2004 MAR 16 CC PACKET - 1AGENDA
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 witn the Americans with uisanmties Act, it 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, MARCH 16, 2004 — 5:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4368
Next Ordinance # 1375
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:
0 UP
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. Preston v. City of El Segundo WCAB No. MON 0292740
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): -3- matters.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — -0- matters
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) -0 matters
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8):-4- matters.
Real Property Negotiator: Mary Strenn, City Manager
Potential purchase price for four (4) properties for the Douglas Street extension project:
APN Nos.:
1. 4138 - 011 -019
2. 4138 - 010 -010
3. 4138 - 011 -006
4. 4138 - 011 -036
SPECIAL MATTERS — None.
004
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, MARCH 16, 2004 — 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION — Pastor Mark Koukl of Hope Chapel del Rey
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Counciimember John Gaines
Next Resolution # 4368
Next Ordinance # 1375
003
PRESENTATIONS —
(a) Commendations to Joe Harding, General Manager of the Hacienda Hotel; Marisa Vega,
Sales Manager of the Hacienda Hotel; Donn Cottom of Sopp Chevrolet for running their 4th
LA Marathon while raising monies on behalf of Rotary International's effort to eradicate polio
worldwide by the 2005; and commendation to Michael Herbach for running his 15` LA
Marathon while raising monies on behalf of Rotary for the Children of the Dump in Tijuana
Mexico.
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
Recommendation — Approval.
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve Environmental Assessment No. 632
Subdivision No. 03-8 for a one -year extension of a previously approved Vesting
Tentative Map No. 53570. The Tentative Tract Map is for a 26 -lot subdivision in the
Corporate Campus Specific Plan area, located at 700 -800 North Nash Street.
Applicant: TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC. Property Owner: Federal Express
Corporation. Appellant: Kilroy Realty Corporation and Citizens Against Gridlock
in El Seaundo (CAGES).
Recommendation — (1) Open Public Hearing; (2) Discussion; (3) Adopt Resolution
upholding approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8; (4)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
4 00--1
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. Consideration and possible action amending the El Segundo Municipal Code
(ESMC) regarding uniform newsrack locations and newspaper placement.
Recommendation — (1) Discussion; (2) Introduction of Ordinance and waive first reading;
(3) Schedule second reading and adoption of Ordinance on April 6, 2004; (4)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
3. Consideration and possible action to appoint members to the Water and Sewer
Rate Task Force — Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation — (1) Approve the appointment of two (2) Council Members; Don
Camph, El Segundo Employers Association; Joe Harding, Chamber of Commerce; El
Segundo Residents Association, Eric Johnson; At Large, Bill Bue and Mike Rotolo; City
Manager; Public Works Director; and the Director of Administrative Services to the Water
and Sewer Rate Task Force; (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.
4. Warrant Numbers 2539282 to 2539591 on Register No. 11 in the total amount of
$1,481,405.99 and Wire Transfers from 2120/2004 through 3/412004 in the total
amount of $268,770.52.
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.
5. City Council Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2004.
Recommendation — Approval.
14
Consideration and possible action regarding approval of the SPCA contract for
animal sheltering services — (Fiscal Impact: $26,400).
Recommendation — (1) Approve the SPCA contract for animal sheltering services and
authorize the City Manager to execute; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
5 00 )
7. Consideration and possible action regarding award of contract for the El Segundo
Skate Board Park located at 405 East Grand Avenue — Approved Capital
Improvement Program — Proiect No. PW 04 -02, (Contract amount: $400,395).
Recommendation — (1) Award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Channel Islands
Paving, Inc.; (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the construction contract on
behalf of the City; (3) Authorize (a) $46,000 for Optional Bid Items Nos. 1 and 2 and (b)
$20,605 for construction contingencies; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of Los Angeles County
Regional Grant for $80,000. Use funds for lighting and portable pieces at the El
Segundo Skate Board Park. Fiscal Impact: None.
Recommendation — (1) Accept Los Angeles County Regional Grant for $80,000; (2) Use
the funds for the lighting and portable pieces at the El Segundo Skate Board Park; (3)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
9. Consideration and possible action regarding the submission of a grant proposal
to the Department of Homeland Security, USFA/Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. Fiscal
Impact: 24, 500 matching requirement in Fiscal Year 04/05.
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the submission of a DHS /FEMA/USFA grant proposal
for $244,895.00; (2) Authorize the Fire Chief and /or designee (Emergency Services
Coordinator) to act as the authorized agent for the electronic grant submission; (3)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
10. Consideration and possible action regarding executing an agreement with Civica
Software for purchase and implementation of a content management system for
the City website.
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Mar
Software for a Content Management System
Request for Proposal (RFP) and subsequent
and take other action related to this item.
0
lager to execute an agreement with Civica
by "piggybacking" on the City of Montclair
award process; (2) Alternatively, discuss
006
11. Consideration and possible action regarding the approval of a Professional
Services Agreement between the City of El Segundo and Hinderliter, De Llamas &
Associates (HDL) for sales and use tax audit and information services.
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute Professional Services
Agreement on behalf of the City; (2) Adopt resolution authorizing examination of sales &
use tax records; (3) Give current Consultant notice of change in vendors; (4)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
12. Consideration and possible action regarding award of contract to NSA
Construction Group for construction work of the Residential Sound Insulation
Program's Bid Group 4 (72 residences). Estimated construction cost and
retention: $1,393,913.
Recommendation — (1) Approve request by Angeles Contractor to withdraw its Bid: (2)
Consider Bid from A.W.I. Builders, Inc. non - responsive; (3) Award contract to NSA
Construction Group; (4) Authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract in
a form approved by the City Attorney; (5) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
13. Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project for
construction of the Downtown Specific Plan Improvements — Project No. PW
03 -03. Approved Capital Improvement Program (Final contract amount:
$ 3,538,676.51).
Recommendation — (1) Accept the work as complete; (2) Authorize the City Clerk to file
the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in the County's Recorder's Office; (3)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
F. NEW BUSINESS —
14. Consideration and possible action regarding a new Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) license for on -site sale and consumption of alcohol (Type 41 — On -Sale Beer
and Wine for a Bona Fide Public Eating Place) at a new restaurant, Good Stuff,
located at 131 West Grand Avenue, EA No. 637 and AUP No. 04 -01. Applicant: Cris
Bennett.
Recommendation — (1) Determine that the City does not protest the issuance of the new
ABC license for the sale of beer and wine at Good Stuff Restaurant; (2) Alternatively,
discuss and take other action related to this item.
7 007
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 —
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 $250. While all
comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The
Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed.
(a) Request by Tree Musketeers for the City Council to declare the California Sycamore the
official City of El Segundo tree.
MEMORIALS —
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government
Code Section §54960, et sue.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator, and /or
conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators.
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT
r
POSTED: W D
DATE: 3 1/ 103
TIME GI' a0 fl•M-
NAME: JPnninne
s OU$
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 16, 2004
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) on the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to approve Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No.
03 -8 for a one -year extension of a previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
53570. The Tentative Tract Map is for a 26 -lot subdivision in the Corporate Campus Specific
Plan area, located at 700 -800 North Nash Street. Applicant: TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC.
Property Owner: Federal Express Corporation. Appellant: Kilroy Realty Corporation and
Citizens Against Gridlock in El Segundo (CAGES).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Open Public Hearing;
2. Discussion;
3. Adopt Resolution upholding approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632 and
Subdivision No. 03 -8; or
4. Alternatively discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission approved a one -year extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
53570 at its February 12, 2004 meeting. On February 23, 2004, the Kilroy Realty Corporation
and CAGES filed an appeal. The appellants contend that: 1) the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
expired on or before January 2, 2004; and 2) the application filed by TPG -El Segundo
Partners, LLC was not complete until after the map expired because the City received a letter
of authorization from the property owner on February 3, 2004.
(continued on next page...)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft Resolution
2. Appeal letter dated February 23, 2004
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 12, 2004
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Operating Budget:
N/A
Amount Requested:
NIA
Account Number:
N/A
Project Phase:
NIA
Appropriations Required:
_Yes x No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE:
Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
BY:
Mary Strenn, Oity M
Building Safety\PR0JECTS \Ea- 632 \sr_cc
DATE: 3 /a/
oy
001)
1
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION — Pape 2
On January 2, 2002 the City Council adopted Ordinance No.1345 approving a Vesting
Tentative Tract Map forthe Campus El Segundo Project. The effective date of the Ordinance
was suspended, by operation of law, through a referendum campaign until July 12, 2002.
Accordingly, both of the issues raised by Kilroy and CAGES appear to be without merit.
Additionally, El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 14- 2 -3.C.2 states that, "[tjhe time within
which a final map may be recorded is governed by Section 14 -1 -12 of this title and California
Government Code Section 66452.6." ESMC § 14 -1 -2 allows a time extension on a map if a
request is made before the tentative map expires. Pursuant to Government Code § 66452.6
(e), filing an application for a time extension automatically extends the tentative map time
period for sixty (60) days or until the extension is approved or denied. Thus, even if Kilroy and
CAGES were correct in their interpretation as to when the map would expire, TPG -EI Segundo
Partners, LLC filed for an extension of the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map on
December 1, 2003 thereby extending the map for 60 days or until the City takes final action on
the application.
Kilroy and CAGES also raised the issue that the letter of authorization from the property owner
granting the applicant permission to file a tract map extension application was received on
February 3, 2004 and that the application was not complete until such time. Given that there
was a prior authorization granted by Federal Express Corporation with respect to TPG -EI
Segundo Partners, LLC's request for the original entitlements for the property, including a
Development Agreement which is currently in effect, it does not appear that such a letter of
authorization was necessary. This extension is consistent with TPG -EI Segundo's other land
use entitlements on the property which Federal Express Corporation authorized. Accordingly,
staff deemed the application complete January 20, 2004. Therefore, the application for a one -
year extension was complete and the Tentative Tract Map was valid at the time the Planning
Commission approved TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC's one -year tract map extension
application.
Staff recommends that the City Council reject the appeal and uphold the Planning
Commission's approval of a one -year extension to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570.
The project is still a benefit to the community for all of the reasons that the Council previously
approved the project, including revenue and employment opportunities for the City.
Additionally, the project will offer public amenities (fire station site and recreational fields) that
will benefit the community. Finally, the community pursuant to the referendum election held on
June 18, 2002 supported the project.
Resolution No. 4241 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the El
Segundo Corporate Campus Project became effective on July 12, 2002. There have been no
changes to the project or the property since its effective date or the impacts caused by the
project. Thus, the extension would not have the potential to create any new significant impacts
or additional impacts from those previously disclosed in the FEIR. Therefore, it is appropriate
for the City Council to rely on the FEIR in considering the extension request.
PAPlanning & Building Safety\PR0JECTSTa- 632isr_cc 0 1 0
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION, THEREBY APPROVING
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 632 AND SUBDIVISION NO. 03 -8 FOR
A FIRST EXTENSION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53570 FOR
PROPERTY AT 700 -800 NORTH NASH STREET
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds and declares that:
A. On December 1, 2003, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC submitted an application
for a one -year extension to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570; and
associated project approvals to allow the continued development rights for the
creation of 26 separate parcels. The application was reviewed by City's
Department of Community, Economic and Development Services for, in part,
consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the ESMC;
B. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.,
"CEQA "), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations
§ §15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines'), and the City's Environmental
Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805, adopted March 16, 1993);
C. The Department of Community, Economic and Development Services completed
its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the
Planning Commission for February 12, 2004;
D. On February 12, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive
public testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without
limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by TPG -Ei Segundo
Partners, LLC; and adopted Resolution No. 2559 approving Environmental
Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8;
E. The Commission considered the information provided by City staff, public
testimony, and TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC representatives. Resolution No.
2559 and its findings, were made based upon the evidence presented to the
Commission at its February 12, 2004 hearing including, without limitation, the
staff reports submitted by the Department of Community, Economic and
Development Services;
F. On March 16, 2004, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public
testimony and other evidence regarding the application including, without
limitation information provided to the Planning Commission by TPG -EI Segundo
Partners, LLC; and adopted Resolution No._ ; and
G. The City Council considered the information provided by City Staff, public
testimony, and TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC representatives. Resolution No.
and its findings, are made based upon the evidence and testimony
presented to the Council at its March 16, 2004 hearing including, without
011
limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department of Community, Economic
and Development Services.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings. The Council finds that the following facts exist:
A. The approved project is for the creation of 26 separate parcels on a 46.53 -
acre site at 700 -800 N. Nash St. in the Corporate Campus Specific Plan
Area;
B. The approved proposal complies with all applicable requirements of the
Corporate Campus Specific Plan including the minimum lot size and
minimum street frontage requirements for the Corporate Campus Specific
Plan. All parcels will have frontage on a public street or a private internal
roadway;
C. The original project approval of the project required City Council approval
and certification of an Environmental Impact Report. There have been no
changes to the project scope or any other significant information that
would render the conclusions of the original Environmental Impact Report
inaccurate. Therefore the conclusions of the Environmental Impact Report
remain unchanged;
D. The subject proposal is to extend the previously approved project covered
by the following previous approvals and agreements:
Environmental Assessment No. 548, Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 53570), Specific Plan No. 01 -1, Development
Agreement No. 01 -1, General Plan Amendment No. 01 -2, Zone Change
No. 01 -1, Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1, and Administrative Use Permit
No. 01 -1 were approved by City Council Ordinance 1345 and City Council
Resolution 4241 on January 2, 2002, certifying an Environmental Impact
Report for the Campus El Segundo project at 700 -800 N. Nash Street;
E. The project is a benefit to the community for the same reasons that it was
found to be a benefit to the community when the City Council approved it
on January 2, 2002;
F. The project was upheld by 65% of the voters pursuant to referendum
process on June 18, 2002. Thus, the community supports the project as it
was originally proposed; and
G. An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Environmental
Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8 (Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 53570) was received by the City Clerk's Office February 23,
2004.
01
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. The Council finds that Environmental Assessment
No. 632, Subdivision No. 03 -8 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 were previously
analyzed for its environmental impacts and a Final Environmental Impact Report was certified
pursuant to CEQA § 15090.
SECTION 4: Notice of Determination. The City Manager, or designee, is directed to file a
Notice of Determination in accordance with Pub. Res. Code §§ 21152, 21167(f); 14 CCR §
15062; and any other applicable law.
SECTION 5: General Plan Findings. After considering the above facts, the City Council finds
as follows:
A. The Land Use Designation of the project site is Corporate Campus
Specific Plan. Moreover, the proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Objective LU4 -4, which encourages mixed use
developments;
B. The ESMC zoning classification for the project site is Corporate Campus
Specific Plan;
C. The proposal meets all the site development standards of the Corporate
Campus Specific Plan; and
D. The proposed Subdivision complies with the applicable provisions of
ESMC Chapter 14 -1, since an application requesting an extension was
received prior to the date of expiration, proper notification and a public
hearing were provided, proper hearing decision and records will be
complied with and the required findings will be considered.
SECTION 6: Approvals. The City Council upholds the Planning Commission's approval of
Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8 with amended Conditions of
Approval.
SECTION 7: This Resolution will remain effective unless superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 8: The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to TPG -El Segundo
Partners, LLC and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 9: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective
immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March 2004.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
013
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved
and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all al
a regular meeting of said Council held on the 16th day of March 2004, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. H sley, City Attorney
By. vt�
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorffey
014
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. _
Exhibit A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC "),
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to comply with the following provisions as
conditions for the City of El Segundo's approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632
and Subdivision No. 03 -8 ( "Project Conditions "):
Miscellaneous Conditions
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 and associated project entitlements
will expire on July 12, 2005, unless a Final Map is approved and recorded or
a second extension is requested.
2. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will develop plans, which
indicate that the project is in substantial conformance with plans approved
and on file with the Department of Community, Economic and Development
Services. Any subsequent modification to the project as approved will be
referred to the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
for a determination regarding the need for Planning Commission review of the
proposed modification.
3. The developer must develop the property in accordance with the applicable
provisions of previously approved City Council Resolution No. 4241 and
Ordinance No. 1345.
4. TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to indemnify and hold the City
harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including,
without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City's
approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8.
Should the City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against
it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of
the City approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No.
03 -8, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to defend the City (at the City's
request and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City
for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or
otherwise. For purposes of this section "the City" includes the City of El
Segundo's elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees.
O 1
By signing this document, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC certifies that it has read,
understood, and agrees to the Project Conditions listed in this document.
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC
Applicant
{If Corporation or similar entity, need two officer signatures or evidence that one
signature binds the company}
0 16
MOSKOWITZ, jRESTOFF, WINSTON &' BL. ,DEPMAN LLP
Ir
1880 Century Park East, Suite 800, Los Angelles, Ca iIf "Y;& O jj` "i N�
TEL: 310/785 -0550 Lax: 310/1185-W96
xI r 16
February 23, 2004
VIA MESSENGER
Ms. Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
Mr. Jim Hansen, Director of Community,
Economic and Development Services
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
350 Main Street
El Segundo CA 90245
Btubaza S. Blindelman
Nelson E. BneSLOff
Joel S. Moskowin
Dennis A. Winston
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision re EA 632 & Subdivision 03 -8
(VTM 53570)
Dear Ms. Mortesen and Mr. Hansen:
Please accept this letter as an appeal by Kilroy Realty Corp. and Citizens Against
Gridlock in El Segundo (CAGES) of the El Segundo Planning Commission's decision of
February 12, 2004, wherein the Commission granted to applicant, TPG -El Segundo
Partners LLC, a one -year extension to previously approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 53570 ( "Tract Map "). The bases for the appeal —which we presented to the
Commission on February 12 —are that the Tract Map had already expired before the
Commission voted to approve the extension and that the application for the extension was
not submitted in its completed form until after the Tract Map had expired.
Please note the following, as background:
1. Per the language published by the City in the Notice of Public Hearing for the
February 12, 2004 Planning Commission hearing involving Environmental Assessment
No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8 (VTM No. 53570):
"The City Council approved the original Vesting Tentative Tract Map on January
2, 2002."
2. Per the language published by the City in the Planning Commission's
February 12, 2004 agenda:
"The original Vesting Tentative Tract Map was approved December 18, 2002."
x A LIMITED LIABILITY PART\ERSHIP 1 \'GLIDING sR£STOFF & WINSTON, A PROFES510VAL LAW CORPORATION 0 17
Ms. Cindy Mortensen, —tty Clerk
Mr. Jim Hansen, Director of Community
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision re EA 632 & Subdivision 03 -8 (VTM
53570)
Page 2
We assume this is a typographical error, and that the City's intent was to state in
the February 12, 2004 agenda that the Planning Commission approved the original Map
on December 18, 2001.
We believe that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 expired on or before
January 2, 2004.
The bases for our appeal are the following:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 had already expired prior to the time
that the Planning Commission voted upon the extension of the Map on February 12,
2004.
Pursuant to Section 14 -2 -3 of the El Segundo Subdivision, Code, it states:
"The right to proceed with development as set forth in subsection A of this
Section accrues from the date of approval of the tentative map by the Planning
Commission or City Council; however, it expires on the date the vesting
tentative map expires unless a final map is approved before then."
Further, under Code Section 14 -2 -7 — Expiration of Tentative Map Approval, it
states:
"The approval or conditional approval of a vesting tentative map and the
conditions under which an extension of time is granted shall be consistent with
Section 14 -1 -12 of this Title ".
Pertinent passages of Code Section 14 -1 -12 states:
A. Expiration: The approval or conditional approval of a tentative map or
tentative parcel map shall expire twenty four (24) months from the date the
map was approved or conditionally approved"
B. Extension: The person filing the tentative map may request an extension of an
approved tentative map by filing a written application with the Director of
Community, Economic and Development Services, prior to the date of
expiration. The application shall state the reasons for requesting the
extension. Said extension request shall be approved or denied by the Planning
Commission. „
i
Ms. Cindy Mortensen, —rty Clerk
Mr. Jim Hansen, Director of Community
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision re EA 632 & Subdivision 03 -8 (VTM
53570)
Page 3
2. As presented at the February 12 hearing of the Commission, the pendency of
the referendum challenging the City's ordinance approving the modifications to its
planning documents (which are legislative acts) had no legal impact on the City's
approval of the Tract Map (an adjudicative /administrative act).
3. The authorization of the property owner, which is critical to an application for
a requested action being deemed complete was dated February 3, 2004 and sent to the
City on February 3, 2004. The application by TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC,
requesting extension of the Map, was not complete until after the Map expired.
Enclosed is our check in the amount of $460.00 as the appeal filing fee.
Very truly yours,
Dennis A. Winston of
Moskowitz, Brestoff, Winston & Blinderman LLP
DAW:ak
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNERS:
REQUEST:
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Introduction
February 12, 2004
Environmental Assessment No. 632
Subdivision No. 03 -8 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC
Federal Express Corp.
One -year extension of a Tentative Tract
Map for a 26 lot subdivision.
700 -800 N. Nash Street
The proposed project is a request for a one -year extension to previously
approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 for the creation of 26 individual
parcels for the Campus El Segundo project originally known as the El Segundo
Corporate Campus. The stated purpose of the requested extension is to allow
additional time for the development of the project. The original Vesting Tentative
Tract Map was approved January 2, 2002 and will expire on June 18, 2004. No
changes in the project are proposed.
Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the facts as
contained within this report, and adopt Resolution No. 2559 (Exhibit A) approving
Environmental Assessment No,,632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8 (Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 53570).
Background
The project site is bounded by Douglas Street on the east, Nash Street on the
west, Mariposa Avenue on the south, and Atwood Way on the North. To the
west of the property on the far side of Nash Street is the Metro Green Line. This
segment of the Metro Green Line is elevated. It crosses through the northwest
corner of the property and continues eastward north of the property along
1 020
Atwood Way. The project site is located on a vacant 46.53 -acre site formerly
occupied by Rockwell International.
On January 2, 2002, the applicant was granted approval for a subdivision
(creating 26 separate parcels) to develop a 2,175,000 square foot mixed -use
development called Campus El Segundo. The original project approvals
included:
1. Environmental Impact Report (EA No. 548) for the project pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The Corporate Campus Specific Plan (SP No. 01 -1) which replaced
the Urban Mixed Use North (MU -N) Zone for the property and
established specific permitted uses and development standards for the
project.
3. A nine -year Development Agreement (DA No. 01 -1) to allow the
developer sufficient time to build the project and provide a mechanism
for the dedication of a one -acre portion of the property to the City for a
Fire Station site and purchase of a five -acre portion of the property by
the City for a public park.
4. A General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 01 -2) to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to re- designate the project site from
Urban Mixed -Use North to the Corporate Campus Specific Plan.
5. An amendment to the Zoning Map (ZC No. 01 -1) to change the zoning
for the project site from Urban -Mixed Use North (MU -N) to Corporate
Campus Specific Plan (CCSP).
6. An amendment to Section 15 -3 -2 of the El Segundo Municipal Code
(ZTA No. 01 -1) to list the proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan
as one of the specific plan zones within the City.
7. An Alcoholic Beverage Control license (AUP No. 01 -1) for the on -site
sale and consumption of alcohol in the restaurants and hotels in the
project site.
8. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 (SUB No. 01 -�) to allow a 26-
lot subdivision with parcels ranging in size from 0.52 to 5.83 acres.
The staff report prepared for the November 15, 2001, Planning Commission
hearing on the original project contains a full project description and provides
detailed background of the approvals and other documents which have been
developed to implement the overall project (see Exhibit B). Exhibit C (City
Council Resolution 4241) contains the original conditions of approval for the
subdivision.
2 021
IV. Analysis
The proposed project is a one -year extension of a previously approved Vesting
Tentative Tract Map and associated approvals that would divide 46.53 acres of
land into 26 separate parcels. The parcels would range in size from 0.52 to 5.83
acres and would accommodate up to 2,175,000 gross square feet of building and
associated parking. The minimum parcel size complies with the 10,000 square
foot lot area minimum specified in the Corporate Qampus Specific Plan.
The site plan organization is designed to provide each parcel with access to
either one of the existing perimeter streets or one of the proposed private internal
roadways. All parcels will have frontage on either a public or private street. Each
parcel meets the minimum lot frontage requirement of 100 feet., The project
design has an efficient internal roadway system to accommodate traffic
circulation within the site.
The original approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map was designed to "lock
in" the policies and regulations in effect at the time of the project approval.
However, the approval of an extension to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is a
discretionary action by the Planning Commission. As such, the City has the
authority to condition the extension or modify the existing conditions of approval
(Exhibit C) as desired.
Surrounding Area
The surrounding area is developed with mid- and high -rise office buildings with
multi -story parking structures to the north. The adjacent land uses to the east
include multi -story facilities for Northrop Grumman Corporation. Land uses to the
south include a wind tunnel, a United States Post Office, and other smaller
industrial, manufacturing, and office buildings. Land uses to the west include
numerous light industrial and manufacturing buildings. Surrounding land uses
are as follows:
1
Subdivision
The City Council approved the original project on January 2, 2002. Pursuant to
Sections 14 -1 -12 and 14 -2 -3 of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC), the
development rights granted by the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
expires two years following approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map unless
the applicant requests an extension of the map. Since a referendum election on
the project was held on June 18, 2002, state law stipulates that the expiration of
3 0 2''
Land Use
Zone
North:
Office
MU -N
South:
Office, industrial
MU -N
East:
Light Industrial
MU -N
West:
Light Industrial
MU -N, M -1
Subdivision
The City Council approved the original project on January 2, 2002. Pursuant to
Sections 14 -1 -12 and 14 -2 -3 of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC), the
development rights granted by the approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map
expires two years following approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map unless
the applicant requests an extension of the map. Since a referendum election on
the project was held on June 18, 2002, state law stipulates that the expiration of
3 0 2''
the original map is June 18, 2004, the date when the project was upheld by
referendum. If this request for an extension is approved, it will be the first one -
year extension. The extension would expire on June 18, 2005, unless the
applicant requests a second extension or records the Final Vesting Tract Map
with the County Recorder's Office. The ESMC allows a maximum of five one -
year extensions.
