onsalting rractice Key Assumptions: - LAAFB annual new contracts: $8.5 billion (Current), $10.0 billion (Projected) - 70 percent of LAAFB contracts are awarded in L.A. County. - Contracts and Aerospace Corp. would leave L.A. County if LAAFB were to leave. Sources: Aeorspace Corp.; LAAFB (preliminary estimates) June -o3 106 WORLD TRADE CRNIER A$SOOIATION 350 South Fi ueron $L Suite 172 l.oi ANf,ELGY - �txvc BFAm, 6 Lane World Trade Center, S1 A Lox Angeles, California 90071 USA Loop, Beach, CaBfomia 90831 USA r 213.680.1888 f. 213.680.1878 r 562.495.7070 r. 562.495.7071 4 �. Infola@wtcanetorR infol6vaavtcanetnrR EXHIBIT 9 lww Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates PHELDMALS INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISORS TO GOVERNMENT WILLIAM L FlEIDMAN 191]1998 LAWRENCE G. ROLAPP To: Mae}m{Tbers of the City Council THOMAS G. JOHNSEN Mary City Manager Bret Plumlee, Administrative Services Director THOMAS M. City of El Segundo, California TIMOTHY I. SCHAFFER HAEFER From: Daniel L. Wiles, Vice President and General Counsel SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates 2100 MAIN STREET SUITE 210 Re: LAAFB Development — Status of Public Finance Elements IRVINE, CA 92614 -6266 Date: June 13, 2003 949.660.8500 FAX 949.474.8773 The Project NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE A development team, led by Kearny Real Estate and including Catellus 925.933.6096 Development and Morgan Stanley (the "Developer"), has been refining a FAX 925.933.6098 development plan based on the development of residential units on two major parcels, known as Area A and Area C. Area A is the current site of the Space and Missile Systems Command, and is commonly known as the location of CHARTER MEMBER the Los Angeles Air Force Base ("LAAFB'). The development plan NATIONAL ASSOCIATION contemplates that the Developer will construct a new set of facilities for OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC LAAFB on property currently owned by the Air Force and known as Area B. FINANCE ADVISORS Areas A and B are currently located in the City of El Segundo; Area C is currently located in the City of Hawthorne. An additional involved property owned by the Air Force, known as the Sun Valley property, is also located in the region. In return for the construction of the new LAAFB facilities on Area B, the Developer will be given title to Areas A and C and the Sun Valley property. In response to initial neighborhood reaction, the Developer has formulated Plans to provide residential units on Areas A and C. The expectation is that the development and sale of the residential units will be the primary (but not exclusive) source of funds for the construction of the new LAAFB facilities and provide the Developer a margin of profit. The Sun Valley property is expected to be sold to profit the Developer. The "Gap" The Developer obtained the rights to construct the new LAAFB and redevelop Areas A and C and the Sun Valley property through a competitive process. In its original Proposal to the US Air Force, the Developer proposed a construction cost of the new LAAFB of $115 million (on Area B) with the bid including transfer of the real estate and the payment by the Air Force of an amount equal to $11 million (or a reduction of the new base construction by an equal amount). This $11 million figure has been designated the "gap." X45 Public Funding Shortfall As the project has been further refined, it has become clear that the values of the property as developed likely would fall short of providing sufficient funds to pay for the costs of necessary improvements to allow development and Developer's profit. The Developer team has assumed that public financing in various forms would be employed to mitigate most, if not all, of the shortfall. The City of Hawthorne, as the municipality in which the actual residential development would occur, has taken the lead in defining the quantity of public funding required and the primary methods of providing that funding. The Cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne have agreed that the economic consultant for the City of Hawthorne, Keyser Marston Associates, would take the primary responsibility for the development of financing scenarios and the verification of proposals made by the development team. As financial advisor to the City of El Segundo, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates has filled a role of reviewing and verifying the assumptions and calculations contained in the reports of Keyser Marston. We can report that as such reports have been made to date, we have conducted such review and verification and, given the assumptions in their reports, have concurred in their overall methodology and conclusions. Areas of Public Funding Shortfall. The amount of public financing required to provide sufficient project costs and Developer's profit has been designated the `public funding shortfall." The public funding shortfall is estimated to have three components: 1. Infrastructure costs 2. Required low and moderate income housing 3. Impacts to the General Fund of Hawthorne The precise definition of the public funding shortfall has been the subject of initial analysis by Keyser Marston and refinement by Saybrook Capital, as financial advisor to the Developer. The figures are only estimated to date and change as the project changes. Based on the original projected density for Area A, 850 residential units, the shortfall with regard to infrastructure costs was estimated to be approximately $24 million plus the cost of development fees payable to the City of Hawthorne (as they may be required). At the estimated densities in Areas A and C, it is estimated that the inclusionary housing for low and moderate income residents required to be developed under California law is approximately 150 units. Keyser Marston 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 project of approximately $5 million plus the cost of acquiring the land for the project. Finally, as discussed below, it has been contemplated that the property tax increment to be generated in Areas A and C would be applied to the payment of tax allocation financing. The development would impact municipal services, such as police and fire, for the residents of Areas A and C and would place some burden on the General Fund of the City of Hawthorne. The City has taken the position that those costs need to be funded 2 x46 in some manner such that the General Fund has no negative impact from the development. In sum, the public funding shortfall is estimated at: $24 million (plus City fees of up to $4 million) $5 million (plus the cost of land for housing project) $_ (costs of General Fund impacts) Public Finance Techniques. The development team originally anticipated that the entire amount of the required public financing for the project would be provided through tax increment generated from a redevelopment project and financed through the issuance of tax allocation bonds. However, the initial estimates by Keyser Marston indicate clearly that the projected amount of tax increment supporting the total amount of tax allocation bonds that could be sold would not be sufficient to fund the entire shortfall. Moreover, tax allocation bonds realistically can not be issued until the project (or a major discrete component of the project) has been constructed and is generating increased property taxes. The Keyser Marston analysis indicates that the flows of tax increment resulting from the project will not support the type of delay required if all project costs were financed through the issuance of tax allocation bonds. The development team has recognized the need for the use of Mello Roos (Community Facilities District) special tax financing in the overall finance plan. The use of Mello Roos financing allows for the earlier issuance of debt, but has restricted uses of bond proceeds. Mello Roos financing is a supplement to, but not a replacement of the primary tax allocation bond financings of the improvements. Allocation of Risk. It is important to note that the City of Hawthorne and the analysis conducted by Keyser Marston are based on the position that the public financings must be completely supported by the project and its related revenues. The City of Hawthorne will not put itself at any financial risk and is taking an active negotiating position to isolate the debt for the project from other tax allocation debt issued for the project area within the City. The financial risk of the project is being placed squarely on the Development. We concur in the propriety of that strategy and advise the City of El Segundo to similar posture to the extent possible. adopt a From this perspective, the role of the financial review conducted by Keyser Marston is to allow for a superficial consideration of the sufficiency of public funding to meet the shortfall, mindful that the actual risk of the shortfall rests with the Developer, not the City. Changes to the Project As previously noted, the original Keyser Marston analysis was based on a development of Area A that included 850 residential units. Neighborhood opposition prior to the June 4 Hawthorne planning commission meeting induced the Developer to reduce the number y rvt Y � t to 750 residential units. We are not aware of any renewed calculations as to the public funding shortfall at that level of development or the plan of finance for individual financings. At the June 4 meeting, the Planning Commission did not approve the plan of the Developer, requesting a yet lower density of development. At present, we are unaware of any concrete plans in response to the Planning Commission's request. We are similarly unaware of any financial estimates related to any such changes. 4 .148 EXHIBIT 10 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA MAY 22, 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. Vice - Chairman Busch led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PLEDGE TO FLAG PRESENT: BUSCH, FRICK, FUNK, MAHLER, MILLER - SHEEHAN ROLL CALL ABSENT: None Chairman Mahler presented the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR None. CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Frick moved, seconded by Commissioner Funk, to MOTION approve the March 6, 2003, Minutes as submitted and to approve Environmental Assessment No. 613, Administrative Use Permit No. 03- 02, a new license for on -site sale and consumption of beer and wine at Havana Restaurants, Inc., 229 Main Street. Passed 5 -0. None. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Senior Planner Garry noted that the Planning Commission was given WRITTEN copies of additional Air Force base related materials at this evening's COMMUNICATIONS meeting, materials which were received after the distribution of the agenda packets. Chairman Mahler presented Item H -3, Environmental Assessment No. PUBLIC HEARINGS, 577. Address: 2400 -2480 East El Segundo Boulevard. Applicant: City NEW BUSINESS, of El Segundo. Property Owner: Air Force Base. EA -577 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 149 Air Force Colonel Jack Anderson, NEPA representative, addressed the purpose and protocol for this evening's meeting. Senior Planner Garry presented staff report (of record); advised that once all the oral and written comments are received up to May 27th, the EIS /EIR team will carefully review the comments and develop responses or changes that will be incorporated into the Final EIS /EIR — pointing out that once this process is complete, a Notice of Availability will be Published in the Federal Register, in local newspapers, and on the City's website. He added that staff anticipates releasing the Final EIS /EIR in early July 2003 and to complete the entire process in August 2003. Colonel Anderson opened the public hearing. Mr. Jeff Dritley, managing partner of Kearny Real Estate Company With the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Dritley provided an over- view of the proposed project; and explained that in return for the developer paying for and building the Air Force a new $115 million high tech space and missile command center on Area B, the Air Force will deed to the developer 39 net acres currently in El Segundo (Area A), 13 acres currently in Hawthorne (Area C), and 3.7 acres in Sun Valley. He mentioned that a new child development center would be built for the Air Force Base. Mr. Dritley commented on the economic impacts that this project will have to the community and region; highlighted past base closures throughout the United States and other countries; and noted that the condition of the base facility is one condition that is taken into consideration when deciding to close a certain base. Mr. Dritley stated that he anticipates the receipt of the entitlements will take place in the third quarter of 2003; that demolition and construction will begin on Area B in the fourth quarter of 2003; that the developer will take title within 120 days of the closure of Area C, the 13 acres in Hawthorne; that he anticipates completing the Air Force facility in the fourth quarter of 2005; and that he anticipates moving on to Area A with the new residential community in 2006, with sales continuing on the various phases through 2010. Mr. Dritley highlighted the site plans for the new residential areas in Hawthorne; stated that the townhomes and condominiums will be high -end, high - quality developments; and noted that the developer would continue to work with the concerned residents in the Hollyglen community. He mentioned that the developer has created a website that will maintain up -to -date information on the proposed project. 2 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 150 Dan Ehrler, Executive Director El Segundo Chamber of Commerce, Chamber Mr. Ehrler urged the City to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) in El Segundo; and noted his support of staff recommendation that City Council certify the EIS /EIR for the proposed project, expressing his belief that the Air Force Base remaining in El Segundo is vital to the future of this City and the region. George Torres, Chairman of the Military Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce Mr. Torres commented on his 24 -year experience in the aerospace industry and the importance of the aerospace industry to thousands of employees and other businesses in the City and region, believing that the Air Force Base is an economic engine to the success of the South Bay and Los Angeles; and he urged the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the EISE /EIR be certified. He expressed his belief that if this base moves out of state, many businesses will follow that move. Mike Wysocki, 5433 Wiseburn Avenue, Hawthorne Mr. Wysocki stated that he lives directly behind the LAAFB; expressed his belief that the base has a major impact upon the success of smaller businesses in El Segundo; and noted his support for the housing proposal. Linda Johnson, El Segundo employee Ms. Johnson stated that she is an employee of Computer Sciences Corporation, the third largest information technology provider in the world which derives 40 percent of its revenue from the Federal government; expressed her belief that the closure of the Air Force Base would have a detrimental impact upon the local economy; and requested the Planning Commission's support of the EIS /EIR. Stephen Craig, 629 Sierra Street, El Segundo Mr. Craig stated that he is employed at a local aerospace corporation; addressed his concern with the possible closure of the Air Force Base and the closure of businesses that would follow; expressed his belief that if the Air Force Base is not modernized, the risk would be much higher of losing this facility to another community; and he encouraged the Planning Commission to support staff's recommendation. 3 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 151 John Van Hook, 303 West Oak Avenue, El Segundo Mr. Van Hook stated that he currently is a member of the City's Economic Development Committee; and noted his belief that keeping the Air Force Base in El Segundo is important to the economic stability and future of this region. Alan West, 303 Virginia Street, El Segundo Mr. West expressed his belief that the Air Force Base is an important benefit to the South Bay and the state of California. Laurence Martin, El Segundo resident Mr. Martin stated that he was a scientific engineer in the aerospace industry for many years; and he urged the Planning Commission to go forward with this proposal and keep the base in El Segundo. Joan Parker, 419 %2 Standard Street, El Segundo Ms. Parker encouraged the Planning Commission and the City Council to keep the Air Force Base in El Segundo. Marc Rener, 1212 East Walnut Avenue, El Segundo Mr. Rener stated that he is not against the Air Force Base being in El Segundo; addressed his concern with the proposed high density of the new housing stock; noted his opposition to the tax payers paying for part of this project; and highlighted the recent introduction of a bill which puts a stop to base closings due to the nation's security. Mr. Rener questioned why the government had not retrofitted its buildings while other businesses in California were mandated to do so; and expressed his concern and strong opposition to what he called a quagmire of political manipulation that is going on between the developers and the Politicians. He expressed his belief that numerous residents in the surrounding areas of the development are under the impression that single - family homes will be built, not a myriad of condominiums. Juli Potter, El Segundo resident Ms. Potter expressed her support of the "no action alternative'; commented on the newly introduced bill HR -1638, which places a stop to base closures due security concerns; noted her opposition to high density, multi -level housing and the negative impacts it will have upon the current property owners in the affected areas; and addressed her concerns that this proposed project will create complete gridlock in this 4 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 " 1 5 area. Ms. Potter expressed her belief that many residents in these areas are still under the impression that single - family homes are being proposed instead of the condominiums. She asked for input on where this hearing had been posted. Bill Watkins, 327 East Oak Avenue, El Segundo Mr. Watkins expressed his belief that change is important to the vitality of a community; stated that losing the Air Force Base in El Segundo would present a huge impact upon the current and future economic stability of this community; and urged the Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council certify the EIS /EIR. Liz Garnholz, 442 Whiting Street, El Segundo Ms. Garnholz commented on the additional ten acres of El Segundo right -of -way property that is being included in this deal; noted her opposition to giving this land away to the city of Hawthorne; and stated that she supports the "no action altemative," believing that it is the most environmentally sound. She stated that the Air Force Base is willing to seismically retrofit its facilities; and commented on the recent introduction of HR -1638, a bill which proposes to place a hold on base closures. With the introduction of HR -1638 and the willingness of the Air Force to fix its facilities, Ms. Garnholz questioned the need for El Segundo to give away $50 million of its land. She addressed her concern that because Redevelopment Agency funds would be utilized for this project, a low- income housing component would be mandatory for this development. Ms. Garnholtz expressed her opposition to the public funding this development in any manner; and she questioned what guarantees are in place if the Air Force Base leaves El Segundo, asking if the City would get its land back from Hawthorne. She noted her opposition to the lack of public hearings relating to this project. Seran Williams, El Segundo employee Ms. Williams stated that she is an employee of a local high tech firm; and she urged the City's support of this project. Kyle Orlemann, 5237 Wiseburn Avenue, Hollyglen section of Hawthorne Ms. Orlemann noted her support to retain the Air Force Base in El Segundo; commented on the recent proposal to stop base closings, HR 1638; and expressed her support of the "no action alternative," stating that it has the least environmental impact. She suggested that consideration be given to only selling Area B to a private developer and noted her opposition to high- density housing. 5 E] Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 0 ) David Bart, 1419 East Mariposa Avenue, El Segundo Mr. Bart stated that he is an employee of a local aerospace corporation; addressed his concern that if the Air Force Base closes and relocates to another city or state, that it would have a negative impact upon his employment and the employment of many others; and he urged the City to keep the Air Force Base in El Segundo. He stated that he is supportive of the proposal. Lilly Craig, representing Chevron Products Company Ms. Craig stated that she is an El Segundo resident; noted that Chevron employs many who live in El Segundo and Hawthorne; and noted Chevron's support to modernize this facility and for the City Council to certify the EIS /EIR. Steve Redlick, 5517 Hollyglen Mr. Redlick stated that he works in El Segundo; commented on the numerous vacant commercial buildings in El Segundo; expressed his belief that the closure of the Air Force Base would have a negative impact upon the property values in this area; noted his opposition to the public funding this project; and questioned why these buildings are being occupied if they have not been retrofitted. He pointed out that financial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency will require that a certain number of homes be set aside for low- income housing; and he urged the City to keep the Air Force Base in El Segundo. There being no further public input, the public hearing was closed. In response to Chairman Mahler's inquiry regarding the annexation process, Senior Planner Garry explained that the City submitted its application to LAFCO earlier this year; that LAFCO is in the process of working on portions of that application, including a tax transfer resolution that transfers taxing authority from one city to another; stated that ultimately LAFCO will take its action following certification of the EIR by the City Council; and that LAFCO would then have its board meeting to make its decision on the annexation, which is anticipated to take place in August 2003. Senior Planner Garry noted for Vice - Chairman Busch that the El Segundo City Council is not scheduled to take its final action on the LAFCO application until after the city of Hawthorne completes and adopts all of the necessary entitlements for the development on Area A and the Lawndale annex. 6 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 154 The Planning Commission thanked everyone for attending this meeting and providing input. Commissioner Funk expressed her belief that the "no action alternative" is not a viable alternative due to the poor condition of the Air Force buildings. Vice - Chairman Busch expressed his belief that the "no action alternative" does not fit within the boundaries of the City's General Plan, that it does not protect the economic interests of this community; and stated that he opposes the loss of the Air Force Base. Commissioner Miller Sheehan commended the various agencies that coordinated and orchestrated their activities to find a creative plan and develop other alternatives to make the Air Force Base a stable entity in El Segundo; and expressed her belief that keeping the Air Force Base in El Segundo is important to the present and the future of El Segundo and the region. RECESS AND RECONVENE Chairman Mahler recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:59 p.m. Commissioner Frick stated that she concurs with the comments made by the Planning Commissioners this evening; pointed out the importance of public input — noting that alternatives were created as a result of public input; and she expressed her belief that the Air Force Base is vital to the economic stability of El Segundo and the South Bay and for that reason alone, she stated that this proposal should move forward. On behalf of the Planning Commission, Chairman Mahler thanked staff for the voluminous information that was provided relative to this matter. Chairman Mahler expressed his support for the Air Force Base remaining in El Segundo, stating that it is a huge economic resource for this community; and he commented on the immense trickle down effect to this community's economy if this base closes. He stated that due to the poor condition of the Air Force Base buildings, a "no action alternative" is not feasible. Commissioner Funk moved, seconded by Commissioner Frick, to adopt MOTION Resolution No. 2540, recommending that the City Council certify the EIS /EIR. Passed 5 -0. None. PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED 7 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 .15 ;� Director Hansen briefly addressed the two items which will be on the Planning Commission's June 26 agenda. None. None. There being no further discussion, Vice - Chairman Busch moved, seconded by Commissioner Funk, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m. to June 26, 2003. Passed 5 -0. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2003. James Hansen, Secretary of the Planning Commission and Director of Community, Economic and Development City of El Segundo, California Philip Mahler, Chairman of the the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, California REPORT FROM DIRECTOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, May 22, 2003 156 EXHIBIT 11 RESOLUTION NO. 2540 A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FROM THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 577 FOR THE LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE LAND CONVEYANCE, CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that: A. On May 3, 2002, the City of El Segundo initiated an application for Environmental Assessment No. 577, to develop a 39.24 -acre property at the southeast corner of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevard (2400 -2460 East El Segundo Boulevard) as part of a larger project for the redevelopment of the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB). B. On or about October 2, 2002, the United States Air Force, as the property owner, selected SAMS Venture, LLC (a partnership of Kearny Real Estate Company, Catellus, and Morgan Stanley Real Estate) Fund as the developer for the Los Angeles Air Force Base Land Conveyance, Construction And Development Plan. C. In or about January, 2003, the City of El Segundo and the United States Air Force agreed to prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the whole of the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) Land Conveyance, Construction and Development Plan involving four properties known as Area A, Area B, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley property ( "the EIS /EIR "). D. The City prepared the EIS /EIR in accordance with 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). E. On May 22, 2003, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing in the Council Chamber of the El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the Draft EIS /EIR including, without limitation, information provided to the Commission by the City of El Segundo, the United States Air Force, Kearny /Catellus /MSREF and members of the public. F. The Planning Commission considered the information provided by, without limitation, City staff, public testimony, the United States Air Force, and Kearny /Catellus /MSREF. This Resolution, and its findings, were made based upon the evidence presented to the Commission at its May 22, 2003 hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of Community, Economic and Development Services. SECTION 2: Factual Findings. The Planning Commission finds that the following facts exist: A. Area A of the LAAFB, the Union Pacific Railroad right -of -way to the south of Area A, and the Caltrans 1 -405 Freeway onramp at El Segundo Boulevard together with portions of RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING 2 022 AGE NOM 157 the public right -of -way in El Segundo and Aviation Boulevards are proposed to be detached from the City of El Segundo and annexed into the City of Hawthorne. B. The City Council has agreed to allow Hawthorne to study the inclusion of Areas A and B of the LAAFB in the Hawthorne Redevelopment Area No. 2 as a mechanism to facilitate the financing of the new Air Force facilities on Area B. A final decision by Hawthorne to amend Area No. 2 to include Areas A and B is subject to approval by ordinance of the City Council. C. Area A is an approximately 39.24 -acre, triangular- shaped site located at the eastern edge of the City of El Segundo, and is bounded by El Segundo Boulevard to the north, Union Pacific railroad tracks to the south, the San Diego Freeway (1 -405) to the east, and Aviation Boulevard to the west. Area A is currently occupied with six two -story and one six -story office buildings totaling approximately 835,000 square feet. These seven buildings are identified as Building Nos. 100, 105, 110, 115, 120, 125, and 130, which house engineering, research and administrative offices, and a laboratory. D. Area B is approximately 54 acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of El Segundo Boulevard and Douglas Street, in the City of El Segundo. Area B is located directly northwest of Area A and is bounded by El Segundo Boulevard to the south, Aviation Boulevard to the east, Douglas Street to the west, and the Northrop Grumman Corporation to the north. Area B presently contains support facilities for Air Force personnel assigned to the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) and the 61st Air Base Group (ABG), including a child development center, commissary, base exchange /gas station, a fitness center, and a medical /dental clinic. E. The Lawndale Annex site is approximately 13 acres and is located in the southwest Portion of the City of Hawthorne on the east side of Aviation Boulevard between Rosecrans Avenue and Marine Avenue. The Lawndale Annex is already included within the City of Hawthorne's Redevelopment Area No. 2. The Lawndale Annex is currently occupied by a paved parking lot used for long -term vehicle parking and recreational vehicle storage, a 30,000 square foot, small metal frame commercial building (Building 80), staff parking area for personnel in Building 80, and recreational facilities, including a football /softball field, running track, and picnic/recreation pavilion and a family camping area commonly referred to as FamCamp. F. The Sun Valley property is approximately 3.7 acres and is located at 10888 W. La Tuna Canyon Road in the Sun Valley community of the City of Los Angeles. The Golden State Freeway (1 -5), the Hollywood Freeway (SR 170), and the Foothill Freeway (1 -210) provide regional access to the site. The Sun Valley property is currently developed with an approximately 59,600 square foot industrial building, which is currently vacant. G. The four properties are currently owned by the United States Air Force. As such, the City does not have jurisdiction over the land use of the property. Once Area A, the Lawndale Annex, and the Sun Valley property are transferred to the developer, the future private development of the properties will be subject to the land use regulations of the City in which they are located. H. Under the Proposed Action, the development on Area A would consist of an "upscale" gated residential condominium development, with a density up to 22 units per acre for a maximum of 850 units. The residential condominium development would include RESOLUTION NO. 2540 158 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGE NO. 2 townhouse style units with a mix of two- to three -story buildings, above at -grade parking (which will result in the building being three- to four - stories in height), along the southern property line (adjacent to the railroad right -of -way) rising incrementally to a maximum height of six stories, including at -grade parking, along El Segundo Boulevard. The southerly property line, adjacent to the railroad right -of -way, will be treated with a block wall and canopy of mature trees (the screening will address the privacy of the single - family residential neighborhood located south of the railroad tracks). The project would be developed with on -site resident and guest parking facilities, private open spaces and recreational areas, and access improvements. Primary access to the project site will be provided from El Segundo Boulevard and secondary access will be provided from Aviation Boulevard. The units will be for sale, and may include a combination of detached units and townhouse style units as well as condominium units, and may include subterranean and /or structured parking. Some units may also be used for senior housing or housing for the military. I. The Proposed Action on Area B consists of the enhancement of the existing 54 -acre site, which would remain under Federal jurisdiction. Under the proposed Systems Acquisition and Management Support (SAMS) agreements, new facilities would be op constructed by the developer in Area B to house current base functions that would be transferred from Area A. As currently envisioned, the proposed additional develment on the Area B property would include the demolition of some existing structures and construction of approximately 560,000 square feet of new administrative and special purpose facilities, including a new child development center, in buildings up to five stories in height. J. Under the Proposed Action, development on the Lawndale Annex consists of the removal of existing improvements on the site and the development of a maximum of 300 residential units, with associated parking, landscaping and access improvements. The site development may include subterranean and /or structured parking. Access to the project site would be provided from Aviation Boulevard. The units would be for sale, and may include a combination of condominium and townhouse style units with a maximum height of four stories. K. The Sun Valley site is presently developed with an approximately 59,600 square foot industrial building, which is currently vacant. While the property will be conveyed to the Private developer as part of this project, no demolition or construction activities are anticipated to occur on this site in the reasonably foreseeable future. L. The Draft EIS /EIR studies the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and several project alternatives. One alternative would replace the 850 -unit residential development on Area A with a 750,000 square foot commercial shopping center. There would be no hotels included in this alternative and Area A would not be annexed into the City of Hawthorne or included in Hawthorne's Redevelopment Agency. The other alternatives studied in the Draft EIS /EIR include a No Action Alternative, Renovation Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing LAAFB facilities would remain on each of the four project sites. The Renovation Alternative includes the seismic and building upgrades of the existing Air Force buildings on Area B through traditional military funding sources. Under this alternative, the existing facilities on Area B, the Lawndale Annex and the Sun Valley site would remain as is. The Reduced Density Residential Alternative includes the same uses as the Proposed Action 1510) RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGEN0.3 with a 30% reduction in the maximum number of residential units on Area A (680) and the Lawndale Annex (230). M. Based on public comments in response to the NOI/NOP and a review of environmental issues by staff, it was determined that the Draft EIS /EIR would analyze the following environmental impact areas: community setting, land use and aesthetics, transportation, public utilities, public services, hazardous materials management, soil and geology, water resources, air quality, noise, and cultural resources. The Draft EIS /EIR also includes a discussion of environmental justice and protection of children as required by NEPA. N. For the purposes of CEQA, the Draft EIS /EIR concluded that all potentially significant direct project - related impacts identified in the Draft EIS /EIR, with the exception of aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short-term soils and geology, air quality impacts, short-term construction noise, and operational noise are at a less than significant level due to the application of relevant G*policies and regulations and the imposition of project- specific mitigation measures. O. The Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative would result in significant CEQA unavoidable aesthetic and view impacts. The views from the residential areas to the south of Area A would be impacted by the perceived loss of privacy due to the proximity and height of the residential development (up to 50 feet) and the 65 -foot height of the proposed retail buildings under the Commercial Alternative. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to address these impacts that would be consistent with the project objectives. This impact is not considered significant under NEPA. P. The Draft EIS /EIR identified significant and unavoidable CEQA impacts related to traffic for the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative and Reduced Density Residential Alternative. The Proposed Action and Reduced Density Residential Alternative would result in an unmitigatable traffic impact at the intersection of El Segundo and Aviation Boulevard during the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 -1, to add a northbound right turn lane at the intersection, would help reduce the potential impact, but would not reduce the impact below the City's significance threshold. The Commercial Alternative would have significant and unavoidable impacts at 10 intersections and one freeway location (southbound 1-405, south of 1 -105). Feasible mitigation is available to help reduce impacts at three of those intersections: Aviation Blvd./El Segundo Blvd., El Segundo Blvd. /Isis Ave., and Aviation Blvd. /Marine Ave. The Draft EIS /EIR concludes that the mitigation at El Segundo Blvd. /Isis Ave. would reduce the impact to less than significant, but the other two mitigation measures would not reduce the impacts below the significance thresholds. As a result, nine intersections and one freeway location would remain with significant and unavoidable CEQA impacts. Mitigation would apply under NEPA for indirect impacts of the Commercial Alternative. However, since implementation of the mitigation measures requires the approval of multiple jurisdictions, they will not be included in the Air Force's record of decision as enforceable conditions by the Air Force. Q. The Draft EIS /EIR analysis of the impact of the project on libraries concluded that there would be a significant and unavoidable CEQA impact on the Los Angeles County Library system related to the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative. This impact is the result of the additional residential population that would be added on Area A and the Lawndale Annex through the residential 460 RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGE NO.4 development of those sites. The Wiseburn Library, which is the closest library to Area A and the Lawndale annex, would not be able to adequately serve each of these alternatives. There is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact. There are no library impact fees required in incorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Any requirement to pay impact fees would be infeasible because it would make the project financially unreasonable due to the large funding gap already. Consequently, the CEQA impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There would be no impact on the El Segundo Library from any of the project alternatives and there would be no impact under NEPA. R. The impact on the existing neighborhood and regional parks (increased use with the potential to accelerate the physical deterioration of the facilities) associated with the Proposed Action (2,530 new residents), Commercial Alternative (1,274 new residents), and the Reduced Density Residential Alternative (2,009 new residents) was found to be a significant and unavoidable impact in the Draft EIS /EIR. As with libraries, the impact is related to the increase in population associated with residential development on Area A and the Lawndale annex. No developer fees in Hawthorne have been established to mitigate impacts on parks. Any requirement to pay impact fees would be infeasible because it would make the project financially unreasonable due to the large funding gap already. Consequently, the CEQA impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There would be no impact on parks in El Segundo and no impact under NEPA. S. Under both NEPA and CEQA, the Draft EIS /EIR concluded that there would be a short- term significant unavoidable impact on seismicity for the No Action and Renovation Alternative for the existing buildings on Area A. In both these alternatives, the existing buildings, which do not meet current seismic safety standards, would remain. This could result in a greater potential for building damage in an earthquake than buildings that would meet current seismic standards. Under both alternatives, the existing buildings would be renovated or replaced over time, ultimately correcting the potential impact. It is not known when renovation or replacement might occur. As a result, the seismic impact is considered short-term. There is no feasible mitigation until the buildings are renovated or replaced. T. According to the Draft EIS /EIR, the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative, and Reduced Density Residential Alternative would have negative air quality impacts associated with project related mobile source emissions under CEQA. When comparing the proposed emissions from mobile sources with the South Coast Air Quality Management's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, the draft EIS /EIR concluded that the project would exceed the thresholds for Carbon Monoxide (CO2) Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and Nitrous Oxides (NO.) at buildout in 2008. Because the degree of "excess" emissions substantially exceeds the strict SCAQMD limits, the Draft EIS /EIR concluded that there was little potential for any mitigation measures to reduce the project's mobile emissions. As a result, the project's impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. U. The Draft EIS /EIR found that the Commercial Alternative would exceed the State's eight - hour CO concentration "hotspot" standard at three intersections (El Segundo Blvd. /Isis Ave., El Segundo Blvd. /Hawthorne Blvd., and Marine Ave. /Hawthorne Blvd.). These CO " hotspot" impacts are related to vehicle trips associated with the Commercial Alternative. This is considered a significant unavoidable impact under CEQA and NEPA. 161 RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGE NO. 5 V. The Draft EIS /EIR concluded that construction noise associated with the Proposed Action, Commercial Alternative and Reduced Density Residential Alternative under NEPA and CEQA would be a short-term significant impact at three identified sensitive receptors. With all feasible mitigation measures implemented as identified in the Draft EIS /EIR, significant short-term construction noise impacts would remain at the following receptors: single - family residences along Wiseburn Avenue south of Area A, the existing LAAFB child development center on Area B, and the existing townhouse residential complex south of the Lawndale Annex. W. The Draft EIS /EIR also concluded that noise from loading dock activities on Area A as part of the operations of the Commercial Alternative, partially mitigated by the construction of an eight -foot tall block wall along the south boundary of Area A and other mitigation (4.4.4 -4 and 4.4.4 -5) limiting truck idling during loading activities, would remain a significant and unavoidable impact under CEQA. X. The Draft EIS /EIR identified several cumulative CEQA impacts, to which the proposed project would contribute. The proposed project, in conjunction with other planned and approved projects, would contribute to a significant unavoidable cumulative traffic and regional solid waste impact. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would contribute to a significant cumulative impact on mobile source air emissions. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the cumulative traffic, regional solid waste, or regional air quality impacts. SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. The Planning Commission makes the following environmental findings: A. The Draft EIS /EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. (Section 15090) A joint EIS /EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of NEPA and CEQA. A Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIS /EIR was prepared and circulated for public review from January 3, 2003 to February 3, 2003. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIS /EIR extends from April 11, 2003 to May 27, 2003. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on April 10, 2003. B. The Final EIS /EIR will be presented to the City Council, which will review and consider information contained in the Final EIS /EIR before approving or denying the project (Section 15090). Pursuant to City CEQA Regulations, the Final EIS /EIR will be prepared, distributed, and presented for City Council approval. C. The record on which the Commission's findings are based is located at the Department of Community, Economic and Development Services, City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. The custodian of the record is the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services. (Section 15091). D. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIS /EIR prepared for the Project. (Section 15090). This Draft EIS /EIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Draft EIS /EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Final EIS /EIR will be prepared under the direction of the City of El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and Development Services and the Unites States Air Force and will reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts and comments received on the Draft EIS /EIR. 162 RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGE NO. 6 E. The Draft EIS /EIR was made available for public review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by NEPA and CEQA. The Draft EIS /EIR concluded that with mitigation, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, with the exception of aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short-term soils and geology, air quality impacts, short-term construction noise, and operational noise. F. That when considering the whole record, there is no evidence that the project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends, because the project is in a built -out urban environment. G. Because of the facts identified in this Resolution, the Draft EIS /EIR showed that a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required in order for the project to be approved. H. The Draft EIS /EIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures to reduce such impact to a level of insignificance, with the exception of aesthetics, transportation, libraries, parks, short- term soils and geology, air quality impacts, short-term construction noise, and operational noise. The Planning Commission finds that many of the mitigation measures described in the Draft EIS /EIR may lessen or avoid impacts in impact categories other than the category(ies) for which they are specifically proposed. In light of the above, the Planning Commission finds that each potentially significant impact identified by the Draft EIS /EIR is mitigated by its corresponding mitigation measures to the extent set forth in the Draft EIS /EIR ( "specific mitigation ") and by other, non - corresponding, mitigation measures recommended by the Planning Commission that were already incorporated into the project ( "general mitigation "). These findings will be applicable wherever supported by the evidence in the record regardless of whether a specific finding of an instance of such general mitigation is made. These findings are based on the various mitigation measures to be required in the implementation of the project as recommended by the Draft EIS /EIR or identified by the Draft EIS /EIR as already having been incorporated into the Project. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council hereby adopts and incorporates into the implementation of the project those mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIS /EIR. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that all the mitigation measures now incorporated into the project are desirable and feasible. Certain mitigation measures, such as those involving traffic, air quality, sewer, and storm water discharge, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies such as the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans ") and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and therefore will require additional approvals from those agencies. J. The cumulative impact analysis contained in the Draft EIS /EIR represents a conservative "worst case" analysis in that it considers the potential cumulative impacts of a number of projects, which may be built at a lesser density, or not built at all. Furthermore, the traffic analysis in the Draft EIS /EIR assumed that none of the related projects would be required to implement any traffic mitigation measures. It is reasonably foreseeable that such mitigation measures will be implemented, and have future traffic conditions that will be better than projected. In addition, the traffic analysis in the Draft EIS /EIR factors in ti RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5112/02 PAGE NO,7 ambient traffic growth of one -half percent per year. This growth factor was intended in part to cover possible future projects, which were not reasonably foreseeable at the time the Draft EIS /EIR was prepared. K. The EIS /EIR evaluates the Project's potential for adverse environmental impacts. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the Planning Commission that the project will have a potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Based on the Draft EIS /EIR, the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5(d), does not apply in this case. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that the Project would be de minimis in its effect on fish and wildlife. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize and direct the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services to file with the appropriate agencies a Certificate of Fee Exemption and De Minimis finding in accordance with Pub. Res. Code §§ 21152, 21167(0; 14 CCR § 15094; and any other applicable law. SECTION 4: General Plan. The proposed project conforms with the City's General Plan as follows: A. The development of Area B would be consistent with the Federal Government land use designation in the El Segundo General Plan. SECTION 5: Recommendations. The Planning Commission makes the following recommendations: A. The City Council should certify the EIS /EIR for Environmental Assessment No. 577. SECTION 6: The Planning Commission Secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to SAMS Venture, LLC and to any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 7: This Resolution is the Planning Commission's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of May 2003. James M. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo, California Phil Mahler, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo, California 161 RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGE NO. 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney 0 Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney VOTES- P. Mahler - Aye P. Busch - Aye C. Frick - Aye R.Funk - Aye J. Miller Sheehan - Aye P: \Planning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS\ 576 - 599 \EA - 577 \EA- 577.reso- pc.4.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2540 APPROVING EA -577 5/12/02 PAGE NO.9 City of El Segundo INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Circulation Date: July 10, 2003 TO: Mayor Mike Gordon Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Jacobs Council Member John Gaines Council Member Kelly McDowell Council Member Nancy Wernick FROM: James M. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services STAFF PLANNER: Paul Garry, Acting Planning Manager SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 577 Los Angeles Air Force Base Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project Applicant: United States Air Force, City of El Segundo and City of Hawthorne Address: Los Angeles Air Force Base (four sites) Enclosed for your review is Exhibit No. 8 ( "Redevelopment Report") to the July 15, 2003 City Council Agenda Item for the Los Angeles Air Force Base Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project. cc: Mary Strenn, City Manager Mark Hensley, City Attorney Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk PAPlanning 8 Building Safety\PROJECTS \576 - 599 \EA - 577 \CC Memo Exh. 8 dist.doc 1 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO 2 Prepared for: THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. JULY 2003 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO 2 Prepared for: THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE JULY 2003 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, California 90071 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 San Diego, California 92108 Golden Gateway Commons 55 Pacific Avenue Mail San Francisco, California 94111 IV V TABLE OF CONTENTS kINTRODUCTION._..^.`........-~.,~...~.�.^...~..,,,~,~,,,~,~,,.�~^_~~,^,��_�_, REASONS FOR SELECTING THE ADDED AREA .`..~`.-. A. 8/\CKGROUND....-.~~^.-~^~..^.^.`~~~� B. PROPOSED PROJECT ~,..~.^.~.,......,~~~`^~`^^^`^`^^`~~^~-`~^'^`^^`^3 W[ EX7ST|&|GPHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .^~�.~~_~.^.~-`..~-.~.~~�-^.~``^ A. B/\CKQROUNO/\NDC�GUES.,..,~~,.-^,^~ ---� B. URBANIZATION STATUS OF THE ADDED AREA 7 .`~^``^^`^^^~^^`^^~~`^^^^~~`^^``^^``^^~^^```^^^``^^`^~^^^^^.~,.^1^0 C. BLIGHT CRITERIA -.^~,,,,_,,,,~,,,,,`~,~-`~~`^`^^^~^^~^^^~`^^^^`^^^.,J5 t Blighting ----`^~^^^^-^-^~`~^^. ^~^~^~~^`^~^~^^^`~^-`^/5 2 Economic Blighting O. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 16 E. DESCRIPTION [}FPHYS|C/\LBL|GHT/��JG BLIGHTING CONDITIONS t 8/���~ /n�V��7��bUn»a/�q/ ~^~^`~`^`^^~`^^^-^^`^~`^17 _ ~- -_~~g" un0ea8�y/brPe/�unob;L/m�o/�/bn� 2 Factors �x�Prevent cr ff�7o�/�a*�� ^^-�7 ~��.'�� �m�n����������m�� Capacity / Bu0dinoo/Lo��.....~^........~`~`,^-~^...~� o. Findings ,,,~,,,,,~^,,,_,,~,,~,,`,^~,,,� ^~^`^-^^`~`^^^~`^^^^^^^~^-.,20 b. don/\�Forr$Anok��fbrDaharnli i ^^^^~^^~^^^-~^^`~2U �--� ~ Determining the c Background � un/\�Fun:e/\na|yoioforEv$/ua�ngNon��oneta ^ ������� ry��»a�oondBe»o��a25 22 F. DE8<�R|pT|Om(]FECON{}��|<� BLIGHTING <�[>NO|T|rN3 I. /n7oo�ed/nveobnent�.^,^,,�~ `^-^~~�^`^~^~`^�^�~^^.,.,28 o. |ntnodun�on...~`,,,`^`^`^-^^~^^^^~~~`^-^^`^,...29 b. Findings .,,,,,,,,,~^~~^,,~~_~,,^,~_� `^^^^^^~^^~^^`^`~~`^`^^^~,,..2Q 2 Hazardous Waste Contamination ,~,~~_,,~,_~^~`~`^-~^`^`^....3U a. /\ohostoa~~,,,^~,,_^^~^^`^`~~~^~^~`^~`^...33 b. Lead Based Paint ~,_^~~_,~,~~`,,,,,~,,�`~`^^^`^^^^^`~~`^`^`^`-`^^.,..32 --^-^^^~`~^^~~-.....--� n� A. B. C. 1 2 � � � QES[:R0»TI��NC�F THE SPEC|Fl(�PR�}JECTSpROPC»SGDBy THE /\GENCY/�0Qh--`^`�~" PROJECTS �0LL!K�P��QVE0R ALLE\OATETHE C�����QFF|�}NS DESCp�[BE��U0 PART III ...... 34 REQUIREMENT AND APPROACH .,.,.--.~,.-� PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ,,,^^^`~`^^^``^,-.34 REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ^`^^^^`^`^^`^`^^34 Relocation and Site Preparation �,_^`^^^.,.�35 �fhao/o/obxa,-~~`^^^`^^^~^~`^^^^^^^^~.,.3O Pub�cFax�t��u,,~,~_,~,,^,,^,,~_,,^~~,~� --^`^`^^^`^-^^`^`^~^^^^`^-...38 Affordable Housing ,,~'~,^,^~,,_,^,_,,^~,, ^^~`^^^^-`^`^^^`^^�,...�37 Other Redevelopment Activities ,,,_,~~,,~,,`.^`^`^~^^^^^^~^^-.�37 ---`^~-^`^`^^~^-^.,.,.--� v7 P8<�P����EQyNET�f��DC]FFIN/�m(�|��GTHE A�VE0C>�NEN?,E��QN��&Y!(�FGA��{BUL��--`^^°' ��EASO0SFOR ;NCLOQ/N��D�qS/ONOFTAXES PQ��SU/�NTTOSE��TIQN33G7u ���D « ................ 38 A. ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ,...,-.` 7. Air Force Base Related Improvements ..-`^`^~`^`^~^^``O0 2. Public Improvements ,~_~`^`^``^`~^^^`^`~```,..39 39 Keport to the CitY Council Redevelopment Plan for the Third-Amend Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 pxqos`zux"uxvbd Page I xePOrt to the Q*Qm Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 pA030503umv:Cxnbo 14005.003.00710711cM3 Page !I 3. Incluslonary Housing 4. Administration `,~._,,_,,,~,,^,,,,~^`.~,^..,�30 5. Interest on Debt Service ^,`^_~~~^`~~^~`^^--^~~.�30 B. FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE TOT�3Q THE AGENCY I. /VatTax /nune/"ent/�evenueo—A/eao��en�C^.,� ~^^^—�'~`^^~`�^�^40 l Coun�vGha/�oy Poua77nnugh—...,.^.-^`~—^^-^`^^^^~~^^^~`^`^^`^^~`.4/ �i Soeci�/4ouenun�e,t[l��intLevies ~--`^-^~~~^^~^~^^`~^~~.,42 4` /nb*neot 42 C. PROPOSED FINANCING METHOD, ECONOMIC FEAS/B|L�YANDREASON3FOR 43 INCLUDING TAX |N[�REK�ENTFINANCING D. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS LIMIT VI. ~~^—^—^~`^^^`^43 ~ Q��C0SSION��F�/BY PRi��ATEE��TEGip��I8EA��T/N<� ��Jh/��Q{�ALJ�ERimAJ��/E~~—^— 43 FINAN�0G/SNOT SUFFICIENT TO ELIMINATE RE&U_�~ �— /�N/���L��HT ��L ..................................... IMPLEMENTATION PLAN A. /\ODEO/\REA8[}/\L8AND [�BJECT|VES..,.. `-~-�`~ t �**ou/�andC[�oa/oond 2 ,~,,,,,,,^``^^~^^^`^^^^^^`~^^`^`^^^~~^.....4S `~^^~~`^``~^^`~`^`~^—~~^~^^.—.4S An�oBE��a�and B. ,~`,,,,~,,^,� PR[)JECT3/�NDPR{}GRAk�G.,..~,~.,~.~^`^^^—`^`—~^—^^^^^~~—`~~^`~^^^^5O y. /7ek�no�onandDde/�nooxadbn,.`—~^`^`^^`^~`^—~^^^^^^~`^`-^^^^`^5O �� /n/hao/nucb/ne �l ,,~--^^^^^`^`-^^^^^^~^—^^^~^`^^^~.-..5D pubW���n0beu~^~`^^^^`~^`^`^^``^`~^^^^^^~^^^,..5/ xK Affordable Housing _^`^`^~^^^`^`~^-~^^~~^`^,—.51 5. Other Redevelopment Acbvdies,~,,,,,,,,,_ 51 C. EXPENDITURES t Air Force Base Related knono'*n/ent,, �� ~^^`^~~`~^^^52 pub���nou�wyn/on�/—^^^^^~^^~``^~^^^^~~^^.,.52 3- ^`^^^`^~^`^,.�52 Inclusionary Housing ^� — Aoh��7�tnabbn,.,..^^^^^^^^`^'^^^^^—^~~^^.,.53 O. HOW THE PROJECTS AND pRO GK; 53 ` BUQHT|NTHEADDEDAREA�YU'ANDEXpEND/TURESVV�LALLENATE 1. Demolition, Relocation and Site Preparation 54 2. Infrastructure 54 �l pub0oFan8d��u.^__^`^`^^^^-^^^~`^~^~^^^^^^^`~`^~..�54 4. Affordable Housing '^~^^`^^^^^~^^^^`^—`^^^~~`^^,.,.54 5. [Vh*' Redevelopment Activities ^-~^^`^~`^~,.~~~^.^^55 ^ ^^^~~~~^ VIII. METHOD {R PLAN FOR RELOCATION .^.....^..-.~—.~.. � 55 A^ -.-..~.....~.-~.,^. 56 AGENCY DISPLACEMENT ...—...~,. 8. `^~^^^^`—^`—^^^`^`^~`^`^^`~`~~^`~^. RELOCATION |N THE EVENT [F AGENCY DISPLACEMENT 5O C. —^^^~``^`^`—^~`^`-^``^57 RULES AND REGULATIONS U. ,. AGENCY DETERMINATIONS AND ~ / E°~--^~`~`^`^--`^`^~^^`^^^^`^^^57 57 E RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ADVISORY PROGRAM AND ASSURANCE OF COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING ............................................................................. xePOrt to the Q*Qm Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 pA030503umv:Cxnbo 14005.003.00710711cM3 Page !I F. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION ...,.^.,.~^^^—,. /- Responsible Entity ^,^,,^,,^,,,,,^,,,,^,,~. ^~^~^`^—^^^^~~`^~`^~^^`,,�5Q �l Funcbbno.^.,,~,,_~_,_,,,,,,`,,,~^, ^^—^—^^^^~^^`^^~^—~^`^^`^`^~..�50 3. /n/bnnobon Program `^^^~^^`—~^^~^`^~-^`^``~^~^^~^.,00 4- Relocation Record ^,,,,,,~,^,,,^,`,^,~^ --^^ 01 5. Relocation Resources Survey _`^~`^^~^^^—^^`~`^—^^^~`^^`^,.,02 (i Relocation Payments ,,,`^`^`^`~`^`^~~`^`^`,..�02 a. Temporary Moves ..,_`^—^`^—^^~`^~`^~`^~..O2 b. Last Resort Housing ,,,�—^—^^—^^`^^^~^^~~^,..O2 C. Eviction Policy _`~^`^^^—^^—^~~`~`^~~`^^^..�83 U. Grievance Procedures ,,~~~`^^~^^^—`^--`.—G3 e. Relocation Appeals Board `^``^^`^.�83 83 �� A��/�LYSIS��F THE 9RELD0bN��RY PLA��~.�..^~......~� ��~�~~~~�~~`~~~`^^~^~~-~ G4 X. ���Q�7�N��E���K�K�E00�T���N��FTHEPLANm{N��������8�ISS|[�NA0D-�~~~^^ ��Q���EQ������y��m��483���T�E�����E�W0��W� ������ REPORT G5 Q2. CC�0�&YUkJ��'C��WS��LT4��I��0S.....~~..�~._~.~.,.-..^~� u� ~ ^ G8 XI� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT �6 XIN. NEIGHBO���}�IW9ACTREPORT .....,~.....^..~^..~_ ... �,,.^`~,_.^..