General Plan and Zoning
The site is designated as the Corporate Campus Specific Plan in the General
Plan Land Use Element and Zoning. Each of the 26 parcels meets the 10,000
gross square feet lot area requirement and provides at least 100 -foot lot frontage
the minimum required. k
The approved Tentative Tract Map for the creation of 26 separate parcels is
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Corporate Campus
Specific Plan to promote compatible land uses, to provide a safe, convenient,
and efficient circulation system as well accentuate an overall positive identity of
the community.
Inter - Departmental Comments
The project application and plans were not circulated to inter - Departmental staff
because no changes are proposed in the development of the project and all
Departments reviewed the current development configuration prior to its original
approval on January 2, 2002.
V. Environmental Review
On January 2, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4241 certifying the
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the El Segundo Corporate Campus
Project. The project has been delayed due to litigation since January 2002, and
there have been no changes to the project or the property since the City
Council's certification of the FEIR.
The requested extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would merely
extend the time period to finalize the map by one year. This extension would not
have the potential to create any significant impacts or substantially increase
significant impacts previously disclosed in the FEIR. Therefore, it is appropriate
for the Planning Commission to rely on the FEIR in considering the extension
request. As the City Council previously certified the FEIR, the Commission does
not need to certify the FEIR.
VI. Conclusion
Staff recommends approval of the extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
53570, and associated project approvals, subject to the conditions contained in
Draft Resolution No. 2559.
4 023
VII. Exhibits
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2559
B. Planning Commission Staff Report, November 15, 2001
C. City Council Resolution No. 4241
D. Application
E. Vesting Tentative Map No. 53570
Prepared by: Alexis Schopp, Contract Planner
Kimberly Chr}} tensen, AICP, Planning Manager
Community, k&nomic and Development Services
Jame M. Hansen, Director
,Community, Economic and Development Services
PAPlanning & Building Safety \PROJECTS \626- 650 \EA - 632 \EA- 632.sr.doc
5 02 i
RESOLUTION NO. 2559
A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE EL SEGUNDO PLANNING
COMMISSION REGARDING AN APPLICATION FROM TPG -El
SEGUNDO PARTNERS, LLC APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT NO. 632 AND SUBDIVISION ISO. 03 -8 FOR A FIRST
EXTENSION OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53570 FOR
PROPERTY AT 700 -800 NORTH NASH STREET.
The Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. On December 1, 2003, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC filed an application
for a one -year extension to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570; and
associated project approvals to allow the continued development rights for
the creation of 26 individual parcels;
B. TPG -EI Segundo Partners, LLC's application was reviewed by the City's
Department of Community, Economic and Development Services for, in
part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the El
Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ");
C. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under
the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§
21000, et seq., "CEQA "), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal.
Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines "), and the
City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805,
adopted March 16, 1993);
D. The Department of Community, Economic and Development Services
completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the
application before this Commission for February 12, 2004;
E. On February 12, 2004, the Commission held a public hearing to receive
public testimony and other evidence regarding the application including,
without limitation, information provided to the Commission by TPG -El
Segundo Partners, LLC; and
Page 1 of 4
February 12, 2004
025
F. The Commission considered the information provided by City staff, public
testimony, and TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC representatives. This
Resolution, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence and
testimony presented to the Commission at its February 12, 2004 hearing
including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Department
of Community, Economic and Development Services.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings. The Commission finds that the following facts exist:
A. The approved project is for the creation of 26 separate parcels on a 46.53 -
acre site at 700 -800 N. Nash St. in the Corporate Campus Specific Plan
Area;
B. The approved proposal complies with all applicable requirements of the
Corporate Campus Specific Plan including the minimum lot size and
minimum street frontage requirements for the Corporate Campus Specific
Plan. All parcels will have frontage on a public street or a private internal
roadway;
C. The original project approval of the project required City Council approval
and certification of an Environmental Impact Report. There have been no
changes to the project scope and minor changes in the project setting;
however, the net result is less development than was analyzed in the
original Environmental Impact Report. Therefore the conclusions of the
EIR remain unchanged.
D. The subject proposal is to extend the previously approved project covered
by the following previous approvals and agreements:
Environmental Assessment No. 548, Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 53570), Specific Plan No. 01 -1, Development
Agreement No. 01 -1, General Plan Amendment No. 01 -2, Zone Change
No. 01 -1, Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1, and Administrative Use Permit
No. 01 -1 were approved by City Council Ordinance 1345 and City Council
Resolution 4241 on January 2, 2002, certifying an Environmental Impact
Report for the Campus El Segundo project at 700 -800 N. Nash Street.
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment, The Commission finds that Environmental
Assessment No. 632, Subdivision No. 03 -8 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570
Page 2 of 4
February 12, 2004
026
were previously analyzed for its environmental impacts and an Environmental Impact
Report was certified pursuant to CEQA § 15090;
SECTION 4: Notice of Determination. The Director of Community, Economic and
Development Services, or designee, is directed to file a Notice of Determination in
accordance with Pub. Res. Code §§ 21152, 21167(f); 14 CCR § 15094; and any other
applicable law.
SECTION 5: General Plan and Zoning. The proposed project conforms with the City's
General Plan and the zoning regulations in the ESMC as follows:
A. The Land Use Designation of the project site is Corporate Campus
Specific Plan. Moreover, the proposed project is consistent with the City's
General Plan Land Use Objective LU4 -4, which encourages mixed use
developments;
B. The ESMC zoning classification for the project site is Corporate Campus
Specific Plan;
C. The proposal meets all the site development standards of the Corporate
Campus Specific Plan; and
D. The proposed Subdivision complies with the applicable provisions of
ESMC Chapter 14 -1, since proper notification and a public hearing were
provided, proper hearing decision and records will be complied with and
the required findings will be considered.
SECTION 6: Approval. Subject to the conditions listed on the attached Exhibit "A,"
which are incorporated into this Resolution by reference, the Planning Commission
approves Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8.
SECTION 7: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by \a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 8: The Commission Secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 9: This Resolution may be appealed within ten (10) calendar days after its
adoption. All appeals must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within this time
period. Failure to file a timely written appeal will constitute a waiver of any right of
appeal.
Page 3 of 4
February 12, 2004
027
SECTION 10: Except as provided in Section 9, this Resolution is the Planning
Commission's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of February 2004.
Phil Mahler, Chairperson
City of El Segundo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
James M. Hansen, Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
Karl H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
February 12, 2004
Mahler -
Busch -
Frick -
Funk -
Miller
Sheehan -
(?t'g
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2559
Exhibit A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC "),
TPG -EI Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to comply with the following provisions as
conditions for the City of El Segundo's approval of Environmental Assessment No. 6321
and Subdivision No. 02 -8 ( "Project Conditions "):
Miscellaneous Conditions
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 and associated project entitlements
will expire on June 18, 2005, unless a Final Map is approved and recorded or
a second extension is requested.
2. Before building permits are issued, the applicant will develop plans which
indicate that the project is in substantial conformance with plans approved
and on file with the Department of Community, Economic and Development
Services. Any subsequent modification to the project as approved will be
referred to the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
for a determination regarding the need for Planning Commission review of the
proposed modification.
3. The developer must develop the property in accordance with the applicable
provisions of previously approved City Council Resolution No. 4241 and
Ordinance No. 1345.
4. TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to indemnify and hold the City
harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, .,costs (including,
without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City's
approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No. 03 -8.
Should the City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against
it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of
the City approval of Environmental Assessment No. 632 and Subdivision No.
03 -8, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to defend the City (at the City's
request and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City
for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or
otherwise. For purposes of this section "the City" includes the City of El
Segundo's elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees.
-I-
February 12, 2004
021)
By signing this document, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC certifies that it has read,
understood, and agrees to the Project Conditions listed in this document.
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC
Property Owner
{If Corporation or similar entity, need two officer signatures or evidence that one
signature binds the company)
-2-
February 12, 2004
030
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING:
November 15, 2001
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 548, Specific Plan
No. 01.1, Development Agreement No. 01 -1,
General Plan Amendment No. 01 -2, Zone Change
No. 01 -1, Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1,
Administrative Use Permit No. 01 -1, and
Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting Tentative Tract No.
53570
4
APPLICANT: TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: Federal Express Corporation
REQUEST: 2,175,000 Square Foot Mixed -Use Development
El Segundo Corporate Campus
PROPERTY INVOLVED: 700 and 800 Block North Nash Street (former
Rockwell site)
I. Introduction
The Planning Division has received the above request to approve a Specific
Plan and a nine -year Development Agreement between the City and the
applicant for a 2,550,000 gross square foot mixed -use project to be located on a
vacant 46.53 -acre former Rockwell International property bounded by Nash and
Douglas Streets, Mariposa Avenue, and Atwood Way. The property is located in
the Urban Mixed -Use North (MU -N) Zone. The project is called the El Segundo
Corporate Campus. The proposed project includes approximately 2,000,000
square feet of offices comprising approximately 80 percent of the project. A mix
of commercial and industrial uses consisting of approximately 100,000 square
feet of R & D /light industrial, 75,000 square feet of telecommunications /web
hosting, 153,000 square feet of retail, 82,000 square feet of restaurants, a
20,000 square foot health club, 100,000 square feet of hotel /conference
facilities, 10,000 square feet of medical /dental offices, and a 10,000 square foot
day care center would comprise a minimum of approximately 20 percent of the
total building area. The proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan (CCSP)
would allow a maximum overall floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.15:1, based on a
maximum net floor area of 2,350,000 square feet. The CCSP would also allow
031
for alternative mixes of non -office uses within the 20 percent requirement. The
current Mixed -Use North (MU -N) Zone allows a 1.3:1 net FAR.
The applicant has proposed to revise the size of the project in response to
concerns from the community and City staff. The reduced project now being
requested for consideration by the applicant represents a 375,000 gross square
foot (approximately 15 percent) reduction in project size from that was originally
submitted and analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
The proposed reduced project includes a total gross floor area of 2,175,000
square feet. This includes approximately 1,740,000 gross square feet of offices
comprising approximately 80 percent of the project. A mix of commercial and
industrial uses consisting of approximately 100,000 gross square feet of
research & development/light industrial, 65,000 gross square feet of
telecommunications /web hosting, 75,000 gross square feet of retail, 75,000
gross square feet of restaurants, a 19,000 gross square foot health club, 87,000
gross square feet of hotel /conference facilities, 7,000 gross square feet of
medical /dental offices, and a 7,000 gross square foot day care center would
comprise a minimum of approximately 20 percent of the total building area. The
CCSP would also allow for alternative mixes of non -office uses within the 20
percent requirement.
The reduced proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan (CCSP) would allow a
maximum overall floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.99:1, based on a maximum net floor
area of 2,000,000 square feet.
II. Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the facts as
contained within this report, and adopt Resolution No. 2517 (Exhibit A)
recommending that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment No.
548, Specific Plan No. 01 -1, Development Agreement No. 01 -1, General Plan
Amendment No. 01 -2, Zone Change No. 01 -1, Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1,
Administrative Use Permit No. 01 -1, and Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 53570) with conditions for the reduced project.
III. Project Description
The following applications are proposed:
1) Environmental Assessment No. 548 (EA No. 548) California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - An Environmental Impact Report is
proposed for this project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. The public
review and comment period for the Environmental Document extends from
September 24, 2001 to November 8, 2001.
2) Specific Plan No. 01 -1 (SP No. 01 -1) - The proposed Corporate Campus
Specific Plan (CCSP) would replace the existing Urban Mixed -Use North
2
o34-
(MU -N) Zone for the property and establish specific permitted uses and
development standards for the project (Exhibit A - Attachment B),
3) Development Agreement No. 98 -1 (DA No. 98 -1) - A nine -year
Development Agreement (Exhibit A — Attachment G) is proposed to allow the
developer sufficient time to build the project and provide a mechanism for the
dedication of a one -acre portion of the property to the City for a Fire Station
site and City purchase of a five -acre portion of the property for a public park.
4) General Plan Amendment No. 01 -2 `(GPA No. 01 -2) — A General Plan
amendment is requested in order to amend the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to re- designate the project site from Urban Mixed -Use North to
Corporate Campus Specific Plan.
5) Zone Change No. 01 -1 (ZC No. 01 -1) — An amendment to the Zoning Map is
required to change the zoning for the project from Urban Mixed -Use North to
Corporate Campus Specific Plan (CCSP).
6) Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1 (ZTA No. 01 -1) - An amendment to Section
15 -3 -2 of the El Segundo Municipal Code is required to list the proposed
Corporate Campus Specific Plan as one of the specific plan zones within the
City.
7) Administrative Use Permit No. 01 -1 (AUP No. 01 -1) - An Alcoholic
Beverage Control (ABC) license is required for the on -site sale and
consumption of alcohol in the restaurant and cafe facilities located throughout
the project, as well as in room self service and bars in the hotel rooms.
8) Subdivision No. 01 -5 (SUB No. 01 -5) - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
53570. Twenty -six lot subdivision with parcels ranging in size from
approximately 0.52- to 5.83- acres. The project site is currently comprised of
eight separate legal parcels.
All eight applications require review and recommendations by the Planning
Commission. The City Council will take final action on all the applications.
IV. Background
There are currently no entitlements in place for development on the proposed
site. On June 25, 1999, the Planning Commission denied a Conditional Use
Permit (EA No. 415, CUO No. 97 -4) application for Federal Express Corporation
to construct a freight forwarding operation on the entire property. Subsequent to
that action, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1313 to amend the MU -N
Zone to prohibit new freight forwarding uses in MU -N Zone.
Staff also reviewed another project similar to the proposed El Segundo
Corporate Campus in 2000. The El Segundo Media Center (Environmental
3
d 3�
Assessment No. 415), which was an approximately 1,500,000 square foot mixed
use project, was withdrawn by the previous applicant prior to a Planning
Commission public hearing.
On October 25, 2001, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on
the pending applications, took public testimony on the project and continued the
public hearing until the November 8, 2001 meeting. On November 8, the
Commission reopened the public hearing, took additional testimony and
continued the public hearing until a special meeting on November 15, 2001, at
6:00 P.M.
V. Analysis
Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses
The proposed project site, formerly occupied by Rockwell International, is
located in the City of El Segundo at the southwestern edge of the Los Angeles
coastal basin, approximately 0.5 miles south of the Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX). The proposed project site is situated slightly more than one -mile
inland (east) from the Pacific Ocean. The City of Los Angeles' territorial
boundary is a few blocks to the north of the proposed project site. The proposed
project site is bounded by Douglas Street on the east, Nash Street on the west,
Mariposa Avenue on the south, and Atwood Way on the north. Additionally, the
elevated Metro Green Line runs along the north of the property, turning south
across the northwest portion of the property, and continues south along the west
side of Nash Street adjacent to the project site. The property is designated by
the City of El Segundo General Plan Land Use Element as Urban Mixed -Use
North; and, zoned Urban Mixed Use -North (MU -N). The property also is within
the Multimedia Overlay (MMO) zone.
Rockwell international used the property from 1953 to 1990 to manufacture
metals and composite aircraft parts. During that time, numerous buildings and
underground storage tanks were located on the site. The proposed project site
has remained as level, unimproved land since 1992 when Rockwell International
demolished their facilities on the site and remediated the ground contamination
that existed on -site. In 1997, the California Environmental Protection Agency
issued a determination that no appreciable health, safety or hazard risk
remained on the property.
Mid- and high -rise office buildings with multi- storied parking structures are
located along Imperial Highway, immediately north of the proposed project site,
across Atwood Way. These properties are zoned MU -N. Light industrial and
office uses predominate in areas southwest of the site. These areas were zoned
Heavy Industrial (M -2) and Commercial- Manufacturing (C -M) when originally
developed prior to the 1993 zoning change amendment, which re- designated
these properties as Urban Mixed -Use Zoning. This 1993 zone change
implemented the new land use designations adopted in the 1992 General Plan.
These areas are now zoned MU -N and Corporate Office (CO).
4 034
Uses east and southeast of the proposed project site across Douglas Street
include multi -story facilities for Northrop- Grumman and the Los Angeles Air
Force Base ( LAAFB). These properties were zoned M -1 and M -2 prior to the
creation of the Urban Mixed -Use Zoning designation. The LAAFB is currently
zoned Public Facilities (P -F). These two developments predate any zoning for
the properties on which they are located. An 11 -acre parcel owned by Overton
Moore Properties with a 216,000 square foot office and industrial building under
construction, the Microcraft Trisonic Wind Tunnel, and various airline industry-
related facilities are located immediately south of the site. These properties are
also currently zoned MU -N, but were also zoned M -2 prior to the 1993 zone
change amendment.
Southwest of the site are also a hotel, recreational /sports training facility, and
office building built as part of the Grand Avenue Corporate Center (GACC) 23-
acre, mixpd -use project approved in 1998. The GACC was approved and
developed under the current MU -N Zoning. About a quarter of a mile to the east,
across Aviation Boulevard, and two- thirds of a mile to the west across Sepulveda
Boulevard are primarily residential uses with pockets of supporting retail and
commercial development.
Land Use Zone
North: Office MU -N
South: Office, industrial MU -N
East: Light Industrial MU -N
West: Light Industrial, Office M -1, MU -N
Proiect Characteristics
Density
The applicant proposes a mixed -use development program that will
accommodate a range of uses and building square footage. The uses proposed
in the Corporate Campus Specific Plan are consistent with the uses provided in
the MU -N Zone and the MMO Zone. The only use excluded from the proposed
Corporate Campus Specific Plan that is permitted in the MU -N and MMO zones
is drive -thru restaurant uses. The proposed reduced project would permit up to
2.175 million rp oss square feet of built area on approximately 46.53 - grossacres
of land. The net floor area, as defined in Section 15 -1 -6 of the El Segundo
Municipal Code, would tie a maximum of 2.00 million square feet. Based on the
net floor area, the overall development floor -to -area ratio (FAR) for the reduced
project would be 0.99:1. The 0.99:1 FAR would exclude the fire station building
(approximately 14,400 square feet) and any community buildings (i.e.,
restrooms, maintenance buildings, snack shop) that would be located on the five -
acre park site. For purposes of the proposed project, the FAR would be based
on the entire 46.53 -acre site. The land to be dedicated for the fire station, as well
5
035
as the five -acres to be purchased by the City for parkland would not be deducted
from the site area for FAR purposes.
The Corporate Campus Specific Plan would provide for the transfer of density
rights within the plan area. As a result, FARs on individual parcels may range
from approximately 0.00:1 to 5.75:1. Eleven of the proposed parcels would have
no FAR at all because two parcels (No. 5 and 9) would only contain parking
structures, two parcels (No. 1, and 17) would only contain surface parking lots,
another three parcels (No. 21, 23, and 26) would contain common open space
areas, and four parcels (No. 10, 11, 12, and 13) represent the location of the
proposed fire station site and the five -acre recreational site. Any donor parcels
for FAR purposes will have covenants recorded stating the maximum FAR
permitted on the parcel. However, the Corporate Campus Specific Plan would
prohibit the overall FAR to exceed 0.99:1. For reference purposes, the maximum
allowed FAR in the MU -N Zone is 1.30:1.
The following table provides a breakdown of the proposed uses by parcel:
Parcel
No.
Bldg.
No.
Acres
Office
Area
R&D/
Telecom.
Hotel/
Conf.
Retail
Area
Restaurant
Total
Area
FAR
1
None
0.95
0.00
0.00
2
E, F, G-4
5.83
87,000
44,000
10,000
141,000
0.51
3
3
1.64
187,000
187,000
2.41
4
A
0.72
10,000
10,000
0.29
5
G -1
2.67
0.00
6
1,M
0.87
65,000
7,000
72,000
1.75
7
2, L
1.53
100,000
4,000
8,000
112,000
1.55
8
4
1.36
109,000
109,000
1.69
9
G -2
I
2.81
0.00
0.00
10
Park/Fire
Station
1.34
0.00
0.00
11
Park /Fire
Station
3.14
0.00
0.00
12
Park /Fire Station
152
t
0.00
0.00
13
Park /Fire Station
0.55
0.00
0.00
14
13
2.31
122,000
122,000
1.12
15
12, K
2.48
212,000
4,000
8,000
224,000
1.91
16
J, G -5
4.66
30,000
12,000
42,000
0.19
6 036
Parcel
Bldo.
No.
Acres
Office
Area
R&D/
Telecom.
Hotel/
Gonf,
Retail
Area
Restaurant
Total
Area
FAR
No.
17
None
0.52
0.00
0.00
18
1
0.74
6,000
8,000
14,000
0.40
19
9, G
1.83
172,000
9,000
6,000
187,000
2.16
20
10, H
1.77
155,000
4,000
6,000
165,000
1.97
21
None
0.81
0.00
0.00
22
5, B
1.05
279,000
7,000
286,000
5.75
23
None
0.94
0.00
0.00
24
6
1.92
215,000
215,000
2.371
25
11
1.56
289,000
289,000
3.911
26
None
1.01
0.00
0.00
TOTALS
46.53
1,740,000
165,000
87,000
108,000
75,000
2,175,000
0.99
Phasing
The proposed project would be built in ten phases over seven years with
construction expected to begin in 2002 and completion in 2009. The particular
building to be built in each phase would depend on market conditions at the time.
Each phase is currently expected to begin approximately 18 months apart. A
proposed phasing plan is included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(Page I1 -11).
This project description acknowledges that there are a variety of options and site
plan configurations, which may ultimately be developed within the overall
development envelope for the proposed El Segundo Corporate Campus Project.
The Project Description defines the project as to include several land uses
including: office, retail, hotel /conference, telecommunications /web hosting,
health club, restaurant, and day care. The Corporate Campus Specific Plan
would allow a maximum of 80 percent of the floor area (1,740,000 gross square
feet) to be developed with office uses. The remaining 20 percent (435,000 gross
square feet) would be required to be non -office uses permitted in the Corporate
Campus Specific Plan, s6ch as commercial, retail, and light industrial uses. Such
a proportional mix of uses would be consistent with the other projects approved
by the City in the MU -N Zone. The Grand Avenue Corporate Center (EA No.
430), the Proficiency Capital seven -story building addition (EA No. 539), and the
Douglas Technology Centre (EA No. 530) were all conditioned to require a
minimum of 20 percent non -office uses to ensure a mix of uses as required by
the zone.
7 037
Fire Station Site
The project site would also include a fire station site, approximately 1.0 -acre in
size to be dedicated to the City. The final fire station location is yet to be
determined. The site is currently depicted on Parcel No. 11 on the southeast
corner of the project at the intersection of Douglas Street and Mariposa Avenue.
Fire Station No. 2, currently at the corner of Nash Street and El Segundo
Boulevard would be relocated to this new location.
Park Site
The project also includes the City purchase of approximately five -acres of the
property (Parcels 10, 11, 12, and 13) in the southeast corner for use as a public
recreational facility. The land would be used for such things as soccer and
softball fields. The actual design of the recreational facilities and the amenities to
be provided would be determined by the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Through the Development Agreement, the purchase price of the parkland would
be a total of $5,000,000 ($1,000,000 per acre). This equals $22.95 per square
foot. The City had an independent appraisal performed, which estimated the fair
market value of the land to be $1,880,000 per acre or $37.50 per square foot.
Internal Roadways
The proposed project would also include the construction of internal roadways to
facilitate vehicle and pedestrian movements within and through the property. As
depicted on the proposed site plan, a portion of this internal road system would
link to the 1 -105 Freeway on -ramp at Atwood Way, another segment would serve
as an extension of Maple Avenue, and a portion would intersect with Duley Road
on the Mariposa Avenue side of the project site: The Maple Avenue extension
( "A" Street on Tentative Tract Map) and connector road to 1 -105 on ramp at
Atwood Way ( "B" Street on Tentative Tract Map) would be designed to meet full
public roadway widths defined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. By
constructing these roadways to meet full public roadway standards, the
developer would be eligible to offset a portion of the cost of construction against
the traffic mitigation fees that would be paid for the project, since these two
roadways would improve traffic circulation for the area, in addition to serving the
project. The remaining internal private roads would be slightly narrower than
public roadway widths and are intended as typical collector roadway that would
not tend to serve through traffic. As private roads, the applicant would be
required to provide all mbintenance on the roads. The applicant will be required
to record public access easements on all the internal private roadways to insure
access is provided to all parcels. No parking would be permitted along the
internal private roadways.
8 039
Utilities
Additionally, to partially offset the potential power needs of the proposed project,
an on -site power generation facility may be included in the project. If this
component were included, it would occupy a portion of one of the parking
structures. Such a power plant would be an approximately 15- megawatt, gas
turbine based, combined -cycle cogeneration facility, which would supply power
to all of the buildings in the project. The facility would be subject to permitting
and regulatory requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Page II -9) contains a more detailed
description.