^.,~,._~.. � 7O & IMPACT ON RESIDENTS |N THE ADDED AREA AND OURROUND|NQt R*�o*8bn., AREAS `^`..—.70 ........ —^^`~ ^^^~^^^^....70 2. Traffic Circulation 3. Environmental --~`-^^~—`--`^`^~—`~^``^... Quality .~^.~,~,.~,.~,.—� 71 4. Community Facilities and Services ,...,—~.-^`^^^^`^^-^`^``7/ 5 Snhno/ end{Juo/tvofEbbca ton ~ .......... 72 6 Auunoun/ont amƒ7axeu_,,_,,,,^,,,,_,`—~^~`^—^^^`^^^~^^^``^`^^—^~,. 73 B. REL{}CAT|[)N/\NDL[}VYANDyW[D}ER/�TE|NC---~^^^^^`^~^^^^`^~^^^^^^^~^`^^^`^73 �OME MOUS|NG /. L�niotobe orGen�ovod ^'`�, ^~^`^`^`—^^^^^~`,.—.�73 �l Reuiden0a//]islanen7eni...~�,..'.^^^`^^^^^-~^^`^~`^^^`^~`^~^~^^^^^73 3. Number and Location of Replacement /fouoinnz—^``~�74 '� k�zn�ba/ondLonabonofLow/and�kodo/a&e " -'``~`^`~^. 74 Replacement ,_^~,,_,,,~«/pnna�r/ou»0�QL/ndo/9onnad[}�/e/�xan 5. Financing Meth»dth/ �/fouo�7o 7O Replacement �I 77h7e�dlefor /�ov�ioncf/��nce�onen� � ^^—~^^^^`^~^^^^`^~`^^^~-75 u�n�m0��� C. OTHER K8ATTERSAFFECTING THE PHY3|C/\''AND3[)C|`^`^—^^~^^^^^`^^^^70 ENV|RONK8ENT.,^,,,^,`,,,~,,,,,,,,~�/�� 8�(2U/\L|TYOFTHE __~,,,,,,,^,,,_^,, 76 �{0[ 8EPC>R7��F THE ��0UWTY F/S{���.0FFI��EV�/�0DTHE �6�E0C��S���/&-�$~`^~~^`^^~^ THEREOF, �C�D/mG A SUM��QPCO�D���S W����� TA�QN��/�[�Eh/<�IES,,~.`,,_~,`_,.,,,,,_,_,,,`,,_,`.�./�u,,.`. A. THE REPORT {}F THE COUNTY FISCAL (]FF|CER/\NDAN/\LYG|STHE|�0F ^~-~^�^~^/ B. f�EpORT{)F THE COUNTY Fk�CALOFFICER `—`^,^.. « ^``~`^^-77 `^^`—^—`^^—^`^~`^^^~~,..70 Report to the City Co Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA030m3.nmw:Cxbd 14005.003.007W/1=3 C. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION ...................................................................... Urbanization Analysis ....... ............................... .............................78 1. The Total Assessed Valuation of All Taxable Property within the Added Area as Shown on the Base Year Assessment Roll ................ Table 2: 2. .............................. The Identification of each Taxing Agency Levying Taxes in the Added Area ........... ................. 3. The Amount of Tax Revenue to be Derived 78 by each Taxing Agency from the Base Year Assessment Roll from the Added Area ..... ................. ................ ............................... Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Development Alternatives ............................... 4. For each Taxing Agency, its Ad Valorem Tax Revenues from all Property within its Boundaries, Whether Inside or Outside the Added Area 79 ............................. ............................... 5. The Estimated First Year Taxes Available to the Agency, if any 79 . ........ ............... 6. The Assessed Valuation of the Added Area for the Preceding Year, or if Requested by the Agency, for the Preceding Five Years " 80 .......................... . D. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES E. Table 6: ............................81 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS OR CONCERNS OF THE AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES ................................ ............................::. ....................... ............................... 81 APPENDIX A: Five -Year Implementation Plan (2000 — 2004) for the Existing Project Area APPENDIX B: Preliminary Plan and Related Planning Commission and Agency Resolutions APPENDIX C: City Council Resolution Regarding No Project Area Committee APPENDIX D: Community Information Meeting Notices APPENDIX E: County Fiscal Officer's Report APPENDIX F: Letter Transmitting the Preliminary Report and the Draft Amendment to all Affected Taxing Entities LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Proposed Added Area Boundaries ....................................... ............................... Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of the Added Area (Area A ) ................................ 5 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of the Added Area (Area B) .............................. .............................13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Urbanization Analysis ....... ............................... Table 2: Non - Monetary Benefit Analysis " "' ..14 Table 3: ................. ................ ............................... Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Development Alternatives 25 Table 4: .............. Economic Feasibility Analysis 26 Table 5: ...... ............................... Site - Specific Tax Increment Revenue Projection — Area A Table 6: ............. .............................44 Site - Specific Tax Increment Revenue Projection — Area C ........................... Report to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0305013.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.007A7/1= Page iv INTRODUCTION This Report to the City Council ('Report") for the proposed Third Amendment ( "Amendment') to the existing Redevelopment Plan ( "Existing Plan" or "Plan ") for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 ( "Existing Project' or "Existing Project Area "), has been prepared for the Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL; Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.). The purpose of the Amendment is to add certain territory ( "Added Area ") to the Existing Project Area. The Report to the City Council is one of the legally required documents leading to the adoption of the proposed Amendment. The purpose of the Report is to -Provide the information, documentation, and evidence required by the CRL to accompany the proposed Amendment when it is submitted by the Agency to the City Council of the City of Hawthorne ( "City Council "). Such information, documentation and evidence is provided to assist the City Council in its consideration of the proposed Amendment and in making the various findings associated with the adoption of the proposed Amendment. The Report is divided into sections that generally correspond to the subdivisions contained in CRL Section 33352 that specify the required contents of the Report to the City Council pertaining to the proposed Amendment as described below: Organization of the Report to the City Council CRL Section Repot Section 33352 (a) The reasons for selection of the Added Area and the purpose of the Amendment, a description of the specific projects proposed by the Agency, a description of how Sections 11 & IV these projects will improve or alleviate the conditions described in subdivision (b). 33352 (b) A description of the physical and economic conditions in the Added Area as specified in Section 33031. Included is a list of the conditions and a map showing Section III where in the Added Area blighting conditions exist. 33352 (c) An Implementation Plan, Section VII 33352 (d) An explanation of why the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Added Area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished b Area VI acting alone or by the legislative body's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. 33352 (e) The proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Added Area, economic feasibility and the reasons for including division of taxes pursuant to CRL Section Section V 33670, Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthome Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page i PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 1400&003.007/97110 /03 CRL Section Repo_ rt_ Section 33352 (f) A method orplan for the re location of fami lies and persons to be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Added Area [Note. Existing Project Area has a method orplan forrelocation Section VIII alreadyin place.] 33352 (g) Analysis of the Preliminary Plan. Section IX 33352 (h) The report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Amendment. Section X 33352 (i) The summary referred to in Section 33387 (Consultations with residents, businesses and community organizations). Section XI 33352 U) The report required by Section 65402 of the Government Code {Report on the conformity of the Amendment with the General Plan of the City of Hawthorne and the Pacific Glen Specific Plan). Section X 33352 (k) The report required by Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. (Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental impact Section XII Report). 33352(l) The report of the County Fiscal Officer per Section 33328 of the CRL (base year report). Section XIV 33352 (m) Neighborhood Impact Report. 33352 (n) An analysis by the Agency of the report submitted by the County as required by Section 33328 (base year report), which Section XIII Section XIV shall include a summary of the consultations with the affected taxing entities. Redevelopment Plan for the V y V Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthome Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 2 PA0306013.HAW:C9bd 14005.003.007/07/10A3 II. REASONS FOR SELECTING THE ADDED AREA A. BACKGROUND The Los Angeles Air Force Base ( LAAFB, the "Air Force Base ", or the 'Base ") consists of seven sites, two within the City of El Segundo (referred to as Area A and Area B), one within the City of Hawthorne (referred to as the Lawndale Annex or Area C), one within the unincorporated community of Sun Valley within Los Angeles (referred to as the Sun Valley property), and three within the San Pedro community of Los Angeles (Fort MacArthur Middle Reservation, Pacific Crest Housing Area, and Pacific Heights Housing Area). The Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) is the primary tenant command at LAAFB. As discussed in more detail below, the proposed Amendment incorporates Areas A and B. Area C is within the Existing Project Area and improvements proposed for Area C will be implemented by the provisions of the Existing Plan. The sale of the Sun Valley property will help to finance the proposed development project on Areas A, B and C, but otherwise is not a part of the proposed Amendment. The three properties in San Pedro are not included within or affected by the proposed Amendment. In 1996, a Facilities Assessment Report was prepared for LAAFB for buildings within Area A, Area B and Area C. The Report concluded that the facilities do not meet seismic safety standards and recommended either replacement or extensive renovation. Retroffing aging structures to meet current standards is expected to be expensive and protracted. Therefore, the Air Force favors an approach that will utilize the value of its existing assets to accomplish the action in a more timely and cost - effective manner. The Air Force proposes to consolidate all LAAFB services within Area B, freeing up Area A, Area C and the Sun Valley property to be transferred to a developer for private development. In exchange, the developer would add new administrative and special purpose facilities and demolish substandard facilities within Area B, reconfiguring the area to meet LAAFB mission requirements.' This process will be undertaken as part of the Systems Acquisition and Management Support (SAMS) complex initiative, which as described above, involves the conveyance of a large portion of the LAAFS's property to a selected private sector developer in exchange for the development of certain office facilities on Area B. Other current and future development projects are proposed for Area B a part of military construction (MILCON) projects and will be completed as funding is availa s ble. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Report (EIS /EIR), Los Angeles Air Force Base Land Conveyance, Construction and Development Project, February 2003. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 3 PA0306013.HA W:CK:gbd 14005.003,007/07 /10/03 B. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed Added Area includes "Area A ", "Area B" and the adjacent public right -of -way. In total, the Added Area consists of approximately 111 acres. Area C is within the Existing Project Area. The boundaries of the proposed Added Area are shown in Figure 1. Area B is generally bounded by 123rd Street in the north, Aviation Boulevard in the east, El Segundo Boulevard in the south and Douglas Street in the west. Area A is triangular in shape and intersects at the northwest corner of Area B. Area A is bounded by El Segundo Boulevard in the north, the off -ramp from the 405 Freeway in the east, the Southern Pacific Railroad on the south and Aviation Boulevard on the west. As described above, the Added Area is owned by the Federal govemment, occupied by the Los Angeles Air Force Base, and is currently developed with related office and research facilities. The Air Force is proposing to consolidate its facilities on Area A and Area C to Area B. The proposed action would involve the construction of approximately 560,000 square feet of new administrative and special use facilities for the Air Force on Area B. Area A is proposed for redevelopment with up to 750 detached and attached townhomes, condominiums and single - family residential units. Area C is proposed to be developed with 279 townhome and condominium residential units. Existing residential uses within the City of El Segundo are limited to a single area that is not adjacent to Area A. However, residential uses within the City of Hawthorne are adjacent to Area A. Rather than have non - contiguous residential areas, the City of El Segundo, in agreement with the City of Hawthorne, is proposing to annex Area A to the City of Hawthorne. Although Area B is proposed for inclusion within the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, it is not proposed to be annexed to the City of Hawthorne. Area B will continue to be within the City of El Segundo. All of the facilities in the Area A were determined to be seismically unstable. Also, the small office building floorplates and the subdivision of the space into individual offices does not efficiently meet the space needs of the Air Force. In addition, the location of the buildings in relationship to the street and parking lots does not meet current anti - terrorism standards. In Area B, 10 of the 16 buildings are seismically deficient as identified in the Rapid Seismic Evaluation report prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, two more buildings were also identified by Base staff as having seismic deficiencies .2 Also, many of the buildings within Area B were designed for manufacturing purposes such as the airplane hangars, or for unique military uses including a maintenance facility or paint shop, which are no longer Air Force activities at Area B. These buildings do not function well for the current office use. As with Area A, the location of some of the buildings and surface parking lots do not meet the Air Force's anti - terrorism's force protection requirements. Due to the high cost to retrofit the buildings, the physical limitations of the buildings to meet the Air Force's needs and security 2 Conversations with Base staff, LAAFB Redevelopment Office, 2003. Keport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:OK:gW 14005.003.007N711=3 Page 4 FIGURE 1 PROPOSED ADDED AREA rllun ae: bmay Area MaP.ai; 04/23/03; cb concerns, the existing facilities are proposed to be vacated and demolished rather than rehabilitated. A possible alternative to consolidation of facilities on Area B, is to relocate the facilities out of the State. In an effort to preserve the Air Force Base and the many jobs it provides, the City of Hawthorne, in cooperation with the City of El Segundo, is considering amending the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 to include Area A and Area B. The inclusion of Area B in the Added Area is necessary not only to alleviate certain blighting conditions but to provide a relocation site for the facilities and activities currently located in Area A and Area C. Redevelopment will provide financial assistance to fund the shortfall between the cost of constructing new facilities for the Air Force and redeveloping Area A and Area C for residential use. rteport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HA W;CK:pbd 14005.003.007/07 /10,93 tes,Inc. Page 6 III. EXISTING PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS A. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES The Added Area contains a total of 32 buildings, of which, seven (7) buildings are located in Area A and 25 buildings are located in Area B.3 Of the 32 buildings, all but four buildings are proposed to be demolished for the redevelopment of the Added Area. The four buildings that will remain are located within Area B and consist of the Commissary, Medical /Dental Clinic, Physical Fitness Center, and a guard gate booth located along Aviation Boulevard. These buildings were either recently constructed or are in good condition with no notable blighting conditions. The following is a description of the remaining 2&buildi ith by area and type: Area A Area A buildings consist of six office structures and one warehouse structure. All seven buildings are seismically unsound. The six office buildings have small floor plates (approximately 20,000 square feet) and are subdivided into individual offices. The floor plate size limitation and individual office configuration is inefficient for the Air Force use which requires large open floor plates. None of these buildings have HVAC systems and all contain asbestos and lead -based paint. Also one of the structures is located too close to the street to meet current force protection (security) guidelines. In addition, approximately 30 percent of the parking spaces are too close to the buildings to meet force protection guidelines; therefore, these parking spaces are no longer utilized. Area B While Area A consists primarily of office uses, Area B consists of more diverse uses associated with a military base. As stated above, four of the buildings in Area B will remain with the remaining 21 buildings proposed for demolition. The following describes the 21 buildings Proposed for demolition: • As stated above, the recently constructed Medical /Dental Clinic will remain as part of the long -term reuse of the military base. Three buildings formerly housed the medical /dental clinic and are proposed for demolition. Two of the buildings were built in 1959, originally to house the engineering test lab and tool compressor operations. The other building was built in 1994 and had been the location of the pharmacy. One of the buildings is seismically deficient while another building does not meet the force protection requirements. All three of the buildings were inadequate in size for their previous medical related use. 3 Total includes three guard booths. rteport to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 7 PA0306013AAMCK:abd 14005.003.007107 /10,93 • Seven of the buildings in Area B are former aircraft hangar buildings that have been converted to office use. These seven buildings were all built in 1941 and 1942, and are proposed for demolition during the implementation phase of the proposed Amendment. All seven buildings are seismically deficient and are not effectively readapted to their current office use. Six buildings do not have HVAC systems and the seventh building has been partially retrofitted with HVAC but cannot be efficiently heated or cooled due to the 40 feet ceiling height. • An eighth building in Area B is also used for administrative offices. However, unlike the former aircraft hangar buildings described above, this building has always been used for administrative offices since construction in 1959. Although this building does not have any seismic deficiencies, the location of this building does not meet the force protection standards and is proposed for demolition. • There are two buildings that are located on the military base that provide child development/day care services. One of the buildings was recently constructed (1987) and contains no blighting conditions. The other building was originally built in 1954 as a slosh testing facility. This building is seismically deficient. In addition to the seismic deficiency issues both buildings are positioned in locations that interfere with the construction of additional new Base development. These buildings will be demolished as part of the SAMS development project and will be replaced with a single childcare facility. All of the other buildings that are proposed to be demolished within Area B will be demolished as part of MILCON development projects. Area B also contains three buildings that are metal sheds and act as supply warehouses including military support deployments. All three of these buildings are proposed for demolition. One of the three buildings was found to be seismically deficient" and none of the buildings include HVAC systems. • There is one building in Area B that supports other activities on the military base. This building was built in 1953 and contains the boiler house. This building is seismically deficient and is proposed for demolition. • Aside from the guard gate along Aviation Boulevard that will remain, Area B also contains two other guard gate booths located at entrances to the Base. Both of these booths will be demolished and replaced as part of the future layout of the Base. ° This building was identified as being seismically deficient by Base staff and was not evaluated as part of the Rapid Seismic Evaluation Report prepared by the US Army Corps of Engineers. ncpun co me city council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 16005.003.007/07 /10/03 Page 8 • The Base also contains a gas station, which was built in 1970. This gas station will be demolished and relocated as part of the MILCON development of the Base Exchange building. In its current location, it interferes with higher density development on Area B. • Another building in Area B was originally used as a paint shop but is now used as an auto hobby shop, which allows military personal to conduct maintenance on their automobiles. This 3 -sided building, built in 1942, is seismically deficient," does not meet the force protection requirements, and is proposed for demolition. In summary, all of the buildings in Area A and 10 of 16 buildings in Area B failed the seismic evaluation analysis and must be reinforced or demolished. In addition, two more buildings in Area B were identified by Base staff as being seismically deficient. Contributing to unsafe working conditions is the location of one building in Area A and four buildings in Area B that are too close to the street to provide adequate security. These structures are also proposed for demolition. Furthermore, approximately 30 percent of the parking in Area A and 15 percent of parking in Area B are too close to structures to insure security. Therefore, these parking spaces are not utilized in order to create the necessary buffer between the buildings, which creates a shortage of parking spaces. All of the office buildings in Area A are inefficient because the floor plates are too small and are subdivided into individual offices. This configuration does not allow for an open floor plan with modular furniture, which is the Air Force's preferred use of space. In Area B, buildings were designed for specific military uses such Force's airplane manufacturing, slosh testing, paint shop and tool compressor operations which are no longer airplane manufacturing, at this location. These buildings are difficult for reuse either because they are small such as the 9,481 square foot former slosh testing center or very large such as the airplane hangars which are single story buildings totaling approximately 54,000 square feet each. The airplane hangars utilize a large site area while providing minimum office space that is difficult to heat and cool. The inefficiency and underutilization of the existing building space is illustrated by the Air Force's analysis which concluded that the existing building area could be reduced from 835,000 square feet to 560,000 and still provide for the same number of persons and operations by eliminating wasted space that is currently allocated to hallways and private offices. As described in more detail below, economic blighting conditions include the existence of hazardous materials and impaired investments. The existence of hazardous materials is identified as an economic blighting condition in redevelopment law. The military base contains hazardous materials in the form of asbestos and lead based paints in both Areas A and B. Impaired investments within the Added Area are exhibited by the high cost for rehabilitation and the need for financial assistance to make the project financially feasibly for the private sector to undertake. It is estimated that there is an approximate $23.3 million dollar difference between the cost of the new Air Force improvements on Area B to be borne by the developer and the value of the properties being conveyed. The City of Hawthorne does not have the revenue to provide the $23.3 million financing to make the project financially feasible. In addition to the $23.3 million shortfall, the development project's inclusionary housing requirement adds $12.2 million in funding requirements for a total of $35.5 million. Even with projected $32.4 million in Repo.' '- the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 9 PA0306013.HAMCK:gbd 14005.003.00707{1 0,03 tax increment and housing set -aside funds, other sources of funding are being pursued to fund the $3.1 million shortfall including establishing a special assessment district and issuance of tax exempt bonds. Other funding sources could be available during the implementation of the Amendment and may include County Home Fund money. Without redevelopment assistance the private sector will not undertake the proposed development project. If the private sector working with local government bodies cannot provide alternative safe and suitable facilities, the Federal government may likely close all or a portion of the Base and relocate operations out of the region and State. The departure of the Air Force would result in loss of an estimated 65,400 jobs most of which are performed by large and small firms located in El Segundo, Hawthorne, Manhattan Beach and surrounding communities .5 This job loss would be a serious burden on the community. Physical and economic blighting conditions are located throughout the territory included within the Added Area, which was previously shown in Figure '1. B. URBANIZATION STATUS OF THE ADDED AREA As defined in Section 33320.1 of the CRL, to qualify as a redevelopment project, an area must be both blighted and urbanized. Predominantly urbanized means that not less than 80 percent of the land in the Added Area: Has been or is developed for urban uses; or 2. Is characterized by lots of irregular shape and inadequate size under multiple ownership; or 3. Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses, which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels, which have been or are developed for urban uses. Furthermore, this Report provides a description of the Added Area that is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the Added Area is predominantly urbanized. The description includes the following information: The total number of acres within the project area; 2. The total number of acres that are characterized by parcels of irregular shape and inadequate size; ' Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation, Los Angeles Air Force Base Economic Impact Analysis, June 2003. The estimated 65,400 jobs includes 4,567 direct and indirect jobs at LAAFB, 6,643 direct and indirect LAAFB. jobs at Aerospace Corporation, and 54,145 direct and indirect jobs related to companies that have contracts with the Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 10 PA0306013.F7AW:M9bd 14005,003.007107110A3 3. The total number of acres in agricultural use; 4. The total number of acres that is an integral part of area that is predominantly urbanized; The percent of the property within the project area that is predominantly urbanized; and 6. A map of the project area that identifies the properties described in 2, 3, and 4 above. Figure 2 (Area A) and Figure 3 (Area B) are aerial photographs of the Added Area which shows that it is completely developed with office and research, warehouses and military support buildings and associated parking [CRL Section 33031(a)(4)]. The urbanization analysis is summarized in Table 1 below: Keport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAWcK:9bd 14006.003.007/07/10N3 Page 11 \� N aa� W �� w fJ S d _� x jV O SC C .. �. � y Q T� JL a a� tw t n ! r3 t j 1 F.- aw�l $ 1 P. L :1 :� I i-. Irk` •'i : r.+; ! tl if JW, � •� i j ?a 3 i •,r. . 14 j t , i I •f 14 C: � d FAWSYT a• it i 3 3 d � �+� — a 1 -1 Y Y t' c� t n ! r3 t j 1 F.- aw�l $ 1 P. L :1 :� I i-. Irk` •'i : r.+; ! tl if JW, � •� i j ?a 3 i •,r. . 14 j t , i I •f 14 C: � d FAWSYT a• it Table 1: Urbanization Analysis Total Number of Acres in the Added Area of Total 111.19 100.0% Total Number of Acres that are Developed for Urban Uses 111.19 100.0% Total Number of Acres Characterized by the Existence of Subdivided Lots of Irregular Form and Shape and 0 0 0.0% Inadequate Size for Proper Usefulness and Development that are in Multiple Ownerships Total Number of Acres in Agricultural Use 0.0 0.0% Total Number of Acres that is an Integral Part of an Area Developed for Urban Uses Vacant Land 111.19 100.0% 0.0 0.0% Percent of Property that is Predominantly Urbanized 111,19 100.0% i As noted above, the Added Area is entirely built out. Much of the office and research buildings occupying the Added Area were developed over 50 years ago. In addition, the Added Area is completely surrounded by urbanized uses. Manufacturing facilities are located to the north of and west of the Added Area. Commercial buildings and single - family residential dwellings are located to the east of the Added Area including the Del Aire residential community in unincorporated Los Angeles County. Adjoining the Added Area to the south is the Southern Pacific Railroad and the Hollyglen residential neighborhood in the City of Hawthorne. The Added Area is encompassed by urbanized uses and is entirely an integral part of an urbanized area. Redevelopment agencies have to qualify agricultural land proposed for inclusion within a redevelopment project area pursuant to requirements established in the CRL. The CRL prohibits redevelopment agencies from placing enforceably restricted open space and agricultural land in redevelopment project areas. However, unrestricted farmland, greater than two acres, may be included within a project area if certain findings are made by the e Although the Area A is triangular in shape, it is of substantial size and is all owned by the Federal Government; therefore, it is not considered a parcel of irregular size under multiple ownership. Redevelopment Plan for the " 110 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 14 PA030W13.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.007/07 /10,03 redevelopment agency. There are no parcels within the Added Area that contain agricultural land. The analysis above demonstrates that 100 percent or all 111.19 acres of property in the Added Area is currently developed and is an integral part of an urbanized area and therefore qualifies as predominantly urbanized. Thus, the Added Area meets the urbanization criteria as defined by CRL 33320.1. C. BLIGHT CRITERIA Section 33030(b)(2) of the current CRL states that an area is blighted if it is characterized by "one or more" of any of four physical and one or more of any of five economic conditions listed in CRL Section 33031, as well as other factors. The CRL does not require that all indicators of blight exist throughout a project area [added area] but only that such blighting characteristics are so prevalent and so substantial that they cause a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community. In this regard, the cumulative effect of blight throughout the Added Area can constitute a serious physical and economic burden on the community. The blight criteria for the Added Area is based upon the following as outlined in CRL Section 33031 (a) & (b): 1. Physical Blighting Characteristics 1 • Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or similar factors can cause these conditions. 2. Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. This condition can be caused by substandard design, inadequate building size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors. 3. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which Prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the project area [Added Area]. 4. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership. < 11 M, IHry council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA030Wl3.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.00707 11W3 Page 15 2. Economic Blighting Characteristics t • Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority. 2• Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities. 3. A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. 4. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or businesses that cater exclusively to adults that has led to problems of Public safety and welfare. 5. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. D. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH Based upon the blight criteria established in the proceeding section, the Added Area contains two physical blighting characteristics and two economic blighting characteristics. The physical blight analysis is based upon a prevalence of unsafe building conditions, which was documented for Areas A and B in the Rapid seismic Evaluation of Buildings, Los Angeles Air Force Base and Fort MacArthur study prepared for the U.S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Also contributing to the physical blighting conditions are substandard and obsolete building and site characteristics. For Area A, these conditions were described in the Economic Analysis of the Los Angeles AFB Consolidation Report. For Area B substandard and obsolete conditions are primarily based upon discussions with LAAFB staff. This report also addresses conditions of economic blight. The hazardous materials analysis, which applies to both Areas A and B was based upon information contained within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Amendment and a review of the Air Force's database on asbestos and lead based paint samples taken from buildings located in the Added Area. Another indicator of economic blight is impaired investments. Impaired investments within the Added Area are demonstrated through two analyses. The first is an analysis of the cost effectiveness performed by the Air Force of Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007N7/10/03 ates, Inc. Page 16 rehabilitating the existing structure versus new construction. The analysis which was provided in the Revised Economic Analysis, Executive Summary, Los Angeles AFB Consolidation Report determined it was not cost effective to rehabilitate the existing structures. Impaired investments were also demonstrated by analyzing the developer's cost and projected revenues from the development project compared to an independent pro forma analysis prepared by KMA. This analysis determined that there was an unfunded shortfall of $35.5 million. E. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL BLIGHTING CONDITIONS 1. Physical Blight - Buildings in Which it is Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work By definition, as set forth by the Redevelopment Law, buildings which are considered unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, include those which exhibit deterioration and dilapidation, serious code violations, defective design or construction, faulty or inadequate utilities or other unsafe conditions which pose a threat to the health and safety of users or occupants. "In 1996, a Facilities Assessment Report was prepared for LAAFB buildings at Area A, Area B and the Lawndale Annex (Area C). The Report concluded that the facilities do not meet seismic and life safety codes and recommended either replacement or extensive renovation of the structures. The LAAFB buildings, many dating over 40 years old, require other renovations including asbestos removal, lead based paint concealment/encapsulation, and electrical and mechanical systems upgrades. Several of the existing facilities were designed to support aircraft assembly and now inadequately serve as administrative facilities. n7 In addition, a report was prepared for the U.S. Department of the Army Corps Engineers entitled "Rapid Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, Los Angeles Air Force Base and Fort MacArthur". The primary objective of the Rapid Seismic Evaluation was the protection of the life safety of the building occupants during a seismic event. This report included the evaluation of 60 buildings including all of the structures on Area A and all but nine buildings in Area B which included the guard gates, gas station, storage supply sheds, and automotive maintenance garage. Per the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NEHRP) Act, Public Law 101 -614, requires that the following be determined: 1. Number of buildings owned or leased by each Federal Agency 2. Seriousness of the seismic risk to each building 3. Cost of strengthening each building LAAFB Land Conveyance, Construction and Development Project, Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR). 11VHVr. 1u me Uiry Uouncil for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 17 PA0305013.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.007/07110/03 "The outcome of the rapid evaluation is the determination of the overall capacity of the buildings to sustain a seismic event with minimal risk to life- safety. Therefore, if a building "passes" both the structural and non - structural evaluations, there is minimal life - safety risk. If a building "fails" there might be a life safety risk. In such case, a detailed analysis is recommended to be performed as the next step to more accurately quantify the risk" 6 A detailed structural evaluation was recommended if it appeared feasible that such an evaluation would produce evidence that allows a building which originally failed to pass the structural evaluation. If additional research was not expected to improve the rating of the building to pass, the building was identified for retrofit. In total, all seven buildings in Area A were given a rating of failed structure. As discussed in more detail below, one of the buildings was entirely deficient and the remaining six were partially deficient. Two of the seven buildings (including one that was entirely deficient) were recommended for retrofit. All seven buildings in Added Area A contain shear walls that exceed the allowable concrete shear stress and therefore in the event of seismic activity the structural integrity of the walls could be compromised and result in the collapse and failure of the wall. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Quick Check procedure for static forces allows a maximum concrete shear stress of 50 pounds per square inch (psi). All of the seven buildings contain shear walls that exceed 50 psi. In fact, six of the buildings have a shear wall stress that is at least 150 psi or three times the allowable shear stress Of 50 psi. For one building in Area A, the maximum demand stress in the shear walls are at 388 psi, which is significantly higher than the allowable concrete shear stress of 50 psi. Aside from the shear wall strength, the seven buildings within Area A have other structural limitations, which make these buildings susceptible to collapse as a result of seismic activity. In one building, the basement is generally open and the shear walls are discontinuous at the first floor, which creates a structurally vulnerable "soft story" between the open basement and the first floor; thus, the load path is poor and must travel through the column -slab connection. Furthermore, this building has inter -story displacements of 1.9" and 1.8" at the roof and second floor, which exceed the maximum inter -story displacement capacity of 0.48" at the slab /column connection. This displacement will cause the structure to be less stable in a seismic event because the columns will have limited lateral movement before they separate from the second floor and roof connections, which could result in the collapse of the building. A displacement of 0.48" or less would give the columns more lateral movement in a seismic event. As described in the Rapid Seismic Evaluation, another building has "a plywood roof diaphragm and lacks continuous cross -ties and chords and the cross -grain bending 5 Selections from Rapid Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, Los Angeles Air Force Base and Fort MacArthur, Final Report, July 1996, page 3. ..�n w uIC Redevelopment Plan for the ....- ...-... Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 18 PA0308013.HAW:CK:g07 14005. W 3.007,D 7/ 10/03 condition at some of the ledgers may result in damage to the roof diaphragm and loss of wall to roof anchorage. Also, the lack of special ties at anchor bolts securing trussles /beams to pilasters may result in spalling and potential loss of support." As previously stated, Area B has a total of 25 buildings. The Rapid Seismic Evaluation report evaluated 19 of the buildings in Area B. Six buildings including the gas station, guard booths, auto maintenance garage and storage facilities were not evaluated because either the type of construction (i.e., steel corrugated storage sheds) or the size of the buildings do not pose a seismic treat (the guard booths). Of the 19 buildings evaluated, 16 buildings still remain. Three of the buildings were demolished and replaced by new construction. Thus, of the 16 existing buildings in Area B that were evaluated for seismic deficiencies, ten (10) buildings or 63 percent failed.9 All ten buildings were found to be partially deficient and were identified for retrofit. As indicated above, a recommendation for retrofit does not indicate that the building is a good candidate for rehabilitation but rather indicates that the structure is so grossly overstressed that even with detailed analysis the structure will still fail. Unlike the individual descriptions of the buildings in Area A, the Rapid Seismic Evaluation report did not provide shear wall stress in psi values for the buildings in Area B. However, the report stated that there were structural deficiencies within these buildings including shear wall stress, anchor bracing, lateral and diagonal bracing deficiencies. For example, one building contains bolt connections at the braced frames in the north -south direction that are inadequate to sustain a major seismic event. Furthermore, the building's lateral force resisting system in the east -west direction is mainly dependent upon on the "tree" columns, which the bending stresses under a seismic load are extremely high. As another example, two buildings have concrete masonry shear walls with a split -level roof diaphragm designed with tension bracings that are inadequate to transfer the diaphragm loads into the shear walls. Finally, as another example of structural deficiencies, one building according to the Rapid Seismic Evaluation report contains the following description: "an out of plane wall anchorage is provided at the roof purlins which are spaced at approximately 6' -6" on center. This anchorage spacing grossly exceeds the 4' maximum permitted by rapid structural evaluation." In other words, the spacing of the roof members, exceeds the recommended spacing to adequately transfer the seismic loads to the shear walls. In all, 17 of the 23 buildings or 74 percent of the existing buildings evaluated within the Added Area are seismically deficient including 100 percent of the buildings in Area A and 63 percent of the buildings in Area B. Another factor that was considered was the priority of the building for retrofit. Of the 60 total buildings evaluated in the Rapid Seismic Evaluation report, five buildings in Area A were among the top 10 in order of priority. Buildings were identified "Essential Facility" followed in importance by "Special Occupancy" and "Standard Occupancy ". Two of the 'Two additional buildings within Area B were identified by Base staff as seismically deficient but were not evaluated as part of the Rapid Seismic Evaluation Report. jw' Redevelopment Plan for the " c 1fu Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 19 PA0306013.HAW:CKgbd 14005.003.007A 7/10,03 seven buildings were given a designation of Essential and the others were Special. Six of the seven buildings are used for MSL /Space research engineering and the other was identified as Head Quarters Specified (HQ Specified). Of the 16 buildings that currently exist in Area B, two buildings were in the top 10 in priority ranking. Two of the structures were identified as Essential, five were identified as Special and the remaining nine were identified as Standard. The Essential buildings were for special operations and a clinic and the Special buildings included a child care center, Base Civil Engineer (BCE) "Maintenance Shop ", base personnel office and commissary store. 2. Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Economically viable Use or Capacity of Building or Lots. a• Findings The analysis presented below is based upon discussion with Base personnel and reports prepared for the Air Force evaluating the feasibility of options for new construction verses rehabilitation as presented in the Revised Economic Analysis Executive Summary, Los Angeles AFB Consolidation Report. The Consolidation Report focuses on building conditions on Area A and Area C because the uses within these facilities are proposed to be relocated to Area B. The Sun Valley facility is currently vacant and therefore has no specific use that is proposed for relocation. Area B is the Proposed relocation site and, therefore, the buildings in Area B were not the subject of the Consolidation Report. However, the Air Force has evaluated the current use and reuse potential of buildings on Area B, and has concluded that all but four of the buildings are to be demolished. The buildings proposed for demolition include buildings that are either unsafe due to seismic deficiencies and /or are inefficient for their current use because similar services are located in multiple buildings rather than in a single structure. For example, the medical and day care facilities were or are located in buildings that are in some instances seismically deficient and in all instances were inefficient because the services are divided among multiple buildings for no other reason that no single building was large enough to accommodate the uses. In other instances, such as the gas station, the buildings are located in a place that interferes with expansion and consolidation plans. As previously stated, due to the inefficiency of the building floor plans, the Space and Missile Systems Center operation is dispersed in three locations at Area A, Area B and Area C. The combined square footage totals 835,000 square feet. The Air Force's desire is to increase efficiency by consolidating and locating all operations at one location. Because the office space is inefficient due to excessive circulation (halls) and subdivided in individual offices, or is housed in airplane hangar or other buildings that are not designed for their current use, it is expected that the existing operations could be housed in 560,000 square feet if designed to contemporary Air Force's space needs report to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 10005.003.007)97 /10/03 Page 20 The need for an open floor plan is illustrated in the Air Force's analysis of the renovation option for buildings in Area A discussed below. In the renovation scenario the interior is demolished to create an open floor plan. Area A is developed with seven buildings including six office buildings and one warehouse building that has been converted to office use. The existing office building floor plates are too small (approximately 20,000 square feet) and are subdivided into individual office space, which does not serve the Air Force's space use needs which requires larger open floors that can accommodate modular furniture and a higher density of personnel. The warehouse building has a larger floor plate but has also been subdivided with small office spaces. Aside from inefficient floor space, further diminishing the viability of renovating the buildings on Area A is the lack of sprinklers and a substandard HVAC system. Instead of having fire sprinklers on every floor, only the rooms within the basements of each building where the chillers, boilers and equipment are located are equipped with sprinklers. New HVAC is needed for four of the seven buildings in Area A. This includes new variable volume boxes (VAV)70 and supporting ductwork for all buildings in Area A. The pneumatic thermostatic controls for the HVAC are mostly inoperable. Currently, approximately half of the existing VAV's have been modified to make them operable by the Civil Engineering Maintenance Inspection Repair Team (CEMIRT) Team. It other words, to keep the HVAC functional, the system has been modified to be turned on and off manually for each building. The CEMIRT Team goes from one building to another in the morning to turn on the HVAC and returns in the afternoon to turn off the system. Existing chilled water and heating water pipes are also in need of replacement and in many areas are not insulated. Only the chillers, boilers and cooling towers, which were replaced in the last six to eight years are sound. Area B is developed with 25 buildings ranging in size from 60 to 74,769 square feet. The smallest of the buildings include the guard gates, a gas station and storage facility, and the larger buildings are airplane hangars that have been converted to office space. Due to the placement of the buildings on Area B and the larger number of small buildings (13 of the 25 buildings are less than 10,000 square feet), the site is not efficiently utilized. Although the airplane hangars are currently utilized for office space, this is not a successful adaptive reuse of these buildings. Similar to the warehouse use on Area A, the tall ceiling height makes heating and air conditioning of the space inefficient. Buildings in Area B also contain similar deficiencies that are exhibited by Area A buildings including a lack of sprinklers and inadequate HVAC systems. ° VAV boxes are located in the ceiling and based upon demand, control the opening and closing of vents. Redevelopment Plan for the V y Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HA W:CK:gbd 14005.003.007N7/10/03 Page 21 Another factor that affects the viable use of the facility is the conflict between the current site layout and new anti- terrorism standards (referred to as "Force Protection "). Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, military buildings are required to be set back 45 meters from the street and 25 meters from parking lots. The parking on Area A is surface parking that adjoins the buildings on all sides. Because of the heightened security approximately 30 percent of the surface parking cannot be used. Instead of parking next to the facilities, a significant portion of the personnel working at Area A must park at Area B and walk to Area A including crossing El Segundo Boulevard. In Area B approximately 15 percent of the parking spaces cannot be utilized. In summary, the factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of building or lots in Areas A and B include: 1) Building operations that are dispersed at three locations which separate activities that are desired to be grouped at one location; 2) Office buildings with floor plates that are too small and subdivided into individual offices which reduces space efficiency; 3) Buildings that were designed for manufacturing uses and are not efficiently adapted to office use — most notably they cannot be adequately heated and cooled for an office environment; 4) An HVAC system that cannot be efficiently operated and due to its age is assumed not to be repairable; and 5) Inadequate parking due to new force protection requirements. b. Background.on Air Force Analysis for Determining the Financially Superior Alternative Many of the issues related to substandard building design and functional obsolescence are addressed in the Revised Economic Analysis, Executive Summary, and the Los Angeles AFB Consolidation Report. The following is a discussion of the options analyzed both in terms of cost and providing an adequate work environment. Alternatives and Costs As previously stated, the objective of the Air Force is to provide 560,000 square feet of safe, functional and cost effective base support facilities that meets the Air Force's standards for work environment and mission support. The costs associated with each of the following alternatives was provided by the Air Force in its economic study. The Air Force prepared a cost/benefit analysis evaluating each of the alternatives listed below and determined what alternatives were the most feasible. The primary goal was to determine whether new construction or renovation was the best altemative. Although the commercialization alternative described below envisions commercial development on Area A instead of the proposed residential development, the Air Force's analysis is Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment tc the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:pbd 14006.003.007M7110M Page 22 still valid because the cost/benefit analysis evaluated only the development or renovation of Air Force facilities and not the reuse of Area A. The following four alternatives were analyzed: 1. Status Quo — the primary purpose of the status quo analysis was to establish baseline costs. This alternative is not considered a long -term solution. For the current fiscal year 2003, the value of Area A, Area C and Sun Valley combined is estimated at $242,467,452 for the 1,277,936 square feet. This value assumes periodic maintenance (includes selected major repairs) and normal operations, maintenance, refuse and custodial expenses. Major repairs were derived from estimating the life cycle of the individual repairs including roofing, HVAC service, heating, cooling and electrical. Plumbing is calculated by the LAAFB. The net present value (NPV) costs are calculated based upon a discount rate of 3.9 percent as per March 2000, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular and is estimated at $251,073,821.11 2. Renovation — assumes all facilities in Areas A and C are renovated to meet seismic safety and life safety codes with the exception of a warehouse building 12 in Area A. Buildings proposed for renovation total 714,737 square feet. Renovation assumes interiors of the structures in Area A will be completely gutted with new layout conductive to systems furniture resulting in reduced footage would be needed. Assumptions include costs for moving, demolition and furniture. Finally, one building is assumed to be renovated per year. The total net present value cost of this alternative is $304,709,029. 3. MILCON13 — determined not be as cost effective and efficient as the Commercialization alternative, but would be the most viable alternative for the long -term functional operation of LAAFB.14 This alternative provides two development scenarios: " It should be noted that the NPV calculation utilizes a mid -year convention (July -Dec.) instead of a full calendar year cycle (Jan.-Dec.). " Determined to be unsuitable for continued use and was not evaluated as a candidate for rehabilitation. 13 MILCON is an acronym for military construction funding. 14 Air Force's standard operating procedure is to develop all Air Force facilities through the MILCON process and not by private developers. For this reason, the MILCON alternative was identified as the most viable alternative. 1 uou mmenament to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HA W :CK:9bC 14005.003A07/0711OV03 ates, Inc. Page 23 3a. Policv Constrained — would provide 560,000 square feet of space but in comparison to the Commercialization alternative would occur over a longer timeframe. Also, the cost is estimated to be $80 million more that the Commercialization alternative below. This alternative assumes the Air Force would receive federal funding and would undertake the consolidation of operations on Areas A and C through the construction of six buildings on Area B. One building would be built every two years with construction continuing until 2014. A parking structure is needed to provide parking for the six new buildings. The total net present value cost of this alternative is $281,430,107. 3b. MILCON Commercialization — identical to the Commercialization alternative below, this alternative assumes two rather than six new buildings containing 560,000 square feet. One building would be built in 2003, and the other in 2004. Federal funding is not considered feasible because of the large amount of funding that would be required in a short- term. The total net present value cost of this alternative is $250,524,275. 4. Commercialization — transfer of real property to a developer in exchange for the construction of new facilities. The value to the Air Force of the conveyed property is $54.5 million based on a retail center on Area A and residential on Area C.15 The developer will sell the Sun Valley property. The Air Force's proposal also assumes that El Segundo, Hawthorne and Los Angeles County would forgo most new funding taxes (sales, property, utility etc.) generated on the conveyed property and will contribute these funds to the project. Also, it is assumed that the project would be available for HUD Section 108 Loan. This, along with other loans, bonds and grant mechanisms will generate $49.7 million for the project. In addition, a major assumption is that shortfall in financing between the costs to the developer and adequate return on investment could be eliminated by reducing the square footage of the improvements or through negotiations with the developer. The total net present value cost of this alternative is $208,315,049. Based upon the above descriptions, the most cost effective alternative would be the Commercialization alternative ($208,315,049), which was estimated to be 17 percent less than the MILCON Commercialization ($250,524,275) and Status Quo ($251,073,821) alternatives, 26 percent less than the MILCON Policy Constrained 1s Subsequent to this analysis residential rather than retail is proposed for Area A. The value of residential alternative is estimated at $80 million which reduces the amount of needed public finance but does not affect the rehabilitation analysis which is based upon the cost of the proposed 560,000 square feet of office construction which is unchanged. See section III. F. of this Report. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 24 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.007)07 /10/03 alternative, and 32 percent less than the Renovation alternative. However, as previously stated, the analysis took into consideration not only the total cost of the alternatives but whether the alternatives provided an adequate work environment in determining the economically viable use of the buildings. The following section addresses the non - monetary costs and benefits of each of the alternatives. C. Background on Air Force Analysis for Evaluating Non - Monetary Costs and Benefits Survey Criteria To determine non - monetary costs and benefits, the SAMS Team performed a benefit analysis for each of the previously described alternatives using AFMAN 32 -1089, the Air Force Military Construction and Family Housing Economic Analysis Guide and previous Environmental Assessments (EAS) as examples. The main reason for initiating this project (the "mission ") was to vacate the current seismically unsafe buildings on the Base and provide a safe work environment. The SAMS Team identified seven categories. A weighted point value for each category was assigned based upon the primary goal, to improve operational performance and complete the mission. The weighted point value varied from each category with a high maximum point value of 4.0 awarded for health and safety issues and operational impact and a low maximum point value of 1.0 for accessibility. As shown in Table 2, the maximum possible benefit score the alternatives could receive is 18.5 points. Instructions were developed which described the categories, weighted values and what ranges would represent. Individuals performing the rating were chosen from a diverse cross section of the Base who were familiar with every alternative in order to be able to fully understand the impact that each alternative would have on attaining the mission and therefore would score the category impartially. The evaluation categories included the following: 1 • Accessibility (1.0 oointc max.) - Includes location, transportation and parking. As shown in Table 2, MIXON (0.8 points) and Commercialization (0.7 points) alternatives rated highest due to the proximity of the parking garage to new facilities. Status Quo and Renovation, both with 0.5 points, were a close second since current parking and traffic flow are adequate (analysis performed prior to new anti - terrorism protect standards which limits usability of existing parking at Area A and to a lesser degree on Area B). 2. Availability of Base Services /Activities (1.5 Points max) _Rates location of the Proposed project to other services and activities on the Base. Commercialization (1.4 points) and MILCON (1.3 points) alternatives rated superior because of centrally located and consolidated facilities. Status Quo and Renovation received low ratings for being dispersed in three geographic locations. report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 25 PA0303013.HA W:CK:pbd 14005.003.007/07110/03 3. Facility Adequacy Q 0 Points max) — Measures how the facility meets the needs of the user. "Is there sufficient space /capacity ?" "Is the layout compatible with the user?' "Are the utilities reliable?" As shown in Table 2, Renovation (1.7 points) and Status Quo (1.2 points) alternatives received lower ratings due to the inefficient use of space and the incompatible layout. Status Quo rated the lowest because of its unreliable infrastructure. 4. Health and Safety C4-.O points max) — Measures benefits of alternatives to meet life safety and health concerns of Air Force personnel. Commercialization (3.9 points) alternative delivers facilities in the shortest timeframe and therefore military related personnel are provided a safer work environment faster than the other alternatives. "Status Quo received minimal points due to the unacceptable levels of risk associated with the combination of seismic, fire and hazards material deficiencies ". 5. Land Use and Strategic Plan (2.0 Points max) — Evaluates implementation of the comprehensive plan. Since the plan envisions all facilities in one location, only the MILCON (1.7 points) and Commercialization 0.9 points) alternatives fully met this requirement. 6. Mission /Operational Impact AO Points max) — Rates efficiency, productivity and overall ability of the Space and Missile Systems Center to meet support and operational requirements. Renovation and Status Quo alternatives received much lower ratings, 1.9 and 1.8 respectively, due to disruption they would cause to the current work force because of poorly operating facilities and extensive repair projects needed to keep them operational. 7. Morale (3.0 Points max) — As shown in Table 2, the commercialization alternative rated the highest (2.7 points) because of the morale boost the new state of the art facilities would have on employees. As described in the Table 2 below, the Commercialization alternative received the highest total rating (17.0 points or 92 percent of the possible total points) based upon the seven categories because it provided state -of -the -art facilities in the shortest timeframe. Renovation received a lower rating (9.0 or 49 percent of total possible points) because the lack of consolidation and inefficiency of space could not be addressed. The preference to private sector construction (Commercialization) versus military construction ( MILCON alternatives) was that the private sector could deliver the space in a shorter timeframe and at a lesser cost. Also, a reliance on military construction was not preferred due to uncertainty of receiving funding and that if funding was available, it would occur over a multiple year period resulting in phase construction rather than developing the facilities at one time. neport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAWcK:9bd 14005.003.007/07 /10N3 ates, Inc. Page 26 TABLE 2 Non - Monetary Benefit Analysis Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Development Alternatives Table 3 compares the alternatives based upon the previously analyzed total NPV and benefit score. In order for the Air Force to determine which alternative is the most cost efficient and provides the most beneficial use of the Base in terms of providing an adequate work environment, a cost/benefit ratio for each of the alternatives was determined. This was calculated by dividing the total net present value by the total benefit score. For example, as shown in Table 3, the Status Quo alternative's total net present value is $251,073,821, which divided by the total benefit score of 6.6 provides a cost benefit of $37,755,46216 per benefit point. fi As shown in Table 3, the Status Quo alternative is the least economically viable alternative. The cost/benefit ratio of the Status Quo alternative ($37,755,462) is 209 percent higher in cost than the Commercialization alternative ($12,221,150). The cost/benefit ratio for the Renovation alternative is not considered economically viable either as this alternative is 175 percent higher in cost than the Commercialization alternative. From both a non - monetary and cost/benefit ratio 16 Average cost per benefit point may not equal exactly due to rounding off of the total benefit points. Redevelopment Plan for the - v V Keyser Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0309013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007M7110103 Page 27 ALTERNATIVES Status Quo Renovation Commercialization MILCON t Evaluation Weighted i um % of Max. % of Max. % of Max. % of M Categories Value Benefit wValueed w d Benefit Weigh d wValu, Accessibility Value Benefit Value Benefit Availability of Base 1.0 0.5 55% 0.5 51% 0.8 81% 0.7 730 Services/Activities 1.5 0.7 45% 0.6 41% 1.4 95% 1.3 84% Facility Adequacy 3.0 1.2 40% 1.7 57% 2.7 91% 2.4 0 84 /° Health & Safety 4.0 0.7 18% 2.3 58% 3.9 Land Use & Strategic 98% 3.5 80% Plan 2.0 0.7 33% 0.7 35% 1.9 94% 1.7 87% Mission /Operational 4.0 0 1.8 45% 1.9 46% 3.6 69% 2.9 84% Morale 3.0 1.0 35% 1.3 45% 2.7 91% 2.1 73% TOTAL 18.5 6.6 36% 9.0 49% 17.0 6 Note: MILCON Commercial aitemative is identical in demlopmerd as the Commercialization 78% has the exact same benefh score for each of me seven categodes, and an overall ' alternative; therefors, s altemati ve Includes MILCON Policy Conshalmd aitamative only. See note above. score of 17.0. Source: Executive Summary, Los Angeles AlrForce Base Consolldadon Report Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Development Alternatives Table 3 compares the alternatives based upon the previously analyzed total NPV and benefit score. In order for the Air Force to determine which alternative is the most cost efficient and provides the most beneficial use of the Base in terms of providing an adequate work environment, a cost/benefit ratio for each of the alternatives was determined. This was calculated by dividing the total net present value by the total benefit score. For example, as shown in Table 3, the Status Quo alternative's total net present value is $251,073,821, which divided by the total benefit score of 6.6 provides a cost benefit of $37,755,46216 per benefit point. fi As shown in Table 3, the Status Quo alternative is the least economically viable alternative. The cost/benefit ratio of the Status Quo alternative ($37,755,462) is 209 percent higher in cost than the Commercialization alternative ($12,221,150). The cost/benefit ratio for the Renovation alternative is not considered economically viable either as this alternative is 175 percent higher in cost than the Commercialization alternative. From both a non - monetary and cost/benefit ratio 16 Average cost per benefit point may not equal exactly due to rounding off of the total benefit points. Redevelopment Plan for the - v V Keyser Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0309013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007M7110103 Page 27 perspective, the Status Quo and Renovation alternatives are the least feasible. The Commercialization alternative was determined to be superior. TABLE 3 Cost/Benefit Analysis for the Development Alternatives Summary of Results Benefit Cost/Benefit" ative Total NPV Score" Ratio Quo $ 251,073,821 6.6 37,755,462 ition $ 304,709,029 9.0 33,601,998 3a Constrained $ 281,430,107 14.6 19,300,070 MILCON 3b Commercialization $ 250,524,275 17 14,736,722 4 Commercialization $ 208,315,049 17 12,221,150 NPV = Net Present Value Source: Executive Summary, Los Angeles Air Force Base Consolidation Report F. DESCRIPTION OF ECONOMIC BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The CRL identifies depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including but not limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as a condition of economic blight. This economic blighting condition, specifically impaired investments, results from a higher cost to provide new military facilities than the value of land and the proposed reuse of Areas A and C. In addition, hazardous materials, including asbestos and lead paint, impacts the effective and safe use of buildings in the Added Area. 7 Is based upon the SAMS Team evaluation of seven categories for each alternative described in this section, including accessibility, health and safety, facility adequacy, and morale. A weighted point value (ranging from 1.0 to 4.0) for each category was assigned based upon the primary goal, which maximum point total is 18.5. is to improve operational performance. The " Represents the average total net present value of the alternative per benefit score point. This can be calculated by dividing the total net present value by the total benefit score. For example, Status Quo alternative's total net present value is $251,073,821, which divided by the total benefit score of 6.7 equals to a cost/benefit ratio of $37,755,462. Average cost per benefit point may not equal exactly due to rounding off of the total benefit points. rteport to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bC 14005.003.00707 110/03 Page 28 1. Impaired Investments a. Introduction As described earlier, renovation of the existing facilities is not considered a feasible alternative for the following reasons: A. The facilities are dispersed at three different locations, and the Air Force requires one central facility; B. The physical design of the buildings do not meet the Air Force's needs, and these design constraints cannot be corrected through rehabilitation; C. The existing working environment does not conform to current seismic and life safety standards, and due to funding constraints, the renovation would have to occur over several years; and D. The projected renovation costs are approximately $96 million greater than the costs for the private sector to construct a new facility on one site. The Air Force evaluated the options, and determined that the most cost effective and time efficient plan to provide safe and efficient workspace was to contract with the private sector to undertake the construction of a new facility. However, as illustrated in the following analysis, there is a $23.3 million difference between the cost of the new Air Force improvements on Area B to be borne by the developer and the value of the properties being conveyed. This financial feasibility shortfall cannot be funded by the private sector. The financial feasibility shortfall is evidence of impaired investments. The private sector has explored methods to reduce the shortfall funding deficiency including establishing a Mello Roos finance district. However, the amount of unfunded revenue is too large to bridge unless the revenues generated by a redevelopment project can be secured. Also, the inability of the private sector to undertake the project and the need for redevelopment financing is demonstrated in following analysis that examines project costs and potential return on investment. In fact, the analyses show that the project cannot be supported without tax increment and other funding sources. rteport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.MAW;CK:9bd 14005.003.007107110/03 Page 29 b. Findings The Air Force's Commercialization concept (private sector development of Area B) assumes that the private sector can make a reasonable return on the estimated $115 million net cost to develop 560,000 square feet of new facilities on Area B in return for the Air Force transferring ownership of the Sun Valley Property, Area A and Area C to the developer. However, the Air Force subsequently determined that the resale value of the land and potential development of Area A and C would total $80.7 million, which is approximately $34.3 million less than the net cost to relocate the new military facilities. The Air Force anticipates that cost savings and /or development scope modifications can be identified that will reduce the Air Force facilities relocation costs by $11.0 million. This reduces the unfunded amount estimated by the Air Force to approximately $23.3 million. The developer proposed that the identified shortfall could be recouped if 100 percent of the unrestricted tax increment generated by the development is contributed to the project. To evaluate the developer's assumptions, and to assess the public costs associated with the affordable housing production obligation generated by the proposed residential development, KMA prepared a preliminary financial analysis of the proposed residential development on Area A and Area C. The analysis included: A. An independent determination of the shortfall in revenues between the resale value of the property and the cost of construction of new facilities on Area B; B. An estimate of the financial deficiency associated with producing the 155 low and moderate income housing units (including Areas A and C) that would be required to fulfill the inclusionary housing obligation required by California Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b); and C. A projection of the tax increment that would be available to meet the inclusionary and shortfall filling requirements. The KMA financial analysis concluded that the project exhibits a shortfall of $23.3 million without consideration of the affordable housing obligation. It is important to consider that the development of residential units within a redevelopment project area triggers an inclusionary housing requirement. If 1,029 market rate - housing units are developed, the Agency will incur an inclusionary housing obligation of 155 low and moderate income units (62 very low- income and 93 moderate income units) that must be fulfilled within 10 years. Based on the assumption that the inciusionary units are developed within the Existing Project Area, that the developer can obtain outside public assistance sources and that no land costs are incurred, the 155 units are projected to require $12.2 million in redevelopment assistance. Keport to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 30 PA0305013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007N7110M3 As summarized in the table below, the cost to fund the military replacement facilities plus the cost to fund the required affordable inclusionary housing is $35.5 million. If it is assumed that the tax increment generated by the private development in Areas A and C are dedicated to filling the unfunded amount, the following funds are projected to be available in present value terms: 1. This tax increment net of the required 20% set -aside for affordable housing and 20% statuary pass throughs to taxing agencies, is projected to total $24.0 million. 2. The tax increment housing set -aside fund deposits are projected to total $8.4 million. The combined tax increment revenues for non - housing and housing are projected to total $32.4 million, and the financial shortfall is estimated at $35.5 million. As shown in the following table, this leaves an unfunded shortfall of $3.1 million prior to other funding sources (i.e., special assessment districts). Estimated Combined Unfunded Amount and Sources of Funds Development Shortfall Affordable Housing Requirement $23,300,000 Total Required Present Value Tax Increment 112,160,000 $35,460,000 Unfunded Amount Special Assessment District Revenue /Bond1e ($32.337.000) $3,123,000 Proceeds 13,123,000 Unfunded Amount $0 As shown above, the project costs cannot be funded by the private sector, and the City of Hawthorne cannot provide the $35.5 million in funding required to bridge the financial feasibility shortfall and to fulfill the inclusionary housing requirement generated by the project. Even if it is assumed that the $32.420 million in redevelopment tax increment revenues is contributed to the project, other funding sources are needed to fund the $3.1 million remaining shortfall. As discussed in Section V of this Report, it is proposed that the remaining $3.1 million shortfall will be funded through special assessment districts and tax exempt bond proceeds. 9 This analysis is one illustration as to how the development project will be funded. State and Federal grants and other funding sources may also be utilized. 20 Due to rounding the approximate tax increment projection of $32.4 million differs from the figure noted above ($32,337,000). Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 31 PA0306013.HAWcK:9bd 14005.003.007 /07/10/03 2. Hazardous Waste Contamination The Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) prepared for the Amendment was based upon the Draft Environmental Assessment for Land Conveyance /Seismic Upgrade (dated September 2002 by Malcolm Pimie), which identified the hazardous waste /materials located in the Added Area including general hazardous wastes, pesticides, radioactive materials, radon, ordinance storage, storage tanks, asbestos - containing materials, medical and biohazard waste, lead -based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Subsequently, some of the hazardous waste and materials have been cleaned -up, however, asbestos - containing materials and lead - based paints are still present within the Added Area and remediation efforts have not been completed. The following sections of the Report contain excerpts from the Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management section of the Draft EIS /EIR (Sections 3.3 and 4.3), which identifies hazardous waste /materials within the Added Area. It is assumed that the Department of the Air Force will be responsible for remediation of the site for the portion that is not associated with the SAMS project. For the SAMS project, the hazardous materials associated with the structures such as lead paint and asbestos will be remediated as part of the demolition of the existing buildings located on Areas A and B with assistance, as necessary, from the Agency. a. Asbestos As stated above, due to the construction date of the buildings in Area A and B, it is likely that most of the buildings contain asbestos materials. These types of materials were used in everyday construction and include ceiling and floor tiles, drywall, plaster, gypsum board, roof sheeting, pipe insulation and joint compound. A structure that contains asbestos construction materials is potentially a significant health and safety issue for the building's occupants if the asbestos fibers are inhaled at high concentrations over an extended time period. Asbestos fibers can enter the human body and cause asbestos related diseases such as asbestosis (scarring of the lung tissue), mesothelioma (cancer of the pleural lining), and lung cancer. According to the EIS /EIR, an asbestos survey was performed in June 1988 to determine the extent of asbestos - containing material (ACM) on the LAAFB (including Fort MacArthur and Area C). In all, over 6,500 samples of various types of construction /building materials from buildings located at LAAFB have been tested. Approximately 85 percent of the samples tested came back positive for asbestos. Results from the asbestos survey and data from the LAAFB Environmental database confirm the presence of asbestos in all of the buildings in Areas A and B. Limited abatement projects have been undertaken and none of the buildings have been cleared of asbestos. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.103 007M 7/ 10/03 Page 32 b. Lead Based Paint Lead based paints are common in older buildings. Lead was used as a pigment and dying agent in "alkyd" oil based paint in approximately two- thirds of all buildings built in the United States prior to 1940, and one -half of the buildings built from 1940 to 1960. If inhaled, lead based paint dust are a health hazard to adults and children and can cause irritability, poor muscle coordination, learning disorders, and nerve damage. Under the guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Title X, Section 403 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, national guidelines for lead hazards in dust, soil and paint have been developed to assist property owners in determining lead hazards. Under these guidelines, dangerous conditions of lead based paints exist when lead is in excess of either 1.0 mg /cm2 or 0.5 percent by weight. Painted floors, ductwork, walls and piping represent some of the painted elements that were found within the Added Area to contain lead at concentrations greater than 0.5 percent by weight. Since 1988, approximately 2,400 paint samples were taken at the LAAFB (including Fort MacArthur and Area C) and tested for lead. Approximately 90 percent of the samples contained a high enough amount of lead to be considered lead based paints. All of the buildings in Area A and all of the non -metal buildings in Area B contain lead based paints. However, the extent of how much lead based paints these buildings contain, is not know until a "top- to-bottom " comprehensive survey has been prepared. Abatement projects have been undertaken at certain buildings within Area A. However, the abatement work conducted was very limited and lead based paint is expected to be present in all of the Area A buildings. Redevelopment funding may assist in reducing site preparation costs including the cost to dispose of asbestos and lead paint materials. In accordance with hazardous waste disposal guidelines as it pertains to the SAMS project. This could include disposal of hazardous materials on all seven buildings on Area A and pending additional study, one or two buildings on Area B within the footprint of the proposed SAMS project. The Air Force will be responsible for the removal and remediation of hazardous materials on the balance of Area B. 1 nuu mmenament to Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0305013.HAW;CK9bd 10005.003.007N711W3 Page 33 IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY THE AGENCY AND HOW THE PROJECTS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN PART III A. REQUIREMENT AND APPROACH The CRL requires that a Report include a description of the specific projects and programs to be undertaken by the Agency and how such projects and programs will alleviate blight in the Added Area. This section describes the Agency's proposed program of redevelopment of the Added Area and its relationship to blight alleviation. The program of redevelopment presented in this section is conceptual in nature and may change in the implementation of the development project. The following is a description of the proposed specific projects and the programs that the Agency can undertake to remove the impediments to the private sector's redevelopment of the Added Area, and to meet its affordable housing obligation. B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The first phase of the development project includes the construction of 560,000 square feet of administrative and special use facilities on Area B per the specifications of the Air Force. The Proposed project includes two- four story buildings containing 543,000 of office space and one - one story building containing 17,000 square feet (childcare facility). The second phase of development includes the residential reuse of Areas A and C. The current development proposal assumes the construction of 750 for sale residential units in four different unit configurations in Area A. Approximately 279 units will be developed within Area C consisting of either single - family detached, townhomes, or flat stack housing. The table below outlines the unit types below for the Areas A and C developments. Residential Development Concept - Areas A and C21 " Based upon residential build out scenario provided by Kearny Real Estate on May 29, 2003 and development standards provided by the City of Hawthorne. rteport to the City Council far the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gb0 14005.003.007107,10m3 aces, inc. Page 34 As outlined in the table above, six different housing types are proposed for Areas A and C. These housing types are described as follows: • Cluster Detached Condominiums — urban styled single family homes with direct access garages clustered around parking courts and interior drives. The homes are similar in form to townhomes, but are detached. • Tuck -under Townhouse — rear loaded, side - attached townhomes with attached individual garage parking and direct access to home. • Combo Condominiums — single and two -story living units combined into three and four story buildings. Parking is provided in an above -grade structure that can be accessed from the catwalk circulation serving the residents. • Single- Family Units — single - family units will occupy approximately twelve acres of the Area A site. These units will be detached and consist of two and three story units. • Townhomes — consists of multiple story homes with attached garage. • Flat Stack Residential — consists of single story, one bedroom units that are stacked similar to condominiums and apartments. C. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM To implement the proposed Amendment thereby facilitating the development project described above, the Agency may undertake a variety of activities. Although Area C is within the Existing Project Area and not a part of the Added Area, the financing of the proposed development project includes Area C. For this reason, Area C is included within this discussion of proposed projects and programs. The following projects and programs are intended to describe the range of activities that the Agency may undertake. Heport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW :Mgbd 14005.003.007A1/1=3 Page 35 1. Demolition, Relocation and Site Preparation To assist in the preparation of Areas A and C for redevelopment, the Agency may assist in site preparation activities such as demolition and clearance of all buildings and improvements. The Agency may also assist in demolition and clearance activities in Area B, including the demolition of two buildings, which are currently utilized for child development/day care services. The developer with Agency assistance, will cause the removal of unsafe and unhealthy buildings within Areas A and B by demolition and clearance, and remove impediments to future development of the Added Area. All of the buildings in Area A and a portion of the buildings in Area B are seismically deficient and contain hazardous waste materials such as asbestos and lead based paints. The Agency may also assist in site preparation including grading and hazardous materials remediation. 2. Infrastructure There are many improvements that will need to be made to provide adequate access and utilities to Areas A and C to make it suitable for residential development. This includes the widening of Aviation Boulevard, the installation of sewer lines/ improvements, drainage improvements, street finishing /grading, the construction of a perimeter wall and landscaping. In Area B, the Agency may assist in infrastructure improvements to achieve a financially feasible project. Infrastructure improvements in Area B will include under - grounding Southern California Edison electrical lines and the relocation of the storm drainage system. This may also include additional street improvements, additional traffic lights, streets, curbs and gutters. The implementation of this program will eliminate the impediments to new development of residential and administrative and special use facilities within the Added Area. The proposed improvements will increase utility capacity for reuse of the Added Area, improve safety and reduce traffic impacts associated by the proposed development project. - - -- - -, - -- •.• IW, p,r, rluru mmenament to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CKAbtl 14005.003.007/07110N3 Page 36 3. Public Facilities The Agency proposes to assist in the development of public facilities within Area B. These public facilities consist of the 560,000 square feet of office space that will be constructed on the Base as part of the SAMS project. The implementation of this project will cause the elimination of existing blighting conditions, which include buildings that are unsafe and unhealthy due to seismic deficiencies and hazardous materials contamination due to the existence of asbestos and lead based paints. Also through assistance in developing the facilities, the Agency will provide relocation space for Air Force activities currently operating in Area A and Area C. 4. Affordable Housing As required by State law, 20 percent of the gross tax increment funds received by the Agency must be deposited into a fund that assists in improving, preserving and increasing the community's supply of affordable housing. This money may be spent within the Added Area, Existing Project Area or citywide. The Agency is proposing to implement a housing program to increase the amount of low and moderate income housing opportunities for renters within the Existing Project Area. This program would include rehabilitating existing units and price restricting these units for low and moderate income families. Also contemplated is the construction of new rental housing. Based upon State law, the 750 residential units proposed for Area A will generate a 113 -unit affordable housing obligation and the 279 residential units identified for Area C will generate a 42 -unit affordable housing requirement. These units will have to be price restricted for low and moderate income families and persons. The Agency plans to develop rehabilitate the 155 affordable units within the Existing Project Area and not within Areas A or C, which will consist of market rate housing. The development of new affordable housing in the Existing Project Area combined with substantial rehabilitation of existing housing, and will increase affordable housing Opportunities and improve the quality of existing multiple - family housing. 5. Other Redevelopment Activities Other redevelopment activities may be necessary to alleviate blighting conditions, facilitate development or otherwise carry out the Agency's purposes in the Added Area. The Agency will incur various administrative costs including staff time; special legal and technical assistance; and possibly preparing other studies. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 37 PA0306013.HAW:CK9bd 14005.003.0 W /07/10A33 V. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING THE AMENDMENT, ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, AND REASONS FOR INCLUDING DIVISION OF TAXES PURSUANT TO SECTION 33670 Section 33352(e) of the CRL provides that the Report for the Amendment contain a proposed method of financing the Amendment, including an assessment of economic feasibility and the reasons for including a provision for the division of taxes pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL. Economic feasibility, for purposes of this analysis, is defined to be a comparative analysis of anticipated costs for implementation of the Amendment and the projected revenues to be generated. Economic feasibility is determined through a summarized feasibility cash flow analysis of the Amendment as summarized on Table 4. Net tax increment revenues to fund the projects, programs and activities required for the redevelopment of the Amendment are to be committed only from Area A located in the Amendment and from Area C located in Project No. 2. The area - specific tax increment revenue projection for Area A is shown on Table 5 and the area - specific projection for Area C is shown on Table 6. Apart from Area C, no other net tax increment revenues generated in Project No. 2 will be used to finance the redevelopment activities of the Amendment. A. ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COSTS A determination of economic feasibility requires an identification of the potential costs associated with redevelopment of the Amendment. Redevelopment could require significant participation from the Agency in activities to promote and achieve the goals and objectives of the amended Plan and to address blighting conditions. The redevelopment program described in this section outlines a set of activities to be implemented by the Agency for the purpose of facilitating private reinvestment in the Amendment and eliminating physical and economic blighting influences. The estimated costs of the proposed redevelopment projects over the life of the amended Plan are as follows: Air Force Base Related Improvements $10,000,000 Public Improvements 13,256,000 Inclusionary Housing Requirements 12.160.000 Subtotal _ $35,416,000 Administration 2,250,000 Interest on Debt Service 45.663.000 Totals Estimated Costs $83,329,000 22 Does not include land costs. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No, 2 Page 38 PA030W13.HAW:CK9bd 14005,003.00710711 0N3 Air Force Base Related Improvements Costs associated with the provision of replacement facilities at Area B are to be expended to implement the redevelopment program to provide consolidated new facilities and subsequent reuse of Areas A and C. The projected cost for the Base related improvements is forecast to be $10 million. 2. Public Improvements Proposed public improvements may include demolition, relocation and site preparation activities, sewer and drainage improvements, utility undergrounding, street widening, grading and finishing improvements, perimeter wall and landscaping improvements, land assembly costs for public easements, builder fees and fees associated with engineering, design and architectural services. Public improvement costs are estimated to be $13.2 million. 3. Inclusionary Housing Requirements The development of new market rate housing on Areas A and C will trigger the inclusionary housing requirement set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33413. The Agency is permitted up to 10 years to provide the necessary inclusionary housing upon construction of the market rate housing. Based upon the residential absorption forecasts incorporated in this scenario, the inclusionary housing requirement costs are projected to be $12.2 million not including land costs. 4. Administration The cost to administer the Amendment is assumed to average $75,000 per year over the effective life of the amended Redevelopment Plan. Total administrative costs are projected to be $2.2 million. 5. Interest on Debt Service The Agency will consider all funding alternatives allowable under the CRL to finance the anticipated projects discussed above, including the issuance of tax allocation bonds secured by tax increment revenues generated by Areas A and C and /or the issuance of special assessment district bonds secured by annual assessments collected from a special assessment district (e.g. Mello Roos). Heport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0308013.HAW:CK:gbd 16005.003.007X711=3 ates,Inc. Page 39 In the initial years of the amended Plan implementation, tax increment revenues generated by Areas A and C will not be sufficient to fund anticipated project costs. The Agency will consider all funding alternatives allowable under the CRL to finance the anticipated projects discussed above, including the creation of a special assessment district to issue bonds secured by the special assessments levied on Areas A and C. The Agency may also consider the pledge of tax increment revenues generated from Areas A and C to secure the principal and interest payments of tax allocation bonds issued to finance anticipated project costs or to fund future inclusionary housing requirements. Based upon the feasibility scenario reflected on Table 4, combined net tax allocation bond proceeds to fund identified project costs amount to $11.2 million. Under this feasibility cash flow scenario it is also assumed that the creation of a special assessment district and the issuance of special assessment district bonds on an as- needed basis would result in combined net bond proceeds of $18 million. The special assessment district bonds would be secured by annual assessments levied on Areas A and C. The Agency has not committed itself to any specific financing alternative as of this analysis and the assumptions incorporated in the Table 4 cash flow reflect only one potential scenario for purposes of illustrating financial feasibility. The issuance of tax exempt bonds and the use of said proceeds will be subject to certain federal tax restrictions. Total projected debt service over the term of the projection amounts to $74.9 million over the 30 year effective term of the Amendment and may be funded from a combination of annual special district assessments, net tax increment revenues and the County's contribution of its statutory pass through. Of this total debt service, projected net interest totals $45.6 million. B. FINANCING METHODS AVAILABLE TO THE AGENCY The amended Plan is prepared with the intent of providing the Agency with the necessary legal authority and flexibility to implement the revitalization of the Amendment. The amended Plan authorizes the Agency to finance the Amendment with financial assistance from any or all of the following sources: (1) City; (2) State of California; (3) federal government; (4) tax increment funds in accordance with provisions of the existing CRL; (5) Agency bonds; (6) interest income; (7) loans from private financial institutions; (8) donations; (9) developer payments and (10) any other legally available public or private sources. Current provisions of the CRL provide authority to the Agency to create indebtedness, issue bonds, borrow funds or obtain advances in implementing and carrying out the specific intents of a redevelopment plan. The Agency is authorized to fund the principal and interest on the indebtedness, bond issues, borrowed funds or advances from tax increment revenue and any other funds available to the Agency. The creation of a special assessment district will also provide Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 40 PA0306013.HAW!CK9bd 14005.003.007,07 /10 /03 an additional financing vehicle to fund the necessary public infrastructure improvements in the Added Area. Potential revenue sources to fund project costs and debt service, as assumed in the financial feasibility cash flow, include the following: (1) net tax increment revenues from Area A and Area C; (2) County contribution of its statutory pass through payments; (3) special assessment district assessments; and (4) interest earnings. The estimated resources available to finance the anticipated redevelopment projects and indebtedness incurred through bond proceeds are summarized as follows: Net Tax Increment Revenue — Areas A and C $69,282,000 County Share of Statutory Pass Through 11,612,000 Special Assessment District Levies 14,835,000 Interest Earnings _ 6.121 000 Total Resources $101,850,000 1. Net Tax Increment Revenues — Areas A and C The incremental taxable values and resulting tax increment revenues generated by Area A and Area C are shown on Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Future tax increment revenues are based upon anticipated value added from residential construction and sales activities on the respective Added Area sites and the 2% real property annual inflationary increase allowable under Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. The new development assumptions incorporated into this feasibility scenario assume 750 new residential units constructed on Area A and 279 new residential units23 constructed on Area C. The gross tax increment revenues projected for Area A over the 30 -year effective life of the Amendment amounts to $91.5 million. From this amount, the Agency will deposit $18.3 into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set Aside fund, the County will collect $1.8 million in fees for County administrative services and $20 million will be allocated as a statutory pass through to affected taxing agencies as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5. The net tax increment revenue allocable from Area A is projected to be $51.4 million over the 30 year effective life of the amended Plan. Although not reflected in the Area A projection, tax increment generated from Area A could be allocated to the Agency for up to an additional 15 years after the amended Plan's termination date in order to repay indebtedness. Since bonded indebtedness obligations are not assumed beyond the amended Plan's termination date in the cash flow projection, the additional allocations of tax increment dollars beyond Year 30 are not assumed. 23 The Willow Glen Specific Plan allows for the maximum development of 280 residential units. Report to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007/07 /10 /03 ates, Inc. Page 41 The gross tax increment revenues projected for Area C over the term of the cash flow amounts to $31.9 million. From this amount, the Agency will deposit $6.4 into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Set Aside fund, the County will collect $653,000 in fees for County administrative services and, commencing in 2004 -05, a total of $6.9 million will be allocated as a statutory pass through to affected taxing agencies as the result of the Agency's amendment to eliminate the January 1, 2004 debt incurrence time limit for Project No. 2. This amendment triggers the statutory pass through provisions set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5. The resulting net tax increment revenue allocable from Area C is projected to be $17.9 million over the term of the cash flow projection. Tax increment revenue generated from Area C is assumed to be allocated to the Agency for the additional 10 years after the Project No. 2 redevelopment plan termination date of November 26, 2024 so as to repay any Amendment indebtedness that is secured by tax increment revenues generated by Area C. 2. County Share of Statutory pass Through The County is allocated to receive a portion of tax increment revenues allocated under the statutory pass through provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5. In an effort to assist the Agency in the redevelopment of Areas A and C, it is assumed that the County agrees to contribute its share of the annual statutory pass through. Based upon the projected growth scenario assumed, the cumulative County contribution from Area A would amount to $7.9 million and the cumulative County contribution from Area C would amount to $3.7 million, for a combined cumulative total contribution of $11.6 million. Discussions with the County are presently underway. 3. Special Assessment District Levies The creation of a special assessment district to help finance in initial years' project costs will enable the district to issue bonds secured by levies collected from Areas A and C. For purposes of the feasibility cash flow scenario illustrated on Table 4, the annual levies are assumed to range from a minimum of $500,000 per year to a maximum equal to the annual debt service requirements of the special district bonds assumed in the feasibility projection. For purposes of this financial feasibility analysis, it is also assumed that the special assessment district debt service requirements are annually offset by available net tax increment revenues generated by Areas A and C and by the County's contribution of its share of the statutory pass through. The resulting net assessment annually required to meet debt service is shown on the cash flow projection and amounts to $14.8 million over the term of the projection. Under this assumption, to the extent actual tax increment revenues are higher than forecasted, the net annual district assessment requirement would be lower than assumed on the cash flow. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 42 PA0305013. HA W:CX.9bd 14005.003.007/07110 /93 4. Interest Earnings The Agency may receive interest earnings generated from funds on deposit in the bond reserve funds, project operating funds and other special funds established for the Amendment. Bond reserve funds are assumed to be maintained at annual balance equivalent to outstanding debt service. Interest earnings are based upon an assumed 4% rate and are applied to the balances available in the respective funds. Projected cumulative interest earnings are estimated to be $6.1 million on the cash flow projection. C. PROPOSED FINANCING METHOD, ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY, AND REASONS FOR INCLUDING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING The anticipated costs to implement a program of revitalization in the Added Area will require significant participation from the Agency as it implements activities which promote and achieve the stated goals and objectives of the amended Plan. Economic feasibility of the amended Plan has been determined based upon a comparative cash flow analysis of the anticipated costs for implementation of the proposed redevelopment program to the resulting projected resources expected to be generated over the life of the Amendment. The financial feasibility cash flow summarized on Table 4 was created to represent one scenario of economic feasibility based upon the anticipated projects, programs and activities forecast for the Amendment. The revenue and expenditure assumptions incorporated in the cash flow do not reflect specific Agency agreements or commitments entered into as of this writing. Although the Agency may consider other funding sources permitted in the amended Plan, not all of the funding sources may be available or be feasible for the Agency to use in financing the anticipated costs and revenue shortfalls and are therefore not assumed in this feasibility cash flow. Neither the City nor the private market acting alone can fully bear the costs associated with the implementation of the redevelopment program; therefore, tax increment revenues must be considered as a viable financing tool. D. BONDED INDEBTEDNESS LIMIT Based upon the financing method discussed above, the following bond limit, as required by the CRL for inclusion in the amended Plan has been determined. The total bonds for the Added Area supported in whole or in part by tax increment revenues generated by the Added Area and Area C that may be outstanding at one time may not exceed a principal amount of $36,000,000. This amount has been determined based on anticipated project costs identified above. tteport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0305013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007/07 /104]3 Page 43 N O Z 6 c m y a Q Q d C C o E Q CL a y M > �o�: y Z LL ; G 0 C p E E o d O C L d w¢x°` M M m r N o a o 0 o m N M N N a m o 0 o m N tN�l N r N N O O O O h N N Q A O O o 0 n r O N O M N m e N m m N r N O m O m N m V m m r N O O O 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 L p J O L U y `a m ¢a N O O � o v c in c m C N O O O O D CO m J U m O N N C C O N O° N LU C U H? Q Q N O O m N Z U H U U E N O (V m o n o 0 0 h N o A o 0 0 m O N M tt1 O O O N O N m O r 0 0 0 N N p A 0 0 0 Q m O^ O m O m O (!p N N O M m 00 0 O ^ tp N N O m - m (V 0 0 �lJ O A O r O o O v N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 V N M p N r lV o a N w y M N v Z m n d O N m � O y Jo a N N O D N m W � O w O CO O N Q� N U =mac aaas O O N O M M p � N O N W m O N m O� O � O � N N M O O N m � O N m O N N O O O N ry O n T U d O M ° 3 N N Q 0 M M m r N o a o 0 o m N M N N a m o 0 o m N tN�l N r N N O O O O h N N Q A O O o 0 n r O N O M N m e N m m N r N O m O m N m V m m r N O O O 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 L p J O L U y `a m ¢a N O O � o v c in c m C N O O O O D CO m J U m O N N C C O N O° N LU C U H? Q Q N O O m N Z U H U U E N O (V m o n o 0 0 h N o A o 0 0 m O N M tt1 O O O N O N m O r 0 0 0 N N p A 0 0 0 Q m O^ O m O m O (!p N N O M m 00 0 O ^ tp N N O m - m (V 0 0 �lJ O A O r O o O v N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m fV N (V N m O N m (V 1m[! �j O d u C A N m m _c c W E. M O N a f/] O N m r= U 3 � O . c Vl L An N m U U N M N � O O m o� �m LL T Q Y � T iy a ui m E `m m n c m a� a- LL D N 0 a N w y N v Z m V d > r � a m E y Jo a _E N O D O a >O W 'O w O CO m N Q� O j U =mac aaas 0 m fV N (V N m O N m (V 1m[! �j O d u C A N m m _c c W E. M O N a f/] O N m r= U 3 � O . c Vl L An N m U U N M N � O O m o� �m LL T Q Y � T iy a ui m E `m m n c m a� a- LL N 0 Z u c m N Q Q > u T C O >1 L1 6 w O Ci > N O 9 fU Z LL C y U d C a E E o c d O C 0 r d f f F W Q 2 c L n E q J W N � (V N fV N � � N N _O( V Om O O O QQN N N O M N N 11] C N tp N � O m lO Gi V M l[) N O N N N v' W M M 4fI N G N (V N t m 0 r U m ¢a Nr N O A 'gyp O O m d Orn A m LL Im C O C V% U C y W O N Ol O d O N LL Lb N ZUI- UU -S O m N O N N N O M O O O m N N N 2 N > O der A w O m •C 2 O •N U r nV (V N � (V N fV N � � N N _O( V Om O O O QQN N N O M N N 11] C N tp N � O m lO Gi V M l[) N O N N N v' W M M 4fI N G N (V N t m 0 r U m ¢a Nr N O A 'gyp O O m d Orn A m LL Im C O C V% U C y W O N Ol O d O N LL Lb N ZUI- UU -S O m N OM n O O O V O � lV N O n 0 0 0 C O � N a o - N N O n 0 0 0 a o •- fV N O n O O Q - N N O n O O O � N N O n p 0 O O m N O O N �+j N N f4 M m O N r m O n 0 0 O p N N m a d m 0 a fU •U O O (n U) Ca N N (V 0 2 H m 0 aoy. > O der A w O m •C 2 O •N U fu¢OLL =F -0004 � N OM n O O O V O � lV N O n 0 0 0 C O � N a o - N N O n 0 0 0 a o •- fV N O n O O Q - N N O n O O O � N N O n p 0 O O m N O O N �+j N N f4 M m O N r m O n 0 0 O p N N m a d m 0 a fU •U O O (n U) Ca N N (V 0 rn r O W N V M NI M v n � N � r N atea{{ O m � M �I m N A m .1 d U C fQ W m rA C C W M O N O m a x c� o° m ti 3 S O c N L d N �0 U U N M Q N o O N is o� �m LL as Y �I T � v ei E `m m n c v v as 2 H m 0 aoy. > O der A w O m •C 2 O •N U fu¢OLL =F -0004 � rn r O W N V M NI M v n � N � r N atea{{ O m � M �I m N A m .1 d U C fQ W m rA C C W M O N O m a x c� o° m ti 3 S O c N L d N �0 U U N M Q N o O N is o� �m LL as Y �I T � v ei E `m m n c v v as 0 a, a x w C7 0 N m ti 3 5 0 c N L �U U N M N � Q N co 0 N m LL T ¢� a � Y m T LL a a °1 E E m` m a c a a a`u c 2 M N n v o 0 o M M iy M O m 0 0 0 m r Zi a j v r N N r O m I1� N r q O O M r N r IN � N m m 0 0 0 m aO r r M O to O O O m m W' tMD N a r m N M N N t7 m N m O M N m N 0 0 0 N V m O a N V m m O O O N N N N O N fV ui m N o m rn o O o M in c o m N m O p M N V In M m M N m N M 0 0 0 m r N p N N V N N M M N N N NN V -7 Cq M N m N M O1 < N O O O m m p O O N C M U1 O O O N y It NN M r fV o'i N = � v m m m„ Q ro m T Q a, a d C r `O E Qa N O U d O cL �_ p ¢5 y Z E U o >w m M> C N N w m c 4) N m O. a N .y C 'd0 A N N c E m .o 0 c E m o d N Z d d m O U f0 y E m y d❑ O> U LL m LL W 19 c •a p X Q o y > > a c E c y m m O 0 u F= Q < N O w O d p w O CO C �' U 'y O ? m O1 O N COI N K d me ❑ E m ,p ? c L d C y" o d 7 O p Z U Fd- U U C o N¢ LL a< O C 'O c o 3o W m H F ��U¢¢a o f- c W FO' Q 2 — = _j 0 a, a x w C7 0 N m ti 3 5 0 c N L �U U N M N � Q N co 0 N m LL T ¢� a � Y m T LL a a °1 E E m` m a c a a a`u Table 5 Site Specific Tax Increment Revenue Projection - Area A Amendment No. 3 to Project Area No. 2 Note: The 2002 -03 Base Year Value reflects the amount as reported in the County Fiscal Officer's Report dated June 26, 2003 '(1) Value growth reflects revised residential buildout per Kearny Real Estate as of 5-29 -2003 '(2) Base value assumed by Kearny RE to be $3 million Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Feas_AFB_07 -10 -2003: TI-A: 7/912003: GSH: Page 1 of Total Value Umss Increment Add Suppl Total Gross 582557 County Plan Projected Over Base Revenue Taxes Tax Housing Yr FY Value 2,981 at 1 % Table 4 Increment Set Aside -20% Adm Fee Statutory Increment AB1290f •2% Pass Thru Available 39.38° 2002 -03 0 2003 -04 2,981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2004 -05 3,039 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2005 -06 3,098 116 1 1 (0) (0) (0) 0 0 3 2006 -07 3,157 176 2 434 436 (0) (0) (0) 1 0 4 2007 -08 61,149 58,167 582 159 740 (87) (9) (0) 340 0 5 2008 -09 104,853 101,871 1,019 756 1,775 (148) (15) (116) 461 46 6 2009 -10 194,019 191,038 1,910 701 2,611 (355) (35) (204) 1,181 80 7 2010 -11 263,778 260,796 2,608 189 2 797 (522) (559) (52) (382) 1,655 150 8 2011 -12 287,629 284,647 2,846 62 2,908 (582) (56) (522) 1,660 205 9 2012 -13 296,565 293,583 2,936 0 2,936 (58) (569) 1,699 224 10 2013 -14 302,494 299,513 2,995 0 2,995 (587) (59) (587) 1,703 231 11 2014 -15 308,542 305,560 3,056 0 3,056 (599) (60) (599) 1,737 236 12 2015 -16 314,711 311,729 3,117 0 3,117 (611) (61) (620) 1,763 244 13 2016 -17 321,003 318,021 3,180 0 3,160 (623) (62) (642) 1,790 253 14 2017 -18 327,421 324,439 3,244 0 3,244 (636) (64) (664) 1,817 261 15 2018 -19 333,967 330,985 3,310 0 3,310 (649) (65) (686) 1,844 270 16 2019 -20 340,644 337,663 3,377 0 3,377 (662) (66) (709) 1,873 279 17 2020 -21 347,455 344,473 3,445 0 3,445 (675) (68) (733) 1,901 288 18 2021 -22 354,402 351,420 3,514 0 3,514 (689) (69) (756) 1,931 298 19 2022 -23 361,488 358,506 3,585 0 3,585 (703) (70) (781) 1,960 307 20 2023 -24 368,715 365,734 3,657 0 3,657 (717) (72) (805) 1,991 317 21 2024 -25 376,087 373,106 3,731 0 3,731 (731) (73) (831) 2,022 327 22 2025 -26 383,607 380,626 3,806 0 (746) (75) (857) 2,054 337 23 2026 -27 391,277 388,296 3,883 0 3,806 (761) (76) (883) 2,086 348 24 2027 -28 399,101 396,119 3,961 0 3,883 (777) (78) (910) 2,119 358 25 2028 -29 407,080 404,099 4,041 0 3,961 (792) (79) (937) 2,153 369 26 2029 -30 415,220 412,238 4,122 0 4,041 (808) (81) (965) 2,187 380 27 2030 -31 423,522 420,541 4,205 0 4,122 4,205 (824) (82) (994) 2,222 391 28 2031 -32 431,990 429,009 4,290 0 4,290 (841) (84) (1,023) 2,258 403 29 2032 -33 440,628 437,647 4,376 0 4,376 (858) (86) (1,052) 2,294 414 30 2033 -34 449,439 446,457 4,465 0 4,465 (875) (88) (1,082) 2,331 426 (893) (89) (1,113) 2,369 438 Tbtal NPV at 6% 89,266 2,301 91,567 (18,313) (1,831) (20,023) 51,400 7,995 30,590 1,617 30,384 (6,077) (608) (6,271) 17,429 2,470 Note: The 2002 -03 Base Year Value reflects the amount as reported in the County Fiscal Officer's Report dated June 26, 2003 '(1) Value growth reflects revised residential buildout per Kearny Real Estate as of 5-29 -2003 '(2) Base value assumed by Kearny RE to be $3 million Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Feas_AFB_07 -10 -2003: TI-A: 7/912003: GSH: Page 1 of Table 6 Site Specific Tax Increment Revenue Projection • Area C (Project Area No. 2) Amendment No. 3 to Project Area No. 2 '(1) Value growth reflects revised residential buildout projection from Kearny Real Estate as of 5-29 -2003 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Feas_AFB_07 -10 -2003: TI-C: 71912003: GSH: Page 1 of 1 Incremental Gross Total SB2557 Plan Total Projected Value Over Base Increment Revenue Add Gross Housin NTax County Yr FY Value 0 at 1% Suppl Taxes Tax Increment Set Aside -20% dm Fee Statutory I cerement AB1290 -2% Pass Thru Available 53.35% 18 2002 -03 0 0 0 0 0 19 2003 -04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 2004 -05 0 0 0 204 204 0 (41) 0 (5) 0 0 0 0 21 2005 -06 20,350 20,350 203 64 267 (54) (6) 158 0 22 200607 38,010 38,010 380 308 688 (138) (14) (41) 167 22 23 2007 -08 72,760 72,760 727 152 879 (176) (18) (76) 460 41 24 2008 -09 88,719 88,719 887 15 902 (181) (146) 540 78 25 2009 -10 90,493 90,493 904 0 904 (181) (19) (177) 525 95 26 2010 -11 92,303 92,303 923 0 923 (185) (19) (181) 523 97 27 2011 -12 94,149 94,149 941 0 941 (19) (185) 534 98 28 2012 -13 96,032 96,032 960 0 960 (189) (19) (188) 545 100 29 2013 -14 97,953 97,953 979 0 979 (192) (20) (192) 556 102 30 2014 -15 99,912 99,912 999 0 999 (196) (20) (199) 564 106 31 2015 -16 101,910. 101,910 1,019 0 1,019 (200) (204) (20) (206) 573 110 32 2016 -17 103,948 103,948 1,039 0 1,039 (208) (21) (212) 582 113 33 2017 -18 106,027 106,027 1,060 0 1,060 (212) (21) (220) 590 117 34 2018 -19 108,148 108,148 1,081 0 1,081 (217) (22) (227) 599 121 35 2019 -20 110,311 110,311 1,103 0 1,103 (221) (22) (234) 608 125 36 2020 -21 112,517 112,517 1,125 0 1,125 (225) (23) (242) 617 129 37 2021 -22 114,767 114,767 1,147 0 1,147 (230) (23) (249) 628 133 38 2022 -23 117,062 117,062 1,170 0 1,170 (234) (23) (257) 637 137 39 2023 -24 119,404 119,404 1,194 0 1,194 (239) (24) (265) 647 141 402024-25 121,792 121,792 1,217 0 1,217 (249) (24) (273) 658 146 41 2025 -26 124,228 124,228 1,242 0 1,242 (249) (25) (261) 667 150 42 2026 -27 126,712 126,712 1,267 0 1,267 (259 ) (25) (290) 678 155 43 2027 -28 129,246 129,246 1,292 0 1,292 (259) (26) (298) 689 159 442028-29 131,831 131,831 1,318 0 1,318 (269) (26) (307) 700 164 45 2029 -30 134,468 134,468 1,344 0 1,344 (269) (27) (316) 711 169 462030-31 137,157 137,157 1,371 0 1,371 (275) (27) (325) 723 174 47 2031 -32 139,900 139,900 1,399 0 1,399 (280) (28) (335) 733 179 48 2032 -33 142,698 142,698 1,426 0 1,426 (286) (28) (344) 747 184 49 2033 -34 145,552 145,552 1,455 0 1,455 (29) (354) 757 189 (291) (30) (367) 767 196 tal 'V at 6% 31,172 743 31,915 (6,394) (653) (6,986) 17,882 3,727 10,838 569 11,407 (2,286) (235) (2,345) 6,542 1,251 '(1) Value growth reflects revised residential buildout projection from Kearny Real Estate as of 5-29 -2003 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Feas_AFB_07 -10 -2003: TI-C: 71912003: GSH: Page 1 of 1 VI. DISCUSSION OF WHY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ACTING ALONE OR ALTERNATIVE FINANCING IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ELIMINATE REMAINING BLIGHT The existing physical and economic conditions within the Added Area generally described in Section III of this Report, cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without the authority of redevelopment because there is a lack of public funding and resources to correct deficiencies. As previously discussed, it is estimated that there is an approximate $23.3 million dollar difference between the cost of the new Air Force improvements on Area B to be borne by the developer and the value of the properties being conveyed. The City of Hawthorne does not have the revenue to provide the $23.3 million in financing to make the project financially feasible. In addition to the $23.3 million shortfall, the development project's inclusionary housing requirement adds $12.2 million in funding requirements for a total of $35.5 million. Even with projected $32.4 million in tax increment and housing set -aside funds as discussed in Section V of this Report, other sources of funding will be needed to fund the $3.1 million shortfall including establishing a special assessment district and issuance of tax exempt bonds. Without redevelopment assistance and tax increment financing, the private sector will not undertake the proposed development project. An alternative to private sector construction was military construction (MILCON). However, the private sector alternative is more feasible because the private sector could deliver the space in a shorter timeframe and at a lesser cost. Also, a reliance on military construction was not preferred due to uncertainty of receiving funding and that if funding were available, it would occur over a multiple year period resulting in phase construction rather than developing the facilities at one time. Parts IV and V of this Report identify the programs and costs that are needed to alleviate the conditions that cause blight found in the Added Area. As stated in Part V Section C, "Proposed Method of Financing the Amendment, Economic Feasibility, and Reasons for Including Division of Taxes Pursuant to Section 33670" other funding sources also have serious limitations. Grants from other levels of government are sporadic and difficult to obtain. Development impact fees can only be set at a level to cover the impacts that are created by the development and cannot be used to raise additional funds to remove existing deficiencies in the Added Area. The use of tax increment financing is necessary to cover portions of the extensive program costs that will incur in implementing the redevelopment program for the Added Area. The proposed improvement projects and programs for the comprehensive redevelopment of the Added Area are discussed in Section IV of this Report and anticipated expenditures total $83,329,000 in 2003 dollars for the Added Area and Area C. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007N7110103 Keyser Page 47 Alternative funds are available under various rules, conditions and circumstances. However, these funds alone and /or cumulatively are inadequate to accomplish the proposed projects and programs. In addition to redevelopment, there are a number of funding sources potentially available to municipalities in California. Some of these, such as community development block grants, economic development administration grants and SBA loans and loan guarantees, derive from the Federal government. Regrettably, the availability of money from these Programs, particularly Federal programs, has become less available and more restrictive in recent years. Other financing alternatives, such as enterprise zone funding, State commerce department grants and loans, and employment training grants and loans, derive from state government. While still others, such as industrial development and mortgage backed revenues bonds, private bank CRA financing and private /public financing sources, derives from private and 'off- budget' governmental sources. However, this type of funding is difficult to implement because of certain restrictions. As an example, general obligation bonds require a two- thirds vote of the electorate. unfortunately, none of the above - described financing alternatives are under local control, or are definite and ongoing. All are subject to their own budgetary constraints, at the Federal or State level, and are further subject to lengthy application or arcane administrative procedures which make immediate application of their benefits to any given real estate transaction, in which "time is of the essence," problematic at best. Thus, the foregoing analysis confirms the fact that tax increment financing must remain the principal source of financing with consideration given to other methods in appropriate circumstances. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No, 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:Qbd 14005.003.007MMM3 Page 48 VII. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Per Section 33352(c) of the CRL, the Implementation Plan prepared as part of the Report to the City Council, must describe the specific goals and objectives of the Agency, specific projects proposed by the Agency, including a program of actions and expenditures proposed to be made within the first five years of the adoption of the Amendment, a description of how these projects will improve or alleviate the blighting conditions in the Added Area, and show how the requirements for low and moderate income housing in the community will be met. The Agency adopted the original Implementation Plan for the Existing Project in 1994, for the five -year period from 1994 through 1999. The current Implementation Plan was adopted in 1999 for the five -year period between 2000 -2004 (Appendix A). The Agency is proposing to amend the existing Implementation Plan for the Existing Project to include a program and projects for the Added Area and Area C. Although Area C is located within the Existing Project Area, this area is included in this amended Implementation Plan because this area is a part of the proposed development project and financing plan. Although the Implementation Plan for the Existing Project is being amended to include the Added Area and the development of Area C, the projects, programs and expenditures for the Added Area will be separate from the Existing Project Area except for Area C which are included within this Implementation Plan. Since the current implementation plan cycle ends in 2003 -04, the Implementation Plan in Appendix A will guide the Agency's actions and expenditures for the Existing Project Area for the next year. At the end of 2004, the Agency will prepare a new five -year implementation plan encompassing the years 2004 -05 through 2008 -09. The activities identified for the Added Area and Area C will be incorporated into the new Implementation Plan and amended as necessary to identify an additional year's activities if different from those identified for the first five years of redevelopment within the Added Area (amended Implementation Plan). The following analysis outlines the five -year implementation plan goals, objectives, projects, program, expenditures and relation to blight alleviation for the Added Area and Area C. The activities and expenditures described below are the same as those identified in Parts IV and V of this Report on the proposed Amendment. A. ADDED AREA GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Areas A and C Goals and Objectives: 1. Provide for new housing within the Added Area and Area C that will address local and regional housing needs, and be compatible with adjacent residential areas. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 49 PA0306013.HA W:CK:Bbd 14005.003.007N711 0,03 2. Promote an intensity of development that will contribute to the financial feasibility of the Project and that is appropriate to its location. 3. Provide circulation and transit improvements that will mitigate impacts from the proposed development. 4. Improve the utilities and other infrastructure to support the residential reuse of Areas A and C. 5. Provide landscaping and screening elements to enhance the appearance of the residential development and to buffer the new development from the surrounding area. 6. Remove and mitigate as necessary hazardous waste materials and contamination. 2. Area B Goals and Objectives: Develop military faculties that will meet the needs of the Air Force and provide safe working environment. 2. Provide the necessary infrastructure improvements to provide for the new military facilities. 3. Remove and mitigate as necessary hazardous waste materials and contamination. B. PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS The projects and programs proposed are intended to facilitate the achievement of the goals and objectives outlined above. Demolition, Relocation and Site Preparation The developer with Agency assistance, will cause the removal of unsafe and unhealthy buildings within Area A and B by demolition and clearance, and remove impediments to future development of the Added Area. Furthermore, the Agency will assist in site preparation of Area C and may include demolition and clearance. All of the buildings in Area A and a portion of the buildings in Area B are seismically deficient and contain hazardous waste materials such as asbestos and lead based paints. The Agency may also assist in site preparation including grading and hazardous materials remediation. - •° ne i nlro Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007,07110 /03 Page 5o 2 Infrastructure Improvements will be needed to provide adequate access and utilities to Areas A and C to make it suitable for residential development. This includes the widening of Aviation Boulevard, the installation of sewer lines /improvements, drainage improvements, and street finishing /grading. In Area B, the Agency may assist in infrastructure improvements to achieve a financially feasible project. Infrastructure improvements in Area B may include under - grounding Southern California Edison electrical lines and the relocation of the storm drainage system. This may also include additional street improvements, additional traffic lights, streets, curbs and gutters. The implementation of this program will eliminate the impediments to new development of residential in Areas A and C and administrate and special use facilities within the Area B. The proposed improvements will increase utility capacity for reuse of the Added Area and Area C, improve safety and reduce traffic impacts associated by the proposed development project. 3. Public Facilities The Agency proposes to assist in the development of publicly -owned facilities within Area B. These public facilities consist of the 560,000 square feet of office space that will be constructed on the Base as part of the SAMS project. The implementation of this project will cause the elimination of existing blighting conditions, which include buildings that are unsafe and unhealthy due to seismic deficiencies and hazardous materials contamination due to the existence of asbestos and lead based paints. Also through assistance in developing the facilities, the Agency will provide relocation space for Air Force activities currently operating in Area A and Area C. 4. Affordable Housing As required by State law, 20 percent of the gross tax increment funds received by the Agency must be deposited into a fund that assists in improving, preserving and increasing the community's supply of affordable housing. This money may be spent within the Added Area, Existing Project Area or citywide. The Agency is proposing to implement a housing program to increase the amount of low and moderate income housing opportunities for renters within the Existing Project Area. This program would include rehabilitating existing units and price restricting these units for low and moderate income families. The Agency may consider newly constructed rental or ownership r Cpur r to the City Council for the Third Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0305013.HAW:CK:pbd 14005.003.007N7/10/03 Page 51 housing as well. Based upon State law, the 750 residential units proposed for Area A and the 279 residential units proposed for Area C will generate a 155 -unit affordable housing obligation. These units will have to be price restricted for low and moderate income families and persons. The Agency plans to develop /rehabilitate the 155 affordable residential units in the Existing Project Area and not within Areas A or C, which will consist of market rate housing. The development of new affordable housing in the Existing Project Area combined with substantial rehabilitation of existing housing, and will increase affordable housing opportunities and improve the quality of existing multiple - family housing by increasing the number of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units. The Agency has ten year to fulfill its inclusionary affordable housing requirements. The Agency does not anticipate assisting in the development or rehabilitation of affordable housing related to the Added Area during the first five year implementation plan period. Because there are no residents in the Added Area the Agency does not expect to displace any residents or remove any residential units within the Added Area. 5. Other Redevelopment Activities Other redevelopment activities may be necessary to alleviate blighting conditions, facilitate development or otherwise carry out the Agency's purposes in the Added Area. The Agency will incur various administrative costs including staff time; special legal and technical assistance; and possibly preparing other studies. C. EXPENDITURES The following is a description of the project expenditures during the first five -year implementation period for the Added Area and Area C. 1. Air Force Base Related Improvements Costs associated with the provision of replacement facilities at Area B are to be expended to implement the redevelopment program to provide consolidated new facilities and subsequent reuse of Areas A and C. The projected cost for the Base related improvements is forecast to be $10 million. 2. Public Improvements Proposed public improvements may include demolition, relocation and site preparation activities, sewer and drainage improvements, utility undergrounding, street widening, Neport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA030W13.HAW:M9bd 14005.003.007 /0711=3 Page 52 grading and finishing improvements, perimeter wall and landscaping improvements, land assembly costs for public easements, builder fees and fees associated with engineering, design and architectural services. Public improvement costs are estimated to be $13.2 million. 3. Inclusionary Housing Requirements As stated above the development of new market rate housing on Areas A and C will trigger the inclusionary housing requirement set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33413. The Agency is permitted up to 10 years to provide the necessary inclusionary housing upon construction of the market rate housing. Based upon the residential absorption forecasts incorporated in this scenario, the- inclusionary housing requirement costs are projected to be $12.2 million excluding land costs. Prior to occupancy of each phase of residential development in Areas A and C, the Agency must have an inclusionary housing financing plan in place. Within the first five years the Agency will hold in reserve 20% of the gross tax increment for future development of affordable housing estimated at $590,000. 4. Administration The cost to administer the Amendment is assumed to average $75,000 per year over the effective life of the amended Redevelopment Plan. Expenditures and Costs for the Initial Five -Year Implementation Plan Period Projects and Programs ated Improvements UP —Added Area (2004 -05 through 2008 -09) As shown in the table above, the total expenditures for the Added Area over the five -year period are estimated to be in the range of approximately $32.0 million. Report to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0308013.HAWcK:2bd 14005.003.007/07 /1 OM3 Page 53 D. HOW THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS, AND EXPENDITURES WILL ALLEVIATE BLIGHT IN THE ADDED AREA 1. Demolition, Relocation and Site Preparation To assist in the preparation of Areas A and C for redevelopment, the Agency may assist in site preparation activities such as demolition and clearance of all buildings and improvements. The Agency may also assist in demolition and clearance activities in Area B, including the demolition of two buildings, which are currently utilized for child development/day care services. The developer with Agency assistance, will cause the removal of unsafe and unhealthy buildings within Area A and B by demolition and clearance, and remove impediments to future development of the Added Area. All of the buildings in Area A and a portion of the buildings in Area B are seismically deficient and contain hazardous waste materials such as asbestos and lead based paints. The Agency may also assist in site preparation including grading and hazardous materials remediation. 2. Infrastructure There are many improvements that will need to be made to provide adequate access and utilities to Areas A and C to make it suitable for residential development. This includes the widening of Aviation Boulevard, undergrounding of utilities, the installation of sewer lines /improvements, drainage improvements, street finishing /grading, the construction of a perimeter wall and landscaping. In Area B, the Agency may assist in infrastructure improvements to achieve a financially feasible project. Infrastructure improvements in Area B will include under - grounding Southern California Edison electrical lines and the relocation of the storm drainage system. This may also include additional street improvements, additional traffic lights, streets, curbs and gutters. The implementation of this program will eliminate the impediments to new development of residential uses in Areas A and C and administrative and special use facilities in Area B. The proposed improvements will increase utility capacity for reuse of the Added Area and Area C, improve safety and reduce traffic impacts associated by the proposed development project. 3. Public Facilities The Agency proposes to assist in the development of public facilities within Area B. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthome Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 54 PA030W13.HAW:CK:9bd 16005.003.007/07 /10103 These public facilities consist of the 560,000 square feet of administrative and special use space that will be constructed on the Base as part of the SAMS project. The implementation of this project will cause the elimination of existing blighting conditions, which include buildings that are unsafe and unhealthy due to seismic deficiencies and hazardous materials contamination due to the existence of asbestos and lead based paints. Also through assistance in developing the facilities, the Agency will provide relocation space for Air Force activities currently operating in Area A and Area C. 4. Affordable Housing As required by State law, 20 percent of the gross tax increment funds received by the Agency must be deposited into a fund that assists in improving, preserving and increasing the community's supply of affordable housing. This money may be spent within the Added Area, Existing Project Area or citywide. The Agency is proposing to implement a housing program to increase the amount of low and moderate income housing opportunities for renters within the Existing Project Area. This program would include rehabilitating existing units and price restricting these units for low and moderate income families. The Agency may consider newly constructed rental or ownership housing as well. Based upon State law, the 750 residential units proposed for Area A and the 279 residential units in Area C will generate a 155 -unit affordable housing obligation. These units will have to be price restricted for low and moderate income families and persons. The Agency plans to develop /rehabilitate the 115 affordable residential units in the Existing Project Area and not within Areas A or C, which will consist of market rate housing. The development of new affordable housing in the Existing Project Area combined with substantial rehabilitation of existing housing, and will increase affordable housing opportunities and improve the quality of existing multiple - family housing. 5. Other Redevelopment Activities Other redevelopment activities may be necessary to alleviate blighting conditions, facilitate development or otherwise carry out the Agency's purposes in the Added Area. The Agency will incur various administrative costs including staff time; special legal and technical assistance; and possibly preparing other studies. - •- -- —v /u mu i mra Hmenoment to Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 14006.003.007/07 /10/03 Page 55 VIII. METHOD OR PLAN FOR RELOCATION Section 33352(f) of the CRL requires that the Agency's Report to the City Council contain a "Method or Plan" for "the relocation of families and persons to be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the project area, which ... shall include the provision required by Section 33411.1." Additionally, Section 33411 of the CRL requires the Agency to prepare a feasible "method or plan" for relocation of nonprofit local community institutions to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in the project area. Section 33411.1 requires the legislative body to insure that "...such method or plan of the Agency ... shall provide that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. The Agency shall not displace such person or family until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy." A plan for relocation was prepared for the Existing Project Area in connection with the adoption of the Existing Plan. Although the Agency does not anticipate the relocation of future residential dwelling units or commercial office facilities located within the Added Area over the 30 -year life of the Amendment, a plan or method for relocation has been prepared for the Added Area in case such an event does occur during the implementation of the proposed Amendment. However, this Method or Plan for Relocation prepared for the Added Area below is not intended to be a "Relocation Plan" within the meaning of Section 6038 of the "Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines" promulgated by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (California Code of Regulations, Division 1 of Title 25, commonly called the "State Guidelines "). As described below, a Section 6038 Relocation Plan is not prepared until the Agency initiates negotiations for the acquisition of real property and prior to proceeding with any phase of a public improvement or facility project or other implementation activity that would result in any displacement other than an insignificant amount of non- residential displacement. A. AGENCY DISPLACEMENT To the extent that the Agency directly or through agreements with owners, developers or other cause occupants to be displaced, the Agency will be responsible for providing relocation benefits. The Agency is not responsible for any displacement, which may occur as a result of private development activities not directly assisted by the Agency under a disposition and development, participation, or other such agreement. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 55 PA0306013.H W:CK:gbd 14005.003.007107 110/03 B. RELOCATION IN THE EVENT OF AGENCY DISPLACEMENT Displacement of businesses or tenants is an unlikely possibility under Agency programs and activities for the proposed Added Area. However, should such displacement occur, the Agency will provide persons, families, business owners and tenants displaced by Agency activities with monetary and advisory relocation assistance consistent with the California Relocation Assistance Law (State Government Code, Section 7260 et seq.), the State Guidelines adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, the Federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. Section 4601 et. seq.), appropriate Federal Guidelines, and the provisions of the amended Redevelopment Plan. The Agency will pay all relocation payments required by State and Federal law. The following portions of this Method or Plan for Relocation outline the general relocation rules and procedures, which must be adhered to by the Agency in activities requiring the relocation of persons and businesses. Also identified below are the Agency determinations and assurances, which must be made prior to undertaking relocation activities. The Agency's functions in providing relocation assistance and benefits are also summarized. C. RULES AND REGULATIONS In connection with the preparation of a Relocation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 6038 of the State Guidelines, the Agency shall adopt rules and regulations that: (1) implement the requirements of California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Chapter 16 of Division 7 of Title 1, commencing with Section 7260) (the "Act "); (2) are in accordance with the provisions of the State Guidelines; (3) meet the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the provisions of the amended Redevelopment Plan, and (4) are appropriate to the particular activities of the Agency and not inconsistent; with the Act or the State Guidelines. D. AGENCY DETERMINATIONS AND ASSURANCES 1. The Agency may not proceed with any phase of a project or other activity which will result in the displacement of any person or business until it makes the following determinations: a. Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be provided to eligible persons as required by State and Federal law, the State Guidelines, Federal Guidelines, and Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. b. A relocation assistance advisory program offering the services described in the State Guidelines will be established. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 57 PA0306013.HAW:CK9bd 14005.003.007/07/10r03 C. Eligible persons will be adequately informed of the assistance, benefits, policies, practices and procedures, including grievance procedures, provides for in the State Guidelines. d. Based upon recent survey and analysis of both the housing needs of persons who will be displaced and available replacement housing, and considering competing demands for that housing, comparable replacement dwellings will be available, or provided, if necessary, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement sufficient in number, size and cost for the eligible persons who require them. e. Adequate provisions have been made to provide orderly, timely and efficient relocation of eligible persons to comparable replacement housing available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status, or national origin with minimum hardship to those affected. f. A Relocation Plan meeting the requirements of State law and the State Guidelines has been prepared. 2. No person shall be displaced until the Agency has fulfilled the obligations imposed by State and Federal law, the California Community Redevelopment Law, the amended Redevelopment Plan, the State Guidelines and the Agency rules and regulations. 3. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and an otherwise standard dwelling. The Agency shall not displace such persons or families until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy. 4. Low and moderate income housing units are not proposed for the Added Area. However, if any portion of the Added Area were to be developed with low or moderate income housing units with Agency assistance, the Agency would be required by contract or other appropriate means that such housing be made available for rent or purchase to the persons and families of low and moderate income displaced by Agency activities. Such persons and families shall be given priority in renting or buying such housing; provided, however, that failure to give such priority shall not affect the validity of title to real property. 5. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the community for low and moderate income persons and families to be displaced by the Agency from the Added Area, the Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 58 PA0308013.HAW:CK:Obd 14005.003.007N711=3 City Council shall assure that sufficient land is made available for suitable housing for rental or purchase by low and moderate income persons and families. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the Added Area for use by such persons and families of low and moderate income displaced by Agency activities within the Added Area, the Agency may, to the extent of that deficiency, direct or cause the development, rehabilitation, or construction of housing units within the City. 6. Permanent housing facilities shall be made available within four years from the time occupants are displaced by the Agency, and pending the development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. E. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ADVISORY PROGRAM AND ASSURANCE OF COMPARABLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING The Agency shall implement a relocation assistance advisory program, which satisfies the requirements of the State law and Article 2 of the State Guidelines and the Civil Rights Act. Such program shall be administered so as to provide advisory services which offer maximum assistance to minimize the hardship of displacement and to ensure that (a) all persons and families displaced from their dwellings are relocated into housing meeting the criteria for comparable replacement housing contained in the State Guidelines, and (b) all persons displaced from their places of business are assisted in reestablishing with a minimum of delay and loss of earnings. No eligible person shall be required to move from his /her dwelling unless adequate replacement dwelling is available to such person. This section outlines the general functions of the Agency in providing relocation assistance advisory services. Nothing in this section is intended to permit the Agency to displace persons other than in a manner prescribed by law, the State Guidelines and the adopted Agency rules and regulations prescribing the Agency's relocation responsibilities. F. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION 1. Responsible Entity The Agency is responsible for providing relocation payments and assistance to site occupants (persons, families, business owners and tenants) displaced by the Agency from the Added Area, and the Agency will meet its relocation responsibilities through the use of its staff and consultants, supplemented by assistance from local realtors and civic organizations. • —r -� • . -- w1v / u i wr 1ne i niro Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.03.007/07 110/03 Page 59 2. Functions The Agency's staff and /or consultants will perform the following functions: Prepare a Relocation Plan as soon as possible following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property by the Agency and prior to proceeding with any phase of a public improvement or facility project or other implementation activity that will result in any displacement other than an insignificant amount of non - residential displacement. Such Relocation Plan shall conform to the requirements of the Section 6038 of the State Guidelines. The Agency shall interview all eligible persons, business concerns, including non- profit organizations, to obtain information upon, which to plan for housing and other accommodations, as well as to provide counseling and assistance needs. 2. Provide such measures, facilities or services as needed in order to: a. Fully inform persons eligible for a parcel of land as to the availability of relocation benefits and assistance and the eligibility requirements therefor, as well as the procedures for obtaining such benefits and assistance, in accordance with the requirements of Section 6046 of the State Guidelines. b. Determine the extent of the need of each such eligible person for relocation assistance in accordance with the requirements of Section 6048 of the State and Federal Guidelines. C. Assure eligible persons that within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement there will be available comparable replacement housing meeting the criteria described in Section 6008(c) of the State Guidelines, sufficient in number and kind for and available to such eligible persons. d. Provide current and continuing information on the availability, prices and rentals of comparable sales and rental housing, and of comparable commercial properties and locations, and as to security deposits, closing costs, typical down payments, interest rates, and terms for residential property in the area. e. Assist each eligible person to complete applications for payments and benefits. Assist each eligible, displaced person to obtain and move to a comparable replacement dwelling. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA030W13.HAW:CK9bd 14005.003.007MMOM3 Page 60 g. Assist each eligible person displaced from his /her business in obtaining and becoming established in a suitable replacement location. h. Provide any services required to insure that the relocation process does not result in different or separate treatment on account of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or other arbitrary circumstances. i. Supply to such eligible persons information concerning federal and state housing programs, disaster loan and other programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and other federal or state programs offering assistance to displaced persons. Provide other advisory assistance to eligible persons in order to minimize their hardships. As needed, such assistance may include counseling and referrals with regard to housing, financing, employment, training, health and welfare, as well as other assistance. k. Inform all persons who are expected to be displaced about the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out the Project, which policies shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 6058 of the State Guidelines. I. Notify in writing each individual tenant and owner - occupant to be displaced at least 90 days in advance prior to requiring a person to move from a dwelling or to move a business. M. Coordinate the Agency's relocation assistance program with the project work necessitating the displacement and with other planned or proposed activities of other public entities in the community or other nearby areas which may affect the implementation of its relocation assistance program. 3. Information Program The Agency shall establish and maintain an information program that provides for the following: a. Within 15 days following the initiation of negotiations and not less than 90 days in advance of displacement, except for those situations described in subsection 6042(e) of the State Guidelines, the Agency shall prepare and distribute informational materials (in the language most easily understood by the recipients) to persons eligible for Agency relocation benefits and assistance. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the , Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 61 PA0306013.HAW:CK9bd 14005.003.007N7/1=3 b. Conducting personal interviews and maintaining personal contacts with occupants of the property to the maximum extent practicable. C. Utilizing meetings, newsletters and other mechanisms, including local media available to all persons, for keeping occupants of the property informed on a continuing basis. d. Providing each person written notification as soon as his /her eligibility status has been determined. e. Explaining to persons interviewed the purpose of relocation needs survey, the nature of relocation payments and assistance to be made available, and encouraging them to visit the relocation office for information and assistance. 4. Relocation Record The Agency shall prepare and maintain an accurate relocation record for each person to be displaced as required by the State of California. 5. Relocation Resources Survey The Agency shall conduct a survey of available relocation resources in accordance with Section 6052 of the State Guidelines. 6. Relocation Payments The Agency shall make relocation payments to or on behalf of eligible displaced persons in accordance with and to the extent required by State and Federal law, Article 3 of the State Guidelines and appropriate Federal Guidelines. a. Temporary Moves Temporary moves would be required only if adequate resources for permanent relocation sites are not available. Staff shall make every effort to assist the site occupant in obtaining permanent relocation resources prior to initiation of a temporary move, and then only after it is determined that Agency activities in the Added Area will be seriously impeded if such move is not performed. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.007107 110/03 Page 62 b. Last Resort Housing The Agency shall follow State law and the criteria and procedures set forth in Article 4 of the State Guidelines for assuring that if the Agency action results, or will result in displacement, and comparable replacement housing will not be available as needed, the Agency shall use its funds or fund authorized for the Project to provide such housing. C. Eviction Policy Eviction for cause is permissible only as a last resort and must conform to state and local law. If a person is evicted for cause on or after the effective date of a notice of displacement issued, displaced persons retain the right to the relocation payments and other assistance for which they may be eligible. d. Grievance Procedures The Agency may adopt grievance procedures to implement the provisions of the State law and Article 5 of the State Guidelines. The purpose of the grievance procedures is to provide Agency requirements for processing appeals from Agency determinations as to the eligibility for, and the amount of a relocation payment, and for processing appeals from persons aggrieved by the Agency's failure to refer them to comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing. Potential displacees will be informed by the Agency of their right to appeal regarding relocation payment claims or other decisions made affecting their relocation. e. Relocation Appeals Board The Agency Board shall act as the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board shall, after a public hearing, transmit its findings and recommendations to the Agency. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page e3 PA0306013.PAMCK:gM 14005.003.007107110/03 IX. ANALYSIS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN Section 33352(g) of the CRL requires that this Report include an analysis of the Preliminary Plan prepared for the proposed Amendment. The Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne amended the Preliminary Plan for the Existing Project to include the Area A portion of the Added Area on April 2, 2003, by Resolution No. 2003 -07. Subsequent to this action, on May 21, 2003, by Resolution 2003 -12 (Appendix B), the Planning Commission further amended the Preliminary Plan for the Existing Project Area to incorporate Area B within the proposed Added Area. The Agency accepted the first amended Preliminary Plan and subsequently on May 27, 2003, the Agency accepted the second amended Preliminary Plan by Resolution No. 363 (Appendix B) and directed staff to prepare the amendment to the Existing Plan and the Preliminary Report. The second amended Preliminary Plan describes the boundary of the Added Area, and contains a general statement of land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities, building intensities, and building standards proposed as the basis for redevelopment of the Added Area. The Preliminary Plan, as amended, shows how the purpose of the California Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the redevelopment of the Added Area and has a statement of consistency with the General Plan of the City. The Preliminary Plan, as amended, also describes generally the impact of the Existing Project and the Amendment upon the residents thereof and the surrounding neighborhood. A copy of the second amended Preliminary Plan is included in Appendix B of this Report. The proposed Amendment conforms to the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan as amended. The boundary of the Added Area and the goals and provisions of the Preliminary Plan have not changed and are consistent with the proposed Amendment. As set forth in the Preliminary Plan, the proposed Amendment will attain the purposes of the CRL through the implementation of the goals and objectives of the Existing Plan as amended by this Amendment. - - ••• •> 1V1 u1e i mro Hmenament to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.RAW:CK:gW 14005.003.007M7/10103 Page 64 X. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE Section 33352(h) of the CRL requires that the Agency's Report to the City Council contain the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the proposed Amendment. Section 33352 0) of the CRL requires that the Agency's Report to the City Council contain the report required by Section 65402 of the Government Code (conformance with General Plan and Specific Plan). Section 65402(c) states among other things, that no real property should be acquired by dedication or otherwise for public purposes, no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized until such activities have been submitted to and reported upon by the local planning agency as to conformity with the jurisdiction's adopted general plan. The Area A portion of the Added Area is located within the proposed Pacific Glen Specific Plan ( "Specific Plan ") area. The Specific Plan is scheduled for approval on July 16, 2003. If approved, the proposed Amendment will have to be consistent with the Specific Plan as well as the City of Hawthorne's General Plan. The Area B portion of the Added Area is within the City of El Segundo and is designated as public facilities which is consistent with the current and proposed continued use of Area B as Air Force facilities. On June 23, 2003, the Agency authorized the transmittal of the draft Amendment to the Existing Plan to the Planning Commission for their report and recommendations. On July 16, 2003, the Planning Commission will receive the proposed draft Amendment. The Planning Commission has 30 days within receiving the proposed draft Amendment to make and file its report and recommendations with the Agency. On August 6, 2003, the Planning Commission will adopt their report regarding the consistency of the proposed Amendment with the City's General Plan and Specific Plan and recommend to the City Council to adopt the proposed Amendment. The Planning Commission's report regarding the consistency of the proposed Amendment with the General Plan and Specific Plan, and the report and recommendation on the proposed Amendment will be submitted to the City Council at the joint public hearing in a supplement to this Report. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 65 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9E 14005.003.007N711=3 XI. COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS Section 33352(i) of the CRL requires that this Report contain the summary referred to in Section 33387. Section 33387 refers to the minutes of the Project Area Committee (PAC) and the record of information exchanged between the PAC and the Agency. There is no existing PAC for the Existing Project Area. On June 23, 2003, the City Council, by Resolution No. 6807, found and determined that the Amendment will not contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any property on which persons reside in the Existing Project Area or the Added Area. Therefore, a Project Area Committee need not be formed in connection with the Amendment (Appendix C). In lieu of a PAC, the Agency consulted with and obtained the advice of property owners, business owners, tenants, community organizations, and other interested parties at a community information meeting held on June 24, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. Notice of this meeting was sent to all of the occupants and property owners within the Existing Project Area and the Added Area along with some properties located adjacent to the Existing Project Area and Added Area in order to insure that everyone received a notice. The notice was also published on June 12 and 19, 2003 in the Hawthorne Press Tribune. Copies of the meeting notice are provided in Appendix D. The Community Information Meeting consisted of a presentation including an overview of redevelopment in Hawthorne, and the purposes of the proposed Amendment, including discussions on the development of the Added Area, followed by a comment, question and answer session. Copies of the Owner Participation Rules, Existing Redevelopment Plan, proposed Amendment and map of the Existing Project Area and Added Area were provided. Approximately 35 people attended the community meeting. Questions and comments from the community generally included the following: • Will affordable housing be located within Area A ? • What is the difference between Area A and Area B ? • What other areas of the Existing Project Area are being developed ? • How many homes does the Agency plan to develop within the Added Area ? • What type and how many residential housing units will be developed within Area A ? • Will the population increase due to the residential development in Area A affect police and fire protection services in the City ? • What is the timeframe for development of the Added Area ? • Will there be senior housing within the Added Area ? • How long will redevelopment activities within the Existing Project Area last ? • Will Aviation Boulevard be widened when Area C is developed ? • Will residential properties be taken by eminent domain within the Existing Project Area ? Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 66 PA0306013.HAW:CKgbd 14005.003.007A7110p3 In response to the questions, City staff explained that the Air Force would like to consolidate its activities at LAAFB from Area A and C to Area B at which point a private developer will construct residential units on Areas A and C (Existing Project Area) and then in return for these Properties develop 560,000 square feet of office space on Area B for the Air Force's use. City staff stated that the exact number and type of residential units to be developed on Area A is still being determined but approximately 750 units will be developed. All of the units will be market rate housing and that the required 113 inclusionary low and moderate income housing units will be built within the Existing Project Area. The affordable housing units can be built anywhere within the City.24 The time frame for the development of the residential units on Area A will be approximately eight years. The exact impacts upon public services, such as police and fire, and the necessary funding to mitigate any impacts are still being determined and may include revenues from the utility taxes generated within Area A. The Agency currently does not have plans to widen Aviation Boulevard near Area C. The primary focus of the Amendment is the inclusion of the Added Area. There are other Agency - related projects being implemented within the Existing Project Area but these projects are not affected by the Amendment and are considered a separate process. Redevelopment activities within the Existing Project Area will terminate in 2023. Senior housing could be developed within the Existing Project Area but the amount of Agency housing funds used for senior housing cannot be proportionately higher than the percentage of senior citizens within the City, which according to the US Census is estimated at six percent (6 %). Finally, within the Existing Project Area and the Added Area, the Agency cannot use eminent domain for residential properties because the Agency does not have that authority. At the conclusion of the meeting, City staff offered to stay and answer additional questions. The Agency will also consult and obtain the advice of occupants and property owners at the Joint Public Hearing meeting of the City Council and the Agency scheduled on August 25, 2003. Per CRL Section 33349, the Agency will send a first class mailing containing the required Notice of Joint Public Hearing to the last known assessee (the "property owner") of each parcel of land and to all tenants and business owners within the Existing Project Area and the Added Area. This notice will contain a letter explaining the purpose of the Joint Public Hearing and other pertinent information such as the meeting date, time and location. Consenting to the Joint Public Hearing will be approved by the City Council and Agency Board, along with the contents of the mailing, at the meeting on July 14, 2003. The Notice of Joint Public Hearing will also be published in a newspaper of record (Hawthorne Press Tribune) for four (4) consecutive weeks, in compliance with CRL Sections 33349 and 33361. The days of publication are scheduled for July 24 and 31 and August 7 and 14, 2003, 24 If the Agency chooses to fulfill its inclusionary affordable housing requirement outside the Existing Project Area, the units will have to be built on a two for one basis. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 67 PAMW011 W:Mgbd 14005.003.007N7/10/03 XII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Section 33352 (k) of the CRL requires that this Report contain the report required by Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code (Environmental Impact Report). Since the proposed development project within the Added Area involves federal agencies (i.e., Air Force) a combined Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared simultaneously to meet federal (National Environmental Policy Act) and state (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements for environmental analysis and review. Although the EIS /EIR was prepared specifically for the land conveyance, construction and development of LAAFB, the EIS /EIR was also used as the environmental compliance documentation for the proposed Amendment in accordance with CEQA requirements. The EIS /EIR is included under a separate cover as an attachment to this Report and is incorporated herein by this reference. The Initial Study identified the following issues as having effects that were found not to be significant and, therefore, no further analysis within the EIS /EIR was determined necessary: • Agricultural Resources • Biological Resources The Initial Study identified the following issues as having potential impacts as a result of the implementation of the proposed Amendment, which required the preparation of an EIS /EIR and included analysis of the impacts and, as necessary, mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less- than - significant level: • Land Use • Water Resources • Employment, Population and Housing • Shade /Shadow • Soils and Geology • Environmental Justice • Public Services (police protection, fire protection, schools) • Public Utilities (sewer, water, natural gas, electricity) • Hazardous Materials/Waste • Cultural Resources • Protection of Children Based upon the analyses contained in the EIS /EIR, the following environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the Amendment and subsequent development project within the Added Area: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Public Utilities (solid waste only) • Noise • Transportation • Public Services (libraries and parks) The Draft EIS /EIR was circulated to the affected taxing entities and responsible environmental Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007A7/10/03 Page 68 agencies for a 45 -day review period beginning on April 11, 2003 and ending on May 27, 2003. During the 45 -day review period, the Agency received comments on the Draft EIS /EIR. These comments and the response to the comments received on the Draft EIS /EIR are included within the Final EIS /EIR under a separate cover as an attachment to this Report, and is incorporated herein by this reference. The Agency at the joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment, scheduled for August 25, 2003, will consider the Final EIS /EIR. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page ss PA030W13.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.00]N1/1 0A3 XIII. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT Section 33352(m) of the CRL requires that the Agency's Report to City Council contain a neighborhood impact report if the redevelopment project contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the neighborhood impact report is to describe in detail the impact of the proposed actions upon the residents of the project area and surrounding areas in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report is also to include: (a) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as part of the redevelopment project; (b) the number of persons and families (households) of low or moderate income expected to be displaced by the project; (c) the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413 of the CRL; (d) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low and moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than replacement housing; (e) the projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low and moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation, and (f) a projected timetable for meeting the relocation, rehabilitation and replacement housing objectives. Although Area C is located within the Existing Project Area, and not a part of the proposed Amendment, discussion within this section of neighborhood impacts includes Area C because this area is a part of the proposed development project including the financing of the development of the Added Area. A. IMPACT ON RESIDENTS IN THE ADDED AREA AND SURROUNDING AREAS 1. Relocation The Added Area and Area C does not contain residential dwelling units of any income category; therefore, the proposed Amendment and the Existing Plan will not displace any low or moderate income persons or families. Approximately 750 residential units will be developed on Area A during the implementation phase of the Amendment. Additionally, 279 dwelling units will be developed in Area C. However, the Agency is not proposing to adopt eminent domain authority over these residential properties. Any voluntary displacement which occurs as a result of Agency redevelopment activities over the life of the Amendment (30 years) or for Area C will be mitigated by relocation assistance including financial payments, advisory assistance, and replacement housing plan provisions of state law relating to Agency assisted developments. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 70 PA0306013.11AW MI)bd 14005.003.007/07 110/03 In general, residents will not be displaced unless and until there are suitable relocation facilities available for occupancy at rents or costs comparable to those paid at the time of displacement. The Agency will assist residents in finding housing, that is decent, safe and sanitary and within their financial means, in reasonably convenient locations and otherwise suitable to their needs. Any displacement which occurs as a result of Agency redevelopment activities will be mitigated by relocation assistance including financial payments, advisory assistance, and replacement housing plan provisions of state law relating to agency assisted developments. Additionally, although it is unlikely that the implementation of the proposed Amendment will require the temporary or permanent displacement and relocation of non - residential occupants within the Added Area and Area C, a method or plan for relocation has also been provided for non - residential occupants in the Added Area as described in Section VIII of this Report. In every case, the Agency will diligently use its best efforts to attempt to find relocation sites meeting the required needs of the individual business displaced by the Agency activity as required by law. Furthermore, the Agency will work with property owners to provide every opportunity for them to participate in the rehabilitation or redevelopment of their own properties and /or other properties in the Added Area and Area C as consistent with the proposed Amendment. The Agency will additionally offer re -entry opportunities where feasible to existing business owners and tenants on a preference basis. 2. Traffic Circulation The adoption of the proposed Amendment and related implementation activities will not add to local or regional traffic beyond what was analyzed in the Final EIS /EIR prepared for the LAAFB land conveyance, construction and development project. The Amendment is an implementation measure for the proposed development of the Added Area and Area C. The Amendment will be consistent with the General Plan planned land uses in the Added Area and Area C. However, the development of the Added Area and Area C will cause impacts to the circulation system that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance and therefore are considered significant unavoidable impacts. 3. Environmental Quality The EIS /EIR, included under a separate cover as an attachment to this Report, presents information on the environmental assessment of the proposed Amendment. The analysis contained in the EIS /EIR found significant unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the proposed Amendment and development activities. These environmental issues include the following: aesthetics air quality, noise, public services (libraries and parks only), public services (solid waste only), and transportation. All other environmental issues as described in Section XII of this Report either had no Neport to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 71 PA0306013AMCK Od 14005.003.007MMUN3 environmental impacts or had environmental impacts that could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 4. Community Facilities and Services The EIS /EIR prepared for the Amendment and the subsequent development project analyzed impacts on community services including fire protection, police protection, parks, libraries and schools and public utilities including water, sewer, natural gas, solid waste and electricity. Except for solid waste, no significant or potentially significant impacts were found or stated for any of the public utilities. In order to alleviate environmental impacts, the Proposed Amendment is intended to assist in funding the upgrading and installation of public improvements and facilities, which would include improvements to traffic, water, sewer, and drainage systems. Based upon the EIS /EIR generation factors for solid waste, the implementation of the proposed Amendment and the development of Area C could generate 2,663 additional pounds per day of solid waste. Due to the severity of the landfill shortage caused by regional growth, the mitigation measures outlined in the EIS /EIR would not reduce solid waste impacts to less than significant levels. Police /fire personnel, schools, libraries and parks provide a wide range of services that are affected by population increases. The Amendment would assist in the creation of residential development thus increasing the population for the area surrounding the Added Area and Area C over existing conditions by 2,264 people.25 Except for parks and libraries, the impacts to police protection, fire protection and schools would be less than significant as a result of the Amendment's implementation. Individual project review by these community service agencies, and development impact fees will provide adequate mitigation in that community services will not be impacted by physical environmental effects created by the proposed Amendment. Both the Police Department and the Fire Department will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the design of any proposed redevelopment project within the Added Area that could affect public or fire safety. Since the Wiseburn Library may not be adequate to accommodate the potential residential development population in Areas A and C, and due to a lack of feasible mitigation measures, impacts to library services would be significant and unavoidable. Since the City of Hawthorne is park deficient, the additional population increase as a result of residential development in Areas A and C would further impact an already substandard park service ratio; therefore, impacts to park services would be significant and unavoidable. Although not a substitute for City and zs Based upon 1,029 dwelling units and a average household size of 2.2 persons as stated in the Draft EIS /EIR Prepared for the Los Angeles Air Force Base Land Conveyance, Construction and Development Project. Keport to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0308013.HAW:CK:gbd 14005.003.007/07 /10/03 Page 72 County parks with recreational amenities, the residential development in Areas A and C will be landscaped and include open space areas. 5. School Population and Quality of Education Public education services within the Added Area are provided by the Wiseburn Elementary School District and the Centinela Valley Union High School District. Residential development that occurs in the Added Area would increase enrollment in local schools and increase student demand on local schools. Based upon the student generation factors described in the EIS /EIR, residential development within Areas A and C is expected to generate approximately 404 students. However, impacts to school services would be less than significant as a result of developer's impact fees. 6. Property Assessment and Taxes The proposed Amendment will not cause the property taxes paid by owners to increase. In general, taxable valuations of property within and adjoining should increase as development of that property occurs. New development within the Areas A and C will be assessed at market value, as determined by the assessor (Area B is a property tax exempt public facility). Regardless of whether property is in the Area A or Area C, the assessor may increase property valuations for existing properties at the maximum rate of two percent per year allowed under Proposition 13. In cases where property changes hands, the assessor will reassess the added value to property and improvements due to any new development or rehabilitation which occurs. Another matter potentially affecting property taxes in the Added Area and Area C and surrounding areas would be the possibility of additional levies resulting from formation of special assessment districts. The financing of the redevelopment program, as outlined in this Report (Section V), assumes the formation of a special assessment district within the Added Area and Area C to assist in offsetting the financial shortfall between the new Air Force improvements on Area B and a reasonable private sector return on investment on the development opportunity on Area A and Area C. B. RELOCATION AND LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING 7. Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed There are no residences of any income category in the Added Area or Area C and the Proposed Amendment and the Existing Plan will not displace any low or moderate income persons or families. The Agency does not plan to acquire property within the Added Area or Area C. Furthermore, eminent domain may not be used by the Agency to Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 73 PA030r013.HAW:CK:gbd 1600&003.007N711 0N3 acquire property designated for residential land uses in the Added Area or the Existing Project Area which includes Area C. Should Agency acquisition by means other than eminent domain result in the removal of dwelling units occupied by person or families of low and moderate incomes, over the life of the 30 -year Amendment or the Existing Plan, the Agency will be required to construct develop or rehabilitate, or cause the construction, development or rehabilitation of, low and moderate income dwelling units equal in number to those destroyed or removed. These "replacement housing units" must be constructed within four years of their destruction or removal, and must be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons in the same or a lower income category (low -, very-low or moderate) as the persons displaced from those destroyed or removed units. The units must remain affordable throughout the period of land use controls established in the proposed Amendment and the Existing Plan. For the purposes of this section the period of land use controls shall be equal to the affordability covenants set forth in the California Health and Safety Code Section 33334.3. 2. Projected Residential Displacement As mentioned above, the Agency does not have any plans, which would involve the removal of low and moderate income housing units or displacement of low and moderate income residents since none currently exist. However, within Area A, the Agency is proposing to assist in the development of 750 dwelling units and 279 units in Area C, which will consist of market rate housing. Should Agency displacement be contemplated over the life of the Amendment and the Existing Plan, the Agency will conduct individual household surveys to determine the exact number, type and, location of comparable replacement housing units and the required number of referrals thereto prior to displacement of any person of low or moderate income. Section VIII (Method and Plan for Relocation) of this Report provides an overview of the relocation process that must be undertaken by the Agency prior to displacing any person(s) or family(ies). 3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing Units There are currently no residential units of any income category in the Added Area or Area C. Should housing units be destroyed or removed in the future from the low and moderate income housing market by the Agency, suitable replacement housing locations pursuant to CRL Section 33413 are available within the Existing Project Area, or other areas of the City as identified in the General Plan as residential infill areas. The City Council and the Agency will make findings as may be necessary to provide such replacement housing. When the Agency acquires property, enters into a disposition and development agreement, participation agreement or other agreement, or Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 74 PA0305013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007/07 /10103 undertakes any other activities requiring or causing the destruction or removal of housing units from the low and moderate income housing market, the Agency will provide replacement housing required pursuant to Section 33413 of the CRL and replacement housing plan pursuant to Section 33413.5. 4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income Housing Units Planned Other than Replacement Housing Since the Added Area is limited in size, it is anticipated that future housing development in the Added Area as a result of Agency activities will consist of only the 750 residential dwelling units that will be built in Area A over the next 10 years. Additionally, 279 residential units will be built in Area C over the next 10 -years. If these residential units are developed by individuals /groups other than the Agency as anticipated, then based upon the estimates above, 155 units will be made available to very low -, low, and moderate income persons and families over the next ten years. It is anticipated that these 155 units would be located within the Existing Project Area. In order to meet its inclusionary requirement described above, the Agency plans to assist in the construction, rehabilitation and preservation of low and moderate income housing in the Existing Project Area under its housing program. These housing programs are described in the Five -Year Implementation Plan for the Existing Project Area (Appendix A) and in Section VII of this Report for the Added Area and Area C. 5. Financing Method for Replacement Housing Requirements The Agency will employ as necessary any of the methods outlined in this Report to meet replacement housing requirements and other obligations under the Community Redevelopment Law. Not less than 20 percent of all taxes which may be allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL shall be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing, improving, preserving the supply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income and very low- income households. This source of funding is expected to be utilized for replacement housing should the Agency be required to create such housing. - - • ­7 ....,.,"' lul lnG 1 mr0 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0308013.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007MMM3 3tes, Inc. Page 75 6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing objectives If replacement housing is to be provided pursuant to Section 33413 of the CRL, the Agency shall take necessary steps to cause the construction, rehabilitation or development of such housing in accordance with the time limits prescribed by law. The relocation plan(s) prepared by the Agency for a particular development activity shall contain schedules to insure comparable replacement housing is available in accordance with the requirements of the CRL and the State Relocation Guidelines. C. OTHER MATTERS AFFECTING THE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT The proposed development project assisted by redevelopment actions will assist in maintaining the LAAFB in the South Bay and therefore will help to stabilize the existing employment base. At the same time, redevelopment will provide a safe and more efficient work environment for Air Force personnel. In addition, the Amendment will provide more market rate and affordable housing opportunities within the Existing Project Area and Added Area. Report to the City Council for the Third Amend Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0306013.HAW:CK:gbd 14006.003.007N7/10/03 Page 76 XIV. REPORT OF THE COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND THE AGENCY'S ANALYSIS THEREOF, INCLUDING A SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES Pursuant to Section 33352(n) of the CRL, this Report must include an analysis of the Fiscal Officer's Report and must include a summary of the consultations of the Agency, or attempts to consult by the Agency, with each of the affected taxing agencies. If any of the affected taxing agencies have expressed written objections or concerns with the proposed Amendment as part of these consultations, the Agency shall include a response to these concerns, additional information, if any, and, at the discretion of the Agency, proposed or adopted mitigation measures. A. THE REPORT OF THE COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND ANALYSIS THEREOF Section 33328 of the CRL requires the County officials charged with the responsibility of allocating taxes under Section 33670 and 33670.5 to prepare and deliver a report to the Redevelopment Agency (the "Fiscal Officer's Report "). Since the base year value for the Existing Project Area remains unchanged since the time of adoption, the Fiscal Officer's Report addresses the Added Area only. This Report shall include the following: a. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the Added Area as shown on the base value assessment roll; b. The identification of each taxing agency levying taxes in the Added Area; C. The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the base value assessment roll from the Added Area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory, and similar subventions; d. For each taxing agency, its total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries, whether inside or outside the Added Area; e. The estimated first year taxes available to the redevelopment agency, if any, based upon information submitted by the redevelopment agency, broken down by taxing agencies, and; The assessed valuation of the Added Area for the preceding year, or, if requested by the Agency, for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board roll. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0300013.HAW:CK9bd 14005.003.007107 110103 Page 77 B. REPORT OF THE COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER On May 13, 2003, the Agency transmitted a notice to the County Auditor's Office of its intent to adopt the proposed Amendment and requested that the County Auditor prepare a Fiscal Officer's Report for the Added Area in compliance with CRL Section 33328. The Fiscal Officer's Report was submitted by the County of Los Angeles to the Agency on June 26, 2003 (Appendix E). The Fiscal Officer's Report details the taxing agencies which levy taxes in the Added Area and the one percent tax revenues allocated to each agency. These distributions were calculated for both the locally assessed secured and unsecured base value revenues. C. ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION The Total Assessed Valuation of All Taxable Property within the Added Area as Shown on the Base Year Assessment Roll The County has reported the following values for 2002 -03. The total value is $2,981,447. Of this amount, secured values represents $2,875,000 (96 percent of total value) and unsecured values $106,447 (four percent of total value). 2. The Identirication of each Taxing Agency Levying Taxes in the Added Area The Fiscal Officer's Report identified eleven (11) taxing agencies receiving ad valorem property tax revenues from the Added Area. These agencies are listed in the Fiscal Officer's Report included in this Report as Appendix E and include the following: • Los Angeles County (including County Library) • Los Angeles County Office of Education • Los Angeles County Flood Control District • City of El Segundo • Wiseburn Elementary School District • El Camino Community College District • Centinela Valley Union High School District • Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District • Los Angeles County West Vector Control District • Los Angeles County Sanitation District • Water Replenishment District of Southern California These taxing entities received notification of the intent to amend the redevelopment project, the Draft EIS /EIR, the Preliminary Report, and the Draft Amendment. • — •— —y �uul lul iu/ we i nird Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 79 PA0306D13.HAW:CKpEtl 14005.003.007/07 /10/03 3. The Amount of Tax Revenue to be Derived by each Taxing Agency from the Base Year Assessment Roll from the Added Area The Fiscal Officer's Report indicated that $29,814.4728 is one percent tax levy revenue to be generated from the 2002 -03 secured and unsecured base year value total. As shown in the table below, the revenue currently generated in the Added Area relative to the respective entities' share of property taxes countywide ranges from a high of 39.5 percent or $11,772.95 for Los Angeles County to a low of 0.02 percent or $5.66 for the Los Angeles County West Vector Control District. It should be noted that the respective taxing entities will continue to receive these base year property tax revenues over the life of the Amendment, in addition to statutory pass through allocations required under Health and Safety Code Section 33607.5. Identified TaK[UaAAqgeftncv Los Angeles County L.A. Co. Consolidated Fire L.A. Co. Flood Control Dist. L.A. Co. West Vector Control L.A. Co. Sanitation Dist. City of El Segundo Water Replenishment District L.A. Co. Office of Education / ERAF Wiseburn Elem. School Dist. Centinela Valley Union H.S. Dist. El Camino Comm. College Dist. Total FY 2002 -03 Tax Levy Share of % Share of 1 % Tax Lev v Levy Within Within the Project the Project $11,772.95 39.49% 270.22 0.90% 457.22 1.53% 5.66 0.02% 479.56 1.61% 1,883.93 6.32% 6.37 0.02% 6,246.31 20.95% 2,268.70 7.61% 5,344.85 17.93% 1,078.70 3.62% $29,814.47 100% 4. For each Taxing Agency, its Ad Valorem Tax Revenues from all Property within its Boundaries, Whether Inside or Outside the Added Area As previously stated, the Fiscal Officer's Report indicated that $29,814.47 in one percent tax levy revenue is generated from the Project's FY 2002 -2003 secured and unsecured values. Since the Fiscal Officer's Report identified the total County -wide property tax revenues of each identified taxing agency, a computation of the percentage of the taxing 21 In addition to the one percent tax levy, certain taxing entities receive additional revenues from voter approved override tax levies. In all, the secured and unsecured override tax levies amount to $2,993.82. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA030W13.HAW:CK:9bd 14005.003.007,°7 /10/03 Page 7s agency's tax revenue from within the Added Area relative to its total property tax revenue apportioned by the County can be measured to assess fiscal impact. Based upon the review, the tax revenue impact of the FY 2002 -2003 levy is minimal as the $29,814.47 in one percent tax levy represents one one - thousandths of one percent of the affected taxing entities total allocation County -wide. Furthermore, as shown on the table below, the impact to each affected taxing entity is minimal. Identified Taxing Agency Los Angeles County L.A. Co. Consolidated Fire L.A. Co. Flood Control Dist. L.A. Co. West Vector Control L.A. Co. Sanitation Dist. City of El Segundo Water Replenishment District L.A. Co. Office of Educ. /ERAF Wisebum Elem. School Dist. Centinela Valley Union H.S. Dist. El Camino Comm. College Dist. Total FY 2002 -03 Tax Levy Share of 1% Tax Lew Within the County -wide Tax Project Levy Proiect Allocation as % of Total $11,772.95 $1,547,591,693.62 0.0008% 270.22 68,812,278.69 0.0004% 457.22 60,068,397.98 0.0008% 5.66 555,939.98 0.001% 479.56 5,639,822.19 0.009% 1,883.93 4,969,658.69 0.04% 6.37 310,427.81 0.002% 6,246.31 1,456,565,987.51 0.0004% 2,268.70 3,360,582.27 0.07% 5,344.85 14,443,143.67 0.04% 1,078.70 15,335,142.80 0.007% $29,814.47 $3,177,653,075.21 0.001% 5. The Estimated First Year Taxes Available to the Agency, if any. The County Fiscal Officer's Report submitted to the Agency did not provide this required information. However, the Agency has provided an estimate based upon the financial feasibility analysis contained in Section V of this Report. As shown in Table 5 in Section V, it is estimated that the first couple of years (2004 -05 and 2005 -06), the Agency will receive a minimal amount of net tax increment funds from Area A (Area B is tax exempt property). However, once development of portions of Area A have been completed, the Agency anticipates receiving approximately $340,000 in 2006 -07. This is based upon a total tax increment of $436,000, which will be reduced by the 20 percent housing set aside funds and the County's administration fees with the remaining amount of the funds being directed to the Agency. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 PA0305013.N W:CK:gbd 14005M.007M711=3 Page 80 6. The Assessed Valuation of the Added Area for the Preceding Year, or if Requested by the Agency, for the Preceding Five Years The County Fiscal Officer's Report submitted to the Agency identified the 2001 -02 secured and unsecured assessed valuation for the Added Area as $10,855,592, which compared with the 2002 -2003 base year value is a 73 percent decrease. The reason the assessed valuation decreased from 2001 -02 to 2002 -03 is because of a new leasehold interest that affected the possessorary interest assessment identified by the County Assessor's Office. The Agency did not request that the County Fiscal Officer prepare the assessed valuation for the preceding five years. D. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency prior to the publication of a notice of the joint Public hearing on the proposed Amendment, to consult with each affected taxing agency with respect to the Amendment's impact on the allocation of tax increment revenues. On July 2, 2003, the Agency sent the draft Amendment, the Preliminary Report, and a letter (see Appendix F for sample letter and mailing list) to all affected taxing entities for the purpose of initiating the consultation process for the proposed Amendment. The letter urges all affected taxing entities to contact the Agency regarding questions concerning the proposed Amendment. Consultation meetings regarding the adoption of the Amendment have occurred continually with affected taxing entities, including the County of Los Angeles, since the start of the Amendment Process. A summary of all consultations will be provided at the joint public hearing as a supplement to this Report. Finally, in accordance with CRL Section 33349(d), on July 22, 2003 (or soon thereafter), the Agency will send to all of the affected taxing entities a Notice of Joint Public Hearing, which is scheduled for August 25, 2003. E. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS OR CONCERNS OF THE AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES As of the preparation of this Report, no written objections or concern has been received by the Agency from affected taxing entities. If written objections or concerns are received, they will be submitted to the City Council at the joint public hearing in a supplement to this Report. Report to the City Council for the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Page 61 PA0306013.HAW:CK:pbd 14005.003.00]A]/10M3 APPENDIX A Five -Year Implementation Plan (2000 — 2004) for the Existing Project Area MAR.19'2003 16:03 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.002 R IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ' FOR THE CXTY OF F AWMOPM XI DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT NO.2 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The City of Hawthorne has had an active interest in redevelopment dating back to the 1970's. The Hawthome Plaza, developed by Ernest Hahn Corporation in 1977, was the Redevelopment Agency's first project and features 133 stores including J.C. Penny's, The Broadway and Montgomery Ward, In 1984, the Agency created its.second redevelopment project area that includes over 900 acres of commercial frontage along mast ofthe City's mails arterials. The Agency's accomplishments since the establishment of its second project area include the following: - Costco, a membership sales distribution center, opened in June 1988. This 130,000 square foot wholesale(retail warehouse is situated on the northwest corner of Marine Avenue and the 405 Freeway. Xt continues to be an asset to the City and to the shoppers it serves. - The Ramada Inn, also completed in 1989, is located in the center of the Los Angeles aerospace community just west of the San Diego Freeway at.EI Segundo Boulevard. - Opened in 1991, Glen Court is a 31,000 square foot retail center located near the San Diego Freeway. GIen Court is home to Soup Exchange, Luigi's and Carl's Jr. restaurants, as well as to other quality retail establishments. - TELACU- Hawhhome Senior Gardens, completed it September 1988, was the first senior citizen housing development undertaken jointly by TELACU, the U.S. Department of Housing and the Agency. It is a 75 -unit low and moderate - income facility located on Doty Avenue. The Agency provided funding for an additional elevator and other 1 capital improvements. TELACU Terrace is the second senior citizen housing development undertaken jointly by TELACU, the U.S. Department of Housing and the Agency. Dedicated in October 1992, TELACU Terrace provides affordable housing, with state -of -the art amenities, to low - income senior citizens. The 3 million dollar, 75 -unit complex includes eight units designed specifically for the disabled. Situated at the corner of l I8th Street and GreviEca Avenue, TELACU Terrace stands directly across from Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center and a short walk from major shopping areas and other vital community facilities and services. The Agency provided funding for land acquisition, relocation and clearance of this site. The Oceangate Commerce Center is. located at the southeast comer of Rosecrans Avenue at the San Diego Freeway. This 36 -acre retail, office center is home to Toy's 'W' Us, SportMart, Staples, Kids "A" Us, Ross, Food 4 Less, Michael's and Home Depot. This center has brought many needed amenities and physical revitalization to the area it serves. The Agency will continue to focus on bringing high quality business establishments to this project until full MAR.19'2003 16:04 3106446685 build out is achieved. City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.003 - In December 1993, the Agency entered into an owner participation agreement with South Bay Ford, a new car dealership. The new ownership has increased business on Hawthorne Boulevard considerably. - In July 1994, the Agency entered into an owner participation agreement with Best Buy Corporation to build a 54,700 square foot consumer electronics store on 3.1 acres of land situated in the southwest portion of the city, adjacent to the Oceangate development. The facility opened its doors for business in November 1994. - . In October 1999, the agency entered into a Participation Agreement with S & W Towing and Storage Corporation to expand their vehicle towing and storage fi=lty onto the adjacent property. The acquisition of the additional property will allow the business to better serve the community. - In September 1999, the Agency entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with VHB Associates, Inc., AUTONATION USA Corporation, and COSTCO WHOLESALE Corporation to develop a 44 -acre site on the west side of the 1 -405 freeway and south of Rosecrans Avenue. The project will include three auto center facilities, a new COSTCO retail facility with a gas station, a full service hotel, and additional retaillrestaurant facilities. COSTCO is anticipating opening in December 2000 with the rest of the development begimting construction in 2001. In May 1999, the Agency entered into the 5"' Implementation Agreement for the development of the final parcel of the Oceangate Commerce Center site. The agreement allows for development of an officelretail p'roj'ect on the site. With these successful projects as part of its history, the Agency is looking forward to a future with many more similar accomplishments. II. SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE AGENCY FOR THE PROJECT AREA A. Redevelopment Goals 1. Economic development to assist with long term financial stability of the City, including the re• planning, redesign and development of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. 2. Encouragement of future retail development along major corridors in the City, including Hawthorne Boulevard and Imperial Highway. 3. Continuation and expansion of the Hawthorne Gateway Project in the southwest part of the City. 3. Continuation and expansion of the Oceangate retail development in the southwest part of the City. 2 MAA,19'2003 16:04 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P. 004 4. The creation of local job opportunities and the preservation of the current employment base. 5. Wherever possible, contribution to the implementation and completion of major infrastructure improvements needed to revitalize R;awthorne Boulevard in the downtown are 6. Alleviation of the impact resulting from I-105 Freeway, including potential land use conflicts. 7. Encouragement of future retail development along secondary corridors in the city, such as Inglewood Avenue and Prairie Avenue. S. Encouragement of future retail, office, and industrial development of the Hawthorne Municipal Airport and surrounding properties. 9. Preservation and improvement of the City's current low and moderate income housing stock. 10. Increase in the number of low and moderate - income housing units within the City. B. Goals contained in Agency Annual Work Program 1. Three new automobile dealers in Hawthorne 2. Up -scale Dinner /facility /restaurant I Encouragement and solicitation of large retail users in and around Oceangate development and site. 4, Solicitation of a developer to develop and or redevelop the city- controIled airport and the properties surrounding the airport. 5. Encouragement and solicitation for a developer to develop the Civic Center Plaza/Police Department project for a mixed use project for retail, restaurants, office, hotel, residential use and governmental facilities. 6. Encourage and support the development of a specific plan for the development of Rawthome Boulevard, 3 MAR.19'2003 16:04 3106446695 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.005 III. PROPOSED PROGRAMS, POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND EXPEND1l WS PROPOSED TO BE MADE DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS A. Tax increment committed to Oceangate Development ($370,000 annually), B. Tax increment committed to Hawthorne Gateway Development (estimated $450,000 annually). C. Tax increment committed to Oceangate Mello-Roos Bond Issue ($106,000 annually). D. Tax increment committed to 1994 Tax Allocation Bond Issue, including the portion secured by 20% Housing Set -Aside monies. Administrative costs associated with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, including certain Housing administrative costs. Tax increment committed to the 20 % Housing Set -Aside Fund (described in Section V below) (estimated $1,129,624 annually). E. Expenditures associated with review and participation of a downtown revitalization plan Such plan will attempt to encourage and assist the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses and public agencies in the revitalization of the area (estimated $150,000). F. Tax increment committed to Best Buy ($103,000 annually). G. Tax increment committed to the County of Los Angeles, Hawthorne School District, and El Camino College ($94,000 annually). K Tax increment to the proposed Civic Center/Pol]ce Department project (estimated $400,132 annually). I. Tax increment to the proposed Airport Area project (estimated $450,000 annually). IV. EXPLANATION OF HOW THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, PROGRAMS AND EXPENDTl MES WILL ELIZ NATE BLIGHT The goals and objectives listed in Section U and the programs and expenditures proposed in Section III all pertain to the revitalization and upgrading of the project area. If these endeavors are realized, they will be major contributors to the reduction of blight in the following ways; 1. Assuring soda] and economic growth opportunities for the residents of the project area. 2. Creating employment opportunities at city airport and surrounding properties. 3. Increasing sales and business tax revenue, thus providing the City with additional funds to continue the rehabilitation and beautification process in the project area 4. Eliminating or rehabilitating unsightly and unsafe commercial, industrial and residential structures and other influences, which constitute a negative environment. 4 MAR.19'2003 16:05 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.006 S. Continuing to assist current projects in order to prevent them from becoming financially unfeasible, thus averting potential deterioration. 6. Providing many other additional public improvements that will establish Hawthorne as a better place to work live, shop and enjoy leisure time. 7. Increasing, improving and preserving low and moderate - income housing in the City. V. HOUSING RAPLE>tiffMATION PLAN A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The Housing implementation Plan implements the following requirements of the California Redevelopment Law: 1. An explanation of how the goals, 'objectives, programs and expenditures of the Redevelopment Implementation Plan will implement the affordable housing requirements of Redevelopment Law. (Section 33490 (a)(1)) 2. A description of the use of the Low and Moderate Income housing Fund to increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of housing at affordable housing cost. (Section 33334.2) 3. An explanation of how the expenditure of the Housing Fund to assist low and very low - income households will be done in proportion to their needs (Section 33334.4) 4. Preparation of a plan to oomply with the project area housing production (or inclusionary) obligations. (Section 333413) B. GOALS AND OBJECTIVE Among the goals and objectives of the Agency, the following will implement the affordable housing requirements: 1. Alleviation of the impact resulting from the I -105 Freeway, including potential land use conflicts. The construction and completion of the I -105 Freeway has resulted in residential use located between Imperial Highway and the 1 -105 Freeway. The parcelization of the property and the multiple ownerships involved to secure a viable development project make it almost impossible for private development to succeed. 2. Preservation and improvement of the'City's current low and moderate income housing stock The use of 20% set -aside funds in combination with the Home program funds to provide opportunities for low and moderate - income first time homebuyers. The program also provides funds for rehabilitation and repairs to low and moderate- income homeowners. 3. Increase in the number of low and moderate - income housing units within the City. The 5 MAR.19'2003 16:05 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.007 Agency has acquired vacant land and proposes . to develop a 10.20 unit condominium project for low and moderate- ineome seniors. As additional housing set -aside funds become available the Agency will be able to develop and contribute to the development of additional projects. C. PROGRAMS AND EXPENDITURES The following summarizes the programs and expenditures planned by the ,Agency for the Project Area No. 2 in the 5 -year period covered by this plan that will implement the affordable housing requirements: 1. Tax increment committed to 1994 Tax Allocation Bond Issue, including the portion secured by 20% Housing Set -Aside monies. 2. Administrative costs associated with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, including certain housing administrative costs. 3. Tax increment committed to 20% Housing Set -Aside 4. 20% Housing Set -Aside committed to the First Time Home -Buyer Program and the Housing Rehab program. S. Work with HUD and the City's Housing Authority to develop an approach andlor program that will provide financial resources for the preservation of the affordable at risk rental units. 6. 20% Housing Set -Aside committed to the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program 7. 20% Housing Set -Aside funds committed to the development of a multifamily /senior citizen housing project on the agency's property located at 116* Street and Gale Avenue. D. IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING REQUIREMENTS This portion of the Plan document addresses the Agency's housing, responsibilities, including sections addressing Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.2, 33334.4, 33334.6 and 33413. 1. Increase, Improve and Expand the Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing. (Section 33334.2). a. Housing Fund Amounts Table I on the following page shows the amount available in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund and the estimated amounts, which will be deposited in the Fund during each of the next five years. b. Housing Program The expenditures of monies from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund during each of the five years between 2000 -2004 are shown in Table, 1. N. MAR.19'2003 16:05 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.008 Table 1 Hawthome.RedeveJopment Agency Project Area No. 2 Housing Fund Amounts - First-Time Homebuyer program during the five -year period. This program will 'emphasize the existing bousing supply through two coordinated efforts. The first will contribute to the conversion of existing apartment buildings to owner- occupied housing units. The second will focus on the resale of the single -family housing market. Financial assistance will be provided to first -time homebuyers in the form of help with the down payment and closing costs. 7 MAR.19'2003 16:05 3106996685 City of Hawthorne Planning 01179 P.009 Based on an average assistance per household/housing unit of 520, follows: 000, the number of housing units to be assisted during each of the next five years is as 2000 8 units 20018 units 2002 8 units 2003 8 units 2004 8 units 40 units All the affordable housing assisted by the Agency will be subject to recorded covenants that will restrict the housing 'to low, moderate or very low income persons or families at affordable rents for the longest feasible time but not less than 30 years in the cafe of rental housing and 10 years in the case of ownership housing. - Crime Free Multi - Family housing program.. Crime Awareness will be' addressed by the Crime Free N4ultihousing Progorn. Housing quality, safety, and crime prevention through property improvement to improve the living environment Of the highest density residential areas of the City. The high- density residential areas abut the agency's Project Area No. 2 and impact the economic viability of the project area. The City has determined the need to continue with code enforcement effork� in low and moderate - income neighborhoods and slum/blighted areas. The program will continue to work with police to create crime free multi - family housing units throughout the City. The City will conduct 7,500 code enforcement inspections in the next five years. Construction of a 10 to 20 -unit multi- family condominium senior citizen housing, project. The Agency acquired two adjacent parcels of land (total lot area 35,411 square feet) in 1997 for development of a housing project. The parcel will accommodate 14 units pursuant to the existing R -3 High Density Residential Zone. The Agency will assist a project developer in obtaining a minimum 20% density bonuses as provided for in state ]rousing law. The A,genoy, further proposes to assist the project by contributing the land and an additional $889,767 in Housing Set -aside Funds to insure the affordability of the project 2. Proportion of Very Low, Low and Moderate Income Housing. The Agency's plan during the next 10 years is that the housing units assisted will be affordable to the very low, low or moderate income households in the following propordon: Very Low Income, 25 %; Low Income, 20%; and Moderate Income, 23 "�,. This proportion of very low, low and moderate income units is the same as the proportion that the total number of housing units needed for these income groups (which MAR.19'2003 16:06 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.010 are not being provided by other governmental programs) bears to the total number of units needed for persons of moderate, low and very Iow income in the City. Housing need is based on the City's share of the regional housing need. This need is quantified in the City's Housing Element based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments. The need is distributed among the very low, low, moderate, and above moderate - income groups as follows: 3. Estimate of Housing Production Pigmt- Project Area No. 2 (Section 33490 (a)(2)). a. Housing Units to be Developed or Purchased As explained below, the Agency does not have an affordable housing production obligation in Project Area No. 2. Therefore, no housing production will be targeted to Project Area No. 2. The Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund may be used both inside and outside the boundaries of project Area No 2, As stated earlier, the Agency will be assisting a multi - family condominium senior housing project containing 10 to 20 units. The all ofthe units will be available to moderate income seniors. b. Housing Units required to be developed Section 33413 (b)(4) requires the Agency to adopt a plan to Comply with the inclusionary housing requirements of Sections 334 13 (b)(1) and (2). The housing production requirements of state Redevelopment Laws are: - At least 30% of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed by ari agency must be available at affordable housing cost to low or moderate income households and not less than 50% of that 30% must be for very low income households. An agency may address this requirement on a citywide basis. None of the'assistance provided or level of involvement to date by the agency has triggered the 30% requirement. At ]east 15% of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed within the redevelopment project area by public or private entities or persons other than the agency must be available at affordable housing cost to low or moderate income households and not less than 40% of this 15% be for very low income households: (California health & Safety Code Section 33413(b)(2)) In Project Area No. 2, 413 housing units have been constructed since. November 1984, resulting in an affordable housing requirement of 62 housing units. In Project Area No. 2, 75 affordable'housing units with long -term affordability restrictions have been developed. A1175 of the units are available to the very low, low or moderate - income tenant. The tenant rents in the project are subsidized by HUD, therefore, no tenant in the project will pay more that 30% of their income for rent; and only tenants with incomes MAR.19'2003 16:06 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.011 that fall within the very low, low, and moderate - income limits as set by p= are eligible for the units. Therefore, the Agency has no obligation at this time to develop affordable housing within Project Area No. 2. C. Explanation of Current Production Obligation "Substantial rehabilitation" is defined as rehabilitation which equals 25% of the after rehabilitation value of the dwelling, including land value. None of the housing units rehabilitated in the project Areas, since the plans were adopted, meet this threshold; therefore, there is no production obligation associated with the past rehabilitation activity, Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 was adopted in November 1984. Since that time, 413 housing units have been constructed. The affordable housing production obligation is as follows: Very Low Income . 25 , Very Low, Low or Moderate Income 37 Since November 1984, 75 affordable housing units with long -term affordability restrictions have been constructed outside ofProject Area No. 2. All 75 of the units are available to the very low, low or moderate - income tenant. The tenant rents in the project are subsidized by HM, therefore, ao tenant in the project will pay more that 3014 of their income for rent; and only tenants with incomes that fall within the very low, low, and moderate - income limits as set by HM are eligible for the units. These units count toward the agency's affordability housing obligation on a two £or one basis: a one unit credit is given to the Project Area's obligation for every two housing units constructed. Therefore, a credit of 37 affordable units is earned from the development built outside the Project Area No.2 boundaries. In summary, the affordable housing obligation is 62 housing units. A total of 150 affordable housing units have been built and10 -20 units are proposed. As a result, the Agency has a surplus credit of 88 affordable housing units (98 -108 units including the proposed). 4. Consistency with the Housing Element The General Plan Housing Element contains several goals, objectives and policies and programs that relate to the Redevelopment Agency and Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The Housing Element contains the following statements: • To increase the home ownership rate in the City through the develo housing. pment of new owner - occupied • To assist first -time homebuyers in the purchase of housing. The Agency's First Time Nome Buyer Program, therefore, is consistent with the Housing Element. The Housing Element numerical goals by income group are listed below: 10 MAR.19'2003 16:07 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.012 Above Moderate 189 32% Regional Share Need 597 1009/8 The above income group objectives are consistent with the "proportional" distribution recommended as part of the Housing Implementation Plan. 5. Replacement Housing None of the proposed programs or potential projects identified in this Implementation Plan will result in the destruction or removal of dwelling units that will have to be replaced pursuant to Section 33413 (a). 11 MAR_19'2003 16:07 3106446685 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P1013 APPENDIX A HOUSING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN REDE'VEL'OPMENT PROJECT AREA N0.2 This section explains the methodology used in determining the number of housing units constructed since the adoption of Redevelopment Project Area No.. 2, and a Projection of future units to -be constructed. The first step in the process was determining locations of residential land uses (from the 01y's General Plan land use maps) that were located within the Redevelopment Project Area No 2. Once these areas were identified, they were then compared to the results from a detailed lot-by-lot field survey completed in 19SS. For example, during the 1988 survey, the number of units existing on each parcel was identified. This served two purposes. First, these areas can be compared to the results of the 1988 survey in order to determine if any units were constructed after the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Second, the current land use /zoaing designation can be compared to the Redevelopment Plan boundaries in order to determine the potential for future new residential construction. The results are summarized in 'fable 2. 12 MAR.19'2003 16:07 3106446695 City of Hawthorne Planning 91179 P.014 TABLE 2 • CTTX OF HAIMORNE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL NM HoUsiN(; %TN1'TS 'WITHIN THE RBDEVETAPMNT PROJECT AREA City Units Potential Number ndex o structed -of w units A -13 A -14 B -9 B-12 C-4 C-5 C -6 C -7 C -8 C -9 C -10 C -11 C-12 D4 D -5 D -6 D -7 D-8 D -9 D -10 D-11 D -13 E-4 E -5 lib E8 E -9 8-10 &11 E -12 F-4 F -5 F -7 0 5 New Units; Existing to 13 None None None None None Nome None None None None None None None None None None Remain None None None None None Some Potential None None None None None None None Deannexed None None MAR. 19'2003 16:07 3106446695 City of Hawthorne Planning #1179 P.015 TABLE 2 (CONTINUED) CITY OF HA.WTHORNE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL NEW HOUSING UNITS V TEiIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA City Units Potential Number Index-Rape Constructed Of New Units F -8 None F -9 None F-10 None F -11 10 None F-I2 19 None F -14 None F -15 None G`5 None G-9 175 (75 by Telacu, 100 Cal Trans) G-10 None G -12 None H -11 None H-22 128 (114 by Lewis Homes) None H -13 32 new (at 14330 Cerise) 14 APPENDIX B Preliminary Plan and Related Planning Commission and Agency Resolutions PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2003-12 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 AND APPROVING A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hawthorne (the "City Council') adopted Ordinance No. 1330 on November 26,1984, approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No. 2 (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 84 -55, adopted on August 13,1984, the Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne (the "Planning Commission ") selected and designated the existing boundaries of the Project Area and approved a Preliminary Plan (the "Preliminary Plan") for the Project; and WHERAS, the Planning Commission approved and adopted Resolution No. 2003 -07, on April 2, 2003, amending the Preliminary Plan for the Redevelopment Plan which added certain territory to the Project Area, being a portion of the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB ") referred to as "Area A;" WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 6792 adopted on May 12, 2003, the City Council, upon further consideration, further amended the boundaries of the redevelopment survey area to include other territory within the LAAFB, known as "Area B;" WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne ( "Agency ") now proposes to include both Areas A and B (the "Added Area ") within the boundaries of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that it is in the public interest to further amend the Preliminary Plan to include the both Area A and Area B in the Added Area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to amend the Preliminary Plan for the Project and submit said second amendment to the Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby amends the boundaries for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No. 2 to include the Added Area, as described in the "Legal Description of the Added Area ", attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and as shown on the "Map of the Added Area ", attached hereto as Exhibit B and HAW /PCRes02NDAmendPABndrs 1 5/15/03 03030/0028 - incorporated herein by reference. In the event it is necessary for clarification purposes to make minor, technical changes to the boundaries described in Exhibits A and B, which changes do not add or subtract area, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that any such minor, technical change for clarification purposes does not materially affect the boundaries selected and designated hereby for the preparation of an amendment to the official Redevelopment Plan for the Project. Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby approves the Second Amendment to the Preliminary Plan (the "Second Amendment to the Preliminary Plan") for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No. 2 in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The Chairman of the Planning Commission is hereby authorized and directed to submit the Second Amendment to the Preliminary Plan to the Agency for the preparation of an amendment to the official Redevelopment Plan for the Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ATTEST: Secretary HAW /PCReso2NDAmwdPABndrs 2 5/15/03 03030/0028 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDED AREA HAW /PMeso2nd AmendpABnda Exhibit A s mo /ooze /is /os a Area A AMENDING BOUNDARY OF HAWTHORNRREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT No. 2 PROPOSED NEW AREA Beginning at the most northerly comer of Lot 34 of Tract No. 16663, in the City of Hawthorne, County of Las Angeles, as shown on map recorded in Book 511, Pages 15 through 19, inclusive, of Maps, records of said County, said corner being oil the southeasterly line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company's 80.00 foot tight of way, said comer being a. common point in the boundaries of the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne, as both boundaries existed on April 15, 2003 and having established grid coordinates of North 1,791,789,84 feet, Easting 6,44:9,118,06 feet, Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence along said southeasterly line, South 62 °25'00" West 2659.14 feet to the westerly line of the northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 1.1629 Of the Superior Court of the State of California; thence along said westerly line, North 00 013'08" East 1188.48 feet to a line parallel with and 25:00 feet northwesterly of the southeasterly line of the land described in Book 42'15, Page 316 of said Deeds; thence along said parallel line North 11 021'00" East 421.61 feet to the northerly line of said Section 17; thence along said northerly line, South 89 °45'00" East 1211.46 feet to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Isis Avenue, 60 feet wide, as shown on Tract No 14749, in the City of El Segundo, as per map recorded in Book 368, pages 1.8 through 22, inclusive of said Maps; thence. along said southerly prolongation, South 00 °11'19" West 50.00 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00'feet southerly of said northerly line of Section 17; thence along said parallel line, South 89 045'00" East 477.18 feet to the westerly line of the `Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne as same existed on March 14, 1957, said westerly line being the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 140.00 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears South 89 027'05" West; thence along said most westerly line of the'Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne, the following three courses: Southeasterly 245.85 feet along said curve, through.a central angle of 98 =34'09 ", North 81023'56" East 348.02 feet, South 18 034'12" East 250.23 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 50.10 acres, more or less. -M ert C. Olson, PLS 90 Psomas ",>4-!s zcz73 Date Page 1 of 1 MILAAM5415MI KEA0301 April 13, 2007 OMurvrya ;AFCp%rDEVEWPMEW-HAwnfORNLda laCjec Area B GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION AMENDING BOUNDARY OF HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT No. 2 ADDITIONAL PROPOSED NEW AREA Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 of the, Superior Court of the State of California and a line parallel with and 1415.20 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Section 7 and having established grid coordinates of North 1,792,168.43 feet, Easting 6,445349.26 feet, Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence northerly along said parallel line, North 00 "00'53" East 2008.61 feet; thence South 89 059'07" East 339.18 feet; thence South 00 °00'53" West, 182.00 feet; thence South 89 °59'07" East 289.64 feet; thence South 00 °00'53" West 67.93 feet; thence South 89 °58'15" East 458.82 feet; thence North 49 006'451' East 35.19 feet; thence South 89 °58'15" East 73.81 feet; thence North 67 °20'15" East 38.39 feet thence North 89 °59'22" East 59.86 feet; thence North 89 059'22" East 101.20 feet; thence South 00 °10'18" West 360.00 feet; thence South 89 059122" West 100.21 feet; thence South 00 °00'53" West 1390.25 .feet; thence South 89 054'07" East 186.40 feet; thence North 00 010'18" East 1750.61 feet; thence North 89 059'22" East I18.00 feet; thence South 00 010'18" West 78.14 feet; thence South 00 °10'1.8" West 80.00 feet; thence South 00'10'18 " West 228.85 feet; thence North 89 054'04" West 12.03 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve, concave southeasterly, having a radius of 25.00 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears North 00005'56" East; thence southwesterly 39.24 feet along G Page 1 of 2 W: \LAAFEiSrrE_B�SUR VEY%LAFCO\REDEVELOPMENr2_H;4AW THORNE.doc Mny 6, 2003 JDC:jdc said curve through a central angle of 89 055'38 "; South 00 010'18" West 67.03 feet; thence North 89 054'04" West 6.00 feet; thence South 00 010'1.8" West 1321.85 feet; thence North 89 054'07" West 50.57 feet; thence South 11 °18'32" West 50.97 feet; thence North 89 °54'07' West 99.45 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve concave to the west, having a radius of 2834.93 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears South 83 059'40" East; thence southerly 1$.10 feet along said curve through -,a central angle of 00 °21'57 "; thence North 89 °54'07" West 253.27 feet; thence North 48 °02'05" West 8.99 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 457.16 feet, thence South 0.0 °05'53" West 10.00 feet; thence North 89 054'07" West 150.66 feet; thence North 78 010'58" West 31.66 feet; thence North 85 °05'08" West 18.69 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 322.97 feet; thence North 66 °02'02" West 158.17 feet to the Point of Beginning Containing an area of 61.09 acres, more or less. obert C. Olson, PIS 5490 Date Psomas C. No. 5490 EXD, 9.30 -2004 Page 2 of 2 `Yl WALAAMS ITE_B%BUR VEI'\LA KDREDE V ELOPMENTt�tp W- J.y�ORNB.doc May 6, 2003 JDC:jdc MAP OF THE ADDED AREA HAW /PCReso2ndAmendPABndrs Exhibit B 03030/0028 5/15/03 Scele: 1' . 100' d 9iset Amending Boundary of Hawthorne Sheol of i Redevelopiment Project No 2 CmIUMlap SO.W Acme. Ctlun/Y tlt Lot MVW.. Slow of CcW"k 300' 0' 300' 600' GRAPHIC_ SCAI F I" - 300' S 18'34 "12" 250.23' LA CI N 81'23'56" E 348.02' � =98'34'09 R= 140.00' L= 245.85' S 89'45'00" E 477.18' S 0'C 5 E F m 4 d� �a N 11'21'00" E 1 ice-- N 179 VICINI TY MAP N0T TO AL SCE 61 OT tlk 4215 pg 31E Annexation Areo 13'08" E 11., TECHNOLOGION BOULEVARD/ % 4%v0 Y ANNEXATION 8/28/87 DATE: 04SED ON: 1a JOB No: ask 116 M :AS s Re Sheet 1 of 1 Sheet Amending Boundary of Hawthorne development Pro�je'ct No 2 Addtanal i.'ontoinih 61.09 Acres Couch of Cos Mgeks. State of Corifemro 300' 0' 300` 600' L2 GRAPH --- 0 SCAB II 1. 7•— I" = 300' L10 L5 LB L9 L11 0 I L6 L7 of 1i I'.'.'.'•'.' '! L4 .......... ........ ... . ... I dT 4 N 178 56 5 ro �................... . E 64467-36:52 t� . .... :' :'.....:':':':':' :'.. . r:Q ....................... �.... .lW N , (' 'L � ..... �... co I; (3: ................... .1... { I..".;. C� .................... ".'.'.'.'. .to•. ;.I z► I: r a1 :In . - ' ' ' ' ............... ........' ' " ' ' ' ' .. .....'. ".4 . ".'.. .'.'.'. APN 4139 =DD2 -9(51' a I ILL. 00 .... ....... :�. old °i • :J ::................. ;I I C) { I .Q I;. ;•� �•••E 64.4534926 '. APN'4138 OQ2= 904'.'.,�'',� I — . - L1 l — L l X35• L31 L29 L�• ...� L L2 I< 4L3330 L2�. DATE: 05/06/03 REVISED ON: JOB No: IKEA020100 Task 116 Annexation Area k S tuii�xwhEiocera n n a a 0 V a EXHIBIT C SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 The Preliminary Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project (the "Preliminary Plan") is hereby amended as follows: 1. The following paragraph shall be added to the end of Section I: The Agency has proposed an amendment to the Redevelopment Project to add certain real property (the "Added Area ") to the boundaries of the existing project area (the "Original Project Area "). The Original Project Area and the Added Area are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Project Area. 2. Section II is hereby amended to read as follows: The boundaries of the original Project Area are as shown on the "Map of the Original Project Area," attached hereto as Exhibit A -1. The boundaries of the proposed Added Area are as shown on the "Map of the Added Area," attached hereto as Exhibit A -2. The Original Project Area is also described in the "Legal Description of the Original Project Area," attached hereto as Exhibit B -1. The Added Area is also described in the 'Legal Description of the Added Area," attached hereto as Exhibit B -2. 3. Section rV is hereby amended to read as follows: As a basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area, as amended, it is proposed that, in general, the layout of principal streets and those that will be developed in the Project Area be as shown on Maps of the Original Project Area and the Added Area. Principal streets in the Added Area include: Aviation Boulevard, Douglas Street, El Segundo Boulevard, and La Cienega Boulevard HAW /Amendnrelimpianil 03030/028 5/14/03 Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation. 4. Section V is hereby amended to read as follows: . Standards for population densities shall be consistent with the densities established by the City of Hawthorne's General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. 5. The last sentence in Section VI is hereby amended to read as follows: The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the limits contained in the zoning ordinance and the General Plan of the City of Hawthorne, as it is proposed to be amended. 6. Section IX is hereby amended to read as follows: The Preliminary Plan, as hereby amended, conforms to the Hawthorne General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. The Preliminary Plan, as hereby amended, proposes a similar pattern of land uses and includes all highways and public facilities indicated by the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. HAW /AmendPrelimP]ann 3 5/14/03 03030/028 MAP OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AREA HAW /AmendPrelimPknII EXHIBIT A -1 5/14/03 03030/028 IM A A c A 0 1 ;2 A w► 041 ■ !A n �1 0 a �1 EXHIBIT A -2 MAP OF THE ADDED AREA Including Area B HAW /AmendPIelimPlanlI EXHIBTT A -2 03030/028 5/14/03 seax: t' . 300' Shnt i or 1 Shut Arn,en'dng B- aunrdor. of H�a�wth . Rode vetoprn.ent Pro jest No 2 CLTWW 4 3,0.}D Ac." . 0eun1Y [f t"r AnyfGa. Stnle e! ,,jff M. 300' o, l 300 600' GRAPHIC SCAI F 1" - 300' 5 18'34'12" 250.23' LA C N 81'23'56" 348.02' d= 98'34'0 R =140.00' L= 2'45.85' S 89 "45'00" E 477.18' S OT 5 z 0 F a� �a 0 N 11'21'00" E Ll P.0.8_ WCMITY .MAP unT Tn cr., I vi ale 441D pg 376 Annexation Are, TECHNOLOGY— AVIATION BOULEVARD %RITORY ANNEXATION /74/ .S0 8/28/81 DATE: 04/15/03 REVISED ON: JOB No: 1XEA020100 Task 116 P'SOMAS a.n E s `, wa: 1 � 3W Amending Boundary of Redevelopment Prole . t Nc cont o�i;tr -St,Q9 Arts. County Of Los AM01's; State of CoBiorn;Q CURVE TABLE CURVELENGTH RADIUS DELTA C1 39:24' 25.00' 89'55'38" E2 1 B.10` 2834.93 "00'21'57" Sheet 1 of 1 Sheet Hawthorne 2 Addtiondl 300' 0' L2 300` eoo' GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 300' L10 H I J . f, . •'•''' M j t L4 L5 L8 L9 L11 0� I _ ?.L6 I...l ..............' .. i I r I N'179. 86:5 1 •a'dI .................. . ..... E• 61446736:52..'..'�;r co a Imo............. a . ....'I'•' t�f.• to I1� ra Ar?r>t 4139 =DD7 9:(31'.'.'.'.'.'. •. f I .........'.'.'.'... ' I ... '.'.'.'..'.'.'.. • . .I cv I rnl• • �— . ... ........ .... . .�� O I.N ::':':':':':': ':':':':'.'