If a large telecommunications /web hosting facility is included in the project under
the permitted mix of uses, an onsite electrical substation may be required due to
the unusually high electricity demands of such uses.
The proposed subdivision, which is based on the conceptual site plan, includes
26 separate parcels of land ranging from 0.52- to 5.83- acres. Minimum parcel
sizes in the Corporate Campus Specific Plan are consistent with the MU -N Zone.
All the proposed parcels would comply with the 10,000 square foot lot area
minimum. Each parcel would provide access to either one of the perimeter street
public rights -of -way or one of the proposed private internal roadways. The
Corporate Campus Specific Plan would not require all parcels to abut public
streets, as is the case in the MU -N Zone. All of the internal private roadways will
be required to be maintained for public access through the recording of
covenants or easements.
Parking
Parking is proposed to be provided primarily within five on -site parking structures
varying from seven to nine levels in height. As indicated on the site plan, each
structure would be sized to provide the required parking for the buildings
assigned to each structure. A total of 7,453 parking spaces are proposed in the
five parking structures. Additionally, 232 surface parking spaces would be
provided throughout the site, primarily adjacent to the commercial and restaurant
portions of the project. Based upon the parking requirements contained in the
Zoning Code, a total of 6,332 parking spaces would be required. A surplus of
1,353 parking spaces is proposed. The actual parking requirements depend on
the eventual breakdown of the mix of uses that are constructed.
Development Agreemeni
The proposed Development Agreement would also require the applicant to
provide the required parking for the parkland within adjacent parking structures
on the project site on a shared -use basis. By agreeing to this requirement, the
City will be saved the cost of construction parking spaces on the park site, saving
approximately $7,000- 12,000 per parking space, excluding land costs, and
enabling the full five -acres to be devoted to recreational uses.
9 039
The proposed Development Agreement establishes the permitted uses for the
proposed project and minimum and maximum floor areas for certain types of
uses as well. The proposed Development Agreement sets a nine -year duration
of the Agreement, which is consistent with the proposed phasing plan for the
project. The developer would also be entitled to request a five -year extension,
subject to the approval of the City Council. Typical Development Agreements
approved by the City, including the Agreement for the Grand Avenue Corporate
Center, have set terms with a similar length.
One provision of the Development Agreement provides for the dedication of
approximately one -acre of the property to the City for the construction of a
planned fire station to replace existing Fire Station No. 2. An exact location for
the proposed fire station parcel has not yet been identified. On the concept site
plan, it is shown on Parcel No. 11 at the southeast corner of the property. The
Development Agreement would allow the applicant to forego payment of the
standard $0.14 per square foot fire service mitigation fee in consideration for the
dedication of one -acre of land, appraised at approximately $1,880,000. The fire
service mitigation fee would have been approximately $304,500.
The Development Agreement would allow the applicant to offset a portion of the
cost of construction of the Maple Avenue extension and the Atwood Way 1 -105
Freeway on -ramp extension (Streets "A" and "B" on the Tract Map) and other off-
site mitigation measures against the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee that is
required.
The Development Agreement contains Section 3.1, which stipulates that the
Agreement is conditioned on the applicant's acquisition of the property. If TPG -El
Segundo, LLC does not purchase the property by January 1, 2006, all
entitlements granted as part of the project approval would be voided. The
entitlements would not transfer to the current property owner, Federal Express
Corporation, or any other party.
The City and the applicant have completed negotiations on the substantial
issues in the proposed Development Agreement. There may be minor
modifications made to the agreement to clarify provisions before the proposal
would be presented to the City Council for consideration. All of the provisions of
the proposed Development Agreement are recommendations by staff for
Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval.
VI. General Plan ConsisteAcy
The El Segundo General Plan land use designation for the proposed project is
currently Urban Mixed -Use North. This Urban Mixed -Use North designation was
originally adopted as the Urban Mixed -Use (MU) designation in 1993 for
purposes of changing the future land use patterns to seek a "mixture of office,
research and development, retail and hotel uses rather than industrial type uses.
10 040
The Urban Mixed -Use North land use designation is also intended to "allow for
the flexibility of uses near the three existing... Green Line transit stations."
The proposed project would change the designation of the project site to
Corporate Campus Specific plan. This new designation seeks a range of uses,
which promote employment and diversity. The proposed project and its
consistency with relevant Element Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City of
El Segundo General Plan are discussed below.
Economic Development
The General Plan also contains a number of relevant Goals, Objectives, and
Policies in the Economic Development Element. The goal of Objective ED1 -1 is
building "support and cooperation among the City of El Segundo and its
businesses and residential communities for the mutual benefits derived from the
maintenance and expansion of El Segundo's economic base ". Staff believes the
benefits of the development will be shared and supported by all constituencies in
the City. Staff believes the proposed project also provides benefits for the
applicant with important benefits for the community as a whole. The
development will provide significant fiscal benefit to the City. A Fiscal Impact
Analysis has been prepared for the project to estimate the fiscal benefits to the
City. The analysis is attached to this report (Exhibit B).
According to Policy ED1 -1.2, long -run efforts for economic development should
focus on "diversification of El Segundo's economic base in order to meet quality
of life goals." Staff is of the opinion that the project will add to the diversification
of the economic base in the City by providing for a mix of permissible uses and
requiring at least 20 percent of the uses be non - office. The proposed
telecommunications /web hosting use may serve as a catalyst for other internet
related companies to choose El Segundo as a location for their business
operations.
Objective ED1 -2 also directs diversification of the economic base "on targeted
industries that meet the City's criteria for job creation, growth potential, fiscal
impact and fit with local resources." The City's Economic Development Advisory
Council' (EDAC) prepared a list of targeted industries, which was approved by the
City Council. These industries are eligible for certain financial incentives because
they meet the criteria described in Objective ED1 -2. The research and
development and telecommunications /web hosting uses would be on the list of
targeted industries that the City is recruiting in order to meet its diversification
efforts. Therefore, the proposed project does meet the diversification criteria
established in the General Plan, by the EDAC, and the City Council.
Due to the City's tax structure, a significant portion of the fiscal benefit derived
from most proposed development would be attributed to the number of
employees in a new development. The reduced project is proposed to generate
approximately 6,722 full time jobs in El Segundo if developed as proposed.
11 041
Therefore, the project meets the job creation Objective (ED1 -2) in the General
Plan.
Policies ED1 -2.1 and ED1 -2.2, both seek to promote land uses, which improve
the City's retail and commercial tax base. Since the stated purpose of the
Corporate Campus Specific Plan Land Use Designation is to provide a mix of
compatible commercial, offices, research and development, retail, and hotel
uses, it is appropriate to examine the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed
project and compare them with other potential uses of the property. This will
enable the Commission to determine if the fiscal impact might be similar to land
uses, which promote growth and diversification of the tax base. The Fiscal
Impact Analysis shows that the fiscal benefits for the City would be consistent
with the estimates that were prepared for the Grand Avenue Corporate Center
(GACC).
The applicant for the proposed project prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis. The
Fiscal Impact Analysis for the proposed project concluded that the project could
generate an annual marginal fiscal benefit (project versus existing conditions) of
$1,389,100. This compares favorably to the $838,900 marginal fiscal benefit
estimated for the GACC (Plan B), which was a similar mixed -use project on half
the amount of land (23- acres) as the proposed project. Staff has independently
reviewed the assumptions used in the applicant's fiscal impact analysis and
agrees that they are consistent with the assumptions used in the City's own fiscal
model to determine the revenues and costs associated with the project.
The proposed project meets the City's policy of seeking balance between
enhanced economic development and available resources and infrastructure
capacity (Policies ED1 -2.3 and LU7 -1.2). As adequate resources are currently
available within the City to serve the proposed project, as supported by the Draft
EIR, a substantial new commitment of resources or infrastructure is not required.
The project also proposes several roadway improvements to ensure that the
project would not overburden the existing roadway infrastructure. A fire station
site will be dedicated to the City to further improve public services. Based on this,
staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with Policy ED1 -2.3.
Land Use
Staff has determined that the project, as proposed and as conditioned, is a
mixed -use project, as contemplated by the General Plan. The reduced project
would include approximately 108,000 gross square feet of commercial uses such
as retail sales and service, day care, health club. Research and development
and telecommunications /web hosting would comprise 165,000 gross square feet.
There would be approximately 75,000 gross square feet of restaurants. A 87,000
gross square foot hotel is also included in the mix of use in addition to the
1,740,000 gross square feet of office uses. Any combination of these other uses
would contribute to a diversification of the mixed -use nature of the project.
12 042
Implementation of the proposed project will meet relevant goals and policies with
regard to the Land Use Element. The project would have multiple tenants, retail
uses, probably restaurants, and other uses which would "provide synergistic
relationships which have the potential to maximize economic benefit, reduce
traffic impact, and encourage pedestrian environments" as envisioned by
General Plan Land Use Objective LU4-4. Staff believes that these characteristics
contribute to the mixed -use nature for the project. As conditioned, staff believes
that the proposed uses on the 46.53 -acre parcel is a mixed -use project as
envisioned in the General Plan for the property provided the non -office use has
approximately 435,000 square feet or a minimum of 20 percent of the square
footage proposed.
The proposed project would provide "high quality retail facilities in proximity to
major employment centers" (Objective LU4 -1). The project would "encourage
retail uses, where appropriate, on the ground floor of Urban Mixed -Use and
corporate gffices..." (Policy LU4 -3.1) and would be a "mixed -use developments
within one - quarter mile of the Green Line Stations" encouraged by Policy LU4 -
3.2.
Objective LU44 contains a number of Policies, specifically, LU4 -4.3, LU4 -4.4,
LU4 -4.6, and LU44.8, which discuss the promotion of mixed -use projects in the
Urban Mixed -Use Zone. While the project would change the Urban Mixed -Use
North Zone to the Corporate Campus Specific Plan, the mix of uses is consistent
with the Mixed -Use North designation. Therefore, the land use policies that apply
to the Mixed -Use designation would apply to the project as well.
The proximity of the existing Norwalk-El Segundo MTA Green Line stations will
encourage employee utilization of this transportation facility and will provide a
viable alternative to commuting by automobile. The applicant shall also construct
a Bike Station next to the Mariposa -Nash Green Line station (mitigation measure
No. B -4) to support alternative commuting (Policies LU4 -3.2, LU4 -3.4, LU4 -4.7,
and C3 -1.2, and Objective AQ3 -1). The project has been designed to provide
the higher density buildings within a one - quarter mile radius of the Mariposa -
Nash Green Line station to facilitate public transit use. Commercial uses have
also been concentrated along the west side of the project nearest the Green Line
station (LU 4 -4.4 and LU 4 -4.6). The proposed project will be accessible by other
public transit (i.e., bus service, and the MTA Blue Line) and provide a shuttle van
to the City for expanded public transit uses (mitigation measure No. B -2).
As provided in condition of approval No. 6, the proposed project will include
landscaping throughout all project areas that will meet coverage requirements of
the City (Policy LU4 -1.1 and LU4 -3.6). The proposed project will be required to
have strategic safety plans (MM L.1 -2) and a fire life safety plan (MM L.2 -2) in
place, as well as a fire station site adjacent to the project (LU 7 -1.1 and LU 7-
1.2). All on -site utilities will be placed underground (LU7 -2.3). The potential
cogeneration facility and electrical substation would be incorporated into the
building architecture and screened to not detract from the appearance of the
project (LU7 -2.5). The El Segundo Municipal Code requires that all health and
13 043
safety Code regulations, as well as all seismic safety, water, noise, and air
standards be adhered to (LU4 -1.2 and LU4 -1.4)
Circulation
The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the City's Circulation
Element. Consistent with mitigation measure B -1, B -2, B -3, and B-4, the
proposed project provides pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and storage
facilities and shower and clothes change facilities (Policies C2 -2.2 and C3 -1.7).
The project will have sidewalks around the perimeter, walkways along all the
internal roadways, and other internal pedestrian walkways with linkages to
surrounding properties and public transit stops (C2 -1.3, C2 -1.6, and C2 -3.3). The
proposed project will adhere to any applicable regulations regarding preferential
parking areas or promotion of ride share (Policy C2 -5.1). The proposed project
will provide sufficient on -site parking and loading (Policy C3 -2.1 and C1 -3.2) as
required by the El Segundo Municipal Code. The internal roadways will be a
minimum of 37 feet wide, which meets all applicable emergency vehicle access
standards (C1 -1.8). Implementation of mitigation measures B -1, B -2, B -3, and
B-4 will ensure that pedestrian and bicycle impacts, as well as parking related
impacts, as they relate to the General Plan, will be mitigated to less than
significant levels.
Policies C3 -1.1 and C3 -1.5 of the General Plan require all project - related
transportation impacts to be mitigated, where feasible, by the developer, The
traffic impact study identified a number of intersections in the City that would
require mitigation and identified mitigation measures to address the traffic
impacts. However, because two of the proposed mitigation measures are
infeasible due to right -of -way constraints, not all traffic impacts can be mitigated
to an insignificant level. In order for the City to approve the project with
significant impacts, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations finding that there are positive aspects of the project, that when
taken as a whole, outweigh the unavoidable negative 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. For further analysis of traffic impacts, refer to Section IX of this
report.
Open Space and Recreation
Implementation of the proposed project will meet the policies of the City's Open
Space and Recreation Element as it provides recreational facilities, including a
health club and walking paths (Policies OS1 -2.3 and OS1 -2.5, OS1 -2.8). Parcel
21, 23, and 26which equal 2.73- acres, would be devoted entirely to passive open
space use with a water feature. The reduced project also incorporates five -acres
in the southeast corner of the property for public recreational facilities such as
14
044
soccer and baseball fields, which would expand the recreational opportunities for
residents and employees in the City (Goal OS1, Objective OS1 -1.1). In
accordance with California Government Code § 65402, the location, purpose and
extent of the acquisition of the five -acres of parkland is in conformance with the
General Plan.
Air Quality
The implementation of transportation demand management programs, as
required by mitigation measures B -1 (TDM measures), B -2 (shuttle bus), B -3
(bike station), B -4 (bike amenities), and B -5 (centralized TMO), and as required
by Chapters 15 -16 and 15 -17 of the El Segundo Municipal Code will
demonstrate compliance with air quality objectives to encourage alternative
commuting strategies (AQ1 -1), reduce vehicle trips (AQ3 -1.1, AQ3 -1.2), and
promote non - motorized transportation (AQ4 -1.1). Approximately $3,700,000 in
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees and in lieu mitigation measures are required by
City regulation to offset development impacts (AQ5 -1.2) related to the reduced
project. The applicant, as required by mitigation measure B -2 (AQ9 -1.3), will
provide a shuttle bus to the City to provide transportation to the Green Line and
downtown. The applicant has also agreed to provide a second shuttle bus to the
City. The proposed project is consistent with the City's policy requiring new
developments to meet or exceed SCAQMD requirements for PM -10 emissions
(Policy AQ10 -1.3). Mitigation measure M.5 -1 provides that the proposed project
will incorporate energy conservation features (i.e., motion - sensitive light
activation switches, etc.) consistent with City (Policy AQ12 -1.2). For further
analysis of air quality impacts, refer to Section VIII of this report.
Noise
Implementation of the proposed project, subject to mitigation measures D -1, D -2,
and D -3, which address construction hours, equipment mufflers, and
construction equipment staging, will be consistent with relevant policies of the
City's Noise Element (Policies N1 -2.1 and N1 -3.1).
Conservation
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies of the City's
Conservation Element. Specifically, the construction of plumbing to
accommodate the use of reclaimed water for irrigation systems, when available,
and the application of the City's Water Conservation in Landscape regulations
(Title 10- Chapter 2 of the El Segundo Municipal Code), as required by mitigation
measure M.2 -1 and M.2 -2 and condition of approval No. 8, 84, 85 and 86, would
be consistent and further Policies CN2 -7, CN2 -12. Condition No. 85 requires the
use of low -flow water fixtures as required by Policy CN2 -5. The project would
provide a comprehensive and coordinated design of the entire project site,
including landscape amenities to substantially improve the aesthetic appearance
of the site and the surrounding area as encouraged by Policy CN5 -6.
15 045
Pubic Safety
Public Safety Element Policy PS6 -1.2 to continue efforts to reduce fire hazards
would be furthered by including a one -acre fire station site as part of the
proposed project, thereby allowing the relocation of Fire Station No. 2 to a new
state -of- the -art facility within the project site. A new fire station located within the
project site would also improve already outstanding emergency response times
and strengthen the City's ability to respond to earthquake and other emergencies
(Policy CN7 -1.4).
Hazardous Materials and Waste Management
As a re -use of a previously developed industrial site, that has been remediated to
the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agencies and does not pose any
health hazard to employees, patrons or visitors to the site, the project is
consistent,with Policy HM3 -1.1 requiring compliance with hazardous materials
handling laws. Mitigation measure K -1 will ensure that all future uses of
hazardous materials on the project site are handled in accordance with
applicable safety regulations.
Zoninq Consistency
The following table compares the proposed site development standards in the
Corporate Campus Specific Plan to the current MU -N Zone and compares the
proposed project against the proposed standards. Where specific standards are
not provided within the Corporate Campus Specific Plan, the requirements of the
El Segundo Zoning Code would apply.
CORPORATE
MU -N ZONE
CAMPUS
PROPOSED
REQUIREMENTS
STANDARDS
SPECIFIC PLAN
PROJECT
Building Area
1.3:1 FAR
0.99:1 overall
0.00:1 to
(Floor Area Ratio)
5.75 FAR*
Lot Area
10,000 s.f. min.
10,000 s.f. min.
22,651 s.f.
min.
Street Frontage
100' min.
100' min.
102' min. **
Building Height
'175' max.
175' max.
175' max.
Setbacks
Front
30' min.
15' min.
15' min. * **
Side
(Interior)
25' min.
5' min.
5' min. * **
16
04.6
MU -N ZONE
REQUIREMENTS STANDARDS
(Street Side) 30' min.
Rear
(interior) 5' min.
(Street Side) 30' min.
Landscaping
a) Vehicular - 5% of VUA
Use Area
b) Building - 5' min.
perimeter
c) Property Fully Landscaped
perimeter
CORPORATE
CAMPUS PROPOSED
SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT *
15' min. 15' min. * **
5' min. 5' min. * **
15' min. 15' min. * **
5% of VUA 5% min.
5' min. 5' min.
Fully landscaped Fully
Landscaped
Parking Spaces 6,322 spaces 6,332 spaces 7,685 spaces
* While the overall FAR in the Corporate Campus Specific Plan would not be
permitted to exceed 0.99:1, individual parcels within the plan area could
exceed 0.99:1 as long as the overall FAR was not exceeded.
** Not all parcels within the Corporate Campus Specific Plan would have street
frontage on a public roadway. Parcel No.s 3, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
and 26 would have a minimum of 100 feet of frontage along one of the internal
private roadways. These roadways will be required to be maintained for the
required public access to the internal parcels.
** *The Corporate Campus Specific Plan would require setbacks adjacent to the
four perimeter public roadways to be a minimum of 15 feet. Additionally a 15
foot setback from all the internal private roadway curbs is proposed. Other
interior property line setbacks would be a minimum of 5 feet.
Due to the conceptual nature of the proposed plans, and the possibility that the
final building locations and configurations may be different than depicted on the
proposed site plan, conformance with all of the development standards will be
required prior to the issuance of each building permit.
17 0 A f
VII. Inter - Departmental Comments
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
DEPARTMENT
COMMENT
City Manager' Office
None received as of November 9, 2001.
The Building Safety Division commented that all buildings
located next to parcel lines shall meet the Uniform Building
Building Safety
Code requirements for exterior wall and opening protection,
that geotechnical reports for all buildings will be required, all
buildings will require fire sprinklers, accessible path of travel
shall be provided between all parcels and structures, and an
on -site inspection trailer shall be required for City staff during
construction.
The Department of Recreation and Parks commented that
Recreation and Parks
Alternative Project E in the DEIR should indicate the one -acre
fire station land would be separate and not included within the
five -acre park.
The Police Department commented that since the project was
still in the conceptual stage of design, specific safety and
security recommendations could not be made yet. They also
provided a checklist of standard comments related to lighting,
Police
addressing, entrances, landscaping, door and window
hardware, walls, dumpsters, parking areas, ladders, dock
areas, security cameras, site directories, pools, telephones,
alarms, security personnel, and other security details. The
Traffic Division commented on the need for adequate parking,
loading dock access, and street ingress and egress.
Finance
None received as of November 9, 2001
The Fire Department provided comments related to
Fire
requirements for fire mains and hydrants, emergency vehicle
access, automatic fire extinguisher systems, fire alarm
systems, high -rise building requirements, exits and exit signs,
and possible locations of Fire Station No. 2.
Library
None received as of November 9, 2001.
18 048
DEPARTMENT
COMMENT
The Public works Department requested that the Atwood Way
median be landscaped and that the power poles along
Mariposa, Nash and Douglas Streets be undergrounded by the
applicant to improve aesthetics.
Traffic comments were related to insuring internal roadways
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), verifying
that permits from adjacent agencies and Caltrans are required,
questioning the feasibility of mitigation measure B -9 to add a
Public Works
fourth through lane to southbound Sepulveda Boulevard at the
intersection of Rosecrans Avenue, commenting on the impact
of conversion of Nash - Douglas streets to two -way traffic,
recommending elimination of Atwood Way driveways, and
requesting analysis of Duley /Mariposa intersection.
Other comments pertained to requesting the use of reclaimed
water for landscaping, ensuring Congestion Management Plan
conformance by balancing debits /credits, and requesting
handicap accessibility be reviewed for all public sidewalks.
This report incorporates all the interdepartmental comments received as of
November 9, 2001 (Exhibit C). Additional comments from public agencies and
other interested parties are attached as Exhibit D. As additional comments are
received before the November 15, 2001 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
November 8, 2001, in the Final EIR prior to review by the City Council.
Staff has incorporated all of the Building Safety Manager's comments into the
draft conditions of approval.
The Police Department's comments have been incorporated by reference into
the drat conditions of approval (No. 24) as part of Draft Resolution No. 2517. A
strategic security plan, as required by mitigation measures No. L.1 -2, will also
address the security issues raised by the Police Department.
The Fire Department's comments have been incorporated by reference into
condition of approval No. X15.
The Department of Public Works commented that Atwood Way should be
landscaped and utility poles along Mariposa Avenue, and Nash and Douglas
Streets around the project should be placed underground at the applicant's
expense to improve aesthetics. The poles are owned by Southern California
Edison and the applicant is not required to improve the aesthetics in the public
right -of -way. Additionally, the Draft EIR did not identify aesthetics created by the
19 049
project as creating a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, there is
no nexus, as required by law, to require the undergrounding of off -site utility
poles.
Staff has developed a draft condition of approval to address a number of traffic
related issues raised by the Public Works Department. Condition No. 54 requires
the submittal of a Traffic, Circulation and Parking Plan for each building or
project area to ensure implementation of site specific traffic designs that mitigate
impacts of the final building designs. This would include warrant studies and
deceleration lanes for intersections and driveway access points, including those
on Atwood Way. Staff will review the proposed condition to insure that all of the
issues raised by the Public Works Department would be addressed in condition
No. 54. Condition No. 62 requires City of Los Angeles approval for 1 -105 off -
ramp restriping. Draft condition No. 64 is intended to address the conversion of
Nash - Douglas one -way couplet to two —way traffic.
The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) requires a full
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) of the CMP Network when an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is prepared. Such TIA was prepared and
incorporated into the EIR. The project is proposed to be conditioned (condition
No. 51) to require the balancing of all CMP debits and credits to insure that the
proposed project does not cause the City to become non - compliant with regard
to our credit balance. The City could lose Gas Tax revenue from the State if a
positive credit/debit balance was not maintained. Condition No. 59 has been
drafted to address the construction design and maintenance of the proposed
private roadway, as suggested by the Public Works Department.
The proposed project includes mitigation measures M.2 -1 and M.2 -2, as well as
condition No.s 8, 84, 85 and 86 to require the use of reclaimed water for
irrigation, when reclaimed water becomes available. The Department of Public
Works has also requested that the existing asphalt concrete paved raised
median in Atwood way be landscaped. Staff has incorporated this request into
condition No. 6 of the draft resolution No. 2517.
VIII. Envirdnmental Review
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to
the requirements of CEQA. The City hired the firm of Christopher A. Joseph and
Associates (CAJA) to prepare the EIR. The City independently reviewed all work
products prepared by CAJA. Pursuant to CEQA requirements, a Notice of
Preparation of the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review from
May 11, 2001 to June 11, 2001. The public review and comment period for the
Draft EIR extends from September 24, 2001 to November 8, 2001. In
accordance with the City's local CEQA guidelines (City Council Resolution No.
3805), the Planning Commission is conducting a public hearing on October 25,
November 8, and 17, 2001, to take public testimony on the Draft EIR and make
recommendations to the City council. Revisions to the Draft EIR, responses to
20
050
comments received from the public by November 8, 2001, as well as written
comments from the public, governmental agencies, and other interested parties
during the public review period received by November 8, 2001, will be prepared
and will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). As
required by law, the responses to comments received by November 8, 2001 will
be distributed to the public who request a copy and all responsible agencies who
comment on the Draft EIR 10 days prior to the City Council hearing on the
project. The City Council action will be to determine whether or not to certify the
Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Exhibit A — Attachment H). The City Council is scheduled to conduct a
public hearing on the project on December 4, 2001,
The Draft EIR analyzed a larger project than the reduced project currently being
proposed by the applicant. The Draft EIR examined the environmental impacts of
a project with a maximum permitted FAR of 1.15:1. The reduced project is 15
percent smaller than the project discussed in the Draft EIR. The mix of office
commercial, R & D, light industrial, restaurants that are proposed in the reduced
project is consistent with the mix of uses studied in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR
studied the impact of a project with 2,000,000 gross square foot of office
(approximately 80 percent) and 550,000 gross square feet of non -office uses.