.':'.':':' ::': p ol: i. ..I Q aL .a< �QI a:d> L.... Pte.. ;I I • E 64.45349 y L, L fi I. \ 4 — - 3330 L2;` DATE: 05/06/03 REVISED ON: v JOB No: I'KEA020100 Task 116 Annexotion Area PS0M �A, iiw•w.onuead.a wie. n -:i 4 a EXHIBIT B -1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AREA HAW /AmendPreHmPlanII MIIBITB -1 03030/028 5/15/03 DESC1:11'T]ON OF RYrjTVU01'1;rNT PROJECT A A11 those portions of the City of Hawthorne, County of Los Angeles, State of California within the following described boundaries: SUB AREA "A" Beginning at the southwesterly corner of the northwesterly one quarter of Section, 209 Township 3 South, Range'•14 West, San the point Bernardino Base and Meridian, said southwesterly corner also being of intersection of the centerlines of Aviation Boulevard, 80 feet wide, and Compton Boulevard, 80 feet wide; thence northerly along said centerline of Aviation Boulevard to the southwesterly corner of section 17 of said township; thence continuing northerly along said centerline to the northerl y line of .the south 50 feet of said last mentioned Section; thence easterly along said last mentioned line to the southeast corner of Lot 121, of Tract No. 20263 as.per map recorded in Book No. 550, pages 1 through 4, of records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence northerly along the easterly line of said lot to the southerly corner of Lot 122 of said Tract; thence northeasterly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 127 of said Tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 134 of said Tract; thence northerly following the easterly right of way line of Glasgow Place as shown on said map to the southwest corner of Lot 175 of said tract; thence continuing northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 7 of Tract No. 20033 as per map recorded in book 544 page 1 of said records; thence continuing northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly corner of Lot 31 of Tract No. 16663 as per map recorded in Book 511, pages 35 through 19 of said records. thence continuing westerly, easterly and westerly along said right of way line of Glasgow Place and the contiguous property lines of Lots 31 thru 35 of said last mentioned tract to the southwest corner of said Lot 35; thence northwesterly along the 'southwesterly line of said lot to the northwest corner of said Lot; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said Lot to the •northeast corner of Lot 34 of said Tract; thence northwesterly along the mutual bnundaries of the City of E1 Segundo and the City of Hawthorne as they existed on August 1, 1984 to the northerly right -of -way line of the San Diego Freeway; thence continuing southwesterly, northwesterly and northerly along right-of-way courses 1n sa said mutual boundary line and northerly County of yLosAngelessaas itrexisted on saidbdate, saidnboundary of the line being parallel to and distant 30 feet southerly from the cente.r]ine of E1 Segundo -Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence easterly, southerly, southeasterly, southwesterly and southerly along the various courses of said boundary line to the northerly line of Lot 23 Tract No. 2542 as per map recorded in Book No. 26, Of pace ine Of.Said lotlto aepoint;on along the westerly, from the northeast corner of said Lot 23. feet thence' -page 1 southerly paralle].to and distant 80 f line of said Lot 23 to the northerl eet y line westerly sterly of the easter]y thence easterly in a direct line t Lot 20 of said Tract; of said tract; o the' corner of Lot 2 thence northerly in a direct line to-the northwest corner of Lot 4.1.of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest. corner. of. Lot 42 of said tract; thence northerly In a direct Iin.e to a point on the southerly line of Lot 86 of said• tract, said point lying distant easterly 80 feet from the southwest corner of said Lot 86; thence. easterly along the southerly line of said Lot 86 to a point distant 40 feet westerly from the southeast corner of said Lot 86; thence northerly parallel to and .distant 40 feet westerly of the easterly'line of said .Lot 86 of said tract to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 86; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot to a point lying distant westerly 25 feet from the northeast corner'of said Lot 86; thence northerly parallel to and distant westerly 25 feet from the easterly line of Lot 119 of said tract to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 119; thence westerly along said northerly line northwest corner to a point lying distant easterly 90 feet from the Of said lot 119; thence northerly in a direct line to a point tract, lying on the northerly line of Lot 155 of said said point lying westerly 24 feet from the northeast corner of said lot, said point of 139th Street also lying on southerly right of way line (formerly Buckeye Avenue), 40 feet wide; thence easterly along the southerly right of way line of 139th Street and the easterly prolongation thereof,' to its intersection with the centerline of Inglewood Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence northerly along ,said centerline of Inglewood Avenue to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of 137th Street' (formerly Hazelton Avenue), 50 feet wide, thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and northerly right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 12 of Block 12 of Tract No. 6490 as per map recorded in Map Book 70, pages 72 and 73 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 6 of said tract; thence westerly along the northerly right of way line of 135th Street (formerly Connecticut Avenue), 50 feet wide; to the southwest corner of Lot 18 of said block 6; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 6 of said block 6;, thence easterly along the southerly right of way line of 134th Place (formerly Gaines Avenue), 50 feet wide to the northeast corner of Lot 7 of said block 6; thence northeasterly along a direct line between the northeast corner of 'said Lot 7 of said block 6 and the northwest corner of Lot 204 of Ingledal'e Acres as per map recorded in Map Book 20, pages 182 and 183 of said records, to its intersection with. said centerline of Inglewood Avenue; thence northerly along said last mentioned centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of 131st Street, 50 feet wide; thence westerly along said last mentioned easterly prolongation and right of way line to the southwest Block corner of Lot 12, 9 of Tract No. 5755 as per map recorded in Book 63, pages 10 and 11 of said' records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of lot 9 of said block 9; . thence westerly along the southerly line of lot 6 of said block 9 -page 2- a distance of 40 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 40 feet westerly from the easterly line of said lot 6 to the northerly line of said lot 6; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 6; thence northerly to the southwest corner of Lot 17 of Block 3 of said Tract; thence easterly .along the southerly line of said lot 17 and the easterly prolongation thereof to said centerline of Inglewood Avenue; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard •( formerly Ballona Avenue), 100 feet wide; thence, westerly along said northerly prolongation of El Segundo Boulevard to the southerly way line of prolongation of the westerly right of said Inglewood Avenue; thence northerly along said last mentioned southerly prolongation and westerly right of way Ii ne of said Inglewood Avenue and its northerly prolongation to a point 25 feet southerly of the centerline of West Broadway (formerly Broadway) 50 feet wide as shown on map of Town of Hawthorne recorded in book 15 pages 110 and 111 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 20 of Block Z of said Town of Hawthorne; thence easterly along the southerly right of way line of Broadway to a point on said last mentioned right of way line distant westerly 164 feet from the easterly line of said Lot 20; thence southerly parallel to and distant 164 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 20, to the northerly line of Lot 19 of said block and tract; thence easterly, along the northerly line of said Lot 19 to a point distant 116 feet westerly from the northeast corner of said lot; thence '-southerly parallel to and distant 116 feet westerly from the .easterly.line of said Lot 19 to a point 60 feet northerly from the southerly line of said Lot 19; thence easterly parallel to and distant 60 feet northerly from the southerly 'line of said lot 19 to the easterly line of said Lot 19; thence northerly along th easterly line of sad lot 19 to the northeast corner of said Lot 19 of said block and tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of Lot 2 of 'said block and tract to the westerly right of way line of Eucalyptus Avenue (formerly Redondo Avenue), 50 feet wide; thence. southerly along said westerly right of way line to the southerly line -of Lot 3 of said block and tract; thence westerly a distance of 150 feet along the southerly line of said Lot 3; thence southerly parallel to and distant westerly right 150 feet westerly of the line of Lot '4 of way.line of Eucalyptus Avenue to the southerly Of said block and tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said Lot 4; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 9 of said block and tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 2 of Tract No. 7252 as per map recorded in Book , so, Page 76, of said records; thence continuing northeasterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 5 of Tract No. 7706 as per map recorded in Book 98, Page 11, of said records; thence easterly to the northeast corner of lot 4 of said tract; - thence northerly along the northerly prolongation of-the easterly line of said lot 4 a distance of 15 feet; thence easterly parallel to and distant northerly 130 feet from the northerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Blvd. 100 feet wide a -page 3- distance of 50 feet; thence southerly in a direct line to northwest corner of Lot 3 of said Tract 7706; thence Conti,,, easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of s tract; thence continuing southeasterly in a'direct line to northwest corner of Lot 6 of Tract No. 5482 as per map recorded Book 100,• Page 98 of said records; thence continuing a direct line to the northeast easterly corner of Lot 1 of said tray thence northerly along the westerly right of way line of Grevil Avenue (formerly 5ausal Avenue) 50 feet wide to its intersect: with the northerly' right oft way line of West Broadway, 50 f wide; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner Lot 4, Tract No. 2006 as per map recorded in Book 21, ' thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast Page 10corner of sa Lot 4; thence continuing northerly along the prolongation of t easterly line of said lot; 4 a distance of 52.5 feet; they westerly parallel to and distant 52.5 feet northerly from t northerly line of said Tract No. 2006 to a point distant easter 185.02 feet from the easterly right ill v Gre Of way line of Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant f fe Gre easterly from said easterly right of way line of Grevillea to t southerly line-of Lot 30, Block F, -Town of Hawthorne Tract, as p map recorded in Book 15, Pages 110 and 111 of said records thence westerly along said southerly line of said Lot 30 to point distant easterly 15o feet from said easterly right of w. line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to a: distant easterly 150 feet from said easterly right of way line Grevillea Avenue to the southerly line of Lo't 31 of said block a: tract; thence westerly distant easterly along said southerly lot line to a poi: 130 feet from said easterly right of way line Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distal easterly 130 feet from said easterly right of way line to tl southerly line of lot 32 of said block and tract; thence easier: along said southerly lot line .to a point distant easterly 160.( feet from said easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue thence northerly parallel to distant easterly 160.06 feet from t] easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue -to a southerly line of Lot 33 of said block and tract; thence easier: point on t) to a point on said southerly lot line distant' easterly 185.04 fee from the easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue; thenc northerly parallel to and distant easterly 185.04 feet from sa' easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue, a distance of 52. feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant northerly 52.5 fee from the southerly line of L'Ot 33 of said block and tract to point distant easterly 115 feet from said easterly right of we line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to ar distant easterly 115 feet from said easterly right of way line c Grevillea Avenue to the southerly line of Lot 34 of said block ar tract; thence easterly along said southerly line to a poir distant easterly 176.08 feet from the easterly right of way lir of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distar easterly 176.08 feet from said - easterly right of way line c Grevillea Avenue to a point on the southerly line of Lot 35 c said block and tract; thence westerly along said southerly lc line to a point distant easterly 160.09 feet from said easterl -page 4- Rpviscd Scpt. 25,41(;84 right of way line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 160.09 feet easterly from said easterly right of way line to the southerly line of Lot 37 of said block and tract; thence easterly along said southerly lot line'to a point distant easterly 200.11 feet from said easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 200.11 feet 'easterly of said easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue to the northerly right of way line of 120th Street (formerly Raymond Avenue), 80 feet wide; thence , easterly along said northerly right of way line to the southeast corner of Lot No. 1'.of Tract No. 9498 as per map recorded in Book 128, Pages 10 and 11, of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 30, Block S; of said Town of Hawthorne Tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot and prolongation thereof to said westerly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence northerly elong'said westerly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of 118th Street (formerly Wallace Street), 60 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to the westerly right of way line of Ramona Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said last mentioned westerly right of way line to a point distant 40 feet northerly of the centerline of 116th. Street (formerly Miramar Street) 60 feet wide as shown on Tract No. 7963 recorded in Book 85 pages 75 and 76 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 135 of Belleview Tract as recorded in Book 9 page 77 of said records; thence easterly along the northerly right of way line of 116th. Street 80 feet vide to the westerly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the southeast corner of Lot 47 of said Belleview Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 66 of said tract; thence southerly along the westerly line of Lot 67 of said Belleview Tract a distance of 20 feet; thence westerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 13 of said Tract No. 7963; thence westerly along the southerly right of way line of the alley as`shown on said map of Tract No. 7963 and its westerly prolongation to its intersection thence lnortherly alongysaide last Ementioned westerly right of way line to a point distant northerly 125 feet from the southeast porner of recorded . Lot 21 of Tract 1543 as per map in Book 16, Page 198, of said records; thence westerly In a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 22 of said tract 1543; thence southwesterly in a direct line to the southeast westerly of right of way said line ofa Gale lAvenue a50 feet iwide; .thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said Lot 20; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 20; thence westerly parallel to and distant southerly 30 feet from the centerline of Imperial Highway (formerly Belleview Avenue), 1D0 feet vide, said line being the boundary line between the Cities of Hawthorne and Los Angeles, to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 368, Tract No. 324 as per map recorded in Book 14, Page 84 .of of said records; thence • —page 5— Aet•isen bcpt. [z),jyb, northerly in a direct line to the 368; thence northwest corner of said Lot easterly along the northerly line of said lot a nd the easterly prolongation thereof, to the centerline of sai Avenue, variable 66 d 7nglevood to 80 feet wide; thence northerly along last mentioned centerline to its said I with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot No. 106,. Tract No. as per map recorded in Book 169 Pages 196 and 199 of said 957 , records; thence easterly along said last mentioned northerly line and its easterly prolongation to the centerline of Dalerose Avenue, 50 feet wide, said last mentioned centerline also being the easterly line of , said Lot 106 and lots 107, IDS, and 109 of said Tract 957; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 91 of said tract 957; thence easterly along said northerly lot line to a point on the northerly line of Lot 90 of said tract 9571 said point lying distant easterly 139 feet from the northwest corner of said lot 90; thence northerly in a direct line to a point on the southerly line of Lot 87 of said tract 957, said last mentioned point being distant 139.24 feet from the southwest southerly lot corner of said Lot 87; thence easterly along said last mentioned line and prolongation thereof to the Truro Avene, 50 feet wide centerline of said centline also being the easterly centerline to line Lot 88 of said centerline 957; thence southerly along said its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Parcel B of Parcel Map No. 3349 as per map recorded in Parcel Map Book 42, Page 30 of said records; thence . easterly along said northerly parcel line to the centerline of Firmons Avenue ( formelry Fir Avenue), 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said last mentioned centerline to a point distant 30 feet southerly from the centerline of said Imperial Highway 100 feet wide; thence easterly parallel to and distant 30 feet southerly from said last mentioned centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly right of way line of Burin Avenue (formerly Mansfield Place), 40 feet wide as shown on Tract No. 1698 recorded in Book 24 page 46 of said records; thence- northerly along said easterly right of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 101 of said tract 1698; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 101.8 distance of 5 feet; thence northerly along the-easterly line of the westerly 25 feet of 'Lots I1 and 12 of said Tract 957 a distance of 83 feet; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 17 of Tract No. 6553 as recorded in Book 71 page 7B thence westerly along the of said records; said Tract h southerly lines of Lots 17 and 22 of o. 6553, to the centerline•of Grevillea Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence northerly along said last mentioned centerline to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 53 of said Tract No. 957; thence westerly along said southerly line to the easterly right of way line of Mansel Avenue 40 feet wide, said easterly right of way line also being distant .40 feet easterly and parallel to the westerly lines of said Lots 53 and 54 of said Tract 957; thence northerly along said easterly right of wa.y line to the southerly line of Lot 55 of said tract; thence westerly along said southerly line to the southwest corner of said Lot 55; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest Page 6— Revised Sept. 25,1954 corner of Lot 60 of said tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot to the centerline of said Grevillea Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersecton with the westerly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 6553; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lots 1 through 6 inclusive of said tract and the easterly prolongation thereof to the easterly right of way line of said Burin Avenue, 50 feet 'wide; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of 111th Street (formerly Center Avenue), 50 feet wide; thence easterly .along said southerly right of way line to the westerly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard (formerly Hawthorne Avenue),. 135 feet wide said westerly right of way line being distant 65 feet westerly and parallel to the centerline of said Hawthorne Boulevard; thence southerly along said last mentioned westerly right of way line to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 31 of Hawthorne Acres Tract as per map recorded in Book 99 Page 128, of said records; thence easterly along said westerly prolongation and southerly line of said lot 31 to the westerly right of way line of Acacia Avenue, 50 feet wide, said westerly right of way line also being the westerly line of the easterly 25 feet of Lots 32,33,34, and 35 of said Hawthorne Acres; thence southerly along said westerly right of way line to the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 37 of said tract; thence easterly along said last mentioned westerly prolongation and northerly line of Lot 37 and its easterly prolongation to the centerline of Larch Avenue (formerly Birch Avenue), 40 feet wide; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 106 of said tract; thence.easterly in a direct line to a point on the northerly line of Lot 110 of said tract, said point lying distant 147.7 feet .westerly from the westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue, 55 feet wide; thence northerly parallel to and distant westerly 147.7 feet from said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue, a distance of 100 feet; thence easterly to said westerly right .of way line of Freeman Avenue; thence northerly to the northeast corner of Lot 111 of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line, a distance of 147.7 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 147.7 feet westerly of said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue to the southerly line. of Lot 114 of said tract; thence easterly along said southerly -lot line to a point on said lot line, distant westerly 136 feet from said westerly right of way line -of Freeman Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 136 feet westerly from said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue a distance of 140 fleet; thence easterly parallel to and distant 8 feet northerly from the southerly line of Lot 175 of said ,tract, to said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to its Intersection with the- northerly line of the southerly 12 feet of lot 116 of said Hawthorne Acres Tract and its easterly prolongation; thence easterly along said last mentioned prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of said Freeman Avenue; thence northerly along said last mentioned —page 7— Revised Sept. 25,1 centerline to the westerly prolongation of a line lying paral to and ,distant 66 feet northerly from the southerly line of 140 of said tract; thence easterly along said last mentio prolongation and parallel line and its easterly prolongation the centerline of Eastwood Avenue, 50 feet wide said centerl also being the westerly line of Lots.. 149 thru' 158 of s; Hawthorne Acres Tract; thence southerly along said last mentiol centerline .to the 'northwest corner of Lot 153 of said trace thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot 153 to t centerline of Osage Avenue (formerly Oxford Avenue), 40 feet wit thence southerly' along said last mentioned centerline to t westerly prolongation of a' line parallel to and distant 47 fe northerly of the southerly line of lot 185 of said 'tract; then easterly along said last mentioned parallel line, a distance 172;85 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 152.85 fe easterly from the westerly line of said lot 185 to the souther line of said Lot 185; thence easterly along said last mention southerly line to the centerline of York Avenue, 50 feet wid said last mentioned centerline also being the easterly lines lots 184 thru 288 of said Hawthorne Acres Tract; thence souther along said last mentioned centerline to the southerly right of w line of said Imperial Highway, 100 feet wide; thence - easterly along said southerly right of way line to the easterly right way line of Prairie Avenue (formerly Centennalia Aveue), 100 fe wide; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line the northerly line of Lot 1 of Tract No. 1615 as per map record in Book 20, Page 104., of said records; thence easterly along sa northerly lot line to the northeast corner of Lot 2 of said trac thence southerly along the easterly lot line of said Lot 2 to t: southerly right of way line of said Imperial Highway, 100 fe wide; thence easterly along said southerly right of way line to Point lying 330 feet easterly of the northeast corner of Lot 1, Tract No. 12030, as per map recorded in Book 227, Pages 25.th: 27, inclusive of said records; thence southerly parallel to ai distant- 330 feet easterly from the easterly line of said tral 12030 to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lo+ 23 through 32 inclusive of said tract 12030; thence wester: along said last mentioned prolongation to the centerline Kornblum Avenue, 50 feet .wide; thence northerly along tl easterly line of said tract to the southerly line of the 20 fo( alley as shown on said tract 12030; thence westerly along as: southerly right of way line and'the westerly prolongation there. to the westerly right of way line of Doty Avenue, 55 wide; theni northerly along said last mentioned right of way line to tl southeast corner of Lot 671 of Tract No. 2603 as per map records In Bobk 26, Page 64, records of Los Angeles County; theni westerly to the northeast corner of Lot 682 of said tract, sa: point. being distant 150 feet easterly of the centerine of sa: Prairie 'Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence southerly parallel to ai distant 150 feet easterl.y from said centerline of Prairie A.veni to the centerline of 120th Street, variable 65 to 70 feet wide said centerline also being the the northerly line of the sou- -page 8— o'ne half of Section* ceOterlined townthep thence easterly a]ong • said last mentioned Boulevard, 100 feet wide said last menthe centerline of Crenshaw the easterly line of said Section me centerline also being along said centerline of 120th. Street eatdistanceuofg50asterly thence southerly' a distance of 705 feet along a line parallelt� and distant 5l feet easterly from said last mentioned centerline; thence westerly parallel to and distant .705 feet southerl said centerline of 120th Street to a point distant easterly 50 feet from said centerline. of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence southerly along easterly from a line parallel. to and distant 50 feet said last mentioned centerline to the northerly right of way line of E1 Segundo .Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence easterly along said last mentioned northerly right of way line to the northerly prolongation of the westerly Cordary Avenue, 50 feet vide; thence right of way line of southerly along - wesierly right of way line to a point 319`;18 d feet southerly of' saiai southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence westerly. parallel to and distant 319.18 feet from the southerly right westerly of way line of El Segundo Boulevard to the line of Lot 13, Tract �'o. 874, Division A, as per map recorded in r ly Book 17, Pag said westerly 110 and 111; thence northerly along lot line, a distance of 10 feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant 309.18 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard to the easterly of way line of Roselle Avenue 50 feet wide, said right of way line being the easterly* line of the west 25 feet of Lot 114 y line Tract 874 Division A; thence northerly along Of said Of way line to a point distant 173.51 feet southerly, from right southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard; thence said westerly parallel to and distant 173.51 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, a distance of ]87.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant westerly 162.5 feet from the centerline of said Roselle Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 36 of Tract No. 5545 as per map recorded in Book 87, Pages 38 and 39; thence westerly along said northerly line tp the northwest corner of said lot 36; a direct line to the southwest corner of Lote23eofosaidrtract in 5545; thence westerly along the southerly line of Lot 22 of said tract, a distance of 15 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 150 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 64 of said Tract No. 874, Division A; thence easterly along• the northerly line of said lot 64, e distance of 20 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 170 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the• northerly line of Lot 72 of said last mentioned division and tract;' thence easterly along said northerly line a distance of 40 feet; thence said parallel to and 'distant 210 feet easterly from said centerline Lot 80 of said of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of last mentioned division and tract; thence westerly' along said northerly line, a distance of 30 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 180 feet easterly-from said centerline of Prairie Avenue, a distance of 88 feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant 40 -feet northerly of the -Page 9- northerly line of Lot 88 of said last mentioned division and tract, a distance of 12.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 167.5 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 96 of said last mentioned division and tract; thence easterly along said northerly lot line, a distance of 12,5 feet; thence southerly parallel to'and distant 180 feet easterly of said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 111 of said division A of tract 874; thence easterly along said northerly line, a distance of 10 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 190 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 128 of said last mentioned division and tract; thence easterly along said northerly lot line and the easterly prolongation thereof to the centerline of Roselle Avenue, 50 feet wide, said centerline also being the easterly line of said Lot 128; thence southerly along said last mentioned centerline and the prolongation thereof to the northwest corner of Lot 14, Tract No. 874, Division B, as per' map recorded in Book 17, Pages 110 and. 111 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 14; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner Of said lot; thence westerly in•a direct line to-the southwest corner of said lot 14; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 11, of said last mentioned division and tract; thence easterly in a direct line.to the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lo.t 301 of said division and tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot and tract; '-thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner Of said lot 301; thence westerly along the northerly line of Lot 320 of said division and tract to a point 50 feet easterly of said . enterline of Prairie. Avenue, 100 feet wide; ..thence southerly darallel to and distant 50 feet easterly from said last mentioned centerline to the southerly e line of Lot 316 of said division and tract; thenceasterly along the southerly line of said lot 316, e distance of 255 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 305 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue, a distance of 60 feet; thence easterly parallel to and distant 68 feet northerly from the southerly line of Lot 315 of said division and tract a distance of 25 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 330 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northeast corner of Lot 311 of said division and tract; thence easterly along the northerly lines of Lots 310, and 291 and their easterly prolongation and the northerly line of lot'290 of said division and tract to the westerly-right of way line of Doty Avenue, 55 feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right Of way line to the southerly line of Lot 287 of said division and tract; thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot 274 of said division and tract; thence'continuing easterly to the northwest corner of Lot 7 of Tract No, 13911 as per map recorded in Book 192, Page 26, of said records; corner of Lot thence southerly to the southwest 8 of said tract; thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot 19 of said tract; thence continuing northeasterly in a direct line to a point on the easterly right of way line of Kornblum Avenue, 50 feet wide, said point lying distant 42 feet —page 10— northerly °{ Revised Sept. 25,]984 7 the northerly line le Lot 252, of said Division Tract from thence easterly parallel to and distant northerl feet from said lot $, division and line to the westerly line of Lot 248 of 1' 42 to the Southwest 'he eosoutherly along said westerly lot lane thence easterly elc corner 249 of said Diveste and distance of 101.10 feet; southerly line of said Tract; 101.10 feet thence southerly Lot 249, a easterly of westerly y Parallel to and distant and tract to the northerly y line of Lot 250 of said.div' division wide; thence Y right of way line of Rosecrans Avenue, 100 feet w' line to the westerly along said northerly right of w wide; thence esterly right g way line of Yukon Avenue eY the northerly northerly along said westerl 50 feet way thence easterly said of said Lot 249 of said division and line . to 59, Division direct line to the northeast cornertofct� C of Tract No. 874 as per map recorded in Boob 18, Yage 136 of said records; thence southerly to the no corner of Lot 60 of said division and tract; thence easterly thengwesterly�rrighty of of Lot 61 of said division and thence northerly alon way line of Lemoli Avenue, 45 feet r�it to southeast corner of g said westerly right tde; easterly in Lot 63 of said diviion of way line to the said divisioneanditrac line to the southeast and tract; thence Of said lot 98 . tract; thence northerl corner of Lot corner er of corner of thence easterly in a direct line tor the anorthwest along the easterl Lot I38 right said division and tract; g wide 40 to y ri ht of way line of thence southerly 45 feet to Che of Avenue, variable variable 99.5 to 100 feet wide- line of Rosecrans Avenue, mentioned northerly right of way ' thence easterly westerly from line to a Y along said last the easterly line of Point distant 210 feet tract; thence northerly parallel to Lot 140 of said division and from said easterl and distant 210 feet westerly Lot 139 of y line of said Lot 340 to the northerly line• to the northeast Id division neand tract. thence easterly line of a direct line to the northwest corner 139• Y in a direct and thence northerly in tract; thence e easterly of Lot 159 of said division 159, a distance Of 120 y along the northerly line of said lot distant 120 .feet easterly feet; thence northerly parallel to and division and tract y of the westerly line of Lot 160 of s j6 Los Angeles and to the mutual boundary line of the County aof said boundary City of Hawthorne as they existed on said date, Street (formerly elso being the survey centerline of 135th. thence easterly Y Strawberry Avenue) variable 60 to 65 feet wide; Crenshaw. Boulevard along said boundary line (formerly to the centerline of thence southerly along said last mentioned northerly right Y Cypress Avenue), 100 ,feet wide; wide; °f way line o{ centerline to the thence southwesterl the Dominguez Channel 125 feet to the westerly line of Y along said no right of wa in Book 20, Lot 221, Tract No. 993 as per ma Y line direct line Page 178 of said records; thence northerly thence westerly tin northwest corner of Lot 222 of said tract in a 127 of said a direct line to the northeast corner 993, northerly linetro {t 993; thence continuin of Lot the centerline said lot 127 and its westerly westerly along the of Lemoli Avenue (formerly y Prolongation to y Olive Street), 50 feet . —Page 11— Revised Sept. 25,1984 wide; thence southerly along said last mentioned centerline to its intersection with, the easterly prolongation of the souherly line of Lot 122 of said tract 993; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 72 of said tract-993; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 72; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast c•orner'of Lot 4 of said tract 993; thence• northerly in a direct line to the northeast. corner of,said•Lot 4 of said Tract 993,• thence westerly along the northerly line of said Lot.4 to the easterly right of way line of Yukon Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue, 10,0 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to the centerline of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide, said centerline being the mutual boundary bet1ween. the Cities of Hawthorne and Lawndale as they existed said date; thence on northerly, northwesterly, and westerly following said mutual boundary line, to the northerly line of Lot 978, Burleigh Tract, as per map recorded in Book 13, Pages 122 and '123 of said records; thence continuing westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 980 of said Burleigh Tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 882 of said Burleigh Tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 882; thence northerly to a point on the easterly line of Lot 877 of said tract, said point lying 113,84 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said lot 877•; thence "easterly parallel to and distant 113.84 feet southerly from the northerly line of Lot 878 of said Burleigh Tract, a distance of 44 feet; thence northerly in a direct line to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 878 being distant 6 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 878; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said Lot 877 of said Burleigh Tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 490* of said Burleigh Tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 490; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 485 of said Burleigh Tract; thence westerly .in a direct line'to the northwest corner of said lot 485; thence northerly in a direct line to a point on the northerly line of Lot 18 of Tract No. 1418 as per map recorded in Book 18, Page 147, of said records, said point lying westerly 50 feet from the northeast corner of said lot 18; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 2, Burleigh Tract, as per map recorded in .Book •13; records,. ages 118 and 119 of said ords said point also lying on the westerly right of way line of Washington Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 reet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of.the easterly right of way line of Birch Avenue, 68 feet wide; thence northerly @long said southerly prolongation and easterly right of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 63 of the First Addition to the Town of Hawthorne, as per map recorded in Book 9, Page 28, of said records; thence easterly along the northerly line of prolongation .Lots 63 and 84 and the easterly of said line to its intersection with the easterly —page 12— Revised Sept. 25,1984 right of way line of Cedar Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 113 of said Addition; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 292 of said Addition; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 45,.Block I of the Town of Hawthorne Tract as per map recorded in Book 8, Page 158 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 12 of said Block I; thence easterly along the northerly line of Lot 12 of said block and tract to f the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 7f said block and tract;' thence northerly in a direct line the northwest corner of Lot 7 of Block H, of o t said Town of Hawthorne Tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of Lot 6 of said block and tract to the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 45 of said block and tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 298, Second,,.Addition to the Town he Hawthorne as per map recorded. in Book 9, Page 160, of said records; thence westerly along the northerly line of Lot 298 of said tract to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 304 of said tract; thence northerly along the said southerly prolongation and westerly line of said lot 304 and the northerly prolongation thereof to the northerly right of way line of 120th Street (formerly Raymond Avenue), 80 feet, wide; thence easterly along said northerly right 20 of Tract of way line to the westerly line of Lot No, 3044 as per map recorded in Book 29, Page 49 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 15 of said tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said lot 15 to the westerly right of way line of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence northerly westerly right of way line to the long said 'e southeast corner of Lot i of Parcel Map No. 11869 as per map recorded in Parcel 'Map Book 115, Page 89 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot 1 to the northwest corner of said lot 1; northerly in a direct line line to the southwest corner of Lot 23hofcTracteNoY 6713 as per map recorded in Book 71, Pages 41 and 42 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 5 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 52 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 51 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 94 of said tract; thence continuing westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 266 of 'the Fairfax Park Tract, as per map recorded in Book 20, Pages 138 and 139 of said records; thence continuing we.sterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 74 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 75 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 76 of said tract; in a direct line to the north thence southerly west corner of Lot 82 of said Fairfax Park Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 33 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 31 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 30 said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot -page 13_ Revised Sept. 25,1984 46 of said tract; thence easterly along the northerly right of way line of 118th Street (formerly Wallace Street), 60 feet. wide, a distance of 12.5 feet; thence southerly, parallel to and distant easterly 132.5 feet from the easterly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard 180 feet aide, to the northerly right of way line of West 119th. Street,(formerly i;enwood Avenue) 60 feet wide; thence easterly 'along said northerly right of way line a distance of 7.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant easterly 140 'feet from the easterly right of way line of said Hawthorne Boulevard 180 feet wide to the centerline of West 120th. Street 80 feet wide; thence westerly along said centerline to the no prolongation of the westerly right of way line of said Hawthorne Boulevard, variable 170 to 180 feet wide; thence southerly along said westerly right of way line and southerly' and northerly prolongation thereof to the centerline of said E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 'feet wide;. thence easterly along said centerline to the northerly.prolongstion of the easterly line of the westerly 7 feet of lot 14 of said Burleigh Tract as recorded in Book 13 pages 118 and 119 of said records; thence southerly along said northerly prolongation and easterly line and its southerly prolongation to the northerly line of Lot 50 of said Burleigh Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 50; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 95 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct ..line to the southeast corner of Lot 96 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 120 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast, corner of said lot 120; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 151 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 238 of ^_said. tract; thence -- SOVther.l.y....in_ a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 161 of Tract 14Q1 a __...._.,.._.. a s per mao recorded "in B'ovk 21. Page 7� of said records; thence easterly along the souit_ie_i y line of said lot 161 to the.northerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 160 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 132 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 132; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 105 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 106 -of said tract;. thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner- of Lot 103 of said tract; thence westerly in s direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 104 of said tract 1391; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 48 of said tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said -lot 48, a distance of 40 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 40 feet easterly from the westerly line of Lot 21 of said tract to the northerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue, variable 98 to 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 40 feet; thence southerly along the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of said lot 21 to the southerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to a line parallel to and distant 67 feat easterly of the easterly right of way line of Hawthorne —page 14— Revised Sept. 25,1984 Boulevard (formerly Railroad Avenue) 195 feet wide; thence southerly along said last mentioned parallel line to the northerly line of Lot I. Bl.ock 27 of Lawndale Acres, as per map recorded in Book 10, Page 122 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot l; thence northerly along the easterly right of way line of said Hawthorne Boulevard, 195 feet wide to a point lying southerly 120 feet from the centerline of Rosecrans Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence westerly parallel to and southerly 120 feet from the centerline of said Rosecrans Avenue to the southeast corner of Lot 21 of Block 20, said Lawndale Acres, as per map recorded in Book 9, Page 122, of said records; thence northerly along the northerly prolongation of the easterly lines of Lots 21, 22, and 23 of said block and tract to the northerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly line of Lot 306, Tract No. 2049 as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 1 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 306; thence easterly in a direct line to-the northeast corner of Lot 307 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 178 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 28 of Block J of Tract No. 6095 as per map recorded in Book 64, Page 44, of said records; thence northerly to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of said block H of said tract;• thence weste.rly along the northerly line of said lot 1 to the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of lot 124 of Ingledale Acres as per map recorded in Book 20, Page 21 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 76 of said tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot 76, a distance of 4 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 171 feet west from the westerly. right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard (formerly Bu,rleigh Avenue), 180 feet wide, to the southerly line of Lot 295 of said, Ingledale Acres, as per map recorded in Book 20, Pages 182 and 183 of said records; thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot 295 of said tract; thence northerly to the northeast corner of said lot 295; thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot 295, a distance of 8 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 175 feet westerly from said westerly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard 'to the southerly fine of Lot 572 of Ingledale Acres, as 'per map recorded in Book 21, Pages 78 and 79 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 594 of said tract; thence continuing westerly along the westerly prolongation of the southerly line of said lot 594 to the easterly line of Lot A of said tract; thence northerly along said last mentioned easterly line to the southerly right of way line of said E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to a point lying distant easterly 265 feet from the easterly right of way line of Inglewood Avnue, 80 feet wide; thence southerly, parallel to and distant 265 feed easterly from said easterly right of way line to the northerly line of Lot 543 of said Ingledale Acres; thence westerly along said last mentioned line to a point lying distant easterly 40 feet from the northeast corner of Lot 541 of said tract; thence —poEe 15— Revised Sept. 25,1984 southerly parallel to and distant easterly from the *easterly line of said lot 541 and the southerly prolongation thereof to the southerly right of way line of 129 th. Street. (formerly Maine Avenue) 40 feet wide; thence westerly along of way line to a said southerly right Point lying distant easterly 105 feet from the easterly right of way line of Inglewood Avenue 80 feet wide; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 396 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 326 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest` corner of said lot'326; thence easterly to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of .Lot 32.2 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 322; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 261 of said tract; thence southerly - in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 144 of said Ingledale Acres as per map recorded in book 20 page 21 of said records; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lot 143 . of said tract to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 1 of Block A, Tract No. 6095 as per map recorded in Book 64, Page 44 of said records; thence southerly in a direct .line to the southeast corner of Lot 11 of said block and tract; —Page 16— 'Revised Sept. 25,1984 the southerly line. of said lot 11 to the northerlyaprolongati 'on oof the easterly line of Lot 3 of Bloci; I of said tract; thence . souther3y in a direct line -to the southeast corner of said lot 3 and block thence westerl. y corner of Lot 3 of Tract No, ' 9n direct line to the northwest 2049 as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 1; of said records; thence southerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 123 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 140 o f' said tract; thence southerly along the easterly line of said lot 140 to the northerly right of way line of Rosecrans Avenue 100 feet wide; thence southerly in a direct lin southerly right e to the intersection of the easterly of way line of. said Rosecrans Avenue with the line of lot 2 of tract no. 856 as per map recorded in Book 16 page 96 of said records; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 10 of said tract; thence westerly along the southerly line distant easterly , of said lot 10 to a point 140 feet from the easterly right of way line of Condon Avenue (formerly Sixth Street), 40 feet wide; thence northerly parallel' to and distant 140 feet easterly from said easterly right of wav line to the northerly line of said lot 30; thence westerly along said northerly lot line to a point lying distant easterly 127.26 feet from said easterly right of way line of Condon Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 127.26 feet easterly from said easterly right of northerly line of Lot 7 of .way line to the said tract; thence westerly along the northerly fines of Lot 5,' 6, and 7 of said tract and the prolongation thereof, to a point lying distant westerly 20 feet from the centerline of Inglewood Avenue, 80 feet-wide, said point. also lying on the mutual boundary line between the Cities of Hawthorne and Lawndele as they existed on this date; thence southerly westerly and southerly following the various courses of said boundary line to a point lying distant southerly 262 feet from the easterly prolongation of the southerly right of way line distant 1 262 feet so th Street, 80 feet wide; thence westerly parallel to and diutherly from said southerly right of way line to the easterly right -of way line of the San Diego Freeway, 288 feet wide; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way line to the centerline of Compton Boulevard 80'feet wide; thence westerly long said centerline to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA B: Beginning at the center Bernardino Base and Meridiapoint of Section 11, T3S, R14W, San centerline n; thence westerly along the east -west southerly along said 5ectio11 11 a distance of 40 feet;' thence ng a line parallel to and distant westerly 40 feet from the north -south center line of said section 11, said parallel -Paso 17- Revised Sept. 25,1984 line also being the westerly right of way line of Van Ness Avenue, 80 feet wide, a distance of 750.7 feet (+ or' —) to the 'point of intersection with the northerly right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railway, said point of intersection being the true point of beginning; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to a point lying distant southerly 60 feet from the southerly right of way line t)f 120th Street, 80 feet wide; thence easterly parallel to and 60 feet southerly from said southerly. right of way line, .a distance of 402.7 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 322.7 feet easterly from the easterly right of way line of said Van Ness Avenue to the northerly right —of —way line of the Southern Pacific Railway; thence southwesterly along said northerly right —of —way line to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA C: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1 of Tract No. 13523 as per map recorded in Book 377, Pages 19 and 20 of said records; thence southerly along the easterly line of said lot and the southerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 615 feet; thence easterly parallel to and distant southerly 615 feet from the southerly line of. El Segundo Boulevard 100 feet wide, a distance of 105, feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 285 feet easterly from the easterly line'of Yukon Avenue, variable 50 to 60 feet .wide, a distance of 130 feet; thence westerly parallel to distant 745 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line to said easterly right of way line of Yukon Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of 132nd Street, 55 feet wide; thence westerly along said easterly prolonghation and southerly right of way line to a point lying distant westerly 90 feet from the westerly right of way line of said Yukon Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence' northerly -parallel to and distant westerly 90 feet from said westerly right of way line to the southerly line of Lot 47 of Tract No. 674, Division A, as per map recorded in Book 17, Pages 110 and 111 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot 47; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 30 of said tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot 30 to the easterly right of way line of Rornblum Avenue, variable 40 -to 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 78 feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant southerly 78 feet from the northerly line of Lot 29 of said tract to the westerly line of said lot '29; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 28 of said tract; -thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 20 of said tract; thence northerly along the easterly right of way line of Doty Avenue, variable 40 to 60 feet wide, to the westerly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of 130th Street, 20 feet wide; thence easterly along said westerly prolongation and northerly right of way line to the westerly line of Lot 6 of the North Honeta Garden Lands Tract as per map recorded in Book 5, Page 54, of said records; thence northerly along said westerly line of lot —page 18— Revised Sept. 27,19$4 6 and prolongation thereof, to the northerly right of way line of said E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence easterly along said last 'mentioned,nort:herly right of way line to the southerly prolongation of the westerly right of way line of Yukon Avenue 50 feet wide; thence northerly along said last mentioned southerly prolongation and westerly right of way line to the southerly right Of way line of the -Southern Pacific Railway, 80 feet wide; thence easterly along said southerly right of way line 'a distance of 480 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant easterly 430 feet from the easterly right of way' line of said Yukon Avenue to the southerly right of way line of said E1 Segundo Boulevard; thence westerly along said last mentioned right of way line to true point of beginning. SUB AREA D: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 1 of Block 45 of Lawndale Acres as per map recorded in Book 10, Page 122 of of said records; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lot 8 of said block and tract and the easterly prolongation thereof, to the easterly right' of way line of Prairie Avenue (formerly Avenue Six), 100 feet wide; thence. southerly along said easterly right of way line to the south -west corner of Lot 357 of Tract No. 17639 as per map recorded in Book 436, Pages 5 thru 9 inclusive of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 352 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line southwest corner of Lot 343 of said tract; to the thence easterly along the southerly line of said lot 343 to the northerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lots 373 through 380, inclusive of Tract No. 15754 as per map recorded in Book 409, Pages 42 through 50 of said records,, said line also being the easterly right of way line l the 30 foot alley as shown on said tract; thence southerly along .said last 'mentioned easterly right of -way line to the northerly line of Lot 445 of said tract; thence westerly along westerly the southerly right of way line of said 30 foot alley and the prolongation thereof, to a point lying distant 20 feet easterly from the westerly right of way line of said Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence southerly parallel to- and distant 20 feet easterly of said westerly right of way line to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 18 of Block 46 pr said Lawndale Acres Tract; thence westerly along said easterly' prolongation and southerly line to the southwest ,corner of said lot 18; thence northerly along a line parallel to and distant 115.5 feet westerly from baid westerly right of way line of Prairie Avenue to the southerly right of way line of Compton Boulevard ( formerly Chicago Avenue), 80 feet wide; . thence northerly in a direct line to the intersection of the northerly right of way line of said Compton Boulevard with the westerly line Of lot 5 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA E: —page 19— Revised Sept. 27,1984 Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 74, Tract No. 6441 as per map recorded in Book 70,. Page 69 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 75 of said tract; thence northeasterly to the northwest corner of Lot-6 of Tract No. 1543 as per map recorded in Book 18, Page 198 of said records; thence easterly in a direct'line to the northeast corner of said lot 6; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 10 of said tract; thence continuing southerly to the northeast corner of Lot 53 of Tract No. 1084 as per map recorded in Book 171 -Pages 82 and 83 of said records; thence continuing southerly along the easterly line of Lots 53 through 62 inclusive of said tract and the southerly prolongation thereof, to the southerly right of way line of 120th Street (formerly Raymond Avenue), 80 feet wide; thence westerly- ..along said southerly right of way line to the easterly right of way line of Inglewood Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line to the easterly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of 121st Street, 60 feet wide; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and 'northerly right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 26 of Tract No. 13435 as per map recorded in Book 270, Page 48 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 24 of said tract; thence westerly in'a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 23 of said tract; thence northerly along the westerly line of said lot 23 and the northerly prolongation thereof, to the northerly right of way line of 120t1i Street, 76 feet wide; 'thence easterly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly line Lot 2, of Tract 2704 as per map recorded in Book 27, Page 52 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 151 of said tract; thence continuing northerly along the northerly prolongation of the westerly line of said lot to the northerly right of way line of 118th Street (formerly north Wallace Street), 50 feet wide;' thence easterly along said erly right of way line to'the southwest-corner of Lot 112 of said Tract No 6441 as per map recorded'in Book 70, Page 69 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA F; Beginning at the southwesterly corner of Lot 63 of Tract No. 874, Division C, as per map recorded in Book 18, Page 136 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 67 of said tract and division;' thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 67; thence northerly in a direct. line to the northeast corner of Lot 68 of said division and tract; thence easterly in a direct line to' the northeast corner of Lot 93 of-said division and tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 95 of said division and tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the easterly right of way line of Lemoli Avenue, variable 40 to 45 feet wide; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 98 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the true point of beginning, -page 20- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDED AREA Including Area B HAW /AmendPrehmPlanII EXHIBIT B -2 5/15/03 03030/028 Area A PROJECT No. 2 PROPOSED NEW AREA Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 34 of Tract No. 16663, in the City Of Hawthorne, County of Los Angeles, as shown on map recorded in Book 511, Pages 15 through 19, incl usi ve, of Maps, records of said County, said comer being on the southeasterly lino of the Pacific Electric Railway Company's 80.00 foot right of way, said comer being a common point in the boundaries of the City of BI Segundo and the City of Hawthorne, as both boundaries existed on April 15, 2003 and having established grid coordinates.of North 1,791,789.84 feet, Basting 6,449.,118:06 feet, Zone S of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence along said southeasterly line, South 62 °25'00" West 2659.14 feet to the westerly line©f the northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 Of the Superior Court of the State of California; thence along said westerly Line, North 00 °13'OS" But 1188.48 feet to a line parallel with and 25:00 feet northwesterly of the southeasterly line of the land described in Book 4215, Page 316 of said Deeds; thence along said parallel line North 11 °21'00" East 421.61 feet to the northerly line of said Section 17; thence along said northerly' line, South 89 °45'00" East 1211.46 feet to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Isis Avenue,. 60feet wide, as shown on Tract No 14749, in the City of El Segundo, as per Wisp recorded in Book 368, pages 18 through 22, inclusive of said Maps; thence. along said southerly prolongation, South 00 °11'19" West 50.00 feet to a line parallel with and 50.001eer southerly of said northerly line of Section 17; thence along said parallel line, South 89 04500" East 477.18 feet to the westerly line of the `Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne as same existed on March 14, 1957, said westerly line being the beginning of anon- tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 140.00 feat and to which beginning a radial line bears South 89 027'05" West; thence along said most westerly line of the "Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne, the following three courses: Southeasterly 245.85 feet along said curve, through. a central angle of 98 °34'09 ", North 81 °23'56" East 348.02 feet, South 18 034'12" East 250.23 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 50.10 acres, more or less. bert C. Olson, PLS 5490 Psornas 4:>4. Is-. zcm3 Date Page I of 1 w" LAA"" 4tssutcan02mooW�ykuecovtEnavaorn ENT Hxwntoanad,, Apra 15.20m rnC.Jde Area B GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION AMENDING BOUNDARY OF HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT No. 2 ADDITIONAL PROPOSED NEVV AREA Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 of the Superior Court of the State of California and a line parallel with and 1415.20 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Section 7 aad having established gdd coordinates of North 1,792,168.43 feet, Easting 6;445349.26 feet, Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence northerly along said parallel line, North 00 °00'53" East 2008.61 feet; thence South 89 059'07" East 339.18 feet; thence South 00 °00'53" West, 182.00 feet; thence South 89 059'07" East 289.64 feet; thence South 00 000'53" West 67.93 feet; thence South 89 °58'15" East 458.82 feet; thence North 49 °06'45" East 38,19 feet; thence South 89 058'15" East 73.81 feet; thence North 67 °20 °15" East 38.39 feet; thence North 89 °59'22" East 59.86 feet; thence North 89 °59'22" East 101.20 feet; thence South 00 010'18" West 3.60.00 feet; thence South 89 °59'22" West 100.21 -feet; thence South 00 000'53" West 1390.25 feet; thence South 89°54'07" East 186.40 feet; thence North 00 010'18" East 1750.61 feet; thence North 89 059'22" East 118.00 feet; thence South 00 °10'18" West 78.14 feet; thence South 00°10'18" West. 80.00 feet; thence South 00 010'18" West 228.85 feet; thence North 89 °54'04" West 12.03 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve, concave southeasterly, having a radius of 25.00 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears North 00905'56" East; thence southwesterly 39 4 feet along Page 1 of 2 w:�LAAFB\SrTE_a\S MV EYV..AFCMEUE VELOPMENT2_FtA -W THQBNE.doc May 6, 2003 roC:idc said curve through a central angle of 89 °55'38' ; South 00 010'18" West 67.03 feet; thence North 89 054'04" West 6.00 feet; thence Souk 00°10'18" West 1321,85 feet; thence North 89 054'07" West 50.57 feet; thence South 11 018'32" West 50,97 feet; thence North. 89 °54'07" West 99.45 feet to the beginning of a non- tangent curve concave to the west, having a radius of 2834.93 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears South 83 059'40" East; thence southerly 18.10 feet along said curve through"a central angle of 0021'57^; thence North 89 054'07" Nest 25327 feet; thence North 48 002'05" West 8.99 feet; thence North 89 054'07" West 457.16 feet; thence South 00005'53" West 10.00 feet; thence North 89 054'07" West 150.66 feet; thence North 78 010'58" West 31.66 feet; tbence North 85 005'08" West 18.69 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 322.97 feet; thence North 66 002'02" West 158.17 feet to the Point of Beginning Containing an area of 61.09 acres, more or less. obe,rt C. Olson, PLS 5490 Psomas Date No. 54-90 EXX 9.30.2004 Page 2 of 2 W:ILAAFB \SITE BV31JRVEY\LAFC :(NtgDEVEWPMEN72jiAW-MOXNE.doc May 6, 2003 1DC:jdc AGENCY RESOLUTION NO. 363 RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE ACCEPTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2003 -07 adopted on April 2, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne amended the Preliminary Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment project Area No. 2 ( "Project') to add certain territory to the Project area, being a portion of the Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "LAAFB ") referred to as "Area A," and submitted said Amendment to the Preliminary Plan to the Agency; WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2003 -12 adopted on May 21, 2003 the Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne, upon further consideration, further amended the Preliminary Plan for the Project to incorporate other territory within the LAAFB known as "Area B" and submitted said Amendment to the Preliminary Plan to the Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Second Amendment to the Preliminary PIan for the Project, as formulated and approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne is hereby accepted by the Agency, and the Agency hereby directs that amendments to the official Redevelopment Plan for the Project be prepared. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 33328.3 of the Health and Safety Code, the Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to file the information required by Health and Safety Code Sections 33327 and 33328 with the appropriate taxing officials, taxing agencies and State Board of Equalization. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of May, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: HAW /AgResoAmPrelimp1,nJ1 5/19/03 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF HAWTHORNE ) I, Monica Dicrisci, Deputy Secretary of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Hawthorne, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 363 was duly adopted by the Community Redevelopment Agency of Hawthorne, at their regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held May 27, 2003 and that it was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Agency Members Catano, Parsons, Mayor Guidi. NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Agency Members Lambert, Schoenfeld. ra Deputy Ci . p tY ty .. ��•. City of Hawthorne, California SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE PRELITNENARY PLAN FOR 'THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 The Preliminary Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project (the "Preliminary PIan") is hereby amended as follows: 1. The following paragraph shall be added to the end of Section I: The Agency has proposed an amendment to the Redevelopment Project to add certain real property (the "Added Area ") to the boundaries of the existing project area (the "Original Project Area "). The Original Project Area and the Added Area are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Project Area. 2 Section 11 is hereby amended to read as follows: The boundaries of the original Project Area are as shown on the "Map of the Original Project Area," attached hereto as Exhibit A -1. The boundaries of the proposed Added Area are as shown on the "Map of the Added Area," attached hereto as Exhibit A -2. The Original Project Area is also described in the "Legal Description of the Original Project Area," attached hereto as Exhibit B -1. The Added Area is also described in the "Legal Description of the Added Area," attached hereto as Exhibit B -2. 3. Section N is hereby amended to read as follows: As a basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area, as amended, it is proposed that, in general, the layout of principal streets and those that will be developed in the Project Area be as shown on Maps of the Original Project Area and the Added Area. Principal streets in the Added Area include: Aviation Boulevard, Douglas Street, El Segundo Boulevard, and La Cienega Boulevard PAW/ AmendnreHm -Fin ll 5/ i4 j03 nnnan irnu Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and /or vehicular circulation. 4. Section V is hereby amended to read as follows: . Standards for population densities shall be consistent with the densities established by the City of Hawthorne's General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. 5. The last sentence in Section VI is hereby amended to read as follows: The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the limits contained in the zoning ordinance and the General Plan of the City of Hawthorne, as it is proposed to be amended. 6. Section IX is hereby amended to read as follows: The Preliminary Plan, as hereby amended, conforms to the Hawthorne General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. The Preliminary Plan, as hereby amended, proposes a similar pattern of land uses and includes all highways and public facilities indicated by the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended. HAW /AmendPrehmPlanII 03030/028 3 5/14/03 1'2Ril : Y MAP OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AREA HAW /AmendPrelimPlanIl EXHIBIT A -1 5/14/03 03030/028 w y.• �Wflm "loop e MAP OF THE ADDED AREA Including Area B HAW /AmendPrelimPlanE EXHIBIT A -2 03030/028 5/14/03 Amending Baunddr of HIdWthipme yy Sheet 1 .! I 6heet Ftedavelaprna -tt fro jetrt No 2 coetnfnlnp .sa..a Ams ceeety of L.. ky.r.., not. of e.me.efe S 18'34'12" 250.23' LA C N 81'23'56" E 348.02' 6= 9834'04 R= 140.00' L= 245.85' S 89'45'00" E 477.18' S 0105 so. z 0 �a r P.O.B. AUNITY .MAP NOT TO SCALE N 77'21'00" E 421.61 N 0'13'08" E 1188.48'l . M ,i fn SPACE TECHNOLOGY AVIATION BOULEVARD 5 TERRITORY ANNEXATION or Bk 4215 P9 316, Deeds 8Y14/SO 8128161 -1 Annexation Area DATE: 04/15/03 REVISED ON: JOB No: 1XEA020IOO Tosk 116 P S O MA S ir� e.d G �I IN ti 0' 300' 600' GRAPH 1" I C SCA1 - 300' S 18'34'12" 250.23' LA C N 81'23'56" E 348.02' 6= 9834'04 R= 140.00' L= 245.85' S 89'45'00" E 477.18' S 0105 so. z 0 �a r P.O.B. AUNITY .MAP NOT TO SCALE N 77'21'00" E 421.61 N 0'13'08" E 1188.48'l . M ,i fn SPACE TECHNOLOGY AVIATION BOULEVARD 5 TERRITORY ANNEXATION or Bk 4215 P9 316, Deeds 8Y14/SO 8128161 -1 Annexation Area DATE: 04/15/03 REVISED ON: JOB No: 1XEA020IOO Tosk 116 P S O MA S ir� e.d G �I IN Scale: Y - 300' Amend ng Boundary of Redevelopment Nc Contoinip9 61 ¢q Acres County of Las Myetes, State of Cardarnic Sheet 1 of 1 Sheet Hawthorne 2 Ad.dtiona) 300 0' 300' 800' L2 GRAPHIC SCALE t° = 300 N t........�i • M L10 L8 L9 L11 oI l5 L7 o d• N 1T33965:' E 64467.36:52 ... ............. ..........N �. �. . LL Z. '• o. ...... ... . APN 41'.38 =l707 =901 m° a.� �� o ... 00 I 1 ro AMITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N89.54'04 CURVE TABLE PURVEILENCTHI RADIUS DELTA. Cl 39.24' 25.00' 895538" C21 '18.1,'0'12834,93' 00'21'51" III ' IIi k •r. 1z .' .:.:. :.:.:.:.:............ ..............;;I Q I Z1. �. .. POB.'.. N ,•792168 43 • • • .• E fi445349.2b.:. APN.'4138 U.02-' .9Q4..'.�''•� _s Ll L35 L�1 "..'.'.L29 L0 . a 4 2-t't 33 -�L30 L28� 0 ii m v J DATE: 05/06/03 REVISED ON: JOB No: IKEA020100 Task 116 Annexation Area PS 77! !uuwoidee+r.a ar ro x.11: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AREA HAW /AmendPrelimPlanlI EXHIBIT B -1 03030/028 5/15/03 LEG A117ION OF R1'. All those portions of the City Of Hawthorne, County of Los boundaries: Angeles, State of California within the following described SUB .AREA "A" Beginning at the southwesterly corner of the north westerly one rter of Section, 20, Township 3 South, Range' w West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, said sou.thwesterly corner also being the point of intersection of the centerlines Boulevard, EO feet wide, and Com of Aviation pton Boul, BO feet vide; thence northerly along Boulevard, centerline of Aviation Boulevard to the southwesterly corner of section 17 of said township; thence continuing northerly alo the south 5 ng said centerline to the northerly line easterly along said feet of said last mentioned Section; thence ea last mentioned line to the southeast corner of Lot 121, of Tract No. 20263 as per map recorded in Book No 550, pages 1 through 4, of records in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence northerly along the easterly line of said lot to the southerly corner of Lot 122 of said Tract; the northeasterly in a direct to t e he southwest corner of Lot thence of said Tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 134 of said Tract; thence northerly following the easterly right of way line of Glasgow Place as shown on said map to the southwest corner of Lot 175 of said tract; thence continuing northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 7 of Tract No. 20033 as per map recorded in book 544 page 1 of said records; thence continuing northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly corner of Lot 31 of Tract No. records. as per map recorded in Book 511, pages 15 through 29 of said recor thence continuing said right westerly, easterly and westerly along g of way line of Glasgow Place and the contiguous property lint's of Lots 31 thru 35 of said last mentioned tract to the southwest corner of said Lot 35; thence northwesterly along the 'southwesterly line of said lot to the northwest corner of said Lot; thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of said Lot to the 'northeast corner of Lot 34 of said Tract; thence northwesterly along the mutual boundaries of the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne as they existed on August 1, hen to the northerly right —of —way line of the San Diego Freeway; thence continuing southwesterly, northwesterly and northerly along the various courses of said mutual boundary line and northerly right —of —way line of said freeway, to the boundary line of the County of Los Angeles as it existed on said date, said boundary line being parallel to and cente-rline of distant 30 feet southerly from the El Segundo - Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence easterly, southerly, southeasterly, southwesterly and southerly along the various courses of said boundary line to the northerly line of Lot 23 Tract No. 2542 as per map recorded in Book No. 26, pane of said records; of line of said lo thence easterly along the northerly t to a point on said northerly line distant So foot westerly, from the northeast corner of said Lot 23; thence —page 1— southerly parallel to and distant 80 fy y ine of Lot-20 of said Tract.; westerly of the easterlt line of said Lot 23 to the northerl l; said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 2 of to northerly in a direct lin corner of Lox 4.1.0.f said tract; e to-the northwest thence easterly in a direct lent to the northwest.torh,er of Lot 42 of said tract; y line of Lot 86 of thence northerly in a direct line to a point on the southerl said., tract, said point lying distant southwest corner a easterly 80 feet from the . of sid Lot 86; thence. easterly along the southerly line of said Lot 86 to a point distant 40 feet westerly from the southeast corner of said Lot parallel to and dista 86; thence northerly nt 40 feet westerly of the easterly 'line of said ,Lot 86 of said tract to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 86; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot to a point lying distant westerly 25 feet from the northeast corner•of said Lot 86; thence northerly parallel `to and distant westerly 25 feet from the easterly line of Lot 119 of said tract to a point on northerlyheline ltoea pointyin said lot 119; thence westerly along said northwest corner of lying distant easterly 90 feet from the line es a said lot 119; thence northerly in a direct point lying on the northerly line of Lot 155 of said tract, said point lying westerly 24 feet from the northeast corner Of said lot, said point also lying on southerly right of way line of 139th Street (formerly Buckeye Avenue), 40 feet wide; thence easterly along the southerly right of way line of 139th Street and the easterly prolongation thereof, to its intersection with the centerline of Inglewood Avenue, 80 feet -wide; thence northerly along said centerline of Inglewood Avenue with the easterly prolongation of the norther to its intersection ly right of way line of 137th Street (formerly Hazelton Avenue), 50 feet wide, thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and northerly right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 12 of Block 12 of Tract No. 6490 as per map recorded in Map Book 70, pages 72 and 73 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 6 of said tract; thence westerly along the northerly right of way line of 135th Street (formerly Connecticut Avenue), 50 feet wide; to the southwest corner of Lot 18 of said block 6; thence northerly northwest corner in a direct line to the of Lot 6 of said block 6;. thence easterly along the southerly right of way line of 134th Place (formerly Gaines Avenue), 50 feet wide to 'the northeast corner of Lot 7 of said block 6; thence northeasterly along a direct line between the northeast corner of said Lot 7 of said block 6 and the northwest corner of Lot 204 of Ingiedale Acres as per map recorded in Map Book 20, pages 182 and 183 of said records, to its-intersection with. said centerline of Inglewood Avenue; thence northerly along said last mentioned centerline to its intersection with easterly prolongation of th the e northerly right of way line of 131st Street, 50 feet wide; thence westerly along said-last mentioned easterly prolongation and right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 12, Block 9 of Tract No. 5755 as per map recorded in Book 63, pages 10 and 11 of said"records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of . thence westerly along the southe lot 9 of said block 9; rly line of lot 6 of said block 9 —page 2— a distance of 40 feet; 4.0 feet thence northerly parallel to and distant westerly from the easterly line of said lot 6 to the northerly line of said lot 6; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast. corner of said lot 6; thence northerly southwest corner of Lot 17 of to the easterly Block 3 of said Tract; thence .along the southerly line of said lot 17 and the easterly prolongation thereof to said centerline of Inglewood Avenue; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard (formerly 'Ballona Avenue), 100 feet wide; thence. westerly along said northerly prolongation of El Segundo Boulevard to the southerly prolongation of the w esterly right of way line of said Inglewood Avenue; thence northerly along said last mentioned southerly prolongation and westerly right of way line of said Inglewood Avenue and its northerly prolongation to a point 25 feet southerly of the centerline of West Broadway (formerly Broadway) 50 feet wide as shown on map of Town of Hawthorne recorded in book 15 pages 110 and 111 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 20 of Block Z of said Town of Hawthorne; thence easterly along the southerly right of way line of Broadway to a point on said last mentioned right of easterly way line distant westerly 164 feet from the line of said Lot 20; thence southerly parallel to and distant 164 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 20, to the northerly' line of Lot 19 of said block and tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 19 to a point distant 116 feet westerly from the northeast corner of said lot; - thence 'southerly parallel to and distant 116 feet westerly from the .easterly.line of said Lot 19 to a point 60 feet northerly from the southerly line of said Lot 19; thence easterly parallel to and distant 60 feet northerly from the southerly 'line of said lot 19 to the easterly line of said Lot 19; thence northerly along th easterly line of sad lot 19 to the northeast corner of said Lot 19 of said block and tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of Lot 2 of'said block and tract to the westerly right of way line of Eucalyptus Avenue (formerly Redondo Avenue), 50 feet wide; thence. southerly along said westerly right of way line to the southerly line of Lot 3 of said block and tract; thence westerly E distance of 150 feet along the southerly line of said Lot 3; thence southerly parallel to and distant 150 feet westerly of the westerly right of way.line of Eucalyptus Avenue to the southerly direct of line Lot to the said saidncLtwesterly ; hence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corneor of Lot 9 of said block and tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 2 of Tract No. 7252 as per map recorded in Book s0, Page 76, of said records; thence continuing northeasterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 5 of Tract No. 7706 as per map recorded in Book 98, Pege 11, of said records; thence easterly to the northeast corner of lot 4 of said tract; • thence northerly along t -he northerly prolongation of-the easterly line of said lot 4 a distance of 15 feet; th"e'nca easterly parallel to and distant northerly 130 feet from the northerly right of way line of El Segundo Blvd. 100 feet wide a -page 3- distance of 50 feet; thence southerly in a direct line northwest corner of Lot 3 of said Tract 7706; thenc t o e contin northeast corner of Lot 1 of easterly in a direct line to the tract; thence continuing southeasterly in a'diredt line to northwest corner of Lot 6 of Tract No. 5482 as per map recorder Book 1001 Page 98 of said records; thence continuing easterly e direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of said trac thence northerly along the westerly right of way line of Grevil Avenue (formerly 5ausal Avenue) 50 feet wide to its intersect with the northerly' right ofd way line of West Broadway, se f wide; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner Lot a Tract No. 2006 as per map recorded in Book 21, Page 10, thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of s; Lot rl in continuing northerly along the prolongation of t easterly line of said lot:' 4 e distance of 52.5 feet; ther westerly parallel to and distant 52.5 feet northerly from t northerly line of said Tract No. 2006 to a point distant easter 185.02 feet from the easterly* right of way line of Geaster Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant f 185.02 Grev 21 easterly from said easterly right of way line of Grevillea to t southerly line 'of Lot 30, Block R, 'Town of Hawthorne Tract, as F map recorded in Book 15, Pages 110 and Ill Of said records thence westerly along said southerly line of said Lot 30 to point distant easterly 150 feet from said easterly right of w line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to a distant easterly 150 feet from said easterly right southerly lot line to a poi Of way line Grevillea Avenue to the southerly line of Lo't 31 of said block a tract; thence westerly along said distant easterly 130 feet from said easterly right of way line Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and dista easterly 130 feet from said easterly right of way line to t southerly line of lot 32 of said block and tract; thence easter along said southerly lot line to a point distant easterly 160.1 feet from said easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue .thence northerly parallel to distant easterly 160.06 feet from tl easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue a point on t] southeYly line of Lot 33 of said block•and'.tiact; thence easter: to a point on said southerly lot line distant from the easterly right of way easterly 185.04 fec northerly line of Grevillea Avenue; thenc parallel to and distant easterly 185.04 feet from sai easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue, a distance of 52. feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant northerly 52.5 fee from the .southerly line of Lot 33 of said block and tract to Point distant easterly 115 feet from said easterly right of wa line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to an distant easterly 1I5 feet from said easterly right of way line c Grevillea Avenue to the southerly line of Lot 34 of said block an distant easterl easterly along said southerly line to a poin of Grevillea y feet from the easterly right of way in Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distan easterly 176.08 feet from said- easterly right of way line o Grevillea Avenue to a said block point on the southerly line of Lot 35 o and tract; thence westerly along said southerly to line to a point distant easterly 160.09 feet from said easterl -page 4- Revised Scpt. 25,1964 right of way line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 160.09 feet easterly from said easterly right of way line to the southerly 11ne.of Lot 37 of said block and tract; thence easterly along said southerly lot line 'to a point distant easterly 200.11 feet from said easterly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 200,11 feet 'easterly of said easterly, right of way line of Grevillea Avenue to. the. northerly right of .way line of 120th Street (formerly Raymond Avenue), 80 feet wide; thence , easterly along said northerly right of way line to the southeast corner of Lot No. l'-of Tract No. 9498 as per map recorded in Book 128, Pages 10 and 11, of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the' northeast corner of Lot 30, Block S; of said Town of Hawthorne Tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot and Prolongation thereof to said westerly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence northerly elong'said westerly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of 118th Street (formerly Wallace Street), 60 feet wide; thence westerly along said southe'riy right of way line to the westerly right of way line of Ramona Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said last mentioned westerly right of way line to a point distant 40 feet northerly of the centerline of 116th. Street (formerly Miramar Street) 60 feet wide as shown on Tract No. 7963 recorded in Book 85 pages 75 and 76 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 135 of Belleview Tract as recorded in Book 9 page 77 of said records; thence easterly along the northerly right of way line of 116th. Street 80 feet wide to the westerly right of way line of Grevillea Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the southeast corner of Lot 47 of said Belleview Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 66 of said tract; thence southerly along the westerly line of Lot 67 of said Belleview Tract a distance of 20 feet; thence westerly 'in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 13 of said Tract No. 7963; thence westerly along the southerly right of way line of the alley as ,Shown on said map of Tract No. 7963 and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the westerly right of way line of Eucalyptus Avenue 50 feet wide; thence northerly along said last mentioned westerly right of way line to a point distant northerly 125 feet from the southeast porner of. Lot 21 of Tract 1543 as per map recorded In Book 18, Page 198, of said records; thence westerly In a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 22 of said tract 1543; thence southwesterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 20 of said tract 1543, said point lying on the westerly right of way line of Gale Avenue 50 feet wide; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said Lot 20; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 20; thence westerly parallel to and distant southerly 30 feet from the centerline of Imperial Highway (formerly Belleview Avenue), 100 feet wide, said line being the boundary line between the Cities of Hawthorne and Los Angeles, to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 368, Tract No. 324 as per map recorded in Book 14, Page 84 .of of said records; thence —page 5— Net•isen Scpt. 1o,Jyb4 northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said Lot 368; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot and the easterly prolongation thereof, to the centerline of said Inglewood Avenue, variable 66 to 80 feet wide; thence northerly along soid last mentioned centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot No. 206,.-Tract No. 957 as per map recorded in Book 16, Pages 198. and 199, of said records; thence easterly along said last mentioned northerly line and its easterly prolongation to the centerline of Dalerose Avenue, 50 feet wide, said last mentioned centerline also being the easterly line of •said Lot 106 and lots 107, 108, and 109 of said Tract 957; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 91 of said tract 957; thence easterly along said northerly lot line to _E point on the northerly line of Lot 90 of said tract 957, said point lying distant easterly 139 feet from the norA west corner of said lot 90; thence northerly in a direct line to a Point on the southerly line of Lot 87 of said tract 957, said last mentioned point being distant 139.24 feet from the southwest corner of said Lot 87; thence easterly along said last mentioned southerly lot line and prolongation thereof to the centerline of Truro Avene, 50 feet wide said centerline also being the easterly line of Lot 88 of said Tract 957; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the -westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Parcel B of Parcel Map No. 3349 as per map recorded in Parcel Map Book 42, Page 30 of said records; thence . easterly along said northerly parcel line to the centerline of Firmona Avenue (formelry Fir Avenue), 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said last mentioned centerline to .8 point distant 30 feet southerly from the centerline of said Imperial Highway l00 feet wide; thence easterly parallel to and distant 30 feet southerly from said last mentioned centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the easterly right of way line of Burin Avenue (formerly Mansfield Place), 40 feet wide as shown on Tract No. 1698 recorded in Book 24 page 46 of said records; thence- northerly along said easterly right of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 101 of said tract 1698; thence easterly elong the northerly line of said Lot 101.a distance o.f 5 feet; thence northerly along the easterly line of the Westerly 25 feet of 'Lots 11 and 12 of said Tract 957 a distance of 83 feet; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 17 of Tract No. 6553 as-recorded in Book 71 page.78 of said records; thence westerly along the southerly lines of Lots 17 and 22 of said Tract No. 65531 to the centerline'of Grevillea Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence northerly along said last mentioned centerline to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 53 of said Tract No. 957; thence westerly along said southerly line to the easterly right of way line of Mansel Avenue,, 40 feet wide, said easterly right of way line also being distant .40 feet easterly and parallel to the westerly lines of said Lots 53 and 54 of said Tract 957; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly line of Lot 55 of said tract; thence westerly along said southerly line to the southwest corner of said Lot 55; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest page 6— Revised Sept. 25,1984 corner of Lot 60 of said tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot to the centerline of said Greviliea Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said centerline to its intersecton with the westerly, prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 6553; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lots !,through 6 inclusive of said-tract and the easterly prolongation thereof -to the easterly right of way line of said Burin Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of lllth Street (formerly Center Avenue), 50 feet wide; thence easterly .along said southerly right of way line to the westerly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard (formerly Hawthorne Avenue),. 135 feet wide said Westerly right of way line being distant 65 feet westerly and parallel:.to the centerline of said Hawthorne Boulevard; thence southerly along said last mentioned westerly right of way line to its intersection with the westerly prolongation, of the southerly line of Lot 31 of Hawthorne Acres Tract as per map recorded in Book 9, Page 128, of said records; thence easterly along said westerly prolongation and southerly line of said lot 31 to the westerly right of way line of Acacia Avenue, 50 feet wide, said westerly right of way line also being the westerly line of the easterly 25 feet of Lots 32,33,34, and 35 of said Hawthorne Acres; thence southerly along said westerly right of way line to the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 37 of said tract; thence easterly along said last mentioned westerly prolongation and northerly line of Lot 37 and its easterly prolongation to the centerline of Larch Avenue (formerly Birch Avenue), 40 feet wide; thence northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 106 of said tract; thence.easterly in a direct line to a point on the northerly line of Lot 110 of said tract, said point lying distant 147.7 feet-westerly from the westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue, 55 feet wide; thence northerly parallel to and distant westerly 147.7 feet from said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue, a distance of 100 feet; thence easterly to said westerly right.of way line of Freeman Avenue; thence northerly to the northeast corner of Lot 111 of said tract; thence westerly along said northerly line, a distance of 147.7 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 147.7 feet westerly of said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue to the southerly line of Lot 114 of said tract; thence easterly along said southerly -lot line to a point on said lot line, distant westerly 136 feet from said westerly right of way line -of Freeman Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 136 feet westerly from said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue a distance of 140 f.eet; thence easterly parallel to and distant 8 feet northerly from the southerly line of Lot 115 of said .tract, to said westerly right of way line of Freeman Avenue; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to its intersection with the- northerly Sine of the southerly 12 feet of lot 116 of said Hawthorne Acres Tract and its easterly prolongation; thence easterly along said last mentioned' prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of said Freeman Avenue; thence northerly along said last mentioned _page 7_ Revised Sept. 25,1 centerline to the westerly prolongation of a line lying paral to and distant 66 feet northerly from the southerly line of 140 of said tract; thence easterly along said last mentio, Prolongation and parallel line and its easterly prolongation the centerline of Eastwood Avenue, 50 feet wide said centerl. also •being the westerly line of Lots 149 thru' 158 of se Hawthorne Acres Tract; thence southerly along said last mention centerline to the @northwest corner of Lot 153 of said tract thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot 153 to t centerline of Osage Avenue (formerly Oxford Avenue), 40 feet wid thence southerly' along said last :,mentioned centerline to t westerly prolongation of a' line parallel to and distant 47 fe northerly of the southerly line of Lot 185 of said'tract; then easterly along said last mentioned parallel line, a distance 172 :85 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 152.85 fe easterly from the westerly line of said lot 185 to the souther line of said Lot 185; thence easterly along said last mention southerly line to the centerline of York Avenue, 50 feet wid said last mentioned centerline also being the easterly lines lots 184 thru 188 of said Hawthorne Acres Tract; thence souther. along said last mentioned centerline to the southerly right of w; line of said Imperial Highway, 100 feet wide; thence o easterly along wayline1d southerly right line to the ofPrairieAvenue(formerlyCentennalie Aveue)y right 100fe( wide; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line i the northerly line of Lot 1 of Tract No. 1615 as per map,recorde In Book 20, Page 104,, of said records; thence easterly along sad northerly lot line to the northeast corner of Lot 2 of'said tract thence southerly along the easterly lot line of said Lot 2 to tt southerly right of way line of said Imperial Highway, 100 fee wide; thence easterly along said southerly right of way line to Point lying 330 feet easterly of the northeast corner of Lot 11 Tract No. 12030, as per map recorded in Book 227, Pages 25.thr 27, inclusive of said records; thence southerly parallel to ar. distant- 330 feet easterly from the easterly line of said trac 12030 to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 23 through 32 inclusive of said tract 12030; thence westerl along said last mentioned prolongation to the centerline o %ornblum Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence northerly along th easterly line of said tract to the southerly line of the 20 foo alley as shown on said tract 12030; thence westerly along sai southerly. right of way line and'the westerly prolongation thereo to the westerly right of way line of Doty Avenue, 55 wide; thenc northerly along said last mentioned right of way line to th southeast corner of Lot 671 of Tract No. 2643 as per in Bobk 26, 'Page 64 map recorde , records of Los Angbles County; thenc westerly to the northeast corner of Lot 682 of said tract, sai point. being distant 150 feet easterly of the centerine of sai Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; =hence southerly parallel to an distant 150 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie A,venu to the centerline of 120th Street, variable 65 to 70 feet wide said centerline also being the the northerly line of the sout —page 8— o'na half of Section 10 of said Township; thence easterly along said last mentioned centerline to the centerline of Crenshaw Boulevard, 100 feet wide said last mentioned centerline also being the easterly line of said Section 10; thence continuing easterly along said centerline of 120th. Street a distance of 50 feet; thence southerly' a distance of 705 feet along a line parallel to and distant 50 feet easterly from said last mentioned.centerline; thence westerly parallel to and distant 705 feet southerly from said centerline of. 120th Street to a point distant easterly 50 feet from said centerline. of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence southerly along a line parallel. to and distant 50 feet easterly from said last mentioned centerline to the northerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence easterly along said last mentioned northerly right of way line to the northerly prolongation of the westerly right of way line of Cordary Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said westerly right of way line to a point 319..18 feet southerly of'the southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence westerly parallel to and distant 319.18 feet from the southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard to the westerly line of Lot 13, Tract No. 874, Division A, as per map recorded in Book 17, Pages 110 and 111; thence northerly along said. westerly lot line, a distance of 10 feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant 309.18 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard to the easterly right of way line of Roselle Avenue 50 feet wide, said right of way line being the easterly' line of the west 25 feet of Lot 114 of said Tract 874 Division A; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line to a point distant 173,51 feet southerly, from said southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard; thence Westerly parallel to and distant 173.51 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, a distance of 187.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant westerly 162.5 feet from the centerline of said Roselle Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 36 of Tract No. 5545 as per map recorded in Book B7, Pages 38 and 39; thence westerly along said northerly line tp the northwest corner of said lot 36; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 23 of said tract 5545; 'thence westerly along the southerly line of Lot 22 of said tract, a distance of 15 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 150 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 64 of said Tract No. 874, Division A; thence easterly along' the northerly line of said lot 64, a distance of 20 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 170 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 72 of said last mentioned division and tract;' thence easterly along said northerly line a distance of 40 feet; thence southerly parallel to and 'distant 210 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 80 of said last mentioned division and .tract; thence westerly' along said northerly line, a distance of 30 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 160 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue, a distance of 86 feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant 40 -feet northerly of the -page 9- northerly line of Lot 88 c said last mentioned division and tract, a distance of 12.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 167.5 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 96 of said last mentioned division and tract; thence easterly along said northerly lot line, a distance of 12.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to'end distant 180 feet easterly of said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly line of Lot 112 of said division A of tract 874; thence easterly along said northerly line, a distance of 10 feet; thence southerly parallel to. and distant 190 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northerly.line of Lot 128 of said last mentioned division and tract; thence easterly along said northerly lot line and the easterly prolongation thereof to the centerline 'of Roselle Avenue, 50 feet wide, said centerline also being the easterly line of said Lot 128; thence southerly along said last mentioned centerline and the prolongation thereof to the northwest corner of Lot 14, Tract No. 874, Division $, as per- map recorded in Book 17, Pages 110 and ill of.said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner.of said lot 14; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot; thence westerly in-s direct line to-the southwest corner of said lot 14; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 11, of said last mentioned division and tract; thence easterly in a direct line.to the southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 301 of said division and tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot and tract; '-thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 301; thence westerly along the northerly line of Lot 320 of said division and tract to a point 50 feet easterly of said enteriine of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; ...thence southerly darallel to and distant 50 feet easterly from said last mentioned centerline to the southerly line of Lot 316 of said division and tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said lot 316, B distance of 255 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 305 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue, a distance of 60 feet; thence easterly parallel to and .distant 68 feet northerly from the southerly line of Lot 315 of said division and tract a distance of 25 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 330 feet easterly from said centerline of Prairie Avenue to the northeast corner of Lot 311 of said division and tract; thence easterly along the northerly lines of Lots 310, and 291 and their easterly prolongation and the northerly line of lot'290 of said division and tract to the westerly .right of way line of Doty Avenue, 55. feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the southerly line of Lot 287 of said division and tract; thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot 274 of said division and tract; thence 'continuing easterly to the northwest corner of Lot 7 of Tract No. 13911 as per map recorded in Book 2921 Page 26, of said records; thence southerly to the southwest corner of Lot 8 of said tract; thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot 19 of said tract; thence continuing northeasterly in a direct line to a point on the easterly right of way line of Kornblum Avenue, 50 feet wide, said point lying distant 42 feet —page 10— Revised Sept. 25,1984 northerly of the northerly line of Lot 252, of said Division B, Tract 874; thence easterly parallel to and distant northerly 42 feet from said lot line to the westerly line of Lot 248 of said division and tract; thence southerly along said westerly lot line to the southwest corner of Lot 249 of said Diviion and Tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said Lot 249, a distance of 101.10 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 101.10 feet easterly of westerly line of Lot 250 of said. division and tract to the .northerly right of way line of Rosecrans Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence easterly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly right of way line of Yukon Avenue, 50 feet wide; • thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the northerly line of said Lot 249 of said division and tract; thence easterly in• a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 59, Division C of Tract No. 874 as per map recorded in Boob 18, Page 136 of said records; thence southerly to the northeast corner of Lot 60 of said division e'n'd tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of Lot 61 of said division and tract to the westerly right of way line of Lemoli Avenue, 45 feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the southeast corner of Lot 63 easterly in a of said division and tract; thence direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 98 of said division and tract; thence northerly to the northeast corner of said lot 98; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 138 of said division and tract; thence southerly along the easterly right of way line of Chadron Avenue, variable wide 40 to 45 feet to the northerly line of Rosecrans Avenue, variable 99.5 mentioned to 100 feet wide; thence easterly along said last to right of way line to a point distant 210 feet westerly from the easterly line of Lot 140 of said division and tract; thence northerly parallel to and distant 210 feet westerly from said easterly line of said Lot 140 to the northerly line of Lot 139 of said division and tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said Lot 139; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 159 of said division and tract; thence easterly along the northerly line of said lot 159, a distance of 120 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 120 feet easterly of the westerly line of Lot 160 of said division and .tract• to the mutual boundary line of the County of Los Angeles and City of Hawthorne as they existed on said date, said boundary line also being the survey centerline of 135th. Street (formerly Strawberry Avenue) variable 60 to 65 feet wide; thence easterly along said boundary line to the centerline of Crenshaw. Boulevard (formerly Cypress Avenue), thence southerly along said 100 feet wide; last mentioned centerline to the northerly right of way line of the Dominguez Channel 125 feet wide; thence southwesterly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly line of Lot 221,Tract No. 993 as per map recorded in Book 20, Page 178 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 222 of said tract 993; thence westerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 127 of said tract 993; thence continuing westerly along the northerly line of said lot 127 and its westerly prolongation to the centerline of Lemoli Avenue (formerly Olive Street), 50 feet -page 11- Revised Sept. 25,1984 wide; thence southerly along said last mentioned centerline to its intersection with. the easterly prolongation of the souherly line of Lot 122 of said tract 993; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 72 of said tract-993; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 72; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner'of Lot 4 of said tract 993; thence• northerly in a direct line to the northeast, corner of-said'Lot 4 of said Tract 993; thence westerly along the northerly line of said Lot 4 to the easterly right of way line of Yukon Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said easterly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue, 10,0 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to the centerline of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide, said centerline being the mutual boundary between, the Cities of Hawthorne and Lawndale as they existed on said date; thence northerly, northwesterly, and westerly following said mutual boundary line, to the northerly line of Lot 978, Burleigh Tract, as per map recorded in Book 13, Pages 122 and '123 of said records; thence continuing westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 980 of said Burleigh Tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 882 of said Burleigh Tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 882; thence northerly to a point on the easterly line of Lot 877 of said tract, said point lying 113.84 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said lot 877; thence "easterly parallel to and distant 113.84 feet southerly from the northerly line of Lot 878 of said Burleigh Tract, a distance of 44 feet; thence northerly in a direct line to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 878 being distant 6 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Lot 878; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said Lot 877 of said Burleigh Tract; thence northerly in a, direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 490* of said Burleigh Tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 490; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 485 of said Burleigh Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 485; thence northerly in a direct line to a point on the northerly line of Lot 18 of Tract No. 1418 as per map recorded in Book 18, Page 147, of said records, said 'point lying westerly 50 feet from the northeast corner of said lot 18; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 2, Burleigh Tract, as, per map recorded in .Book ' 13; Pages 118 and 119 of said records; said point also lying on the westerly right of way line of Washington Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence northerly along said we right of way line to the southerly right of way line of E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of. the easterly right of way line of Birch Avenue, 68 feet wide; thence northerly along said southerly prolongation and easterly right of way line to the northwest corner of Lot 63 of the First Addition to the Town of Hawthorne, as per map recorded in Book 9, Page 28, of said records; thence easterly along the northerly line of .Lots 63 and 84 and the.easterly prolongation of said line to its intersection with the easterly -page 12- Revised Sept. 25,1984 right of way line of Cedar Avenue, 50 feet wide; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 113 of said Addition; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 292 of said Addition; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 45,.Block I of the Town of Hawthorne Tract as per map recorded in Book 8, Page 158 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 12 of said Block I; thence easterly along the northerly line of Lot 12 of said block and tract to the southerly Prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 7 of said block and tract;' thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 7 of Block H, of said Town of Hawthorne Tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of Lot 6 of said block and tract to the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 45 of said block and tract; thence northerly in a.direct line -to' the northeast corner of Lot 298, Second—Addition to the Town of Hawthorne as per map recorded. in Book 9, Page 160, of said records; thence westerly along the northerly line of Lot 298 of said tract to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 304 of said tract; thence northerly along the said southerly prolongation and westerly line of said lot 304 and the northerly prolongation thereof to the northerly right of way line of 120th Street (formerly Raymond Avenue), 80 feet wide; thence easterly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly line of Lot 20 of Tract No. 3044 as per map recorded in Book 29, Page 49 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot .15 of said tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said lot 15 to the westerly right of way line of Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to the southeast corner of Lot 1 of Parcel Map No. 11669 as per map recorded in Parcel'Map Book 115, Page 89 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot 1; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 1; thenc asterly in a direct Tr line to the southwest corner of Lot 23 of act No. 6713 as per map recorded, in Book 71, Pages 41 and 42 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 5 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 52 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 51 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 94 of said tract; thence continuing westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 266 of 'the Fairfax Park Tract, as per map recorded in. Book 20, Pages 138 and 139 of said records; thence continuing westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 74 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 75 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 76 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 82 of said Fairfax Park Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 33 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 31 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 30 said tract; thence. southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot —page 13— Revised Sept. 25,1984 46 of said tract; thence easterly along the northerly 'right of way line of 118th Street (formerly Wallace Street), 60 feet. wide, a distance of 12.5 feet; thence southerly, parallel to and distant easterly 132.5 feet 'from the easterly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard 180 feet wide, to the northerly right of way line of West 119th, Street, (formerly Fenwood Avenue) 60 feet wide; thence easterly *along said northerly right of way line a distance of 7.5 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant easterly 140 'feet from the easterly right of way line of said Hawthorne Boulevard, 180 feet wide to the'centerline of West 120th. Street 80 feet wide; thence westerly along said centerline to the no 'prolongation of the westerly right of way line of said Hawthorne Boulevard, variable 170 to 180 feet wide; thence southerly along said westerly right of way line and southerly-and northerly prolongation thereof to the centerline of said E1 Segundo Boulevard, 100 'feet wide;. thence easterly along said centerline to the northerly.prolongation of the easterly line of the westerly 7 feet of lot 14 of said Burleigh Tract as recorded in Book 13 pages 118 and 119 of said records; thence southerly along said northerly prolongation and easterly line and its southerly prolongation to the northerly line of Lot 50 of said Burleigh Tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 50; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 95 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct ••line to the southeast corner of Lot 96 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 120 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 120; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 151 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 238 of - -..... said, tract; thence. ,souther.l.y..._n _ a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 161 of Tract_. -Na. 3391 - gs per map recorded" in•"'Bo-o•k 21, Yage �3 of said records; thence easterly along the southerly line off' said"lct 161 to the. northerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 160 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 132 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 132; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 105 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct . line to the southeast corner of Lot 106 -of said tract;• thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner- of Lot 103 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 104 of said tract 1391; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 48 of said tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said -lot 48, a distance of 40 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 40 feet easterly from the westerly line of Lot 21 of said tract to the northerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue, variable 98 to 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 40 feet; thence southerly along the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of said lot 21 to the southerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to a line parallel to and distant 67 feet easterly of the easterly right of way line of Hawthorne —page 14— Revised Sept. 25,1984 Boulevard (formerly Railroad Avenue) 195 feet wide; thence southerly along said last mentioned parallel line to the northerly line of Lot 1, Block 27 of Lawndale Acres, as per map.recorded in Book 10, Page 122 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 1; thence northerly along the easterly right of way line of said Hawthorne Boulevard, 195 feet wide to a point lying southerly 120 feet from the centerline of Rosecrans Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence.westerly parallel to and southerly 120 feet from the centerline of said Rosecrans Avenue to the southeast corner of Lot 21 of Block 20, said Lawndale Acres, as per map recorded in Book 9, Page 122, of said records; thence northerly along the northerly prolongation of the easterly lines of Lots 21, 22, and 23 of said block and tract to the northerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly line of Lot 306, Tract No. 2049 as per map recorded in Book 22, Page 1 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of said lot 306; thence easterly in a direct line to -the northeast corner of Lot 307 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 178 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast .corner of Lot 28 of Block J of Tract No. 6095 as per map recorded in Book 64, Page 44, of said records; thence northerly to the northeast corner of Lot 1 of said block H-of said tract;• thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot i to the southerly prolongation of the easterly line of lot 124 of Ingledale Acres as per map recorded in Book 20, Page 21 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast' corner of Lot 76 of said tract;' thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot 76,• a distance of 4 feet; thence northerly parallel to and distant 171 feet west from the westerly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard (formerly Burleigh Avenue), 180 feet wide, to the southerly line of Lot 295 of said, Ingledale Acres, as per map recorded in Book 20, Pages 182 and 163 of said records; thence easterly to the southeast corner of Lot 295 of said tract; thence northerly to the northeast corner of said lot 295; thence westerly along the northerly line of said lot 295, a distance of 8 feet; thence northerly parallel to anda distant 175 feet westerly from said westerly right of way line of Hawthorne Boulevard 'to the southerly line of Lot 572 of Ingledale Acres, as per map recorded in Book 21, Pages 78 and 79 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 594 of said tract; thence continuing westerly along the westerly prolongation of the southerly line of said lot 594 to the easterly line of Lot A of said tract; thence northerly along said last mentioned easterly line to the southerly right of way line of said El Segundo Boulevard, 100 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to a point lying distant easterly 265 feet from the easterly right of way line of Inglewood Avnue, 