The environmental impacts for the proposed reduced project are within the
scope of the project studied in the Draft EIR. The discussion below is based on
the larger project. More detailed analysis of the net change in impacts for the
reduced project will be discussed in the Final EIR.
Summary of EIR Conclusions
Based on public comments in response to the Notice of Preparation and a review
of environmental issues by staff, it was determined that the Draft EIR would
analyze the following environmental impact areas: traffic, air quality, noise, geology
and soils, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, aesthetics, land use,
pollution /housing /employment, hazardous materials, public services, and utilities.
The Draft EIR concluded that all potentially significant project related impacts
identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of traffic and air quality impacts, 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 1 -1
(page 1 -7) of the Draft EIR summarize 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 environmental areas with
significant unavoidable impacts.
Traffic
As part of the Draft EIR, Crain & Associates prepared a Traffic Impact Study to
analyze the potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed project. The
Study analyzed the project traffic impacts on 28 intersections in the area, and
factored in several planned roadway improvements, and other planned and
approved projects in the area. These included major projects, such as the
21 051
expansion of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and redevelopment of the
Los Angeles Air Force Base, which may be very speculative at this point in time.
As a result, the traffic study takes a very conservative approach to measuring
growth from projects that may affect traffic in the City. Based on the applicant's
estimated project completion in the 2009, the future traffic conditions with the
proposed project were estimated. The study also examined future traffic conditions
with the Nash - Douglas couplet operating as both one -way and two -way streets.
The Traffic Impact Study concluded that the forecasted average daily trip
generation for the original proposed project would be 24,845, of which 2,563 trips
would be in the A.M. peak hour and 3,170`trips would be in the P.M. peak hour.
Based on the reduced project, approximately 2,186 trips would be generated in the
A.M. and 2,631 in the P.M. The total average daily trips for the reduced project
would be approximately 20,013. This would be a 24 percent reduction in average
daily trips.
For the original project, the Study identified two intersections which would require
mitigation during the A.M. peak hour only, two intersections during the P.M. peak
hour only and two intersections during and A.M. and P.M. to reduce to
insignificance project related impacts with one -way operation. With two -way
operation, one intersections in the A.M. peak hour only, three in the P.M. peak
hour only, and two in the A.M. and PM. Peak hours were identified with significant
deficiencies. An analysis of the cumulative traffic from 28 nearby projects was also
conducted to determine the percent contribution of the proposed project to
overall /cumulative traffic growth in the area. The study identified 18 intersections
that would be significantly impacted by cumulative growth with one -way operations
and 19 significantly impacted intersection with two -way operations. It should be
pointed out that CEQA does not require a project to mitigate all cumulative growth,
only its fare share contribution toward cumulative impacts.
Based on the original project, the Draft EIR recommends a number of mitigation
measures (B -1 through B -5) to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with
the proposed project and several potential roadway improvement projects
(Mitigation measures B -6 though B -14) to improve the traffic flow at the
intersections directly impacted by the proposed project. With one -way or two -way
operations on the Nash - Douglas couplet, mitigation measures would include
intersection improvements at Imperial Boulevard /Sepulveda Boulevard, El
Segundo Boulevard /Sepulveda Boulevard. With one -way operation of the Nash
Douglas couple, ramp modifications to 1 -105 off -ramp at Nash Street, and on -ramp
and intersection modifications to the 1 -105 on -ramp at Atwood Way would be
required. With two -way operations of the Nash - Douglas couplet, intersection
modifications at the 1 -105 on -ramp at Atwood Way and improvements at the
intersection of El Segundo Boulevard /Douglas Street would be needed.
However, the study concluded that proposed mitigation measures B -9 and B -10,
which affect the intersections of Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue and
Rosecrans Avenue /Aviation Boulevard, were not feasible due to right -of -way
acquisition requirements that are not possible due to the location of existing
buildings or structures. As a result, significant unavoidable project related traffic
22 0 5 `'
impacts would remain at these intersections. The proposed mitigation measures at
the other identified impact intersection would reduce the traffic impacts to
insignificant levels. The Final EIR will include an analysis of the need for all the
identified mitigation measures for the reduced project.
Additionally, since the final design of the project has not been developed, staff has
drafted condition No. 54 to require the submittal of a Traffic, Circulation and
Parking Plan prior to the issuance of each building permit to ensure that site
specific traffic issues have been fully evaluated. This condition will also be used to
determine at what point specific off -site Improvements or mitigation measures
must be implemented. Since the precise mix of land uses may differ from those
described above, Condition No. 28 would institute a trip cap based on trip
generation identified in the EIR. The trip cap would limit the number of project
generated vehicle trips to 20,013 per day based on the reduced project. This
would insure that no matter the mix of commercial and office uses that are
ultimately feveloped on the project site, the traffic impacts would not exceed the
levels evaluated in the EIR.
Air Quality
According to the Draft EIR, the originally proposed project will have negative air
quality impacts associated with project related mobile source emissions and
microscale Carbon Monoxide emissions. When comparing the proposed
emissions from mobile sources associated with the proposed project to the
South Coast Air Quality Management's (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for
criteria pollutants, the EIR concluded that the project would exceed the
thresholds for Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and Nitrous Oxides (NO,,) at
partial buildout in 2005. At full buildout of the project in the year 2010, Carbon
Monoxide (CO) would also exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Because the degree of
"excess" emissions substantially exceed the strict SCAQMD limits, the Draft EIR
concluded that there was little potential for any mitigation measures to reduce
the projects mobile emissions. As a result, the project's impacts will remain
significant and unavoidable. At this point, staff does not believe that the reduced
project would eliminate the significant impact due to the 15 percent reduction in
project size.
The Draft EIR concluded that the originally proposed project would exceed the
state eight -hour microscale CO "hot spot" exposure limits of 20 parts per million
(ppm) at four intersections due to the project traffic volumes. Additionally, the
cumulative effects of the approved project identified in the Draft EIR, in
combination with the proposed projects' would be cumulatively significant for
both the State one -hour and eight -hour CO "hot spot" standards. The cumulative
one -hour impacts would affect three intersections in the P.M. peak hour only and
the cumulative eight -hour impacts would affect four intersections. Therefore,
there are significant individual and cumulative impacts for CO microscale "hot
spots ". However, the Draft EIR was not able to identify any feasible mitigation
measures available that would reduce the project related eight -hour significant
impact or the cumulative impacts. As a result, these impacts would remain
23
053
significant and unavoidable. While the reduced project would lower these
impacts, the impacts may remain unavoidable and significant with the reduced
project. New "hot spot" analysis is being conducted and will be included in the
Final EIR.
As indicated above, the Draft EIR identifies significant project related traffic
impacts at two intersections and significant air quality impact 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 concerns can be
made by the City Council. CEQA Section 16093(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 applicant 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. Based on the consistency of the project with the General
Plan as described earlier, the dedication of a fire station site, the inclusion of a
public recreational component, the public use of internal roadways, the creation
of approximately 6,722 jobs, and the other economic and social benefits that will
derive to the City, and the nature of the unavoidable impacts, subject to any
modifications or revisions to the project that may be included in the Final EIR,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the overriding benefits
of the project outweigh the environmental impacts and recommend to the City
Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration as required by
CEQA.
Cumulative Impacts
The Draft EIR also identified three cumulative impacts, to which the proposed
project would contribute. In each of the cases, the project impact is insignificant
but cumulatively considerable when the impacts of other future planned projects
are also considered.
Traffic noise impacts at a number of intersections in the project area would
exceed the established three - decibel increase threshold (page IV.D -12 of Draft
EIR). Traffic noise is directly related to traffic volume. The traffic noise levels
from the project alone do not create a project specific noise impact. However,
when combined with the traffic noise levels associated with other known projects,
the traffic noise level would exceed the established threshold. Therefore, the
project would contribute to a unavoidable cumulative impact. The reduction in the
24 054
size of the proposed project could reduce the number of impacted intersections,
due to the reduction of trips associated with the reduced project size. New traffic
noise analysis is being conducted and will be included in the Final EIR.
Based on the disparity between projected job growth and housing construction,
the Draft EIR concluded that the proposed projects incremental contribution to
growth and housing demand would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a
significant cumulative impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures
available to reduce the cumulative regional impact.
Finally, the Draft EIR also concluded that the project would contribute to a
significant cumulative impact on solid waste disposal capacity caused by regional
growth. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the
cumulative regional impact.
IX. Application Findings
In order to approve the project, the City Council must take certain actions related
to the proposed project. The Planning Commission's responsibility is to make
recommendations to the City Council related to the CEQA, Specific Plan,
Development Agreement, Administrative Use Permit, Zone Change, Zone Text
Amendment, General Plan Amendment, and Subdivision applications. The
required findings for each of the applications is attached as Exhibit E. A detailed
discussion of each required finding is provided below.
CEQA Findings
1. The Draft EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; (Section 15090) An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to
the requirements of CEQA. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was
prepared and circulated for public review from May 11, 2001 to June 11,
2001. The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR extends from
September 24, 2001 to November 8, 2001. A Notice of Completion was filed
with the State Clearinghouse on September 24, 2001.
2. The�Final EIR will be presented to the City Council, which will review and
consider information contained in the Final EIR before approving or denying
the project; (Section 15090). Pursuant to City CEQA Regulations, the Final
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 Planning and Building Safety, 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 Final EIR will reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis
(Section 15090). The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and
25 055
analyzed the Draft EIR prepared for the Project. This Draft EIR is an
accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of
the project. The Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The
Final EIR will be prepared under the direction of the City of El Segundo
Department of Community, Economic and Development Services and will
reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts
and comments received on the Draft EIR.
5. 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. (Section 15091). The reduction of the
project from 2.55 million gross square feet to 2.00 million gross square feet
will lessen potential impacts of the proposed project. Any further potential
changes or alterations to the project or proposed mitigation measures will be
addressed and analyzed in the Final EIR.
6. The lack of available right -of -way required to implement mitigation measures
B -9 and B -10 (intersections of Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue and
Rosecrans Avenue /Aviation Boulevard, respectively) make these mitigation
measures infeasible. All project alternatives, with the exception of Alternative
E (Park Alternative) in the Draft EIR, are infeasible because they do not meet
the project objectives identified in the Draft EIR and the Corporate Campus
Specific Plan (Section 15091).
7. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment in the time
and manner prescribed by CEQA. The Draft EIR concluded that with
mitigation the proposed project will not have a significant, adverse effect on
the environment, with the exception of unavoidable traffic and air quality
impacts;
8. 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
Specific Plan Findings
9. The Corporate Campus Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan is consistent with the
permitted uses and allowed density permitted elsewhere in the General Plan
and is consistent with the Urban Mixed -Use North Zone that it is replacing.
The proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan addresses all the required
infrastructure needed to service the plan area and all services are available to
support the development.
General Plan Amendment Findings
10.Since approving a specific plan is a legislative act, there are no required
26
0 56
findings for a General Plan Amendment. However, an amendment must be
internally consistent with the rest of the General Plan. The proposed General
Plan Amendment is necessary to carry out the proposed project because the
proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan would change the land use
designation from the property from Urban Mixed -Use North to Corporate
Campus Specific Plan. The permitted uses and allowed density in the new
Corporate Campus Specific Plan land use designation are consistent with
Urban Mixed -Use North land use designation. The proposed land use
designation is also consistent with all the buildout assumptions in the General
Plan. Therefore, it would not conflict with any other elements of the General
Plan.
Zone Change Findings
11.The proposed Zone Change is necessary to carry out the proposed project
because the proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan would change the
zoning classification from the property from MU -N to CCSP. The proposed
Zone Change is necessary to maintain consistency with the proposed
General Plan land uses designation of Corporate Campus Specific Plan.
Without the Corporate Campus Specific Plan, the project objective of allowing
flexible parcel floor area ratios within the overall plan area of 0.99:1 would not
be possible. Flexible floor area ratios on individual parcels would allow
density to be concentrated on certain parcels near the Mariposa -Nash Metro
Green Line Station to promote public transit use, thereby promoting less lot
coverage and more open space on other parcels within the specific plan area.
Zone Text Amendment Findings
12.The proposed Zone Text Amendment is necessary to carry out the proposed
project because the proposed Corporate .Campus Specific Plan would
change the zoning classification from the property from MU -N to CCSP.
Without the Corporate Campus Specific Plan, the project objective of allowing
flexible parcel floor area ratios within the overall plan area of 0.99:1 would not
be possible. An amendment to Section 15 -3 -2 of the ESMC to list the CCSP
as a specific plan within the City is necessary for consistency with the
General Plan.
Development Agreement Findings
13.As set forth is Section VI above, the project is consistent with the objectives,
policies, general lands uses, and programs specified in the general plan and
the proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan. In addition, the Development
Agreement would provide the following public benefits in exchange for
valuable development rights (nine -year entitlement):
(a) Development of a property that is currently vacant and unused.
(b) Increasing and further stabilizing the City's tax base through development
of new commercial businesses.
27 0 57
(c) Increase in employment opportunities for the City's citizenry.
(d) Increasing City revenues through the generation of taxes that outweigh
the City cost of services.
(e) Development of a project that will increase the use of the MTA Green
Line.
(f) Development of a project that is consistent with the elements of the
General Plan.
(g) Dedication of a one -acre site for the relocation of Fire Station No. 2.
(h) Contribution of one or more shuttle vans to the City for the expansion of
City operated public transit routes.
(i) Construction of a Bike Station adjacent to the Nash - Mariposa Green Line
Station.
Q) Acquisition of approximately five -acres of land for public recreational
facilities at below market costs.
(k) Parking for the public park site would be provided by the applicant,
thereby reducing the City's development costs for the construction of a
park site.
(1) The project would reduce the maximum permitted floor area ratio on the
property from 1.3:1 to 0.99:1.
14.The project is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations
prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located. The
proposed project includes a specific plan, which establishes the permitted
uses and development standards that would apply to the project. These uses
and development standards are similar and compatible with the existing uses
and standards permitted in the current MU -N zoning on the property.
15.The project is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare and
good land use practice, as described in Section 1X.12. above. The proposed
reduced project permits a lower floor area ratio than allowed under the
existing MU -N zoning (0.99:1 vs. 1.3:1). The project would facilitate
constructing a new fire station, through the dedication of land. The project
would also be designed to support and encourage public transportation uses
and contribute to the continued diversification of the northeast quadrant of the
City by providing a broad range of commercial uses.
i
16.The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare.
As established in Section VIII of this report, the proposed project will not
create any negative environmental impacts, with the exception of traffic
impacts at two already congested intersections and air quality impacts due to
mobile sources. They City Council is responsible for determining if there are
overriding considerations, which outweigh the identified unavoidable
environmental consequences of the project.
17.The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or
the preservation of property values. The proposed Corporate Campus
Specific Plan and development agreement will ensure that the project will be
2a 058
developed in an orderly fashion. All mitigation measures will be implemented
at the time and place impacts occur.
Based upon our review, it is the opinion of staff that the Planning Commission
should recommend that the City Council make the findings outlined above
related to the proposed Development Agreement. The project is consistent with
the purposes of the proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan and the current
MU -N Zone, and it is compatible with its surrounding developments. The project
will promote public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice,
will not create any unmitigated environmental impacts which would be injurious
to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and would serve to
improve property values in the area by providing a long -term master plan for the
project site. Each Finding is contained in Draft Resolution No. 2517 and is
supported by substantial evidence as noted in the Resolution.
Subdivision Findings
18.The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570 is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code §
65451. Each proposed lot will be consistent with the minimum lot size and
minimum street frontage requirements proposed in the Corporate Campus
Specific Plan. All parcels will have frontage on a public street or a private
internal roadway.
19.The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans. Each proposed lot would be consistent
in size and lot frontage as other parcels in the surrounding area.
20.The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The vacant 46.53 -
acre parcel of land is generally flat and has been graded following the
demolition of the previous development on the site. The proposed project is
physically accessible by existing streets and the MTA Green Line.
21. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. While
the floor area ratio of two of the proposed 26 parcels would have densities
exceeding 3.0:1, due to the requirement that the overall FAR in the proposed
Corporate Campus Specific Plan not exceed an overall FAR of 0.99:1, the
density of individual parcels will not be detrimental to the overall project or the
surrounding area.
22.The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed project is located in a built out
urban environment with no threatened fish or wildlife habitats located on the
project site. The project was also previously developed with light industrial
uses from 1953 to 1990. The proposed layout of the development does not
contribute to the unavoidable significant traffic and air quality impacts
identified in the Draft EIR. With the implementation of the appropriate
29 059
mitigation measures, the proposed subdivision will not cause any significant
environmental impacts, with the exception of unavoidable traffic and air
quality impacts. Those mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR have
been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
23. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The size and shape of all lots will protect
public health. The proposed internal roadway to serve the subdivision will be
designed to provide safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian movements
throughout the project site. Subdivision improvements will be required to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
24.The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision. The project applicant will relocate or
build goer the exiting sewer easement on the property. The MTA aerial
easement will not be disturbed by the design of the proposed project. The
project will also include a system of private internal roadways to provide
public access to all the buildings throughout the subdivision.
Administrative Use Permit Findings
25.There is compatibility of the particular use on the particular site in relationship
to other existing and potential uses within the general area in which the use is
proposed to be located. The on -site sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages is consistent with restaurants and hotels facilities. Most, if not all of
the restaurants and hotels in the northeast quadrant of the City, permit the
on -site sale and consumption of alcohol.
26. The proposed use is consistent and compatible with the purpose of the zone
in which the site is located. The on -site sale and consumption of alcohol is
compatible with restaurants and hotels, which are permitted uses in the
proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan.
27. The proposed location and use and the conditions under which the use would
be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity
through the implementation of Condition No. 12. The on -site sale and
consumption of alcohol would be permitted at indoor and outdoor dining
establishments, subject to the approval of licenses to sell alcohol issued by
the State Departmenbof Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC).
28. Potential impacts that could be generated by the proposed use, such as
noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, traffic and hazards have been
recognized and compensated for. There would be no adverse environmental
impacts associated with the on -site sale and consumption of alcohol.
30 060
29.The State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control will issue a license to sell
alcohol to the applicant. The City will require evidence that all establishments
have alcohol licenses issued by ABC prior to commencement of on -site sale
of alcohol.
X. Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the proposed reduced project, subject to the conditions
contained in Draft Resolution No. 2517.
Xi. Exhibits
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2517
A. Conditions of Approval
B. Draft Corporate Campus Specific Plan
C. Land Use Element Text Change
D. Land use Element Exhibit LU -3
E. Land Use Map
F. Zoning Map
G. Draft Development Agreement
a) Property Description
b) Assignment and Assumption Agreement
c) Tentative Phasing Plan
d) Development Fee Schedule
e) Purchase and Sale Agreement
H. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
B. Fiscal Impact Analysis
C. Interdepartmental Comments
D. Public Agency and Other Comments
E. Required Findings
F. Applications
G. Plans
H. Draft EIR (Distributed separately on September 27, 2001)
Paul Garry, Senior Plan
i i`
J mes M. Hansen, Director
C rnra nity, Economic, and Development Services
PAPlanning & Building Safety \PROJECTS \526 - 550 \Ea - 548 \EA- 548.SR ver.4.doc
31 061
062
RESOLUTION NO. 4241
A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
REGARDING AN APPLICATION FROM TPG -El SEGUNDO
PARTNERS, LLC CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
548, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 01 -1, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 01 -1, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01 -2, ZONE
CHANGE NO. 01 -1, ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 01 -1,
ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 01 -1, AND SUBDIVISION
NO. 01 -5 (VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 53570) FOR THE
EL SEGUNDO CORPORATE CAMPUS PROJECT.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On May 3, 2001, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC, filed an application for Environmental
Assessment No. 548, Development Agreement No. 01 -1, Administrative Use Permit No.
01 -1, and Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 53570) to develop a vacant
46.53 -acre vacant property bounded by Atwood Way, Douglas Street, Mariposa Avenue,
and Nash Street for a 2,500,000 gross square foot mixed -use project, to permit the on-
site sale and consumption of alcohol at restaurants and hotels in the project site, and to
divide the property into 26 separate lots.
B. On July 26, 2001, TPG -EI Segundo Partners, LLC, filed an application for General Plan
Amendment No. 01 -2 and Zone Change No. 01 -1 to amend the land use designation for
the property from Urban Mixed Use -North to Corporate Campus Specific Plan and to
amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning from Urban Mixed -Use North (MU -N) to
Corporate Campus Specific Plan (CCSP).
C. On September 26, 2001, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC, filed an application for
Specific Plan No. 01 -1 to adopt a specific plan (Corporate Campus Specific Plan —
CCSP) for the property establishing permitted uses and development standard that
would supersede the existing MU -N zoning on the project site.
D. On October 12, 2001, TPG -EI Segundo Partners, LLC, filed an application for Zone Text
Amendment No. 01 -1 to amend El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") § 15 -3 -2 by listing
the proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan as one of the specific plan zones within
the City.
E. TPG -EI Segundo Partners, LLC's, application and supporting evidence was reviewed by
City's Department of Community, Economic and Development Services for, in part,
consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the ESMC.
F. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA "), the
regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations § §15000, et seq., the
"CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution
No. 3805, adopted March 16, 1993).
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVINC7 EA -548, SP 01 -1, DA 01, GPA 0[-2,
ZC 01 -1, ZTA 01 -1, AUP 01 -1, SUE 01 -5
112102 PAGE NO I
063
G. The Department of Community Economic and Development Services completed its
review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning
Commission for October 25, 2001.
H. On October 25, November 8, 15, and December 6, 2001, the Planning Commission held
duly advertised public hearings in the Council Chamber of the El Segundo City Hall, 350
Main Street to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including, without limitation, information provided to the Commission by TPG -E1 Segundo
Partners, LLC.
The Planning Commission considered the information provided by, without limitation,
City staff, public testimony, and TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC. The Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2517 recommending approval of the proposed
project. That Resolution, and its findings, were made based upon the evidence
presented to the Commission at its October 25, November 8, 15, and December 6, 2001
hearing including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the Department of
Community Economic and Development Services.
J. On December 18, 2001, the City Council held 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 applications including, without limitation,
information provided to the city Council by TPG -E1 Segundo Partners, LLC.
K. The City Council considered the information provided by, without limitation, City staff,
public testimony, and TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC. This Resolution, and its findings,
are made based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its
October 25, November 8, 15, and December 6, 2001; and, at the City Council hearing on
December 18, 2001, including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the
Department of Community Economic and Development Services.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings. The City Council finds that the following facts exist:
A. The proposed project as originally submitted was to have included approximately
2,000,000 gross square feet of offices. A mix of commercial and industrial uses
consisting of approximately 100,000 gross square feet of research & development/light
industrial, 75,000 gross square feet of telecommunications /web hosting, 153,000 gross
square feet of retail, 82,000 gross square feet of restaurants, a 20,000 gross square foot
health club, 100,000 gross square feet of hotel /conference facilities, 10,000 gross
square feet of medical /dental offices, and a 10,000 gross square foot day care center
wouI4 comprise a minimum of approximately 20 percent of the total building area. The
originally proposed floor area ratio would be 1.15:1.
B. Through negotiations with staff, the applicant proposed to reduce the size of the project.
The proposed reduced project includes approximately 1,740,000 gross square feet of
offices comprising approximately 80 percent of the project. A mix of commercial and
industrial uses consistingtof approximately 100,000 gross square feet of research &
development/light industrial, 65,000 gross square feet of telecommunications /web
hosting, 75,000 gross square feet of retail, 75,000 gross square feet of restaurants, a
19,000 gross square foot health club, 87,000 gross square feet of hotel /conference
facilities, 7,000 gross square feet of medical /dental offices, and a 7,000 gross square
foot day care center would comprise a minimum of approximately 20 percent of the total
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -1, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -1, ZTA 01 -1, AUP 01 -I, SUB 01 -5
1/2/02 PAGE NO 2
064
building area. The CCSP would also allow for alternative mixes of non -office uses within
the 20 percent requirement.
C. The proposed reduced project would permit up to 2.175 million rg oss square feet of built
area on approximately 46.53 acres of land. The reduced project represents a 375,000
gross square foot reduction (approximately 15 percent) in project size from that originally
submitted. The net floor area, as defined in ESMC § 15 -1 -6, would be a maximum of
2.00 million square feet. Based on the net floor area, the overall development floor area
ratio (FAR) would be 0.99:1. The 0.99:1 FAR would exclude the fire station building
(approximately 14,400 square feet) and any community buildings (i.e., restrooms,
maintenance buildings, snack shop) that would be located on the five -acre park site. For
purposes of the proposed project, the FAR would be based on the entire 46.53 -acre site.
The land to be dedicated for the fire station and "A" and "B" Streets, as well as the five -
acres to be purchased by the City for parkland would not be deducted from the site area
for FAR purposes. The Specific Plan would provide for the transfer of density rights
within the plan area. As a result, FARs on individual parcels may range from
approximately 0.00:1 to 5.81:1. Eleven of the proposed parcels would have no FAR at all
because two parcels (No. 5 and 9) would only contain parking structures, three parcels
(No. 1, 13, and 17) would only contain surface parking lots, another three parcels (No.