80 feet wide; thence southerly, parallel to and distant 265 feet easterly from said easterly right of way line to the northerly line of Lot 543 of said Ingledale Acres; thence westerly along said last mentioned line to a point lying distant easterly 40 feet from the northeast corner of Lot 541 of said tract; thence —page 15— Revised Sept. 25,1984 southerly parallel to and distant easterly from the'easterly line of said lot 541 and the southerly prolongation thereof to the southerly right of way line of 129 th. Street, (formerly Maine Avenue) 40 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to a point lying distant easterly 105 feet from the easterly right of way line of Inglewood Avenue 80 feet wide; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 396 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 326 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot'326; thence easterly to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of ,Lot 32,2 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of said lot 322; thence westerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 261 of said tract; thence southerly -in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 144 of said Ingledale Acres as per map recorded in book 20 page 21 of said records; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lot 343 of said tract to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 1 of Block A, Tract No. 6095 as per map recorded in Book 64, Page 44 of said records; thence southerly in a direct ,line to the southeast corner of Lot 11 of said block and tract; —page 16— 'Revised Sept. 25,1984 thence westerly along the southerly line. of said lot 11 to the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 3 of Block I of said tract; thence .southerly in a direct line -to the southeast corner of said lot 3 and block thence westerly. in.a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 3 of Tract No. 2049 as per map recorded in Book 22, ?age I' of said records; thence southerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 123 of said tract; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 140 of'said tract; .thence southerly along the easterly .line of said lot 140 to the northerly right of way line of Rosecrans Avenue 100 feet wide; thence southerly in a direct line to the intersection of the southerly right of way line of said Rosecrans Avenue with the easterly line of lot 2 of tract no. 856 as per map recorded in Book 16 page 96 of said records; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 10 of said tract; thence westerly along the southerly line, of said lot 10 to a point distant easterly 140 feet from the easterly right of way line of Condon Avenue (formerly Sixth Street), 40 feet wide; thence northerly parallel' to and distant 140 feet easterly from said easterly right of wav line to the northerly line of said lot 10; thence westerly along said northerly lot line to a point lying distant easterly 127.26 feet from said easterly right of way line of Condon Avenue; thence northerly parallel to and distant 127.26 feet easterly from said easterly right of .way line to the northerly line of Lot 7 of said tract; thence westerly along the northerly fines of Lot 5,' 6, and 7 of said tract and the prolongation thereof, to a point lying distant westerly 20 feet from .the centerline of Inglewood Avenue, 80 feet wide, said point also lying on the mutual boundary line between the Cities of Hawthorne and Lawndele as they existed on this date; thence southerly westerly and southerly following the various courses of said boundary line to a point lying distant southerly 262 feet from the easterly prolongation of the southerly right of way line of 147th Street, 80 feet wide; thence westerly parallel to and distant 262 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line to the easterly right -of way line of the San Diego Freeway, 288 feet wide; thence southeasterly along said easterly right of way line to the centerline of Compton Boulevard 80'feet wide; thence westerly long said centerlino to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA B: Beginning at the center point of Section 11, T3S, R14W, San Bernardino Base and Meridian; thence westerly along the east -west centerline of said Sectioli 11 a distance of 40 feet;' thence southerly along a line parallel to and distant westerly 40 feet from the north -south center line of said section 11, said parallel -Page 17- Revised Sept. 25,1984 line also being the westerly right of way line of Van Ness Avenue, 80 feet wide, a distance of 750.7 feet (+ or' -) to the point of intersection with the northerly right of way line of the Southern Pacific Railway, said point of intersection being the true point of beginning; thence northerly along said westerly right of way line to a point lying distant southerly 60 feet from.the southerly right of way line tf 120th Street, 80 feet wide; thence easterly . parallel to and 60 feet southerly from said southerly, right of way line, .a distance of 402.7 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 322.7 feet easterly from the easterly right of way line of said Van Ness Avenue to the northerly right -of -way line of the Southern Pacific Railway; thence southwesterly along said northerly right -of -way line to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA C: Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1 of Tract No. 13523 as per map recorded in Book 371, Pages 19 and 20 of said records; thence southerly along the easterly line of said lot and the southerly prolongation thereof, a distance of 615 feet; thence easterly parallel to and distant southerly 615 feet from the southerly line of, E1 Segundo Boulevard 100 feet wide, a distance of 105 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant 285 feet easterly from the easterly line'of Yukon Avenue, variable 50 to 60 feet wide, a distance of 130 feet; thence westerly parallel to distant 745 feet southerly from said southerly right of way line to said easterly right of 'way line of Yukon Avenue; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of 132nd Street, 55 feet wide; thence westerly along said easterly prolonghation and southerly right of way line to a point lying distant westerly 90 feet from the westerly right of way line of said Yukon Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence' northerly .parallel to and distant westerly 90 feet from said westerly right of way line to the southerly line of Lot 47 of Tract No. 874, Division A, as per map recorded in Book 17, Pages 110 and 111 of said records; thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of said lot 47; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 30 of said tract; thence westerly along the northerly line of.said lot 30 to the easterly right of way line of Rornbium Avenue, variable 40 -to 50 feet wide; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line, a distance of 78 feet; thence westerly parallel to and distant southerly 78 feet from the northerly line of Lot 29 of said tract to the westerly line of said lot '29; thence northerly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 28 of said tract; -thence westerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 20 of said tract; thence northerly along the easterly right of way line of Doty Avenue; variable 40 to 60 feet wide, to the westerly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of 130th Street, 20 feet wide; thence easterly along said westerly prolongation and northerly right of way line to the westerly line of Lot 6 of the North' Monets Garden Lands Tract as per map recorded in Book 5, Page 54, of said records; thence northerly along said westerly line of lot —page 18— Revised Sept. 27, 1984 6 and prolongation thereof, to the northerly right of way line of said E1 Segundo Boulevard,.100 feet wide; thence easterly along said last 'mentioned northerly right of way line to the southerly Prolongation of the westerly right of way line of Yukon Avenue 50 feet wide; thence northerly along said 'last mentioned southerly prolongation and westerly right of way line to the southerly right of way line of the -Southern. Pacific Railway, 80 feet wide; thence easterly along said southerly.right of way line a distance of 480 feet; thence southerly parallel to and distant easterly 430 feet from the easterly right of way' line of said Yukon Avenue to the southerly right of way line of said E1 Segundo Boulevard; thence westerly along said last mentioned right of way line to true point of beginning. SUB AREA D: Beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 1 of Block 45 of'Lawndale Acres as per map recorded in Book 10, Page 122 of of said records; thence easterly along the southerly line of Lot 8 of said block and tract and the easterly prolongation thereof, to the easterly right' of way line of Prairie Avenue (formerly Avenue Six), 100' feet wide; thence. southerly along said easterly right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 357 of Tract No. 17639 as per map recorded in Book 436, Pages 5 thru 9 inclusive of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 352 of said tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 343 of said tract; thence easterly along the southerly line of said lot 343 to the northerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lots 373 through 380, inclusive of Tract No. 15754 as per map recorded in Book 409, Pages 42 through 50 of said records,, said line also .being the easterly right of way line Of the 30 foot alley as shown on said tract; thence southerly along .said last 'mentioned easterly right of -way line to the northerly line of Lot 445 of said tract; thence westerly along the southerly right of way line of said 30 foot alley and the westerly prolongation thereof, to a. point lying distant 20 feet easterly from the westerly right of way line of said Prairie Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence southerly parallel to and distant 20 feet easterly of said westerly right of way line to the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 18 of Block 46 of said Lawndale Acres Tract; thence westerly alpng said easterly Prolongation and southerly line to the southwest corner of said lot 18; thence northerly along a line parallel to and distant 115.5 feet westerly from said westerly right of way line of Prairie Avenue to the southerly right of way line of Compton Boulevard ( formerly Chicago Avenue), 80 feet wide; thence northerly in a direct line to the intersection of the northerly right of way line of said Compton Boulevard with the westerly line Of lot 5 of said tract; thence northerly in a direct line to the true point of beginning. SUB AREA E: -page 19- Revised.Sept. 27,1984 Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 74, Tract No. 6441 as per map recorded in Book 70.,. ?age 69 of said records; thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of Lot 75 of said tract; thence northeasterly to the northwest corner of Lot'6 of Tract No. 1543 as per map recorded in Book 18, ?age 198 of said records; thence easterly in a direct'line to the northeast corner of said lot 6; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 10 of said tract; thence continuing southerly to the northeast corner of Lot 53 of Tract No. 1084 as per map recorded in Book 17, ?ages 62 and 83 df said records; thence continuing southerly along the easterly line of Lots 53 through 62 inclusive of said tract and the southerly prolongation thereof, to the southerly right of way line of 120th Street (formerly Raymond Avenue), 80 feet wide; thence westerly along said southerly right of way line to the easterly right of way line of Inglewood Avenue, 80 feet wide; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line to the easterly prolongation of the northerly right of way line of 121st Street, 60 feet wide; thence westerly along said easterly prolongation and northerly right of way line to the southwest corner of Lot 26 of Tract No. 13435 as per map recorded in Book 270, ?age 48 of said. records; thence northerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 24 of said tract; thence westerly in'a direct line to the southwest corner of Lot 23 of said tract; thence.northerly along the westerly line of said lot 23 and the northerly prolongation thereof, to the northerly right of way line of 120th Street, 76 feet wide; 'thence easterly along said northerly right of way line to the westerly line Lot 2, of Tract 2704 as per map recorded in Book 27, ?age 52 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 151 of said tract; thence continuing northerly along the northerly prolongation of the westerly line of said lot to the northerly right of way line of 118th Street (formerly Wallace Street), 50 feet wide; thence easterly along said northerly right of way line to'the southwest corner of Lot 112 of said Tract No. 6441 as per map recorded'in Book 70, ?age 69 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the true-point of beginning. SUB AREA F; Beginning 'at the southwesterly corner of Lot 63 of Tract No. 874, Division C, as per map recorded in Book 18, ?age 136 of said records; thence northerly in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 67 of said tract and division;' thence easterly in a direct line to the northeast corner of said lot 67; thence northerly in a direct, line to the northeast corner of Lot 68 of said division and tract; thence easterly in a direct line td the northeast corner of Lot 93 of-said division and tract; thence southerly in a direct line to the southeast corner of Lot 95 of said division and tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the easterly right of way line of Lemoli Avenue, variable 40 to 45. feet wide; thence southerly along said easterly right of way line to the. southwest corner of Lot 98 of said tract; thence westerly in a direct line to the true point of beginning. -page 20- EXHIBIT B -2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDED AREA Including Area B HAW /AmendPrehnYlenU EXHIBIT B -2 5/15/03 03030/028 Area A • el li 1 G ® i • it •e • ' r 0 • B • i fl °'B PROTECT No. 2 PROPOSED NEW AREA Beginning at the most northerly corner of Lot 34 of Tract No. 16663, in the City Of Hawthorne, County of Las Angeles, as shown on crap recorded in Bock 511, Pages 15 through 19, inclusive, of Maps, records of said County, said comer being on the southeastedy line of the Pacific Electric Railway Company's SO.00,foot right of way, said comer being acommon point in the boundaries of the City of El Segundo and the City of Hawthorne, as both boundaries existed on April I5, 2003 and having established grid coordintues.of North 1,791,789.84 feet, Easting 6,449,1.18,06 feet, Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence along said southeasterly line, South 62 °25'00" West 2659.14 feet to the westerly line of the northwest quarter of Section 17, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Saus3l Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 Of the Superior Court of the State of Cndifomia; thence along said westerly line, North 00 °13'08" East 1188.48 feet to a line parallel with and 25:00 feet northwesterly of the southeasterly line df the land described in Book 4215, Page 316 of said Deeds; thence along said parallel line North 11021'00" East 421.61 feet to the northerly line of said Section 17; thence along said northerly line, South 89 045'00" East 1211.46 feet to the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Isis Avenue,. 60' feet wide, as shown on Tract No 14749, in the City of El Segundo, as per map recorded in Book 368, pages 18 through 22, inclusive of said Maps; thence, along said southerly prolongation, South 00 °11'1:9" West 50.00 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of said northerly line of Section 17; thence along said parallel line, South 89 14500" East 477.18 feat to the westerly line of the `Triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne as same existed on March 14, 1957, said westerly line being the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave northeasterly, having a radius of 140.00 feet, and to which beginning a radial line beats South 89 02705" West; thence along said most westerly line of the "triangle No. 1 Annexation" to the City of Hawthorne, the following three courses; Southeasterly 245.85 feet along said curve, through.a central angle of 98 °34'09 ", North 8I 023'56" East 348.02 feet, South 18 034'12" East 250.23 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 50.10 acres, more or less. bert C. Olson, PLS 5490 Psomas 0415 -, Zcm3 Date Page I of 1 w: 1LAAR05415MI1EA020100SUMy I4APM=- EVELOPMEMI_nAwrifoMrdm April 15, W03 megeo Area B GEOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION AMENDING BOUNDARY OF HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT No.. 2 ADDITIONAL PROPOSED NEW AREA Beginning at the intersection of the southerly line of Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 14 West of the Rancho Sausal Redondo as per map filed in Case No. 11629 of the Superior Court of the State of California and a line parallel with and 1415.20 feet westerly of the easterly line of said Section 7 and having established grid coordinates of North 1,792,168.43 feet, Easting 6;445349.26 feet,. Zone 5 of the California State Coordinate System (NAD83); thence northerly along said parallel line, North 00°00'53" East 2008.61 feet; thence South 89 °59'07" East 339.18 feet; thence South 00 °00'53" West, 182.00 feet; thence South 89 °59''07" East 259,64 feet; thence South 00100'53" West 67.93 feet; thence South 89 °58'15" East 458,82 feet; thence North 49 °06'45" East 38.19 feet; thence South 89 °58'15" East 73.81 feet; thence North 67'20'15" East 38.39 feet; thence North 89 °59'22" East 59.86 feet; thence North 89 059'22" East 101.20 feet; thence South 00 010'18" West 360.00 feet; thence South 89 °59'22" West 100.21 -feet; thence South 00 °00'53" West 1390.25 feet; thence South 89 °54'07" East 186.40 feet; thence North 00 010'18" East 1750.61 feet; thence North 89959'22" East 118.00 feet; thence South 00910'18" West 78.14 feet; thence South 00 °10':18" West. 80.00 feet; thence South 00010'18" West 228.85 feet; thence North 89 054'04" West 12.03 feet to the beginning of a non - tangent curve, concave southeasterly, having a radius of 25.00 feet and to which be gi.nrdng a radial line bears North 00 °05'56" East; thence southwesterly .39.24 feet along Page 1 of w:V. AAFB% Sr7 'E_BZURVEW.APCO\(tEDEVEIOPME?, ?_HAWTFIORNE.da May 6, 7007 IDC:jdc said curve through a central angle of 89 °55'38'; South 00 010118" West 67.03 feet; tbernce North 89 054'04" West 6.00 feet; thence South 00'10'18" West. 1321.85 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 50.57 feet; thence South 11 °18'32" West 50.97 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 99.45 feet to the beginning of a non - tangent curve concave to the west, having a radius of 2834.93 feet and to which beginning a radial line bears South 83 °59'40" East; thence southerly 18.10 .feet along said curve through 'a central angle of 0.0 °21'57'; thence North 89 °54'07" West 253.27 feet; thence North 48 °02'05" West 8.99 feet; thence North 89'54'07" West 457.16 feet; thence South 00 °05'53" West 10.00 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 150.66 feet; thence North 78 °10'5$" West 31.66 feet; thence North 85005'08" West 18.69 feet; thence North 89 °54'07" West 322.97 feet; thence North 66 002'02" West 158.17 feet to the Point of Beginning Containing an area of 61.09 acres, more or less. Olson, •0 Psomas 3 ato. Z 3 Date No. 5490 ExP• 9.30 -2004 Page 2 of 2 N'.\LAAFB'�SITE_B\SUR VEYILA FC.OVREDEVEi .OPMENT2_HANTHORNE.d= May 6,200-3 J DC.jdc APPENDIX C City Council Resolution Regarding No Project Area Committee RESOLUTION NO. 6807 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE DETERMINING THAT A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE SHALL NOT BE FORMED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2003 -07, adopted on April 2, 2003, and Resolution No. 2003 -12 adopted on May 21, 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne amended the boundaries of the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project No. 2 (the "Project ") to include additional area (the "Added Area "), approved an Amendment to the Preliminary Plan for the Project and submitted said Amendment to the Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne (the "Agency "); and WHEREAS, the Agency is preparing a proposed amendment (the "Amendment") to the Redevelopment Plan for the Project; and WHEREAS, Section 33385.3 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that a project area committee be formed if the proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan would do either of the following: (1) grant authority to the agency to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in a project area in which a substantial number of low and moderate - income persons reside; or (2) add territory in which a substantial number of low and moderate - income persons reside and grant the authority to the agency to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in the added territory; and WHEREAS, there are no residences of any income category in the Added Area and the proposed amendment will therefore not displace any low income persons or moderate - income persons; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed Added Area of the Project will not either: (1) grant authority to the agency to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in a project area in which a substantial number of low and moderate - income persons reside; or (2) add territory in which a substantial number of Iow and moderate- HAW_CCReso_NoPAC.doc 4/7/03 03030.028 income persons reside and grant the authority to the agency to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in the added territory and that formation of a project area committee is not required prior to the adoption of the Amendment. . The City Council further determines that a project area committee shall not be formed in connection with the Added Area of the Project. Section 2. The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to consult with and obtain the advice of residents and community organizations within the Added Area and provide such residents and organizations with the Amendment prior to its submission to the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED ZLAE'NCE y of U IJ n-e- 2003. M. GUIDI, Mayor ATTEST: City of Hawthorne, California ANIEL D. JUA VerCE M.0 AE City of Hawtho fornia APPROVED AS TO City Attorney City of Hawthorne, California HAW_CCReso_NoPAC.doc 2 4/7/03 03030.025 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) § CITY OF HAWTHORNE ) I, Monica Dicrisci, the duly appointed Deputy City Clerk of the City of Hawthorne, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 6807 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Hawthorne, at their regular meeting of the City Council held June 23, 2003 and that it was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Catano, Parsons, Mayor Guidi. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilmembers Lambert, Schoenfeld. *City aw e, California APPENDIX D Community Information Meeting Notices NOTICE OF A COMMUNITY INFORMATION MEETING ON THE PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HAWTHORNE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a community information meeting will be held by the Hawthorne Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency "): DATE OF MEETING: June 24, 2003 TIME OF MEETING: 7:00 p.m. PLACE OF MEETING: City of Hawthorne — City Hall Council Chambers 4455 W. 126th Street Hawthorne, California 90250 The Agency is in the process of adopting the proposed Third Amendment ( "Third Amendment ") to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 ( "Existing Project Area "). The purpose of the Third Amendment is to add certain territory ( "Added Area ") totaling approximately 111 acres to the Existing Project Area. The Added Area is located within Los Angeles Air Force Base ( "Base ") property at the intersection of Aviation and El Segundo Boulevards and consists of one contiguous area containing two distinct areas referred to as Area A and Area B. The Air Force proposes to consolidate all Base activities within Area B, freeing up Area A and Area C (within the Existing Project Area) for residential development by an Air Force selected developer. In exchange; the developer would construct 560,000 square feet of administrative and special purpose facilities within Area B. Implementing the proposed Third Amendment will facilitate the development projects described above. The Agency may undertake a variety of activities to facilitate the development of Areas A and B including, but not necessarily be limited to, construction of sewer lines, storm drains, traffic and circulation improvements; assist in demolition, relocation, site preparation and building construction. The Agency would also assist in creating affordable housing to targeted income categories representing 15 percent of the total new units developed. In order to give all property owners, business owners and tenants in the Existing Project Area and Added Area an opportunity to understand the goals of redevelopment and the redevelopment process, the Agency has scheduled this information meeting. The informational meeting will contain a presentation by Agency and Base staff followed by a question and answer session. The Agency will make available at the meeting for review by the public the following: 1) maps of the Existing Project Area and Added Area; 2) the Amended Redevelopment Plan; and 3) the Owner Participation Rules (Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and the Extension of Reasonable Preferences to Business Occupants). Anyone having specific questions may contact Mr. Michael Goodson, Director of Planning and Redevelopment at (310) 970 -7939. Date: June 10, 2003 PA0306005.HAW:CK ;QD 14005.003.006MOW3 City of Hawthorne Planning Department PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Aii-cles. I ant it citizen of (he United States and it resident of (he County Lores tid: I ant over the age of eighteen ycat:s. and not a party to or interested in the above- entitleel matter. I ❑n1 the principal clerk of the Printer of the Hawthorne Press Tribune. a newspaper of general Circulation. printed :tnd I uhlWicd iseekly in IhC City of lla%ithurne. (' null of Lo, ;ln le,. anal �chich nca,papu h;i. lju(1 Cd it o "encral �JR:Ltatii)il h\ the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. State ol'California, under the date of July 31, 1959, Case Number 187530: that the notice, of which the L is it printed copy (set in type not smaller th;111 nonpareil). has bCen published in each regul:u and entire issue of Said newspaper and not in any Supplement thereof on the l'ollowing elates, to -wit: 6/12/2003 All in th \car2fto I certify (or declare) under penalty, of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dared at Him thorne. California. Signature Hcr,dil Puhhratiun. 12 C. Impei i.d Ave. HI Sc�undu. CA 90245 ( 310) 322-1830 • Fax (3 10) 322 -2787 Code # HH -15246 This space is fx ti1 i_oi.tnty Clerk's Filing Starnp Proof of Publication of: Herald Publications Hawthorne Community News P.O. Box 1a8 --r-1 Sewfundo, CA 30245 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Loy Angeles, I am a citizen of the United States and a resiclent of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interestecl in the above - entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of, the printer of the Hawthorne Press Tribune, a newspaper of <<eneral circulation. In inted and Published %ceeklc in the City of HaU+'lhorne. County of Lt); Angeles. and Which netc.Paprr has been adjudged a spaper of general cir•. ulatinn by the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, Under the elate of July 31, 1959, Case Number 187530; that the notice, of which the annexed is a printecl copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil). has been Published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following date,, to -wit: 6/12/2003 All in the year 2000 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Hawthorne. California, thi, .. /2..dac oI . LLC %k:, 2(f.Gyy(( •'. Signature Her.11d Puhlicauuns -?, 312 E. Imperial Ace. 131 Segundo. CA 902-45 (3 10) 322 -1830 • Fax (3 10) 322 -2787 Code # HH -15246 This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of: Herald Publications Hawthorne Community News 3' t Sc "-and** CA APPENDIX E County Fiscal Officer's Report UU /26/U3 09:03 FAX 213 626 0892 CAO / BOX 1. TYLER MCCAULEY AUDMORCONTROLLER COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF AUDITOR - CONTROLLER KENNETH HAHN HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 500 WEST TEMPLE STREET, ROOM 484 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012 -2766 PHONE: (213) 974 -6361 FAX: (213) 229 -0688 June 26, 2003 Mr. Michael Goodson, Executive Director Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne 4455 West 126"' Street Hawthorne, California 90250 -4482 Dear Mr. Goodson: IM 002 CITY OF HAWTHORNE — AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT No. 2 ( PARCELS A and B ) The attached revised schedules are provided to your agency in compliance with Section 33328.3 of the Health and Safety Code. Revenue calculations are based upon the total 2002 -2003 assessed valuations of parcels A and B within the proposed project area as compiled by the County Assessor's Office. Also included is our invoice for the cost incurred by the Assessor's and our office in compiling and preparing the schedules as provided in Section 33328.7 of the Health and Safety Code. Copies of this report have been forwarded to the administrative representatives of the affected taxing agencies. Should you have any questions regarding the schedules, please contact David Chang or Henry X Ing of my' staff at (213) 974 -8290 and (213) 974 -1682, respectively. Our fax number is (213) 229 -0179. i i i DHACAx Atlechments H:al crest Flu l Repmtt H e, June 2DD3 V (we ettsch 081) Sincerely, Tn', Lm_ _ Darlene Hoang, Manager CRA/Distribution Section Tax Division 06/26/03 09:03 FAX 213 626 0892 CAO / BOX Mr. Michael Goodson June 26, 2003 Page 2 c: Robert Moran — LA County Chief Administrative Office Helen Jo — LA County Consolidated Fire Protection District Dennis Denby — LA County Department of Public Works Robert Saviskas — LA County West Vector Control District Tom Mueller— LA County Sanitation District Louise Eckersley— City of El Segundo Fred Cardenas — Water Replenishment Dist. Of So, California Patricia Goodman — LA County Office of Education Donald Brann — Wiseburn Elementary School District Julian Lopez — Centinela Valley Union High School District Thomas Fallo — El Camino Community College District 9 003 06/26/03 09:03 FAX 213 626 0892 CAO / BOX 9 004 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR ASSESSED VALUATIONS BASE YEAR 2002.2003 L (> (s k B Revised 6/2512003 SECURED VALUATIONS Locally Assessed Land 2,333,000 Improvements 542,000 Personal Property 0 Gross Total 2,875,000 Less: Exemptions 0 Total - Locally Assessed , 2,875,000 PUBLIC UTILITY Land Improvements N/A Personal Property N/A WA Total - Public Utility Total - Secured Valuations UNSECURED VALUATIONS Land Improvements 0 Personal Property 69,606 36,841 Gross Total 106,447 Less: Exemptions _ Total- Unsecured Valuations GRAND TOTAL "o°^ new*., aunaw ,w�.�e�.a.mei.,�,aram�.+.mei mno.w� N/A 2,875,000 106,447 2,981,447 06/26/03 09:03 FAX 213 626 0892 CAO / BOX 10095 AUDITOR - CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR ASSESSED VALUATIONS FISCAL YEAR 2001.2002 CpcdS A� B) Revised 6/2612003 SECURED VALUATIONS Locally Assessed Land 5,342,058 Improvements 5,450,024 Personal Property 0 Gross Total 10,792,082 Less: Exemptions 0 Total - Locally Assessed 63,510 PUBLIC UTILITY _ 6 Land 0 Improvements 0 Personal Property 0 Total - Public Utility Total - Secured Valuations UNSECURED VALUATIONS Land Improvements 0 Personal Property 33.338 30,172 Gross Total 63,510 Less: Exemptions _ 6 Total- Unsecured Valuations GRAND TOTAL �r*•"" 4ti^ 4dRgaWVMUwCB ,Nm�fpr��..nuwnmwwluva.e.ewx mgnw] 10,792,062 0 10,792,082 63,510 1 06/26/03 09:03 PAX 213 626 0892 CAO / BOffi 16 006 AUDITOR - CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO, 2 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - SECURED BASE YEAR 2002.2003 ACCT NO. AGENCY A.V. RATE REVENUE 1.53 DETENTION FACILITIES 1987 DEBTS 2,875,000 0.001033 $29.70 30.60 LA.CO.FL.CON.STORM DR.D.S.#4 2,875,000 0.000623 17,91 30.61 FLOOD CON. REF. BONDS 1993 DS 2,875,000 0.000258 7,42 320.05 WEST BASIN MWD 1111 2,875,000 0.006700 192.63 709.51 WISEBURN DS 1997 SERIES A 2,675,000 0.015834 455.23 709.52 WISEBURN SO DS 1997 SER 1999 A 2,875,000 0.002473 71,10 709.54 WISEBURN SO DS 2000 SER 2000 -A 2,875,000 0.033123 952.29 709.55 WISEBURN SD DS 2000 SER 2001 2,875,000 0.006149 176.78 725.53 CENTINELA VY UN HSD DS 2000 S -C 2,875,000 0.022510 647.16 725.54 CENT VY UN HSD DS 02 REF SO S -A 2,875,000 0.012720 365.70 TOTAL VOTED INDEBTEDNESS 1.00 GENERAL TAX LEVY GRAND TOTAL a' ��Mn. puxwvn .�ax..,,.mavmwnn�.wxcamaeww� ,r,o v,w $2,915.92 2,875,000 1.000000 28,750.00 $31,665.92 06/26/03 09:04 FAX 213 626 0892 CAO / SON 10 007 AUDITOR - CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - UNSECURED Revised 612512003 ACCT. NO. AGENCY A.V. RATE REVENUE 1.53 DETENTION FACILITIES 1987 DEBT S 106,447 0.001128 $1,20 30.60 LA.CO.FL.CON.STORM DR.D.S.#4 69,606 0.000663 0.46 30.61 FLOOD CON. REF. BONDS 1993 DS 69,606 0.000410 0.29 320.05 WEST BASIN MWD 1111 106,447 0.007700 8.20 709.51 WISEBURN DS 1997 SERIES A 106,447 0.013787 14.68 709.52 WISEBURN SO DS 1997 SER 1999 A 106,447 0.002197 2,34 709.54 WISEBURN SD DS 2000 SER 2000 -A 106,447 0.032355 34,44 725.51 CENTINELA VY UN HSD DS 2000 S -A 106,447 0.006056 725.52 CENTINELA VY UN HSD DS 2000 S -B 106,447 0.009240 6.45 9.84 TOTAL VOTED INDEBTEDNESS $7780 1.00 GENERAL TAX LEVY GRAND TOTAL 106,447 1.000000 1.054.47 $1,142.37 Ub /26/03 09:014 FAA 213 626 0892 CAO / BOX - Zoos AUDITOR - CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - SECURED 1% BREAKDOWN BASE YEAR 2002 -2003 ACCT. NO. AGENCY, 1% REVENUE 1.05 LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL 7.31 L A C FIRE -FFW $11,352.60 30.10 L .A.CO.FL.CON.DR.IMP.DIST.MAINT. 260.57 30.70 LA CO FLOOD CONTROL MAINT 66.21 61.10 L A CO WEST VECTOR CONTROL DIST. 374.69 66.25 CO SANITATION DIST NO 5 OPERAT 5.46 148.01 CITY -EL SEGUNDO TD #1 462.44 350.90 WTR REPLENISHMENT DIST OF SO CAL 1,816.67 400.00 EDUCATIONAL REV AUGMENTATION FD 6.14 400.01 EDUCATIONAL AUG FD IMPOUND 1'924'21 400.15 COUNTY SCHOOL SERVICES 3,952.05 400.21 CHILDREN'S INSTIL TUITION FUND 49'27 709.01 WISEBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 87'78 709.06 CO.SCH.SERV.FD.- WISEBURN 1,796.37 709.07 DEV CTR HDCPD MINOR - WISEBURN 348.63 725.02 CENTINELA VAL UNION HIGH SCH DIS 42.70. 725.07 CENTINELA VY.HIGH -ELEM SCH. FUND 3,563.28 797.04 EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST 1,590.74 1,040.19 TOTAL 1% REVENUE (SECURED) $28,750.00 Note: ERAF share will be removed from the lax Incremanl revenue compulation once the Tax Rate Area (TRA) Is converted to a Community Redevelopment Agency TRA in compliance with R &T Code Section 97.4 (AB860), where It states ERAF has M gain or loss In a Redevelopment Area. x'�e � ei^1wMwm,Cm' x w.run. x�MIN n rs M xa a48 r+nw aA x+usiw� 06/26/03 09:04 FAX 213 626 0892 CAO / BON 9 009 AUDITOR- CONTROLLER, TUC DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 SCHEDULE OF BASE YEAR REVENUE - UNSECURED 1% BREAKDOWN BASE YEAR 2002 -2003 Revised 6126/2003 ACCT. NO. AGENCY 1% REVENUE 1.05 LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL $420.35 7.31 L A C FIRE -FFW 30.10 L.A. CO.FL.CON.DR.IMP.DIST.MAINT. 9.65 30.70 LA CO FLOOD CONTROL MAINT 2.45 61.10 L A CO WEST VECTOR CONTROL DIST. 13.87 66.25 CO SANITATION DIST NO 5 OPERAT 0.20 146.01 CITY -EL SEGUNDO TD #1 17.12 350.90 WTR REPLENISHMENT DIST OF SO CAL 67.26 400.00 EDUCATIONAL REV AUGMENTATION FID 0.23 400.01 EDUCATIONAL AUG FD IMPOUND 71.24 400.15 COUNTY SCHOOL SERVICES 146.32 400.21 CHILDREN'S INSTIL TUITION FUND 1.82 709.01 WISEBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 3.62 709.06 CO.SCH.SERV.FD.- WISEBURN 66.51 709.07 DEV CTR HDCPD MINOR - WISEBURN 12.91 725.02 CENTINELA VAL UNION HIGH SCH DIS 1.58 725.07 CENTINELA VY.HIGH-ELEM SCH. FUND 131.93 797.04 EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST 58.90 38.51 TOTAL 1% REVENUE (UNSECURED) $116447 Note: ERAF share will be MMved from the lax Increment revenue compulattan once the Tax Rate Area (TRA) is converted to a Community Redevelopment Agency TRA in compliance with R &T Code Section 97.4 (A8860), where ft States ERAF has no gain or loss in a Redevelopment Ares. « ��. u�Ma�. euwwrswuxrwnw�ryew .wn,�nn...n.wrore wne w.rw.0 anrvtam 05/ZU /U3 UU:U4 raa z13 UZb Ueaz UAU i bUX AUDITOR- CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO, 2 SCHEDULE OF COUNTYWIDE 1% REVENUE BASE YEAR 2002 -2003 ACCT NO. AGENCY NET PTR 1105 LOS ANGELES COUNTY GENERAL $1,547,591,693.62 7.31 L A C FIRE -FFW 68,812,278.69 30.10 L .A.CO.FL.CON.DR.IMP.DIST.MAINT, 9,023,919.66 30.70 LA CO FLOOD CONTROL MAINT 51,044,478.32 61.10 L A CO WEST VECTOR CONTROL DIST. 555,939.98 66.25 CO SANITATION DIST NO 5 OPERAT 5,639,822.19 148.01 CITY -EL SEGUNDO TO #1 4,969,658.69 350.90 WTR REPLENISHMENT DIST OF SO CAL 310,427.81 400.00 EDUCATIONAL REV AUGMENTATION FD 446,985,340.10 400.01 EDUCATIONAL AUG FD IMPOUND 986,065,819.31 400.15 COUNTY SCHOOL SERVICES 7,879,380.17 400.21 CHILDREN'S INSTIL TUITION FUND 15,635,447.93 709.01 WISEBURN SCHOOL DISTRICT 2,759,453.98 709.06 CO.SCH.SERV.FD.- WISEBURN 535,537,44 709.07 DEV CTR HDCPD MINOR - WISEBURN 65,590.85 725.02 CENTINELA VAL UNION HIGH SCH DIS 9,985,439.77 725.07 CENTINELA VY.HIGH -ELEM SCH. FUND 4,457,703.90 797.04 EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST 15,335,142.80 TOTAL 1% COUNTYWIDE PTR $3,177,653,075.21 H1mw,N/�r�,bp WAgd , M1e, 0, e, x�elXnYWM1Mep ]e,erybMRPK.iIlNeW61,5 "um WJ Ulu 06/26/03 09:05 PAZ 213 626 0892 CAO / BON AUDITOR - CONTROLLER, TAX DIVISION CITY OF HAWTHORNE - AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.2 SCHEDULE OF COUNTYWIDE DIS REVENUE BASE YEAR 2002.2003 rd ACCT. NO. AGENCY ADJ.TXBL NET RATE REVENUE 1.53 DETENTION FACILITIES 1987 DEBT S 546,958,669,099 0.001033 $5,650,083.05 30.60 LA.CO.FL.CON.STORM DR.D.S.#4 556,177,851,746 0.000623 3,464,968.02 30,61 FLOOD CON. REF. BONDS 1993 DS 556,177,851,746 0.000258 1,434,938.86 320.05 WEST BASIN MWD 1111 74,375,248,361 0.006700 4,983,141.64 709.51 WISEBURN DS 1997 SERIES A 3,172,163,058 0.015834 502,280.30 709.52 WISEBURN SD DS 1997 SER 1999 A 3,172.163,058 0.002473 78,447.59 709.54 WISEBURN SD DS 2000 SER 2000 -A 3,172,163,058 0.033123 1,050,715.57 709.55 WISEBURN SD DS 2000 SER 2001 3,172,163,058 0.006149 195,056.31 725.53 CENTINELA VY UN HSD DS 2000 S -C 7,336.630,767 0.022510 1,651,475.59 725.54 CENT VY UN HSD DS 02 REF BD S -A 7,338,630,767 0,012720 933,219.43 TOTAL VOTED INDEBTEDNESS SECURED $19,944,346.36 ACCT. NO, AGENCY ADJ.TXBL NET ,RATE REVENUE 1.53 DETENTION FACILITIES 1987 DEBT S 33,120,434,559 0.001126 $373,598.50 30.60 LA.CO.FL.CON.STORM DR.D.S.#4 9,634,826,986 0.000663 63,878.92 30.61 FLOOD CON. REF. BONDS 1993 DS 9,634,828,986 0.000410 39,502.80 320.05 WEST BASIN MWD 1111 5,104,230,597 0.007700 393,025.76 709.51 WISEBURN DS 1997 SERIES A 1,457,832,661 0,013787 200,991.39 709.52 WISEBURN SO DS 1997 SER 1999 A 1,457,832,661 0,002197 32,028.58 709.54 WISEBURN SO DS 2000 SER 2000 -A 1,457,832,661 0.032355 471,681.76 725.51 CENTINELA VY UN HSD DS 2000 S -A 1,627,040,402 0.006056 98,533.57 725.52 CENTINELA VY UN HSD DS 2000 S -B 1,627,040,402 0.009240 150,340.16 TOTAL VOTED INDEBTEDNESS UNSECURED hYa,b,Ib Pr, H4�MtAMf1ullbsbgrbMCrygNYr ,�MW,�tl bP, R,4TID1�bwbY, InMY1491 $1,823,581.44 APPENDIX F Letter Transmitting the Preliminary Report and the Draft Amendment "to all Affected Taxing Entities June _, 2003 [Insert Taxing Entity Address] Re: Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Dear The Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency ( "Agency ") is in the process of adopting the proposed Third Amendment ( "Third Amendment ") to the Redevelopment Plan for the Hawthorne Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 ( "Existing Project Area "). The purpose of the Amendment is to add certain territory ( "Added Area ") totaling approximately 111 acres to the Existing Project Area. The Added Area is located within Los Angeles Air Force Base ('Base ") property at the intersection of Aviation and El Segundo Boulevards and consists of one contiguous area containing two distinct areas referred to as Area A and Area B. The Air Force proposes to consolidate all Base activities within Area B, freeing up Area A and Area C (within the Existing Project Area) for residential development by an Air Force selected private sector developer. In exchange, the developer would add new administrative and special purpose facilities consisting of 560,000 square feet within Area B. Implementing the proposed Third Amendment will facilitate the development projects described above. On June 23, 2003, the Agency, by Resolution No. 367, authorized the transmittal of the Preliminary Report prepared for the Third Amendment in accordance with Section 33344.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) to the County of Los Angeles and all other affected taxing agencies. The enclosed Preliminary Report is transmitted for the purpose of facilitating consultations with affected taxing entities pursuant to CRL Section 33328. Also on June 23, 2003, the Agency, by Resolution No. 365, authorized the transmittal of the draft Third Amendment to the Planning Commission of the City of Hawthorne for their report and recommendation. The enclosed draft Third Amendment is transmitted to the County of Los Angeles and all other affected taxing entities for informational purposes. Please call Helen Ramirez, Senior Planner, at (310) 970 -7939 regarding any questions concerning the Third Amendment adoption process and the related attached documents or scheduling of consultation meetings. HA W THO RN E -LTR -P REPORT Sincerely, HAWTHORNE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Executive Director Attachments HAW THORNE -LTR -P REPORT City of El Segundo INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Circulation Date: July 14, 2003 TO: Mayor Mike Gordon Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Jacobs Council Member John Gaines Council Member Kelly McDowell Council Member Nancy Wernick FROM: James M. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services STAFF PLANNER: Paul Garry, Acting Planning Manager Ole) SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 577 Los Angeles Air Force Base Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project Applicant: United States Air Force, City of El Segundo and City of Hawthorne Address: Los Angeles Air Force Base (four sites) Attached for your review are two letters that were received today for the Los Angeles Air Force Base Conveyance, Construction, and Development Project. Also attached is Exhibit E (Developer LAFCO Letter) to the Reorganization Agreement (Exhibit A to LAFCO Resolution) that was not available when the City council agenda packet was distributed. cc: Mary Strenn, City Manager Mark Hensley, City Attorney Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk PAPlanning & Building SafetylPROJECTS1576- 5991EA- 577 \CC Memo Exh. 8 dist.doc DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, REGIONAL PLANNING IGR /CEQA BRANCH 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897 -4429 FAX (213) 897 -1337 Mr. Paul Garry, Senior Planner City of El Segundo Department of Community, Economic, and Development Services 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA. 9024 Dear Mr. Garry: cD� ll !Ul tud ;F .DS July 10, 2003 Flex your power! Be energy effiment! Re: Los Angeles Air Force Base Project, EA No. 577 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) IGR/CEQA No. 030721/EK SCH No. 2002071106 We have received the response to comments section of the FEIR dated July 2003 for the Los Angeles Air Force Base Project (LAAFB) referenced above, right. We have the following comments on the Response. We are mainly concerned about the assumption that certain County criteria determin for evaluating effects on the State Highways, We note e policy the Response Number e policy Volume II of the FEIR, from which we quote here a sentence that appears on page 11. in 2 -76: "The Proposed Action is the Preferred Project of the USAF and would not result in an y significant traffic impacts to freeway segments under CMP criteria." That statement exists in the context of applying criteria from the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). Also we note the second sentence of Response Number W3 -2 that appears on page 11.2 -78: "No mitigation measures are required of the Proposed Action because no significant traffic impacts would be created to freeway segments." From the Los Angeles County CMP Appendix D "Guidelines for CMP Traffic Impact Analysis ", of section DA fourth item, we quote: "Caltrans must also be consulted through the Notice of preparation (NOP) process to identify other specific locations to be analyzed in the state highway system." We also quote here from the current Caltrans traffic studies Guide that we referenced in our letters, from Part II. "WHEN A TRAFFIC STUDY IS NEEDED' Section A. Trip "Generation Thresholds ", element a) of item three. This item is in reference to conditions in which any amount at all of additional traffic during peak hours would warrant analysis that could deal with mitigation: "Affected State highway facilities experiencing significant delay; unstable or forced traffic flow conditions (LOS "E" or Incidentally, such forced flow conditions exist on State Route freeways near the Project. ) We noted in our letter of May 21, 2003 that: "Caltrans facilities are located within counties; however, the counties do not have final word on management of Caltrans facilities within their geographical boundaries." `Caltrans improoes mobility across California" Mr. Paul Garry page 2 of 2 July 10, 2003 Therefore we believe that the Project traffic study should have included more consideration Of cumulative impacts on the State Route freeways. It should have included consideration of any shares of impacts due to the Project. FEIR Response W3 -1 mentions the idea of a "program in place to implement fair -share traffic mitigation for all projects that contribute traffic to freeways in the project area ". Even without a program to assess mitigation shares fr om "all projects ", however, it would be feasible to consider what a share from a single project might be. Following that, some mitigation funded at least partly by that share could be considered to compensate for effects of that project. Such project - funded mitigation could be made complementary to other mitigations (regardless of their funding) that would be implemented to deal with all of the cumulative impacts. As we stated in our previous letters, then, we remain open to meeting with the responsible parties to discuss opportunities for mitigation of effects on Caltrans facilities and to discuss cost share. We would hope to express our approval of the traffic mitigation for the Project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please refer to IGR/CEQA No. 030721/EK and contact me at (213)897-4429. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUS WELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager, Transportation Planning Office cc: Becky Frank, State Clearinghouse °Caltrars improves mobility across California' July 14, 2003 �EC�I�O�(�IJ JUL 14 2ov PLANNING DIVIF'ON James M. Hansen Director of Community, Economic and Development Services; and Secretary to the Planning Commission City of El Segundo RE: Environmental Assessment No 577 Applicant: United /States Air Force, Cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne Developer: SAMS Venture, LLC (Kearny Real Estate Company, Catellus, Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund) Address: Los Angeles Air Force Base Area A Dear Mr. Hansen, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns in regard to the planned development of an upscale -gated residential condominium development of Area A of the Los Angeles Air Force Base (southeast corner of El Se and Aviation Boulevards). eg Before I express my concerns I'd like to say that as a Del Aire resident, who lives very close to the Air Force Base, I am pleased that a condominium development is being built as opposed to a `strip mall" or an IKEA. One of my major concerns is the increased traffic, on El Segundo, Aviation and Roscrans Boulevards. My second concern, which I believe could be a result of the increased traffic, is that more cars will 'cut through" our neighborhood trying to avoid the increased traffic on the above named major boulevards. I do not want this to happen to the Del Aire or Hollyglen areas as I'm sure you, as a home owner, and the El Segundo residents would not want it to happen to your residential area. Thank you for your time. Linda Cuesta Del Aire Resident Reorganization Agreement KEARNY Exhibit E Real Estate Company 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 320 Los Angeles, California 90067 310203-1840 Fax 310203-1850 July 14, 2003 Mr. Larry J. Calemine Executive Officer Local Agency Formation Commission 700 N. Central Avenue, Suite 350 Glendale, CA 91203 Dear Larry: I am the Managing Partner of Kearny Real Estate Company. A partnership of Kearny, Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund IV, and Catellus Development Corporation (collectively "SAMS, LLC ") was selected by the Air Force to develop their new Los Angeles Air Force Base campus as part of a much needed modernization plan. Detailed information regarding the modernization plan can be found at www.laafb.net. I would like to thank LAFCO staff for the tremendous support and assistance you have provided to date. As you know, Los Angeles Air Force Base is an enormous economic engine for the Los Angeles area. Direct and indirect jobs tied to the base are estimated to be 65,000 and annual payroll tied to the Base is $3.3 billion. Current contracts managed by the base total approximately $60 billion at any one time. Based on the condition of the facilities, we believe Los Angeles Air Force Base has a very good chance of being closed during the next round of base closures. The modernization plan is critical to the region's efforts to maintain the base. The Reorganization Agreement between El Segundo and Hawthorne to annex property from El Segundo to Hawthorne is a testament of the community support, tenacity and creativity that is being brought to bear to modernize Los Angeles Air Force Base. On behalf of SAMS, LLC, I also want to inform the LAFCO staff and commission that SAMS, LLC fully supports the Reorganization Agreement and the resolutions of application that have been passed by the Cities of El Segundo and Hawthorne. Your actions as to this annexation are critical to the modernization effort. Please call if I can provide additional information. Again, thank you for all your efforts to date. Sincerely, \ rte+ V Jeffrey Dritley Managing Partner cc: Mayor Mike Gordon Mayor Larry Guidi THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL, JULY 15, 2003 IS CURRENTLY IN RECESS. THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE LAND CONVEYANCE, CONSTRUCTION, AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND CONSIDERATION OF LAFCO APPLICATION AND REORGANIZATION AGREEMENT. WILL BEGIN AT 8:00 P.M. JULY 15, 2003 ''o f(%r- d, Cindy MA ese City� rk 15, 2003 P.M. Response to Issues Raised in Caltrans letter to Paul Garry dated July 10 2003 Issue 1: Significance Criteria Caltrans suggests that the traffic analysis should not have used LA County CMP criteria to determine the significance of impacts. Response: a. Caltrans does not indicate what threshold the traffic analysis should have been used. The only possibility is that the threshold should have been taken from the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002 ( Caltrans Guide). However, the section of the Caltrans Guide quoted in the comment refers to criteria for "determining when a TIS (Traffic Impact Study) is needed" ( Caltrans Guide, p.2). The Caltrans Guide does not identify any criteria for determining the significance of impacts. b. The traffic study prepared for the Proposed Project is consistent with the criteria for determining whether a TIS is needed because the study was prepared and it addressed impacts to all state highways (freeways) that could be impacted by the Proposed Project. C. Because the Caltrans Guide does not include thresholds for determining significant impacts to state highways, the traffic study prepared for the Proposed Project utilized the significance threshold established by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority under the Congestion Management Program (CMP). This threshold is part of the Los Angeles County CMP land use analysis program required under Government Code Section 65089. d. Under the LACMTA significance threshold utilized in the traffic study prepared for the Proposed Project and reflected in the Draft EIR, the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to freeway segments and therefore no mitigation is required. Issue 2: Consultation Caltrans quotes the requirements of the LA County CMP Guidelines that Caltrans be consulted to identify "other specific locations to be analyzed in the state highway system." Response: Consultation with Caltrans was undertaken as part of the NOP process tate and all s highways that could be impacted by the Proposed Project were included in the traffic analysis conducted for the project. Caltrans submitted a letter in response to the NOP that requested that the EIR study effects on state highways. Issue 3: Fair Share Mitigation Caltrans contends that consideration of "shares of impacts due to the Project" should be included as a basis for identifying project - funded mitigation. Response: a• Caltrans suggests that it would be feasible to consider what a share from a single project might be, even in the absence of a program that applies to all projects that contribute to the impact. b• Although not specifically identified in this letter, formulas for calculating "Equitable Share Responsibility" and "Equitable Cost" are contained in Appendix B to the Caltrans Guide. Presumably Caltrans would follow its own guidelines and use these formulas for calculating project- related shares of impacts and mitigation costs. Without conceding that significant impacts to freeways would result from the Proposed Project, based upon application of the appropriate significance threshold, it is not feasible to apply the formulas contained in Appendix B of the Caltrans Guide (C -1, "Equitable Share Responsibility" and C -2, "Equitable Cost ") to this project. i. Equation C -I in Appendix B requires calculation of the difference between the existing and projected peak hour volumes on the affected freeway, where existing volumes are also defined to include "other approved projects that will generate traffic that have yet to be constructed." The Caltrans Guide does not specify how projects meeting these criteria are to be identified. The related Projects list identified in the EIR includes, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, projects that are proposed but not approved, along with projects that are approved but not yet constructed. Application of the criteria contained in the Caltrans Guide would require considerably more precise information than is reflected in an EIR related projects list in order to perform this calculation. The lead agency does not have the precise information on the approval or construction status of projects outside its jurisdiction that would be needed in order to perform this calculation. Also, since the trips resulting from projects meeting these criteria are being removed from the projected freeway traffic growth under this formula, presumably these trips would have been mitigated. Determination of which trips have been mitigated would only be available from Caltrans and would therefore require input from Caltrans that has not been Provided, in order to perform the calculation. ii. In addition, even if a percentage of "equitable share responsibility^ could be calculated, that percentage is to be applied to the "total cost estimate for improvements necessary to mitigate the forecasted traffic demand on the impacted State highway facility in question at general plan build -out. (Equation C -2)" Caltrans has not identified any projects for the affected freeways, much less a total package of improvements to deal with forecasted traffic demand many years out, or provided any of the required cost estimates. Thus, the lead agency does not have the information necessary to perform this calculation. j. Finally, as noted in the responses to comments (Response No. W3 -2), the "equitable share" formulas presented in Appendix B to the Caltrans Guide are, according to Caltrans, "neither intended as, nor does it establish, a legal standard for determining equitable responsibility and cost of a projects traffic impact. " TRANSCRIPT 7/15/03 CITY COUNCIL MEETING KYLE ORLEMMAN, HOLLY GLEN RESIDENT The thing I would like to make you aware of is if this property comes into Hawthorne more and more residents, not only in Holly Glen but the City of Hawthorne as well, are becoming aware of the downside of the project and having this project come into Hawthorne and becoming part of the redevelopment project area. We are going to have the problems of State mandated 20% low cost housing, we are already having freezes on our City services and freezes on our hiring. A number of redevelopment projects that we have been promised over the years have not been done because we don't have the money. Hawthorne has just had a horrendous time of trying to balance its budget. We don't have the money to carry this project. And more and more people in Hawthorne are becoming aware of the tax problems that this project is going to cause. The more and more Hawthorne gets involved in this, the more and more people are going to protest and are going to do every legal means we can to slow down, or delay, or stop this project. So if the goal is to keep the Air Force Base here, sending it into Hawthorne is basically a situation where everybody is getting more and more aware of this and it is going to be more and more organized. I have had a number of calls in the last few days from other citizens in Hawthorne who have already contacted the Howard Jarvis Group and they are looking seriously into starting a lawsuit to prevent this project from going on. If you give it to us we are going to do everything we can to stop it and delay it in terms of this high density housing project in a redevelopment area. If you need the base to stay here you need to keep it under your jurisdiction so we don't have that action available to us because more and more people are jumping on the bandwagon. More and more homeowners are seeing the true information, more and more people are finding out that there is no Ikea, there is no Wallmart, that the 3500 daily trips we are told if this goes residential... o.k. the 3000 people that are going to live in this area you're saying that there are only going to be 3500 traffic trips per day. What are they going to do? Go you in the morning and not come back at night? We also got all the problems with the traffic figures. It did not take into account in the EIR/EIS, did not mention the Aviation widening which the people in Hawthorne are going to fight tooth - and -nail. It also does not deal with the traffic figures coming in with our Corporate Campus project. We also have new development going in at Rosecrans and Isis which is going to tie up that traffic even more and now we understand that you are in the process of trying to put a Fry's at 135' and Aviation, right across from our neighborhood, which again we will fight that project tooth- and -nail. It would have additional Problems with additional controlled intersections being needed. Hawthorne would have problems with paying for the extra City services, we believe transferring this into Hawthorne is going to be a disaster for us and unfortunately we are going to have to fight it so if you want to keep the Base here please keep it in your jurisdiction and please take a serious look at rebuilding on Area A. It can be done and it solves the problems for everybody and keeps everything in the jurisdiction it is now and keeps us with our good neighbors, the Base.