21, 23, and 26) would contain only common open space areas, and three parcels (No.
10, 11, and 12) represent the location of the proposed fire station site and five acre
recreational site. Each parcel will have a covenant recorded stating the maximum FAR
permitted on the parcel. However, the Specific Plan would prohibit the overall FAR to
exceed 0.99:1.
D. The property is designated by the City of El Segundo General Plan Land Use Element
as Urban Mixed -Use North; and, Zoned Urban Mixed Use -North (MU -N). The property
also is within the Multimedia Overlay (MMO) Zone.
E. The proposed project site, formerly occupied by Rockwell International, is located in the
City of El Segundo at the southwestern edge of the Los Angeles coastal basin,
approximately 0.5 miles south of the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The
proposed project site is situated slightly more than one -mile inland (east) from the Pacific
Ocean. The City of Los Angeles' territorial boundary is a few blocks to the north of the
proposed project site. The proposed project site is bounded by Douglas Street on the
east, Nash Street on the west, Mariposa Avenue on the south, and Atwood Way on the
north. Additionally, the elevated Metro Green Line runs along the north of the property,
turning south across the northwest portion of the property, and continues south along the
west side of Nash Street adjacent to the project site.
F. Rockwell International used the property from 1953 to 1990 to manufacture metals and
composite aircraft parts. During that time, numerous buildings and underground storage
tanks were located on the site. The proposed project site has remained as level,
unimproved land since 1992 when Rockwell International demolished their facilities on
the site.
t
G. Several dozen underground storage tanks (UST's) and /or pits were used by Rockwell in
the operation of the plant. Rockwell began removing the UST's and closing pits in the
late 1980s under the supervision of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(LACDPW). In the early 1990s, a site wide investigation was conducted to determine if
the past use of the property had impacted the project site. Remedial activities at this
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP OI -1, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC01 -1, ZTA 01 -1, AUP 01 -1, SUB 01 -5
112/02 PAGLNO -J
065
time consisted of excavating contaminated soil, as required by the LACDPW.
Groundwater and soil contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
petroleum hydrocarbons were discovered in 1994 at the southwest corner of the project
site. Although much of the impacted soil was excavated from the project site, VOC
contaminated soil and groundwater were permitted to be left in place by the appropriate
State agencies. A subsequent risk assessment based upon conservative residential
exposure scenarios determined that the contamination left in place did not present a
significant threat to human health or the environment. The Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), California Department of Toxic Substance Control
(DTSC) and the LACDPW have all been involved with remedial activities at the project
site. These agencies have determined that the site is safe to use for any type of
development, which would include recreational facilities. None of the agencies has
requirements for further investigation at this time. Based on this information, no further
action or investigation is required at this time concerning the historical use of the project
site and there is no evidence to indicate that use of any portion of the property would
expose anyone to contaminated soil. Thus, the park can be safely located on any portion
of the project site, including the southeast or southwest corner.
H. The proposed project would be built in ten phases over seven years with construction
expected to begin in 2002 and completed in 2009. The particular building to be built in
each phase would depend on market conditions at the time. Each phase is currently
expected to begin 18 months apart. A proposed phasing plan is included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Page II -11).
I. The specific plan would allow a maximum of 80 percent of the floor area (1,740,000
gross square feet) to be developed with office uses. The remaining 20 percent (435,000
gross square feet) would be required to be non - office uses permitted in the Specific
Plan, such as commercial, retail, and light industrial uses.
J. A minimum of 20 percent of each phase that is developed will be required to be non -
office to ensure the balance between office and non - office is maintained as development
progresses. Section 6.2 of the Development Agreement provides a deferral of the first
50,000 square feet of non- office floor area in consideration for the dedication of the one -
acre fire stations site. An additional 150,000 square foot deferral of non - office uses in
consideration for the sale of the park site has also been negotiated between the City and
the applicant to be applied to any phase of development at the applicant's discretion. As
a result, up to 1,000,000 square feet of office floor area could be constructed before the
requirement that non - office floor area be constructed if the applicant chooses the full
amount of deferral at the beginning of the project.
K. The Corporate Campus Specific Plan is consistent with the Multimedia Overlay (MMO)
zone. The entertainment related uses permitted in the MMO Zone are incorporated into
the Specific Plan as permitted uses. Additionally, the Specific Plan is limited to a
maximum of 2,175,000 square feet of total development in the Specific Plan area
regardless of the type of use.
L. The proposed project would also include the construction of private internal roadways to
facilitate vehicle and pedestrian movements within and through the property. As depicted
on the proposed site plan in the Specific Plan, a portion of this internal road system
would link to the 1 -105 Freeway on -ramp at Atwood Way, another segment would serve
as an extension of Maple Avenue, and a portion would intersect with Duley Road on the
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -I, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -1, ZTA 0I -I, AUP 01 -I, SUB 01 -5
1/2/02 PACE NO.4
066
Mariposa Avenue side of the project site. As private roads, the applicant would be
required to provide all maintenance on the roads. No parking would be permitted along
the internal private roadways.
M. To partially offset the potential power needs of the proposed project, an on -site power
generation facility may be included in the project. If this component were included, it
would occupy a portion of one of the parking structures. Such a power plant would be
an approximately 15- megawatt, gas turbine based, combined -cycle cogeneration facility,
which would supply power to all of the building in the project.
N. If a large telecommunications /web hosting facility is included in the project under the
permitted mix of uses, an on -site electrical substation may be required due to the
unusually high electricity demands of such uses.
O. The proposed subdivision, which is based on the conceptual site plan, includes 26
separate parcels of land range from 0.52 to 5.83 acres. Minimum parcel sizes in the
Specific Plan are consistent with the MU -N Zone. All the proposed parcels would comply
with the 10,000 square foot lot area minimum. Each parcel would provide access to
either one of the perimeter street public rights -of -way or one of the proposed private
internal roadways. The Specific Plan would not require all parcels to abut public streets,
as is the case in the MU -N Zone. All of the internal private roadways will be required to
be maintained for public access through the recording of covenants or easements.
P. The Maple Avenue extension ( "A" Street on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map) and
connector road to 1 -105 on ramp at Atwood Way ( "B" Street on the Vesting Tentative
Tract Map) would be designed to meet full public roadway widths defined in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. By constructing these roadways to meet full
public roadway standards, the Development Agreement would allow the applicant to be
eligible to offset a portion of the cost of constructing these roadways and other off -site
mitigation measures against the traffic mitigation fees that would be paid for the project,
since these two roadways would improve traffic circulation for the area, in addition to
serving the project. The remaining internal private roads would be slightly narrower than
public roadway widths and are intended as typical collector roadway that would not tend
to serve through traffic. As private roads, the applicant will be required to provide all
maintenance on the roads. The applicant will be required to record public access
easements on all the internal private roadways to insure access is provided to all
parcels. No parking would be permitted along the internal private roadways.
Q. Parking is proposed to be provided primarily within five on -site parking structures varying
from peven to nine levels in height. As indicated on the site plan, each structure would
be sized to provide the required parking for the buildings assigned to each structure. A
total of 7,453 parking spaces are proposed in the five parking structures. Additionally,
272 surface parking spaces would be provided throughout the site, primarily adjacent to
the commercial and restaurant portions of the project. Based upon the parking
requirements contained in the Zoning Code, a total of 6,332 parking spaces would be
required. A surplus of 1,35,3 parking spaces is proposed.
R. The proposed Development Agreement establishes the permitted uses for the proposed
project and minimum and maximum floor areas for certain types of uses as well. The
proposed Development Agreement sets a nine -year duration of the Agreement, which is
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -I, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -1, ZTA 01 -1, AUP 01 -1, SUB 01 -5
12/02 PAGE NO 5
0 6'7
generally consistent with the proposed phasing plan for the project. The developer would
also be entitled to a five -year extension.
S. The Development Agreement provides for the dedication of approximately one acre of
the property to the City for the construction of a planned fire station to replace existing
Fire Station No. 2. The site was originally depicted on Parcel No. 11 on the southeast
corner of the project at the intersection of Douglas Street and Mariposa Avenue. The
Fire Station Site location has been revised to be located on Parcel 14, near the
intersection of Mariposa Avenue and the Duley Road entrance driveway to the project
site. Fire Station No. 2, currently at the corner of Nash Street and El Segundo Boulevard
would be relocated to this new location. The Development Agreement would allow the
applicant to forego payment of the standard $0.14 per square foot fire service mitigation
fee in consideration for the dedication of one acre of land, valued at approximately
$1,880,000. The fee would have been approximately $304,500.
T. The project included the City purchase of approximately five acres of the property
(Parcels 10, 11, 12, and 13) in the southeast corner for use as a public recreational
facility. Subsequently, five acres in the southwest corner (Parcels 14 and 15) of the site
was identified as the preferred location for the parkland purchase instead. The land
would be used for such things as soccer and softball fields. The actual design of the
recreational facilities and the amenities to be provided would be determined by the Parks
and Recreation Commission at a later date. Through the Development Agreement, a
maximum cost of $1,000,000 per acre has been agreed upon for purchase of the
parkland. This equals $22.95 per square foot. The City had an independent appraisal
performed, which estimated the fair market value of the land to be $1,880,000 per acre
or $37.50 per square foot. An additional appraisal shall be conducted which may result
in a lower final sale price.
U. The proposed Development Agreement would require the applicant to provide the
required parking for the parkland within adjacent parking structures on the project site on
a shared -use basis. By agreeing to this requirement, the City will save the cost of
constructing parking spaces on the park site, saving approximately $7,000- 12,000 per
parking space, excluding land costs, and enabling the full five acres to be devoted to
recreational uses.
V. The Draft EIR analyzed a larger project than the reduced project currently being
proposed by the applicant. The Draft EIR examined the environmental impacts of a
project with a maximum permitted FAR of 1.15:1. The reduced project is 15 percent
smaller than the project discussed in the Draft EIR. The mix of office commercial, R & D,
light industrial, restaurants that are proposed in the reduced project is consistent with the
mix of uses studied in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR studied the impact of a project with
2,000,000 gross square foot of office (approximately 80 percent) and 550,000 gross
square feet of non - office uses. The environmental impacts for the proposed reduced
project are within the scope of the project studied in the Draft EIR.
W. Based on public comments in response to the Notice of Preparation and a review of
environmental issues by staff, the Draft EIR analyzed the following environmental impact
areas: traffic, air quality, noise, geology and soils, cultural resources, hydrology and water
quality, aesthetics, land use, pollution /housing /employment, hazardous materials, public
services, and utilities. The Draft EIR concluded that all potentially significant impacts
identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of traffic and air quality impacts, are at a
RESOLU'IION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -1, DA 07, CPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -I, Z I A 01 -I, AUP 01 -I, SUB 01 -5
12/02 PAGE NO 6
M
he aPPlicaGonm��suYesnt C�tY Policies and
regulations
level due t0 t it�gation
ec{ at the intersections of
rolect specrfiic m ed pro l uelAvlation gduleva
Less than sr9ni' . nt t Propose Aven
osition o p rnaia a d t�osecrans rUty of nifiof do
a
and the imp to the orig the infea5rb owe rig t w a
related goulevar df Itiabill�fhe F� 1 EIR include e
acts ulveda unavoidable due Yow h
x Traffic imp ue15, , ant and ecause ents. red
to be s'gnrfic ecthe�equ'red irnPYOVem euttneoui k o ;
ven
d
ns A of
wesectound e the inters redo °edt�ona
s to imPrO rojement df proledt Wnile the in )U
id Pect d n
o inters he reduced PrIv gouievard
n1ea to existng rmphe redub tore miti9a�ougtas Streets, Avenuelsepulveda
Offic a5a n(cant imp�i me Nasb an acts at R the
owaY operab�rfrca u voldas u oc +Man with is
related i9 rations ble P as emen'
im to the sigAVenuelAviati °n ouiev bile s° uality Man ounds
na ar roes a9
fro SOU h Go ReactNe Grganit
Cn
can gosecrans dt e pt°fld
that emissions &Wtants ildou hf eshClfvli?
El?, c °nctudedt would e of r-TWer s P 200, At full bu oM
t3raft rOle for A
osed P exceed strict sGP
Y' Thelnaliy Prof rice threN01 st arras builWOUldnalso ed the ation measures
orig s;gnifica a p G exce
sGA�NIC�I OX�a tVlonoX de ; S,, �5 substantially mitigacts a n
l rid Nltr °us atenr�al folor will rem
�RG{he Year 2ategYe aof "ex °ass' t wasIa result, the Pro
ects Imp
neecause the t the s e state
°Dncl okea temissions. A a exceed m t tour
its, the Dmdtt ojects R e
Ifm the P able. d,e p eCi WendNlion Ietec of th
d rbl
to reduce and 00 '4 d roP arts p e effec eck
significa chided that th of 'o�lure lipddifiona iY th wrth the ProP°o dca }hot
Z graft OR con CG °hot vaffic 140 in combination and Q1g
The our ooscale ect state one hour tern cae in that
due to the prof the Draft teoUld affect
three in affect C�
eight n etrons d identrf1ed'n t for both the cis w acts would acts for
in rolect sign'frcan hour;mPa hour imp ialw imp feasible
aPPrOVed PumulativelGumulatiwshen nf�antindgde$lnat able ee�tfYo n ant
be rSgIi(Ir
d 9 h s;gnificant
spastandarnQU homy there are sig craft EIFt ectrelate remain are
peak Therefore, Ge the prol would ts, the Impacts
p.M Howe lhet would re du impacts
nfersections. ots' a result these these o�Pac
mcroscon
ale „hot tares evade njpacts. As ect would loWerreduced prnlect. ceed the
mitigatio r he eurnutal'v the reduced PrOnifican{ vnth the would ex Is
impact o White and sig rolect area Traff c r'b
and unavoidable. oidab1e the 2 of graft E�?) atone do
not
expected to remain unav number of intetseGtidage p_ e
se levels from the With the ire
fific 00I
se
at a tease threshold lP n combined vne
el inc e, The traffic n° an exceed
noise im e dec'b However, vdhe noise evelto an unavoidable
p A.iraffl fished ihd to traffic vol Is impact. ts, the traffic ect could reduce
the
estaai ecifiic no ec ect would contribute
rely , other known he °1 proj r°p °sed ptPS ay5oc,ated Feld and
ted the
dire Y ect Sped"
create a pro d wrth the P , tri conduc t
associate td. Therefore,. the srxe °f reduction of 1 e Was
nt idenfitied in the , be
levels as thresho reduction ,n ue to {he anaY
established impact. - he I rrseotions, d traffic aoaa peem� 7 Would no e eCt 1°n9e�main
cumulative acted duced pfol that °n sa m is would r
number °t imp Ara indite to Maripa ve road se9 e
reduced PColect size IR, Which Twel
in the Final 1e Avenue act. a - -°
incWded as Street fray fviaP nlficant nn Ypeduced Project.
SIR (Pda a cumulaGvelY s'9 With Resot�noi,o
acts ,Aa, nun
considered urnulatwe imp APpiov r e -n- . z,o, p ce.x Q ro C�
wish sign if ant c
�a� -i,z �a�m
BB. Based on the disparity between projected job growth and housing construction, the
Draft EIR concluded that the proposed projects incremental contribution to growth and
housing demand would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant
cumulative impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the
cumulative regional impact.
CC. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would contribute to a significant cumulative
impact on solid waste disposal capacity caused by regional growth. There are no
feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the cumulative regional impact.
DD. Because it is impossible to assess the direct project air quality impact on a regional scale,
and because the impact is microscopically small for secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD
has developed surrogate significance thresholds that are based upon the amount of
emissions generated by an individual project. These emission levels (lbs /day, etc.) are
meant as an indicator that there are project - related regional impacts even if the health
impact cannot be quantified in terms of actual air quality. The SCAQMD thresholds are
regional standards, which are intended to address regional air quality issues and to help
achieve compliance with State and Federal air quality plan. They are not intended to
measure local health impacts on a project scale. As such, the project's exceedances of
these thresholds does not mean that the project will create or contribute to unsafe
health levels of air pollutants in the City.
EE. Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC) is subject to Proposition 65 and Assembly Bill
2588 notification requirements related to the use of toxic chemicals. Portions of the
project site are within areas subject to NGC notification. The contour shown on the AB
2588 "cancer risk from toxic air pollution map" published by the SCAQMD for the NGC
was based on a conservative health risk assessment analyzing peak emissions from
the NGC facility in 1991. This health risk assessment concluded that a receptor
breathing the maximum concentration of peak emissions 24 hours per day over a 70
year lifetime would have an increased cancer risk by a maximum of 61 chances in a
1,000,000. The "cancer risk from toxic air pollution map" on file in the Planning Division
shows the peak emissions receptor at a location some distance from the project site on
the far side (eastern) of the NGC facility. A portion of the project site is located along
the outside contour of the map area, where, due to the dispersion of emissions, the
increased conservative cancer risk would be, at most, 10 in 1,000,000. Because the
NGC health risk assessment showed an increased cancer risk of more than 25 in
1,000,000, the SCAQMD, the local agency implementing AB 2588, required NGC to
implement risk reduction measures. The measures reduced the increased cancer risk
at thF peak receptor from 61 in one million to 7.6 in 1,000,000. The health risks at the
outside contour were also proportionately reduced. As a result, if the NGC facility were
proposing this amount of emissions today as a new facility, it would not be subject to
the AB 2588 notification requirements at all. The SCAQMD's health risk assessment
criteria assumed a 24 -hour a day, seven day a week exposure for 70 years. Maximum
use of the park site, and the exposure to the already reduced level of NGC emissions,
would be limited to a few hours per week over a much shorter time span. Thus, park
users would be exposed to significantly lower levels of emissions than NGC's
employees, who are present during normal work hours nearer the source. Further, this
limited exposure would generally not occur during the peak emission period from the
NGC facility; that is, park usage will occur primarily during evenings and weekends.
Therefore, any increased cancer risks on the park site from exposure to emissions from
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING FA -548, SP 01 -1, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -I, Z A 01 -1, AUP 01 -1, SUB 01 -5
1/2/02 PAGFNO.8
0 If v
the NGC facility would be negligible. The health risk associated with people using the
park site would be less than for office tenants because an assessment of health risks to
office workers would take into account the fact that workers are exposed to toxic
emissions 40 hours per week. Since people would be at the park for only a few hours a
week, their risk factors would even be less than indicated in the existing NGC health
risk assessment and less than an assessment based on office worker exposure.
SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. The City Council makes the following environmental
findings:
A. The Draft EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; Guidelines § 15090. An
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was prepared and
circulated for public review from May 11, 2001 to June 11, 2001. The public review and
comment period for the Draft EIR extended from September 24, 2001 to November 8,
2001. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 24,
2001.
B. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council for review. The City Council considered
the information contained in the Final EIR before approving or denying the project in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15090.
C. In accordance with § 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the record on which the City
Council's findings are based is located at the Department of Planning and Building
Safety, City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. The
custodian of records is the Director of Community, Economic and Development
Services.
D. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15090, the Final EIR reflects the City's independent
judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission and City Council have independently
reviewed and analyzed the Draft EIR prepared for the Project. This Draft EIR is an
accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of the project.
The Draft EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Final EIR was prepared
under the direction of the City of El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and
Development Services and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
environmental impacts and comments received on the Draft EIR. The City Council has
independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR prepared for the Project. This FEIR is
an accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of the
project. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
E. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091, any changes or alterations required for the
project, or incorporated into the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect were identified in the Final EIR. The reduction of the
project from 2.55 million gross square feet to 2.00 million gross square feet will lessen
potential impacts of the proposed project. There were no changes or alterations to the
proposed mitigation measures that were required to be addressed and analyzed in the
Final EIR.
The Draft EIR analyzed a larger project than the reduced project currently being
proposed by the applicant. The Draft EIR examined the environmental impacts of a
project with a maximum permitted FAR of 1.15:1. The reduced project is 15 percent
RESOLUTION NO. 4241
APPROVING FA -548, SP 01 -I, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -I, Z'rA 01 -1, AUP 01 -1, SUE 01 -5
1/2/02 PACE NO 9
071
smaller than the project discussed in the Draft EIR. The mix of office commercial, R & D,
light industrial, and restaurants that are proposed in the reduced project is consistent
with the mix of uses studied in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR studied the impact of a
project with 2,000,000 gross square foot of office (approximately 80 percent) and
550,000 gross square feet of non- office uses. The environmental impacts for the
proposed reduced project are within the scope of the project studied in the Draft EIR. A
more detailed analysis of the net change in impacts for the reduced project (i.e. traffic,
air quality) were discussed in the Final EIR.
G. The Inability to acquire right -of -way due to existing improvements to implement
mitigation measures B -9 and B -10 (intersections of Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans
Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue /Aviation Boulevard, respectively) make these mitigation
measures infeasible. All project alternatives, with the exception of Alternative E (Park
Alternative) in the Draft EIR, are infeasible because they do not meet the project
objectives identified in the Draft EIR and the Corporate Campus Specific Plan (§ 15091).
H. The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment in the time and
manner prescribed by CEQA. The Draft EIR concluded that with mitigation the proposed
project would not have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, with the
exception of unavoidable traffic and air quality impacts.
I. 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.
J. Because of the facts identified in this Resolution, the Draft EIR showed that a Statement
of Overriding Considerations would be required in order for the project to be approved.
K. The Draft 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 traffic and air quality impacts. The Planning
Commission finds that many of the mitigation measures described in the Draft 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 EIR is mitigated by its corresponding
mitigation measures to the extent set forth in the Draft EIR ( "specific mitigation ") and by
other, non - corresponding, mitigation measures adopted 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.
L. These findings are based on the various mitigation measures to be required in the
implementation of the project as recommended by the Draft EIR or identified by the Draft
EIR as already having been incorporated into the Project. Except as set forth in Section
3.G. above, the City Council hereby adopts and incorporates into the implementation of
the project those mitigation measures recommended in the Draft EIR. The City Council
finds 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,
reclaimed water, and storm water discharge, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of other public agencies such as the California Department of Transportation ( "Caltrans ")
RESOLU'IION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -I, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -1, Z'rA 01 -1, AUP 01 -1, SUB 01 -5
112102 PAGE NO 10
072
and the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and therefore will require additional
approvals from those agencies.
M. The Northrop Grumman Corporation ( "NGC ") submitted a letter to the City on November
15, 2001 identifying their possible future expansion plans, but stated that these
expansion plans have not been "finalized" and the "precise nature and square footages
of the new or renovated uses are still subject to change." The letter also stated that as
part of these expansion plans "certain existing on -site activities (e.g., office space) may
be replaced with manufacturing, fabrication, or light industrial uses." CEQA requires that
an EIR consider whether a project's incremental effects are cumulatively considerable in
light of the cumulative impacts generated by other reasonably foreseeable past, present
and probable future projects. Consistent with CEQA, it is the existing policy of the City to
analyze only the actual physical change over existing conditions and to grant credits for
the discontinuance of existing on -site uses for the purposes of traffic and other impact
analyses. Therefore, not only is the precise square footage and type of uses of NGC's
future expansion plan unknown at this time, it is possible that any potential increase in
traffic from these expansion plans could be offset by a corresponding discontinuance of
current on -site activities. As such, NGC's proposed expansion plans are not reasonably
foreseeable for the purposes of determining whether the cumulative impacts of the El
Segundo Corporate Campus Project are cumulatively considerable. As stated by NGC,
no application has been filed to date, much less at the time that the NOP was released
for the proposed project.
N. The cumulative impact analysis contained in the Draft 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. For example, it is
reasonably foreseeable that the size and scope of the LAX master plan will be reduced
based on recent statements from the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles. Furthermore,
the traffic analysis in the Draft 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 EIR factors in
ambient traffic growth of one -half percent per year. This growth factor was intended in
part to cover possible future projects, such as NGC's possible expansion, which were
not reasonably foreseeable at the time the Draft EIR was prepared.
O. The Draft EIR analyzed the impacts of a project containing a total of 2,550,000 gross
square feet. Since the completion of the Draft EIR, the applicant has reduced the size of
the project by 375,000 gross square feet to 2,175,000 gross square feet. Although the
reduction in project size will result in a corresponding reduction in the number of a.m.,
p.m. and daily vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, all of the mitigation
measures found feasible in the Draft EIR be implemented. This will result in incremental
increases in capacity at the study intersections which would be sufficient to
accommodate the traffic generated by an expansion on NGC's property of approximately
375,000 square feet of new office uses as stated by the NGC. Therefore, the
conclusions of the Draft EAR would not change even if the possible expansion by NGC
were to be taken into account.
P. The FEIR evaluates the Project's potential for adverse environmental impacts. When
considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City Council that the
reduced project will have a potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING FA-548, SP 01 -1, DA OI, CPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -1, ZTA 01 -I, AUP 01 -1, SUB W -5
1,2102 PAU- NO I I
073
habitat upon which wildlife depends. Based on the FEIR, 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 City Council finds that the Project would be de minimis in its
effect on fish and wildlife. The City Council authorizes and directs 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, 211670; 14 CCR § 15094; and any other applicable law. Within ten (10)
days of the certification of the Final EIR, the applicant shall submit to the City of El
Segundo a fee of $25.00 required by the County of Los Angeles for the filing of this
certificate along with the required Notice of Determination. The statutory requirements of
CEQA will not be met and no vesting shall occur until this condition is met and the
required notices and fees are filed with the County.
SECTION 4: Approvals. The City Council approves the following:
A. The City Council adopts Findings of Facts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
as set forth in Exhibit "A ", which are incorporated into this Resolution by reference.
B. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and
21081.6, the City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) as set forth in attached Exhibit "B," which is incorporated into this Resolution by
reference. The City Council hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly
set forth herein as conditions of approval of the reduced project. In the event that the
terms or provisions of any such mitigation measure conflict with the terms and provisions
of the other project conditions of approval adopted by the City Council in this action or
the Development Agreement, the terms and provisions of such other project conditions
or the Development Agreement, as the case may be, shall control. The other project
conditions of approval and compliance with applicable codes, policies, and regulations
will further assure that the environmental impacts of the proposed project will not be
greater than set forth in the FEIR and these findings.
C. Subject to the conditions listed set forth in Exhibit "C," which is incorporated into this
Resolution by reference, the City Council certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the El Segundo Corporate Campus project and approves Environmental Assessment
No. 548 for Specific Plan No. 01 -1, Development Agreement No. 01 -1, General Plan
Amendment No. 01 -2, Zone Change No. 01 -1, Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1,
Administrative Use Permit No. 01 -1, and Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 53570).
SECTION 5: Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations in this
Resolution dire based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written,
contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute
the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and
completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 6: Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on
the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute
and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major
limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events. In
all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to
this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national
RESOLUTION NO. 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -1, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -I, ZTA 01 -1, AUP 01 -I, SUB 01 -5
12/02 PAGE NO 12
074
problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists
and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
SECTION 7: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which
precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any
particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based
in part on that fact.
SECTION 8: According to the El Segundo Municipal Code, a copy of this Resolution shall be
mailed to TPG -EI Segundo Partners, LLC, and to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 9: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective
immediately upon adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd d of January 2002.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Resolution
No. 4241 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the
Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 2nd
day of January, 2002, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jacobs, Gaines, McDowell
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
NOT PAR CIIPATING: Hernick
Cindy Mbrtesen, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D Hensley, City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO 4241
APPROVING EA -548, SP 01 -1, DA 01, GPA 01 -2,
ZC 01 -1, ZTA 01 -I, AUP 01 -I, SUB 01 -5
1/2/02 PACE NO 13
075
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
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:
CERTIFICATION OF EIR
The City Council of the City of El Segundo ( "City Council ") hereby certifies that Final
Environmental Impact Report SCH# 2001051074, dated December 2001 ( "FEIR ") for the project
described below has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. in connection with following
approvals granted to TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC ( "Applicant') This FEIR is being certified
in connection with the: (i) Environmental Assessment No. 548 (EA No. 548); (ii) Specific Plan
No. 01 -1 (SP No. 01 -1) (the "Specific Plan "); (iii) Development Agreement No. 98 -1 (DA No.
98 -1); (iv) General Plan Amendment No. 01 -2 (GPA No. 01 -2); (v) Zone Change No. 01 -1 (ZC
No. 01 -1); (vi) Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1 (ZTA No. 01 -1); (vii) Administrative Use
Permit No. 01 -I (AUP No. 01 -1); and (viii) Subdivision No. 01 -5 (SUB No. 01 -5); and any other
approvals or permits required to implement the subject project.
II. PROJECT HISTORY
A. Project Location.
The subject project will be developed on a vacant 46.53 -acre former Rockwell
International property bounded by Douglas Street on the east, Nash Street on the west, Mariposa
Avenue on the south, and Atwood Way on the north (the 'Project Site "). The Project Site is
designated by the City of El Segundo General Plan Land Use element as Urban Mixed -Use North
and zoned Urban Mixed Use -North (MU -N) Zone. The Project Site is also within the
Multimedia Overlay (MMO) District.
B. Original Project.
The subject project initially consisted of 2,550,000 gross square feet, including
2,000,000 square feet of office uses, 100,000 square feet of R & D /light industrial, 75,000 square
feet of telecommunications /web hosting, 153,000 square feet of retail, 82,000 square feet of
restaurants, a 20,000 square -foot health club, 100,000 square feet of hotel/conference facilities,
076
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
10,000 square feet of medical/dental offices, and a 10,000 square -foot day care center
(collectively the "Original Project "). The Original Project also included a one -acre site to be
dedicated to the City for a fire station. The Original Project could also include a cogeneration
facility to meet the higher electrical demands of the telecommunication /web hosting uses.
Because the Applicant is seeking flexible entitlements, within certain established parameters, to
better respond to market demand, it is possible that the ultimate mix of uses could change. In no
event, however would office uses exceed 80 percent of the total square footage or Non - Office
Uses (as defined in the Specific Plan) be less than 20 percent at full project buildout.
The Original Project would be built out in up to ten phases over several years, with final
completion occurring in or about July, 2009. The floor area ratio ( "FAR ") of the Original Project
would be 1.15 to 1. The FAR of individual parcels could exceed 1.15 to 1, as long as the overall
FAR is 1.15 to 1 or less.
C. CEOA Process.
Based on an initial study dated May 11, 2001 (the "Initial Study "), the lead agency
determined an environmental impact report ( "EIR ") should be prepared for the Original Project
pursuant to CEQA. A Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") of the Draft EIR was prepared and
circulated for a 30 -day public review period beginning on May 11, 2001 and ending on June 11,
2001. 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
FIR analyzed the following environmental impact areas:
• Traffic
• Air Quality
• Noise
• Geology and Soils
• Cultural Resources
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Aesthetics
• Land Use
• Population, Housing and Employment
• Hazardous Materials
• Public Services
- Police Protection
- Fire Protection
• Utilities
- Sewer
077
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
- Water
- Solid Waste
- Natural Gas
- Electricity
Because the Applicant would have the flexibility to vary the mix of uses, the analysis in the Draft
EIR assumed a combination of uses which represented the "worst case" scenario with respect to
specific environmental impacts. A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse
on September 24, 2001. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review and comment
period from September 24, 2001 to November 8, 2001.
The lead agency received approximately 46 comments on the Draft EIR during the 45 -day
comment period from public agencies, groups and individuals. Public testimony on the Draft
EIR was also received by the Planning Commission at duly noticed public hearings on
October 25, 2001, November 8, 2001 and November 15, 2001. Responses to these comments are
included in the FEIR.
D. Reduced Proiect.
Following completion of the Draft EIR, the Applicant reduced the size of the Original
Project in response to input from the community and City staff. The project presented to the City
Planning Commission and City Council (the 'Reduced Project') contains a total gross floor area
of 2,175,000 square feet, a 375,000 gross square -foot (approximately 15 percent) reduction in
size from the Original Project analyzed in the Draft FIR. The Reduced Project consists of
1,740,000 gross square feet of offices, 100,000 gross square feet of research and
development/light industrial, 65,000 gross square feet of telecommunications /web hosting,
75,000 gross square feet of retail, 75,000 gross square feet of restaurants, a 19,000 gross square -
foot health club, 87,000 gross square feet of hotel/conference facilities, 7,000 gross square feet of
medical /dental offices, and a 7,000 gross square -foot day care center. As with the Original
Project, the actual use mix could vary but office use would not exceed 80 percent and Non -
Office Uses �koutd not be less than 20 percent of the total square footage. The Reduced Project
would also involve the sale of five acres of the Project Site (the "Park Site ") to the City for use as
a public park/soccer fields. Like the Original Project, the Reduced Project would be built in up
to 10 phases through approximately July, 2009. As used below, the term "project' or "proposed
project' refers to the Original Project and /or the Reduced Project.
v
The Reduced Project would have a maximum overall floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.99:1,
based on a maximum net floor area of 2,000,000 square feet. However, under the Specific Plan
078
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
the FAR of individual parcels could be greater, as long as the overall FAR does not exceed .99 to
1.
III. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
THE PROPOSED Project
A. Impacts Found to be Insignificant by the Initial Study.
The City Council finds that the Initial Study, FEIR and record of proceedings do not
expressly identify, or contain substantial evidence identifying potentially significant
environmental effects of the proposed project with respect to the areas listed below. The
differences between the Original Project and the Reduced Project do not affect this finding.
1. Aesthetics (substantial adverse effect on scenic vista; substantial damage to scenic
resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway).
Fact: The vacant Project Site is characterized by flat topography and is
surrounded by multi -story commercial, office and industrial uses. There are no prominent
natural visual features or other attributes that would qualify the Project Site or the project vicinity
as scenic. Buildings in the vicinity of the Project Site range in height from one to ten stories. In
addition, there are no scenic highways or corridors in the project area. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No impact is
anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
The vacant and flat Project Site does not contain any scenic resources such as
trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The Project Site was previously occupied by
Rockwell International between 1953 and 1990. Demolition activities were conducted in 1992 to
remove all buildings and infrastructure. The project area is located near Imperial Highway, the
Century Freeway (I -105) and the San Diego Freeway (I -405), none of which is designated as a
scenic roadvday. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic
resources. No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
2. Agricultural Resources (convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland); conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract; involve ether changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use).
? 1)
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Fact: The Project Site is not designated as prime agricultural land and is not
zoned "agricultural." Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non - agricultural use. In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. Finally, the proposed project
would not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to a non - agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in any potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources.
3. Air Quality (create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people).
Fact: The proposed hotel and restaurant uses would have the potential to create
odors. These emissions would be comparable to those anticipated with any type of commercial
uses involving food service activities. Some businesses, such as restaurants with exhaust vents,
are considered "stationary point sources" and may be subject to further regulatory requirements
above and beyond any requisite CEQA mitigation. While the emissions from these activities are
common and not identified as being particularly hazardous, they may be subject to permitting
requirements that call for the use of "best available control technology" in order to eliminate or
reduce the levels of emissions. Any potential nuisance related to odor that may occur with these
activities would be minimized under the SCAQMD's permitting requirements. No impact is
anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
4. Biological Resources (substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species; substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community; substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands;
interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites; conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation ordinance; conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Naturals Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan).
Fact: As described in the Initial Study, the vacant Project Site is located in a
highly urbanized area and contains patches of non - native grasses and shrubs. The site was
previously developed from 1953 -1992 and has since been remediated and re- graded to its current
condition. The current property owner has maintained a weed abatement program on the site for
several years. As such, the site does not contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
080
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Department of Fish and Game ( "Fish and Game ") or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition,
there are no known locally designated natural communities on the site or in the project vicinity.
The proposed project would not result in the direct removal, filling or
hydrological interruption of a federally protected wetland as defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Due to the highly urbanized surroundings, there are no wildlife corridors or native
wildlife nursery sites in the project vicinity. The proposed project would not interfere with the
movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Also, the Project Site does not
contain any trees or vegetation that are considered sensitive or protected. Therefore, the
proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance. Because there are no known locally
designated natural communities on the Project Site or in the project vicinity, the proposed project
would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
There are no such conservation plans in the City of El Segundo.
During the 30 -day public comment period for the NOP, Fish and Game submitted
an EIR comment letter to the City of El Segundo dated June 13, 2001 which noted that Fish and
Game had examined the Project Site from outside the perimeter fence and expressed the
following concerns: 1) that the site supports some native plants, including sandbar willow (Salix
exigua), mule fat (Bacharris salicifolia), and coyote brush (Bacharris pilularis); 2) that the site's
topography may allow the formation of standing water in portions of the site during winter rains;
3) that a facultative wetland indicator, rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), was viewed
on the site near Mariposa Street and Douglas Street; and 4) that the site may have the potential to
support species associated with vernal pools, such as Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus
wootoni) and western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii).
In response to Fish and Game's letter, the consulting firms of V andermost
Consulting Services and Glenn Lukos Associates conducted a biological resources evaluation of
the Project Site in order to determine whether the site supports, or exhibits the potential to
support, statg or federally listed threatened or endangered species or other special status species
or vegetation communities. In summary, the biological evaluation confirmed that the Project Site
does not support any state or federally listed threatened or endangered species nor does the site
support any special status flora or fauna. In addition, the Project Site does not support any native
plant communities and as such does not support any sensitive or otherwise special status upland
or wetland plant communities. Under current land use practices, the site exhibits no potential for
supporting either special status species or vegetation communities. Also, the Project Site
contains no areas subject to U.S. Army Corps or Fish and Game jurisdiction. Since there are no
sensitive biological resources associated with the Project Site, development of the proposed
()O1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
project would not result in significant or even locally adverse impacts to biological resources.
Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
5. Cultural Resources (substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource).
Fact: There are no structures or known historic resources on the Project Site. The
Project Site was previously occupied by Rockwell International between 1953 and 1990.
Demolition activities were conducted in 1992 to remove all buildings, infrastructure and
underground storage tanks. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact is anticipated.
Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
6. Geology and Soils (expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides; incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of waste water).
Fact: The Project Site and surrounding areas are predominately flat. No
landslides exist on the Project Site or Project vicinity. No impact is anticipated. Additional
analysis of this issue is not warranted.
The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and would be connected to
the existing sewer infrastructure. No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is
not warranted.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (for a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area; for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area; expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan; expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands)
t
Fact: The Project Site is located approximately 0.5 miles south of LAX.
Compliance with the City of El Segundo General Plan, applicable building height standards, and
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
any FAA requirements would result in no significant impacts to airport plans. Additional
analysis of this issue is not warranted.
The Project Site is not located in the immediate area of a private air strip and
would not result in a safety hazard for people in the Project area. No impact is anticipated.
Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
The proposed project would be required to conform with all applicable City of El
Segundo emergency responses and/or emergency evacuation plans. The Project Site would be
accessible to emergency vehicles on all four sides of the site. The proposed project also provides
a sufficient amount of ingress and egress locations around the site for emergency access and
evacuation in accordance with City Fire Department standards. The proposed project would be
required to comply with all applicable Fire Department and Public Works Department
regulations pertaining to emergency access and evacuation. In addition, the proposed project
would include an on -site fire station. No significant impacts are anticipated. Additional analysis
of this issue is not warranted.
The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and is not situated near
wildlands. No impact related to wildfires would occur as a result of the proposed project.
Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
8. Hydrology and Water Quality (place housing within a 100 -year floodplain; place
within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding).
Fact: The proposed project does not involve the construction of any housing. The
Project Site is located within Flood Hazard Zone C of the National Flood Insurance Program
(i.e., not at risk of a 100 -year or 500 -year flood) and there are no major dams or waterways
located near Project Site. Therefore, no flood - related impacts would occur. Additional analysis
of this issue is not warranted.
9. Land Use and Planning (physically divide an established community; conflict with
any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan).
Fact: The proposed project would not disrupt the physical arrangement of the
City. The proposed uses would betdeveloped within a mixed -use urbanized area with similar
office, commercial, and industrial uses. Residential uses within the City are located to the west,
across Sepulveda Boulevard. No physical division of an established community would occur.
No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
083
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
The proposed project is located within an urbanized area containing various
commercial and industrial land uses. Per the City of El Segundo General Plan, the Project Site is
not identified as being within a habitat conservation plan,,or natural community conservation
plan. Thus, no impact in this regard would occur. Additional analysis of this issue is not
warranted.
10. Mineral Resources (result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state; result in the loss of availability
of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other landuse plan).
Fact: The Project Site was previously occupied by Rockwell International
between 1953 and 1990. There are no known economic mineral resources beneath the Project
Site. No classified or designated mineral deposits of statewide or regional significance are
known to occur in the project area. The Project Site is not within a known source area for
aggregate or other mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss
of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state. The Project Site is not delineated as a locally- important mineral resource recovery
site on any City plans. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the
loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site. The proposed project
would not result in significant impacts to mineral resources.
11. Noise (for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels).
Fact: The Project Site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
Therefore, the proposed project would not expose persons to excessive noise levels associated
with a private airstrip. No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not
warranted.
12. 1 Population and Housing (displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere).
Fact: The Project Site does not contain any residential land uses. As such,
implementation of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of persons or
homes. No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
M
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
13. Public Services (substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered
government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services: other public facilities).
Fact: The City of El Segundo has one main library, El Segundo Public Library,
located at 111 W. Mariposa Avenue. Implementation of the proposed project would create a
minimal increase in demand, with no anticipated impacts to the El Segundo Public Library or any
of its school branches. The applicant would also be required to pay a library fee of $0.3 per
square foot of development. No significant impacts are anticipated. Additional analysis of this
issue is not warranted.
The proposed project would include private roads to be maintained by the
property owner. On -site traffic on private roads from the proposed project would not create a
significant demand for road maintenance services provided by the City Public Works
Department. No significant impacts are anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not
warranted.
14. Recreation (increase in the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated; inclusion of recreational facilities or requirement of construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment).
Fact: A total of five parks exist within a radius of approximately 1.5 miles of the
Project Site, the largest of which is Recreation Park, located on Pine Avenue. A five -acre portion
of the Project Site will be sold to the City for use as a public park/soccer fields. The proposed
project may also contain a two -story health club and will include open space which will allow
passive and/or active recreational activities. The proposed project does not involve the
construction of residential uses that would result in a direct increase in residential population
within the City, which could increase existing demands on parks and recreational facilities.
Therefore, no significant recreation impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
15. Transportation/Traffic (result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
substantially increase hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses; result in inadequate
emergency access; result in inadequate parking capacity; conflict with adopted policies or
programs supporting alternative transportation).
10
1185
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Fact: Due to the nature and scope of the proposed project, implementation of the
project would not have the potential to result in a change in air traffic patterns at the LAX airport
of any other airport in the area. Although the proposed project would result in new jobs at the
Project Site, such an increase in on -site employment would not be of significant magnitude to
materially affect air traffic levels. No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is
warranted.
There are no known design hazards, such as sharp curves or dangerous
intersections, in the project vicinity. The proposed project would be required to comply with all
applicable City codes regarding internal site design requirements and ingress /egress
requirements. No significant impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not
warranted.
The proposed project would provide ingress and egress points along all four sides
of the Project Site which would connect to the private internal roadway system. The proposed
project is required to comply with all Fire Department and Public Works Department regulations
pertaining to emergency access and evacuation. No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of
this issue is not warranted.
The proposed project would not be in conflict with adopted goals and policies
supporting alternative transportation. The project would be accessible by other transit (i.e., bus
service and MTA Green Line). City of El Segundo bike routes are also designated along
Mariposa and Douglas Street. The proposed project would adhere to applicable policies or
programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., preferential parking areas, ride sharing, etc.).
No impact is anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
16. Utilities and Service Systems (exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; comply with federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste).
Fact: Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be similar to that
generated by other commercial projects in the area, for which wastewater is treated by standard
(primary, secondary and tertiary) treatment processes. All discharge into the wastewater or
drainage system must comply with NPDES requirements. Improvements associated with the
proposed project would comply with all applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Bbard. No significant impact is anticipated. Additional analysis
of this issue is not warranted.
11
086
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
The construction and operational phases of the proposed project will be required
to adhere to all applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
No significant impacts are anticipated. Additional analysis of this issue is not warranted.
B. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant But Which in Fact are Not
Significant or Which Can Be Avoided
The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were
identified as potentially significant based upon the Initial Study, (a) the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not expressly identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant
environmental effects of the proposed project with respect to the areas listed below, or (b)
changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the conditions and requirements of
the proposed project which avoid or lessen the potential significant environmental effects as
identified in the Initial Study to a level of insignificance for the reasons summarized below. The
differences between the Original Project and the Reduced Project do not affect this finding.
Noise /Construction Impacts
Effect: The demolition and construction activities could generate significant
amounts of noise during these phases of Project implementation.
Findine: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to construction noise impacts. Because the Reduced Project
will involve less construction than the Original Project, the short-term noise impacts of the
Reduced Project are expected to be less than those of the Original Project. The Original Project's
operational noise impacts were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's
operational noise impacts are also not significant.
Fact: Temporary construction noise impacts vary markedly because the noise
strength of construction equipment ranges widely as a function of the equipment used and its
activity level. This temporary noise will not be significant considering that the Project Site is
surrounded by offices, commercial and industrial buildings which either incorporate noise
attenuation measures into their design or generate noise themselves. Short-term construction
noise impacts tend to occur in disdrete phases dominated initially by large, earth- moving sources,
then by foundation and parking lot construction, and later for finish construction. The loudest
semi - continuous equipment operation noise typically ranges around 90 dB(A) at 50 feet from the
source. Point sources of noise emissions are atmospherically attenuated by a factor of 6 dB per
12
087
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
doubling of distance. The loudest general construction noises may require around 1,000 feet of
distance between the source and a nearby receiver to reduce the 90 dB(A) source strength to a
generally acceptable 65 dB exterior exposure level. In later phases of finish construction,
equipment such as generators, compressors, saws, etc., are somewhat less noisy and the physical
barrier created by partially completed on -site facilities further breaks up the line of sight
propagation. Compliance with the El Segundo Noise Ordinance will limit construction noise
impacts to periods of reduced noise sensitivity.
Mitigation Measures:
D -1. Construction activities shall be prohibited during the hours from 6 p.m. to
7 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays and any time on Sundays and holidays
except in emergencies.
D -2. Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating
mufflers.
D -3. Stationary on -site construction equipment and construction vehicle staging
shall be placed such that emitted noise is sufficiently minimized, to the
satisfaction of the Community, Economic and Development Services
Department.
Noise /Operational Impacts
Effect: The proposed project could result in significant noise in the area from
either traffic in the area or stationary noise sources within the Project.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not expressly identify or contain substantial
evidence ideVtifying significant environmental effects of the Reduced Project with respect to
operational noise impacts. The major source of operational mobile source noise is from
vehicular traffic. The Reduced Project is expected to generate less traffic and thus produce less
noise than the Original Project. Traffic noise would not significantly impact users of the Park
Site. The major sources of operational stationary source noise impacts are parking lot noise and
noise from air conditioning units or computer /telecommunications equipment, as well as a
possible electrical co- generation fAcility. The Reduced Project will contain the same types of
uses as the Original Project except for the park, which would not generate significant amounts of
noise. Because the Reduced Project will be less dense than the Original Project, the Reduced
Project would generate less operational noise, as set forth in Chapter VII of the MR. The
13
i•i
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Original Project's operational noise impacts were not found to be significant; therefore, the
Reduced Project's operational noise impacts are also not significant.
Fact:
(a) Mobile Source Noise - Along the more heavily traveled roadways in the
project vicinity, roadway noise from existing and future growth traffic volumes creates an
elevated background noise level that will be little affected by the additional project traffic
increment. Even4along lightly traveled roadways with lower background levels, project traffic
does not create a significant noise impact. Most project - related traffic noise impacts are clearly
well below the normally accepted significance threshold and also well below the level considered
even marginally perceptible. The only traffic link that would approach the significance threshold
would be along Douglas Street from Imperial Highway to Atwood Way, where there would be an
increase of 2.9 dB CNEL. Although noise levels on roadway links adjacent to the Park Site will
increase from Project traffic to be about 60dB CNEL range, such levels are well within the
acceptable range for parks. Overall, individual Project impacts are thus insignificant.
(b) Stationary Source Noise Impacts - The proposed project is anticipated to
include various stationary noise sources, including parking lot noise and noise from air
conditioning units or computer /telecommunications equipment. The parking lot noise is not
anticipated to significantly impact sensitive receptors, as it will be partially shielded by the
buildings on -site and proposed landscaping. Noise from air conditioning units and/or
computer /telecommunications equipment will be minimized through measures such as
enclosures, shielding and other forms of noise attenuation.
An electrical- cogeneration facility may be included as a part of the proposed
project. A co- generation unit is typically moderately noise, but generally contains numerous
sound - abating features, including enclosure within a building and both air movement and
rotational machinery silencing. The most typical noise is a high frequency "whine" from the
spinning turf ?ine. High frequency noise is much more readily abated than low frequency rumbles,
such that supplemental design features can be installed if the co- generation plant were located
close to noise - sensitive, on -site uses such as the hotel or day care facility.
The City of El Segundo noise standard for stationary noise sources is 60 dBA
(50th percentile level) for commercial or mixed -use zones. Noise levels from commercial air
conditioning units generally achieve 60 dB within approximately 15 feet from the source. A co-
generation unit, located indoors except for the air intakes and exhaust stacks, has noise levels of
55 -60 dB outside the powerhouse building. On -site stationary noise sources thus have negligible
potential for exceeding the mixed -use or park noise standards except within a few feet of the
14
0 8 1j
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
source itself. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in any significant stationary noise
impacts.
Geology and Soils /Surface Fault Rupture, Seismicity and Ground Shaking, Etc.
Effect: The proposed project could potentially result in significant impacts
relating to geology and soils. The Project Site is located in the vicinity of the Newport -
Inglewood Fault Zone and the Elysian Thrust Fault Zone. While the Project Site is located in a
zone of the City that is considered to have a low potential for liquefaction, there is potential that
the proposed project could be subject to ground failure or subsidence. The grading phase of the
proposed project may result in minimal erosion, particularly during runoff conditions. The
proposed project may also expose people to expansive soils.
Findin : Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to geology and soils impacts. The effects of the Reduced
Project with respect to geology and soils are expected to be similar to those of the Original
Project. The Original Project's geology and soils impacts were not found to be significant;
therefore, the Reduced Project's geology and soils impacts are also not significant.
Fact:
(a) Surface Fault Rapture - The potential for surface fault rupture at the
Project Site is low. Therefore, the proposed development will not expose people to significant
impacts related to surface fault rupture.
(b) Seismicity and Ground Shaking - The Project Site is not within an area
identified by the California Division of Mines and Geology (1999) as having a potential for
seismic slope instability (slope instability resulting from ground shaking). However, the location
of the site relative to known active or potentially active faults indicates the site could be
subjected to significant ground shaking.
(c) Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement - The potential for liquefaction at the
Project Site is low. Liquefaction will not be a significant impact at the site. Therefore, the
proposed development will not result in or expose people to significant impacts related to
seismic settlement and differential compaction.
15
0 90
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
(d) Slope Stability - The Project Site is relatively level and the absence of
nearby slopes precludes slope stability hazards. Due to the reasons previously described, there
are no significant impacts related to slope stability. The proposed development will not result in
or expose people to significant impacts related to slope stability.
(e) Tsunamis, Inundation, and Seiches - The Project Site is approximately 2.4
miles from the Pacific Ocean at elevations of about 98 to 100 feet above mean sea level (U.S.
Geological Survey datum). Therefore, there are no significant impacts related to tsunamis,
inundation, or Seiches at the Project Site. The proposed development will not result in or expose
people to significant impacts related to tsunamis, inundation, and Seiches.
(f) Flooding - The Project Site is locate in an area of minimal flooding (Zone
C) as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Association. Therefore, there are no
significant impacts related to flooding at this site. The proposed development will not result in
or expose people to significant impacts related to flooding.
(g) Subsidence - There are no significant impacts related to subsidence at the
Project Site. The proposed development will not result in or expose people to significant impacts
related to subsidence.
(h) Volcanic Hazards - Due to the distance between the Project Site and
known volcanic area, there are no significant impacts related to volcanic hazards at the site. The
proposed development will not result in or expose people to significant impacts related to
volcanic hazards.
(i) Landform Alteration - There are no unique geologic features in the vicinity
of the Project Site. Therefore, no unique geologic features will be modified or destroyed as a
result of the proposed development.
(j) Foundations - Based on the results of previous geotechnical investigations
performed on adjacent properties, the natural soils in the general site vicinity consist primarily of
dense silty sand and poorly graded sand with some gravel. Locally, clay sand layers are present.
Silty clay and sandy clay layers are present in the upper 15 feet of the existing ground surface.
The upper clay -rich materials encountered on the adjacent sites are only moderately firm and
would become weaker when wet. However, below depths of approximately 3 to 5 feet, the
natural soils underlying the site and firm. Also, the upper clay soils are expansive and would
shrink and swell with changes in moisture content. Corrosion studies performed as part of
previous investigations on adjacent properties indicate that the soils are moderately to severely
corrosive to ferrous metals and aggressive to copper. The soils were found to be non- detrimental
16
091
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
to portland cement. Expansive or corrosive soils could have a significant impact on the proposed
development. However, any potentially significant impacts resulting from expansive or
corrosive soils can be completely mitigated.
(k) Grading - It is anticipated that conventional earth- moving equipment will
be used in excavating any existing fill soils and the natural eolian sand dune deposits at the site.
If any fill is to be placed during grading, it would be placed in accordance with the regulations of
the appropriate governmental agencies. It is expected that most of the excavated alluvial
materials would be suitable for use at other construction projects. Any existing fill materials,
less any oversized materials or organic debris, would also be suitable for use as compacted fill.
Grading is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the proposed project or the surrounding
developments.
(1) Stability Of Permanent Slopes And Temporary Evacuations - The Project
Site is underlain by Pleistocene age sediments that are generally massive or crudely stratified.
These materials do not typically contain planes of weakness, such as bedding or joints, that could
affect slope stability. It is anticipated that permanent graded cut or fill slopes at the site at
gradients of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) would be grossly stable. However, comprehensive
geotechnical investigation will assure the stability of the proposed slopes during the proposed
development as required by the City of El Segundo.
Overall, there are no geotechnical or seismic impacts that would not be reduced to
a less than significant level by compliance with current building codes, the mitigation measures,
and the recommendations presented in the comprehensive geotechnical report for the proposed
project. The Project Site is considered suitable for the proposed project from a geotechnical and
geologic perspective.
Mitigation Measures:
E -1. A comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall be submitted as part of
the permitting process for the project. Specific design recommendations
presented in the comprehensive geotechnical report shall be incorporated
into the final design and construction of the proposed project. The
comprehensive geotechnical report shall include, but not necessarily he
limited to the following geotechnical hazards:
t
• Ground Shaking: The proposed development shall be designed
and built to provide life safety for occupants of the structures in the
17
092
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
event of the strong earthquake ground motions expected to occur
inthe vicinity of the site.
Stability of Permanent Slopes and Temporary Excavations: The
comprehensive geotechnical report shall include specific
recommendations for design and construction of proposed
temporary and permanent slopes to be incorporated into the design
and construction of each building prior to issuance of building
permits.
Expansive and Corrosive Soils: The comprehensive geotechnical
report shall evaluate the expansion and corrosion potential of the
on site materials. If the on -site soils are determined to he
expansive or corrosive, specific recommendations shall be
provided in the comprehensive geotechnical report that will reduce
any impacts to a level that is less than significant.
E -2. Drainage collection devices shall be designed in conformance with City of
El Segundo grading and building axles to ensure that all runoff will be
collected and transferred to the proper collection devices. The Applicant
shall provide analysis of the drainage volume created by the proposed
project. All design of drainage flow, collection, and discharge shall be in
conformance with current City codes and subject to approval by the City
of El Segundo. On -site grading shall be performed in accordance with
City codes so that erosion of graded areas will not occur. All areas of
construction shall be fine - graded to direct runoff to the street or to the
nearest available storm drain. No runoff within the property boundaries
shall be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the existing slopes. All
permanent slopes shall be planted in conformance with current City
grading codes.
E -3. The comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall use site - specific soil
and groundwater data to specifically evaluate the potential for liquefaction
at the Project Site. If there is a medium to high potential, specific
recommendations shall be included in the geotechnical report.
k
E -4. Prior to issuing a grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain a haul route
approval for the export materials from the City and shall comply with
applicable restrictions.
10
093
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
E -5. Where the planned depth of excavation for foundations does not extend
below the existing fill soils, the existing fill soils shall be removed and
recompacted in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate
governmental agencies and geotechnical recommendations.
E -6. A registered civil engineer practicing geotechnical engineering, or his /her
representative, shall be present on site to observe grading operations and to
observe foundation excavations.
4
E -7. Specifications for site grading shall be subject to approval by the City
Building Official.
E -S. Where there is sufficient space for sloped excavations, temporary cut
slopes may be made at a 11/2:1 or 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient with
the 11/2:1 slope made adjacent to existing structures. However, the
stability of the graded slopes shall be addressed during the site - specific
geotechnical investigation, and when grading plans are completed for the
proposed development.
E -9. If temporary excavation slopes are to be maintained during the rainy
season, it will be necessary to direct all drainage away from the top of the
slope. No water shall be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the face of any
temporary or permanent slope.
E -10. Water shall not be allowed to pond at the top of the excavation or allowed
to flow into the excavation.
E -11. Where sufficient space for sloped excavations is not available, shoring
shall be used. The shoring system may consist of soldier piles and
lagging. The recommendations presented in the site - specific geotechnical
investigation report for the proper design of the shoring system shall be
followed.
E -12. Final shoring plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by a
civil engineer practicing geotechnical engineering.
E -13. The recommendations presented in the site - specific geotechnical
investigation report for design of walls below grade to support the lateral
19
09�
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
earth pressure and the additional surcharges from adjacent buildings and
traffic shall be followed.
E -14. A drainage system shall be placed at the back of and/or the base of
building walls below grade.
E -15. Suspect or visibly impacted soil or groundwater would require analysis to
assess the contamination potential.
4 Cultural Resources/Buried Resources
Effect: Buried archeological resources could be disturbed and lost in the course
of construction activities.
Findin¢: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to cultural resources. The effects of the Reduced Project with
respect to cultural resources are expected to be similar to those of the Original Project. The
Original Project's impacts on cultural resources were not found to be significant; therefore, the
Reduced Project's impacts on cultural resources are also not significant.
Fact: The Project Site was occupied by Rockwell International between 1953 and
1990. Demolition activities were conducted in 1992 to remove all buildings, infrastructure and
underground storage tanks. At that time, no significant historical resources were identified. The
City of El Segundo General Plan EIR does not designate the Project Site as a sensitive
archaeological area. There have been no known archeological resources discovered in the
Project vicinity. There are also no known human remains within the Project Site or the project
vicinity. Further, no unique geologic features exist within the Project Site. Therefore, no
cultural resources or human remains are anticipated to be encountered during grading and
construction activities. In the event archeological or paleontological resources or human remains
are encountered, the mitigation measures listed below will ensure that the project does not result
in damage to or the loss of such resources or human remains.
Mitigation Measures:
F -1. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are
encountered during the course of grading or construction, all development
must temporarily cease in these areas until the resources are properly
pill
095
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
assessed and subsequent recommendations are determined by a qualified
consultant.
F -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 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.
Hydrology and Water Quality /Water Quality. Drainage and Runoff
Effect: Development of the proposed project could result in potentially
significant impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality, including violating water quality
standards, substantially altering existing drainage patterns, creating or contributing runoff which
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, and otherwise
substantially degrading water quality.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to hydrology and water quality. The effects of the Reduced
Project with respect to hydrology and water quality are expected to be less than those of the
Original Project because the Reduced Project will have less impervious area due to the use of
five acres of the Project Site as a park/soccer field. The Original Project's hydrology and water
quality impacts were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's hydrology and
water quality impacts are also not significant.
Fact: (a) Hydrology - The proposed on -site storm drainage system will
connect directly to the Mariposa Street storm drain via an existing 30 -inch reinforced concrete
pipe (RCP) storm drain stub into the Project Site (located on the west side of the proposed
Mariposa Street entrance). Peak chows discharged directly into the Mariposa Street storm drain
will be restricted to the drain's available capacity. This will be achieved by limiting the size of
the connection to the existing storm drain. Flows above the capacity of the storm drain will be
partially retained on -site (via an on -site retention basin) and partially allowed to drain into
21
0,9()
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Mariposa Avenue. Street flows will only occur after available storm drain capacity and on -site
retention are exhausted. The drainage system will be designed to City of El Segundo and County
of Los Angeles standards.
Due to an increase in impervious area (approximately 55 percent of the
Project Site), the proposed project will result in increased peak runoff flows to 71 cfs during the
10 -year storm event. This represents an increase of 22 cfs over the existing conditions runoff
rate of 49 cfs. Ultimately, all runoff from the Project Site and adjacent tributary area collects at
the intersection ofDouglas Street and Mariposa Avenue. At this point, two storm drain lines,
LACDPW Project No. 2694 and LACRD Project No. 4806 converge and continue southerly in
Douglas Street.
The tributary "Q" (i.e., flow) in Douglas Street is no more than 11.5 cfs.
Therefore, no mitigation is needed for these areas (i.e., Sub - Basins 72D, 73E and 1/2 of 74F). On
an area proration basis, the project's share of capacity in the storm drain LACRD Project No.
4806 is 26.5 cfs. Of the 26.5 cfs, approximately 9.5 cfs is contributed from the uncontrolled
perimeter area (Sub- Basins 76C, 75B, and 1/2 of 74F) at a time of peak contribution by the main
Project Site. Therefore, of the 71 cfs generated from the "controlled" area, only 17 cfs can be
allowed into the storm drain system, and the remaining flows must be detained on -site. The
volume of runoff above 17 cfs is 1.4 acre -feet. This is considered to be a potentially significant
surface hydrology impact that can be reduced to less than significant level via implementation of
the mitigation measures listed below.
(b) Water Quality - The proposed project has the potential to cause
short-term construction- related storm water pollution due to handling, storage and disposal of
construction materials, earth moving activities, and maintenance and operation of equipment. A
General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit must be obtained from the SWRCB prior to
the start of construction. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)
requires that a Notice of Intent (NOI) be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). $y filing an NOI, the developer agrees to conditions outfitted in the General Permit.
The SWPPP 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.
The propos�d project will provide structural or treatment control BMPs
designed to mitigate long -term operational storm water runoff impacts. While some infiltration
through landscape areas will occur, the proposed project will primarily rely on the
implementation of Treatment Control BMPs. As required by the Standard Urban Storm Water
22
0 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Mitigation Plan ( SUSWMP), detailed plans for the proposed project's compliance with the
SUSWMP will be submitted to the City as part of the development plan approval process prior to
issuance of building and grading permits. With compliance with the SUSWMP requirements,
the project's operational impacts on storm water quality will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
G -1. The Applicant shall prepare a master drainage plan for the proposed
project Site. 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. Such
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City of El Segundo and the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
G -2. The project Applicant/developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 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.
G -3. 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.
G -4. All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction shall be cleaned
up promptly to prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be
washed away into the storm drains.
G -5. If materials spills occur, they should not be hosed down. Dry cleaning
methods shall be employed whenever possible.
23
n
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
G -6. The proposed project shall comply with City of El Segundo Ordinance No.
1235 and No. 1329, which establishes storm water and urban pollution
controls.
G -7. Construction dumpsters shall be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting if
left uncovered for extended periods. All dumpsters shall be well
maintained.
G-4 8. The project Applicant /developer shall conduct inspections of the Project
Site before and after storm events to determine whether control practices
(BMPs) to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan are adequate and properly implemented.
G -9. The project Applicant /developer shall conduct street sweeping and truck
wheel cleaning to prevent dirt in storm water.
G -10. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95,
Article 2, Section 25.5.30 et. Etc.), the Applicant/developer shall submit a
Risk Management Plan for the Self- Generating Electric Facility to the
Certified Program Agency (i.e., City of El Segundo Fire Department) for
review and approval. In accordance with Title 19 of the California Code
of Regulations, the City of El Segundo Fire Department shall determine
whether the chemicals proposed for use, storage, and disposal with respect
to the Self- Generating Electric Facility exceed the threshold quantities for
Accidental Release Prevention. The project shall comply with the
conditions of approval established by the City of El Segundo Fire
Department, including those conditions for regulating chemicals that may
exceed the threshold quantities.
G -11. The Applicant /developer shall provide regular sweeping of private streets
within the Project Site with equipment designed for removal of
hydrocarbon compounds.
G -12. The Applicant /developer shall maintain all structural or treatment control
Best Management Practices for the life of the project.
k
24
0 ,9 :)
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Aesthetics
Effect: Development of the Project Site will change the existing visual character
of the site and will introduce new sources of nighttime lighting.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen, the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to aesthetics. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect
to long -term visual character impacts and views are expected to be similar to those of the
Original Project and insignificant. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect to lighting are
expected to be slightly greater than those of the Original Project, due to the nighttime
illumination of the Park Site. However, nighttime lighting impacts of the Reduced Project will
not be significant due to the substantial ambient level of night lighting surrounding the Project
Site and to the absence of nearby receptors sensitive to nighttime lighting.
Fact:
(a) Long -Term Visual Character Impacts - The aesthetic nature of the Project
Site is characterized by weedy vegetation, temporary chain link fencing in a poor state of repair,
and litter accumulated along the sidewalk at the case of the fencing. The proposed project would
replace those unsightly features with an attractively designed and landscaped mixed -use campus
of buildings. The proposed project would be architecturally compatible with surrounding land
uses, which generally exhibit a modern, utilitarian construction style, although there is no
common architectural theme or style in the community. The project would also be compatible
with the scale of development in the surrounding area, which ranges from small -scale businesses
to major manufacturing facilities and high -rise office buildings. Overall, the proposed project
would enhance the visual character of the area. No significant aesthetic impacts would result
from the proposed project.
(b) Views from the Project Site - project construction will replace the
unlimited views across the Project Site with short distance views of new on -site structures and
landscaping. View corridors between the clusters of new structures will maintain some views of
the major features of interest in the area, such as the MTA Green Line, the high -rise office
buildings along Imperial Highway, and to a lesser extent the Century Freeway. Because the new
development is expected to enhance the aesthetic character of the area, no view impact is
anticipated.
25
100
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
There are no significant public scenic features on the Project Site that could be
affected by the proposed project. Further, there are no viewpoints on the Project Site from which
off -site significant scenic features might be viewed. Overall, development of the proposed
project would not result in the loss of any important scenic view from within the Project Site.
project impacts related to these views would be less than significant.
(c) Views of and through the Project Site - Some south - facing offices in the
high -rise buildings along Imperial Highway will have commanding views of and over the
proposed project. Similarly, nearby private businesses located on the east side of Douglas Street,
the west side of T�ash Street, and the south side of Mariposa Avenue will also have views of the
new development. While some existing views that look across the property will be eliminated,
these view lines do not encompass any substantial visual resources. There will be no loss of
scenic vistas or views of significant scenic features from outside the Project Site. Because the
changes brought about by the project primarily affect private views, rather than public, and
because the project is considered an enhancement to the aesthetic character of the area, impacts
to these views are considered less than significant.
(d) Lighting - As seen from nearby streets, and local commercial and
industrial businesses, the lighting associated with the proposed project will transform the site's
current dark nighttime environment to a level comparable to that found in adjoining areas. Due
to the substantial ambient level of night lighting surrounding the Project Site and to the absence
of nearby sensitive nighttime lighting receptors, nighttime lighting impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
H -1. To prevent new on -site sources of illumination from spilling onto adjacent
streets and properties, all exterior lighting associated with the project
should be directed onto the site and shielded from off -site locations.
H -2. Every effort should be made to prevent new lighting sources from being
directed toward the sky to minimize atmospheric light pollution.
Land Use /Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies
Effect: The project has the potential to be inconsistent with applicable General
Plan policies, zoning, code restrictions, SCAG policies, and other applicable City or County
Plans.
26
101
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Fi, ndina: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not expressly identify or contain substantial
evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Reduced Project with respect to land
use. The Reduced Project's land use effects are expected to be similar to those of the Original
Project. The inclusion of the proposed park does not effect this finding because the Park Site
would serve employees of the proposed project and the surrounding properties as well as the
residents of the City, consistent with goals and objectives of the General Plan. Furthermore, as
set forth in Finding No. 9 below, the users of the Park Site would not face health risks due to
emissions from the adjacent Northrop Grumman Corporation ( "NGC ") facility so the proposed
park use would not be incompatible with surrounding land uses. The Original Project's impacts
were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's land use impacts are also not
significant.
Fact:
(a) Land Use Compatibility - The proposed project would include land uses
that are fully compatible with surrounding commercial and industrial uses. The office, research
and development, hotel, and telecommunications /web hosting uses included in the proposed
project, along with supporting retail, restaurant and service uses, would enhance the development
of this area of the City as a center of business and employment, resulting from the regional access
provided by the Century Freeway and in proximity to LAX. The proposed project would result
in re -use of a former industrial property which has been vacant for nearly 10 years. No
significant impacts related to land use compatibility would result from implementation of the
proposed project.
(b) Consistency with Adopted Plans and Policies - As more fully set forth in
reports and adjoining resolutions, the proposed project would generally be consistent with all
applicable policies of the El Segundo General Plan and the Southern California Association of
Government's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Moreover, the existing General Plan,
including thq Circulation Element, adequately reflect local conditions, and is otherwise legally
adequate, and the proposed project can and should be considered under the current General Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant land use impacts related to
consistency with adopted plans and polices.
(c) Zoning Code - The uses included within the proposed project would be
permitted under the MU -N Zone that is applicable to the proposed project Site under the Zoning
Code. The MU -N Zone limits development to a maximum net Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.3:1.
The Specific Plan and accompanying zone change reduce the permitted maximum FAR but
allow the FAR limitation to be exceeded on individual panels within the proposed project Site,
102
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
provided that the overall FAR for the project does not exceed maximum FAR permitted under
the Specific Plan. Because any such entitlement action op the part of the City would not result in
exceedance of the overall FAR limitation established for this area of the City and would be
consistent with the development density presently existing in the surrounding area, this action
would not represent a substantial conflict with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and
would not be a significant impact. The proposed uses are also consistent with those permitted by
the MMO District. However, the Specific Plan does not allow development on the project to
include the additional 1.5 million square feet of entertainment uses permitted under the MMO
District.
Population, Housing and Employment
Effect: The project could have potentially significant incremental impacts on
population, housing and employment due to the creation of new jobs.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the FEIR and the record of proceeding do not expressly identify or contain substantial
evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Reduced Project with respect to
population, housing and employment. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect to
population, housing and employment are expected to be less than those of the Original Project
because the Reduced Project would create proportionately fewer new jobs. The Original
Project's population, housing and employment impacts were not found to be significant;
therefore, the Reduced Project's population, housing and employment impacts are also not
significant.
Fact:
(a) Employment - Implementation of the Original Project would provide
employment for approximately 7,763 persons by project completion in the year 2009. The actual
number of jobs could vary based on the precise use mix, but would not significantly exceed
7,763 because the more job - intensive uses would generate more vehicle trips, and total trips
which can be generated by the proposed project are fixed under the Specific Plan. The Original
Project's estimated employee generation would account for approximately 89.4 percent of
SCAG's forecasted total employment growth for the City of El Segundo during this period. In
terms of SCAG's employment forecast for the South Bay Cities Subregion, the Original Project's
projected employment would account for 19.3 percent of the forecasted growth for the Subregion
between the years 2000 and 2010.
M
103
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
To the extent that employment forecasts are used by SCAG to implement the
regions' growth policies, under - estimates of future employment in the City of El Segundo and the
South Bay Cities Subregion may hinder planning for the timing, financing, and location of public
facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems. However, the Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide (including the Growth Management chapter) is to be periodically reviewed, and
those sections that are found to be out of date are to be updated as needed. Furthermore, SCAG
is currently developing a special program for monitoring the progress of the region. With the
implementation of this monitoring and updating program, such discrepancies between forecasts
and actual changes on the ground will be rectified. Therefore, while the Original Project would
account for a major portion of SCAG's current employment forecasts for the City of El Segundo
and the South Bay Cities Subregion, the self - correcting nature of the forecasts will ensure that
ongoing infrastructure planning efforts will remain consistent with regional growth trends.
The proposed project land uses are consistent with both the City of El Segundo
General Plan use designation and zoning for the Project Site. Based upon this consistency, it
may be assumed that the project has been accounted for in the City's long range planning.
Furthermore, because SCAG's regional planning incorporates the City of El Segundo's General
Plan into its growth forecasts, the project would be deemed consistent with SCAG's forecasts and
growth policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to the City of El Segundo (or to SCAG's
regional planning) due to the project's employment growth are anticipated.
(b) Housing /Population - Many of the Original Project's estimated 7,763 new
employees will be drawn from the local labor force and student population readily available in
the City of El Segundo and surrounding communities. The housing stock within the City of El
Segundo cannot accommodate the potential housing demand created by the proposed project.
However, the housing market for the project's employees is greater than the political boundaries
of the City of El Segundo. This would include most of the South Bay Cities Subregion (located
to the south and southeast of the Project Site) plus additional communities to the north and east
(including the Cities of Inglewood, Culver City, parts of Los Angeles, and Santa Monica). Thus,
it is expected, that the maximum (worst -case) housing demand generated by the Original Project
could be accommodated by the existing housing stock within and beyond the South Bay Cities
Subregion without generating demand for new housing construction.
Because no housing exists on the Project Site, the project will not displace any
existing population. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on population,
employment and housing. Mitigation measures are not required.
29
104
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Hazardous Materials /Exposure
Effect: The development of the project could result in potentially significant
hazardous materials impacts due to residual contamination from previous uses on the Project
Site. Future employees and visitors to the Project Site could be exposed to emissions from off -
site uses, such as the NGC facility.
Findin : Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the follpwing changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to hazardous materials. The effects of the Reduced Project
with respect to hazardous materials are expected to be similar to those of the Original Project.
Although the Reduced Project will include a park, there substantial evidence in the record,
including expert testimony and studies, that the users of the Park Site would not be exposed to
significant health hazards due to soils contamination or air emissions, including emissions from
the NGC facility. The Original Project's hazardous materials impacts were not found to be
significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's hazardous materials impacts are also not significant.
Fact:
(a) Historical Review - The Project Site was historically occupied by
Rockwell North American Aircraft. An estimated 31 underground tanks and /or underground
concrete tanks were used by Rockwell in the operation of the plant. Rockwell began removing
USTs and closing pits in the late 1980s under the supervision of the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works ( "LACDPW "). In the early 1990s, a site wide investigation was
conducted to determine if the past use of the Project Site had impacted the Project Site.
Remedial activities at this time consisted of excavating contaminated soil, as required by the
LACDPW. Groundwater and soil contaminated with VOCs and petroleum hydrocarbons were
discovered ins 1994 at the southwest comer of the Project Site. Although much of the impacted
soil was excavated from the Project Site, VOC contaminated soil and groundwater was
ultimately left in place. A subsequent risk assessment based on conservative residential exposure
scenarios (i.e., 24 hours per day, 7 days per week over a 70 -year lifetime) determined that the
contamination left in place did not present a significant threat to human health or the
environment. The LARWQCB, California Department of Toxic Substance Control ( "DTSC ")
and the LACDPW have all been involved with remedial activities at the Project Site. These
agencies have determined that the Project Site is safe to use for any type of development,
including recreational facilities. None of the agencies have requirements for further investigation
at this time. Based on this information, no further action or investigation is warranted at this
30
10;)
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
time with regards to the historical use of the Project Site. Therefore, hazardous materials impactE
related to VOC's would be less significant. Thus, the proposed park can be safely located on any
portion of the Project Site, including the southeast or southwest comers.
(b Previous Operational Activities - No circumstances of environmental
concern associated with the previous operational activities were observed at the Project Site
during the preparation of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment for the site. No further action or
investigation is recommended regarding previous operational activities at the Project Site.
Therefore, hazardous materials impacts related to previous operational activities would be less
than significant.
(c Hazardous Materials /Petroleum Products - No hazardous materials or
petroleum products were observed at the Project Site. No further action or investigation is
recommended regarding the historic use of hazardous materials or petroleum products at the
Project Site. Therefore, hazardous materials impacts related to petroleum products would be less
than significant.
(d Wastes - No wastes were observed at the Project Site. No further action or
investigation is recommended regarding wastes at the Project Site. Therefore, hazardous
materials impacts related to waste would be less than significant.
(e Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - No equipment with the potential to
contain dielectric or hydraulic fluid was identified at the Project Site. No further action or
investigation is recommended regarding PCBs at the Project Site. Therefore, hazardous
materials impacts related to PCBs would be less than significant.
(f Asbestos - Containing Materials (ACM) - The Project Site is currently
undeveloped land, and no suspect ACM were observed during the site assessment. No further
action or investigation is recommended regarding ACM at the Project Site. Therefore, hazardous
materials impacts related to ACM would be less than significant.
(g Storage Tanks /Pipelines - No evidence of storage tanks or pipelines
(above or below ground) was identified. No further action or investigation is recommended
regarding previous storage tanks or pipelines at the Project Site. Therefore, hazardous materials
impacts related to storage tanks and pipelines would be less than significant
(h Regulatory Review - Based on review of the regulatory database report, the
Project Site is listed on the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) and Regional Water
Quality Control Board Spills Leaks and Investigations (SLIC) databases due to remediation
31
106
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
previously completed at the Project Site. On -site evaluation and review of file information from
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board identified that the Project Site is currently
listed with a status of "case closed" on both databases. A "case closed" status is awarded only
when contamination has been investigated and/or remediated in accordance with currently
accepted regulatory standards. Based on the current regulatory status, no further action or
investigation is recommended regarding the regulatory review. Therefore, there would be no
significant impacts related to Project Site contamination.
(i F Adjacent Properties - The FEIR identified no adjacent properties that are
anticipated to have a negative impact on the environmental integrity of the Project Site. No
further action or investigation is recommended regarding the adjacent properties. Therefore,
hazardous materials impacts related to adjacent properties would be less than significant.
The following lists were reviewed for sites within the vicinity of the proposed
project to determine their potential to contaminate the Project Site; NPL, RCRA -TSD, RCRA-
CORRACTS, SHWS, CERCLIS, NFRAP, SWF, LUST, UST, RCRIS- Generators and ERNS.
There are sites on this list within the vicinity of the project. However, these sites do not pose a
significant contamination risk to the Project Site, because groundwater flows in a northeast
direction for the listed sites (e.g., the NGC site), or listed sites have already been remediated
(e.g., Hilton Garden Inn site), or are designated as "low priority sites." In addition, the proposed
project will not use groundwater as a potable water source.
6 Operational Impacts of the Proposed Project - The proposed project is not
anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the exception
of the potential electrical substation or co- generation facility that may be included in the
proposed project, the project would utilize limited amounts of common hazardous materials
comparable to the surrounding commercial land uses, due to the similarity in size of the
structures and the need for such materials. The proposed land uses are not expected to use or
store explosives in association with the construction or operations of the facilities. Based on the
amount stored, nature of the packaging, materials involved, and the proposed project's required
compliance with applicable regulations, the risk of upset and accidental conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered to be less than significant.
(k Emergency Response and Evacuation - The proposed project will result in
increased traffic levels to the surrounding streets and highways. The project will utilize existing
streets in addition to creating newtaccess locations around the entire Project Site. The City of El
Segundo Area Plan designates Sepulveda Boulevard and Vista Del Mar Boulevard as primary
evacuation routes during large -scale emergencies such as earthquakes and major hazardous
materials release. While the project would add vehicle trips to these roadways, they are not in
32
10 ;
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
the immediate vicinity of the Project Site and therefore would not be the primary evacuation
routes for all vehicles leaving the Project Site during large -scale emergencies. No significant
impacts to emergency response and evacuation are anticipated as a result of implementation of
the proposed project.
(l Emissions from the NGC Facility - NGC has issued a Proposition 65
warning for chromium VI. Proposition 65 is primarily a disclosure statute which requires certain
persons to provide warnings before exposing persons to chemicals known to the State to cause
cancer or reproductive harm. A warning is required unless the person causing the exposure can
demonstrate that the exposure results in no significant risk assuming lifetime exposure. NGC
provided a warning for those persons located within the isopleth depicted on the facility map.
However, the fact that a warning is given does not mean that the person would actually be
exposed to any chromium VI as a result of NGC's operations, much less harmful levels. The
Proposition 65 regulations require numerous conservative assumptions regarding exposure to
determine whether a warning is required. For environmental exposures (the exposure at issue),
Proposition 65 requires the party to assume lifetime exposure in a residential setting. Many
entities subject to Proposition 65 provide warnings in an abundance of caution without even
determining whether the exposure results in a significant risk. As a result, these warnings are
prevalent in gas stations, supermarkets and even the office buildings to the north of the Project
Site. Some City facilities, including parks, have posted Proposition 65 notices.
Due to the scale of the NGC map, it is uncertain whether the Park Site is located
within the NGC Proposition 65 isopleth for chromium VI shown on the map. If the Park Site is
located outside the isopleth, any potential exposure to chromium VI, if any, would be
insignificant. Even if the Park Site is located within the chromium VI isopleth, there would be
no significant health risks for park users from chromium VI from NCG's facility. The exposure
scenario assumed for the Proposition 65 isopleth is based upon a conservative residential
exposure scenario with the receptor breathing peak emissions 24 hours per day for a 70 -year
lifetime. The likely exposure scenario for park use is significantly less than the conservative
residential exposure assumed under Proposition 65. Even taking into account the possibility of
increased breathing rates during physical activity, the potential exposure to chromium VI
emissions, if any, and the resulting risks are insignificant. Furthermore, there is no substantial
evidence that children at the Park Site could face health risks from chromium VI due to the
ingestion or dermal contact. Hexavalent chromium compounds pose no significant risk of cancer
by the route of ingestion. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22, § 12707(b)
t
NGC is also subject to Assembly Bill 2588 notification requirements related to the
use of toxic chemicals. Portions of the Project Site are within areas subject to the NGC AB 2588
notification. The contour shown on the AB 2588 "cancer risk from toxic air pollution map"
33
108
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
published by the SCAQMD for the NGC facility was based on a conservative health risk
assessment analyzing peak emissions from the NGC facility in 1991. This health risk assessment
concluded that a receptor breathing the maximum concentration of peak emissions 24 hours per
day over a 70 -year lifetime would have an increased cancer risk by a maximum of 61 chances in
1,000,000. The "cancer risk from toxic air pollution map" shows the peak emissions receptor at a
location some distance from the Project Site on the far (eastern) side of the NGC facility. A
portion of the Project Site is located along the outside contour of the map area, where, due to the
dispersion of emissions, the increased conservative cancer risk would be, at most, 10 in
1,000,000. BecaVse the NGC health risk assessment showed an increased cancer risk of more
than 25 in 1,000,000, the SCAQMD, the local agency implementing AB 2588, required NGC to
implement risk reduction measures. According to the SCAQMD, the measures reduced the
increased cancer risk at the peak receptor from sixty -one in one million to 7.6 in 1,000,000. The
health risks at the outside contour were also proportionately reduced. As a result, if the NGC
facility were proposing this amount of emissions today as a new facility, it would not be subject
to the AB 2588 notification requirements at all. Moreover, NGC will not be able to increase
toxic emissions in the future without SCAQMD approval after appropriate review taking into
account the presence of the Park Site in the vicinity.
The SCAQMD's health risk assessment criteria assumed a conservative 24 -hour a
day, seven days a week exposure for 70 years. Maximum use of the Park Site, and the exposure
to the already reduced level of NGC emissions, would be limited to a few hours per week over a
much shorter time span. Thus, park users would be exposed to significantly lower levels of
emissions than NGC's employees, who are present during normal work hours nearer the source.
Further, this limited exposure would generally not occur during the peak emission period from
the NGC facility; that is, park usage will occur primarily during evenings and weekends.
Therefore, any increased cancer risks on the park site from exposure to emissions from the NGC
facility would be negligible. The health risk associated with people using the Park Site would be
less than office tenants because an assessment of health risks to office workers would take into
account the fact that workers are potentially exposed to toxic emissions 40 hours per week.
Since peoplq would be at the park for only a few hours a week, their risk factors would even be
less than indicated in the existing NGC health risk assessment and less than an assessment based
on office worker exposure.
Mitigation Measures:
K -1. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95,
Article 2, Section 25.5.30 et. etc.). The project Applicant shall submit a
Risk Management Plan, if necessary, for the Electric Co- Generation
Facility to the Certified Program Agency (i.e., City of El Segundo Fire
34
109
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Department) for review and approval. In accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations, the City of El Segundo Fire Department
shall determine whether the chemicals proposed for use, storage, and
disposal with respect to the Self- Generating Electric Facility exceed the
threshold quantities for Accidental Release Prevention. The project shall
comply with the conditions of approval established by the City of El
Segundo Fire Department.
10. Public Services/Police Protection
Effect: Responses to thefts, vehicle burglaries, damage to vehicles, traffic - related
incidents, and crimes against persons are anticipated to result from an increase in traffic on
adjacent streets and arterials and an increase in transient occupancy.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to police protection. The effects of the Reduced Project with
respect to police protection are expected to be similar than those of the Original Project. Any
increased demand on law enforcement from the Park Site would be offset by the reduction in
employees and visitors at the site due to the reduction in density of all other uses. The Original
Project's police protection impacts were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced
Project's police protection impacts are also not significant.
Fact: Development of the proposed project would result in an increase in the
number of employees and visitors to the Project Site and surrounding area, thereby generating an
increase in the level of service calls from the Project Site. Responses to thefts, vehicle
burglaries, damage to vehicles,_ traffic- related incidents, and crimes against persons are
anticipated to result from an increase in traffic on adjacent streets and arterials and an increase in
transient occupancy. Impacts to police protection services relate to four key areas; (1) site
visibility; (2) emergency access; (3) on -site activities; (4) and interference with emergency
response times.
A strategic security plan will be implemented, which would be aimed at deterring
crime and minimizing the need for El Segundo Police Department (ESPD) services. The site
design features and security measures of the proposed project would provide visibility of
structures and access points, security lighting, security alarm systems, fencing, on -site camera
surveillance, 24 -hour security patrols, and other security measures. In addition, a Police Service
Mitigation Fee of $0.11 per gross square foot is required to reduce police service impacts. Based
35
110
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
on the security features and the required Police Service Mitigation Fee, potentially significant
impacts upon police protective services would be reduced to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures:
L -1. The applicant shall pay a Police Service Mitigation Fee of $0.11 per gross
square foot of building area prior to the occupancy of each building.
L -2. A strategic security plan, which shall include definitive plans and
specifications, shall be submitted to the El Segundo Police Department
(ESPD) for review and approval prior to commencement of construction
of any portion of the proposed El Segundo Corporate Campus project.
The strategic security plan should address the following items:
• Depending on the size of the structure and its location in relation to
the streets, the displayed address may vary from a minimum of 4"
to as much as 24 ".
• Building entrances and exits shall be limited to keep control and
visibility of the building.
• All landscaping shall be low profile especially around perimeter
fencing, windows, doors and entryways taking special care not to
limit visibility and provide climbing access.
• Adequate street, walkway, building and parking lot lighting shall
be provided to enhance security.
• Provisions for on -site security personnel.
I
11. Public Services/Fire Protection
Effect: The proposed project could increase demands for fire and emergency
medical service.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to fire protection services. The effects of the Reduced Project
36
111
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
with respect to fire protection are expected to be similar to those of the Original Project. The
increase in demand on fire protection and emergency services from the Park Site would be offset
by the reduction in employees and visitors at the site due to the reduction in density of all other
uses. The Original Project's fire protection impacts were not found to be significant; therefore,
the Reduced Project's fire protection impacts are also not significant.
Fact: The adequacy of fire protection services for a given area is based on site
access to and within the proposed project Site, required fire -flow, access to hydrants, response
distance from existing fire stations, and the El Segundo Fire Department's (ESFD) judgment of
the area's needs. Fire access roadways would be provided throughout the Project Site. The
ESFD has stated that the proposed project will not likely require additional firefighters or
equipment to respond to emergencies, and that the existing fire stations can adequately
accommodate the project's demands for fire and emergency medical service. The possible
relocation of Fire Station No. 2 to the Project Site would further reduce the less than significant
fire protection impacts of the proposed project.
The proposed project will require the installation of public fire mains, fire
hydrants, fire department access roads, and private mains and private fire hydrants on all private
streets. The water pressure in the project area is sufficient to meet the fire flow requirements of
the proposed project. All of the proposed project structures would meet ESFD construction
requirements, and the Project Site layout has been designed to comply with ESFD specifications
for driveway widths, turning radii, and other access requirements. In addition, a Fire Service
Mitigation Fee of $0.14 per gross square foot is required to reduce fire service impacts.
Potentially significant impacts upon fire prevention and suppression services would be reduced
to less than significant levels via compliance with the required fire protection features.
Mitigation Measures:
L.2 -1. The Applicant shall pay a Fire Service Mitigation Fee of $0.14 per gross
square foot of building area prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
L.2 -2. A fire life safety plan, which shall include definitive plans and
specifications, shall be submitted to the El Segundo Fire Department
(ESFD) for review and approval prior to commencement of construction
of any portion of the proposed El Segundo Corporate Campus
development.
37
II
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
L.2 -3. Provide fire access roadways throughout the property and submit a layout
plan to the ESFD for approval. A roadway should circulate around open
parking structures.
L.2 -4. Provide on -site fire hydrants as required by the ESFD.
L.2 -5. The following installations require separate Fire Department approval.
The Applicant shall submit separate plans for Fire Department review:
• Automatic fire sprinklers;
• Fire alarm system;
• Underground fire service mains;
• Fire pumps;
• Emergency generators; and
• Any aboveground or underground storage tank including elevator
sumps and condensation tanks
12. Utilities /Sewer
Effect: Development of the proposed project would increase wastewater
generation as a result of new restaurant, retail, office, and hotel uses.
Findin : Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Protiect which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to sewers. Any increase in wastewater generated from the Park
Site would be offset from the reduction in wastewater from the reduction in density of all other
uses. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect to sewers are expected to be similar to the
Original Project. The Original Project's sewers impacts were not found to be significant;
therefore, the Reduced Project's sewer impacts are also not significant.
t
Fact: Development of the proposed project would increase wastewater
generation as a result of new restaurant, retail, office, and hotel uses. Upon full development, an
estimated 691,545 gallons per day of wastewater would be generated by the Original Project.
W.
113
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
The actual amount could vary slightly depending on the precise mix of uses. According to the
Los Angeles County Sanitation District, the existing trunk line is adequate to serve the proposed
project irrespective of the use mix, unless the entire project was restaurant uses. However, such a
project could never be built because it would generate trips in excess of the maximum permitted
under the Specific Plan. New on -site sewer lines will be designed to accommodate the sewage
demand of the new project. The Original Project's wastewater generation would represent
approximately 0.21 percent of the daily permitted effluent treated at the JWPCP and 0.18 percent
of the JWPCP available capacity (based on average daily flows). Because JWPCP has sufficient
treatment capacity to accommodate the increased wastewater flows associated with the proposed
project, irrespective of the use mix impacts associated with sewage treatment would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures:
M.1 -1. The Applicant shall be required to obtain a sewer connection permit from
the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (District 5) to obtain sanitary
sewer service.
M.1 -2. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts requires a Buildover Permit
for construction over its sewer easements. The Applicant shall
demonstrate through its Grading Plan that all alterations to final sewer
easements and rights of way shall be in accordance with relevant
Buildover Permit(s) to allow the construction of the proposed project and
other project components over the 10 -foot wide sewer easement.
M.1 -3. The proposed project shall comply with the City's Sewer Ordinance No.
1093, of the City of El Segundo Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter I
General Provisions, Policies and Procedures.
Prior to a building permit being issued the project Applicant shall
submit the Final Working Drawings to the City of El Segundo
Department of Community, Economic and Development Services
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
13. Utilities /Water
Effect: Development of the proposed project would increase water consumption
as a result of new restaurant, retail, office, hotel, park and other uses.
39
114
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to water. Unless reclaimed water is used, the effects of the
Reduced Project with respect to water are expected to be greater than those of the Original
Project due to the addition of the Park Site. However, water consumption impacts of the
Reduced Project would be less than the Park Alternative described as Alternative E in the FEIR,
and would be less than significant due to adequate available water supply and line capacity.
Fact: Development of the proposed project would increase water consumption as
a result of new restaurant, retail, office, hotel uses, and other uses (e.g. office, light
industrial /manufacturing, laboratories, technology, and recreational uses). The Original Project
would consume 942,174 gallons per day of water at full buildup. Water consumption rates
include some increment for landscape irrigation. Water generation rates also take into account
mandatory water conservation measures enacted by the City such as the installation of low flow
toilets and plumbing fixtures that prevent water loss. According to the El Segundo Water
Company, adequate water supply and line capacity are available in the existing water distribution
system to accommodate the proposed project, irrespective of the precise mix of uses. Moreover,
the trip limitations of the Specific Plan will effectively limit water consumption, in that those
uses which consume more water (i.e., restaurants) also generate more trips. hi order to comply
with the trip restriction, any increase in restaurant uses would require a corresponding decrease in
other uses. This decrease would also offset the increased water consumption from the added
restaurants. On -site water infrastructure improvements will be designed to accommodate the
peak demands of the proposed project. The increase in demand for water with implementation of
the proposed project would not require alterations to existing off -site water facilities that serve
the Project Site. Therefore, water impacts associated with the proposed project would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
f
M.2 -1. The proposed project shall include dual water connections for landscaping
to accommodate reclaimed water as it becomes more available to the site.
M.2 -2. Reclaimed water, where appropriate and feasible, shall be used as a water
source to irrigate landscaped areas.
M.2 -3. Efficient irrigation systems shall be installed which minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water which will reach plant roots (e.g. drip
irrigation, automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors).
f
115
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
M.2 -4. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be set to irrigate landscaping during
early morning hours or during the evening to reduce water losses from
evaporation. Sprinklers shall also'be reset to water less often in cooler
months and during the rainfall season so that water is not wasted by
excessive landscape irrigation.
M.2 -5. Selection of drought- tolerant, low water consuming plant varieties shall be
used to reduce irrigation water consumption.
M`2 -6. The proposed project shall comply with the City's Conservation Program,
Ordinance No. 1194, of the City of El Segundo Municipal Code, Title 10-
Parks and Recreation. Chapter 2 Water Conservation in Landscaping and
Resolution No. 3806.
Prior to a building permit being issued the project applicant shall
submit the Final Working Drawings to the City of El Segundo
Department of Community. Economic and Development Services
far review and approval relative to compliance with the City's
Water Conservation Ordinance and Guidelines for Water
Conservation in Landscaping.
14. Utilities /Solid Waste
Effect: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in
solid waste.
Findine: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to solid waste. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect
to solid wast6 are expected to be less than those of the Original Project. The minimal increase in
solid waste from the Park Site would be more than offset by the decrease in solid waste generated
from the overall reduction in density of all other uses. The Original Project's solid waste impacts
were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's solid waste impacts are also not
significant.
Fact: Upon full occupancy of the Original Project, solid waste associated with the
new restaurant, retail, office, and hotel uses would be approximately 15,356 pounds of solid
waste per day. Because all proposed uses would generate solid waste at essentially the same rate
41
116
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
on a per square foot basis (except for the park which generates less), the amount of solid waste
generated by the proposed project would not significantly change if the precise mix of uses
changes. While implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in solid
waste, this increased demand represents a fraction of the solid waste generated within the region,
and would not, therefore, significantly impact available landfill capacity. Solid waste generated
on -site would be disposed in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations
related to solid waste. The proposed project shall, as applicable for project operations,
incorporate storage and collection of recycling into the project design including applicable
provisions of ordinances related to hours of collation and operation of on -site equipment. Project
design shall reserve space adequate for the support of recycling, storage and access, as
appropriate.
Although existing landfills in Los Angeles County are near capacity, potential
expansion would accommodate the potential growth projected for the region. In addition,
operations within the City and the Project Site would continue to be subject to the requirements
set forth in California Assembly Bill 939 which require each city or county to divert 50 percent
of its solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling and composting.
Mitigation Measures:
M.3 -1. The proposed project Applicant shall develop an employee recycling and
education program.
M.3 -2. Where economically feasible, the proposed project shall incorporate the
use of recycled materials in building materials, furnishing operations and
building maintenance.
M.3 -3. The proposal project shall recycle all construction debris in a practical,
available, and accessible manner, to the maximum extent feasible, during
the construction phase.
M.3 -4. The design of the proposed project shall allocate space for a recycling
collection area for use by both on -site employees and visitors, the design
of which will adhere to siting requirements in the City's recycling
ordinance. The design of the collection area will facilitate source
separation and collection of additional materials that may be designated as
recyclable by the City in the future.
M.3 -5. The proposed project Applicant shall encourage employers to perform an
42
117
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
annual waste audit review to measure the effectiveness of the tenant
education program and recycling collection activities in tenant and/or
property management agreements.' The audit shall include,
• A review of purchasing patterns to eliminate materials not
compatible with the established waste diversion program.
• A review of operating procedures which generate either large
amounts of waste or non - recyclable materials.
• A review of occupancy uses and activities.
• The evaluation and expansion of recyclable materials to be
included in a recycling program.
• A review of employee awareness of recycling program goals,
procedures, and accomplishments, as well as evaluations and
implementation of training for all project occupants.
15. Utilities/Natural Gas
Effect: Development of the proposed project would increase the existing demand
for natural gas service in the project area.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not expressly identify or contain substantial
evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Reduced Project with respect to
natural gas use. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect to natural gas are expected to be
less than those of the Original Project. Any increase in natural gas consumption from the Park
Site would be offset by the overall decrease in demand by other uses. The Original Project's
natural gas irhpacts were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's natural gas
impacts are also not significant.
Fact: Development of the proposed project would increase the existing demand
for natural gas service in the project area. The estimated net increase in natural gas consumption
by the Original Project would be approximately 317,204 cubic feet /day (excluding the proposed
co- generation facility). According to the Southern California Gas Company, the demand for
natural gas of the proposed project could be accommodated by the existing natural gas mains in
the project area, irrespective of the precise mix of uses. In addition, new on -site gas lines would
43
118
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
be designed to meet the project's peak demand for natural gas. Therefore, natural gas impacts
from the development of the proposed project would be less than significant.
16. Utilities /Electricity
Effect: Development of the proposed project would increase the existing demand
for electricity service in the project area.
Fipdine: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of the project with respect to electricity. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect
to electricity are expected to be less than those of the Original Project. Any increase in electrical
consumption from the Park Site would be offset by the overall decrease in density of other uses.
The Original Project's electricity impacts were not found to be significant; therefore, the
Reduced Project's electricity impacts are also not significant.
Fact: Development of the proposed project would increase the existing demand
for electricity service in the project area. The power requirements to serve the proposed project,
which includes a high- density telecommunications center, may require the construction of a 66
kv substation which would be developed by SCE. Further, the proposed project would be served
from the general SCE power grid. The estimated net increase in electricity consumption by the
Original Project would be approximately 222,822 kilowatt hours per day. SCE has stated that it
can accommodate the electricity demands of the proposed project, irrespective of the precise mix
of uses. Therefore, no significant impacts related to electricity would occur.
Mitigation Measure:
M.5 -1. The Applicant shall consult with SCE during the design process of the
proposed project regarding potential energy conservation measures for the
project. Examples of such energy conservation measures include:
Design windows (i.e., tinting, double pane glass, etc.) to reduce
thermal gain and loss and thus cooling loads during warm weather,
and heating loads during cool weather.
htstall thermal insulation in walls and ceilings that exceed
requirements established by the State of California Energy
Conservation Standards.
Erl
119
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
• Install high- efficiency lamps for all street lights and outdoor
security lighting.
• Time control interior and exterior lighting. These systems should
be programmed to account for variations in seasonal daylight
times.
• Limit outdoor lighting while still maintaining minimum security
and safety standards.
• Deciduous trees should be planted near each building to provide
shade in the summer and to allow sunlight to access the unit during
the winter.
• Built -in appliances, refrigerators, and space- conditioning
equipment should exceed the minimum efficiency levels mandated
in the California Code of Regulations.
• Finish exterior walls with light- colored materials and
high- emissivity characteristics to reduce cooling loads. Finish
interior walls with light - colored materials to reflect more light and
thus increase lighting efficiency.
• Use natural ventilation wherever possible.
• A performance check of the installed space- conditioning system
should be completed by the developer /installer prior to issuance of
the certificate of occupancy to ensure that energy - efficiency
measures incorporated into the project operate as designed.
17. 1 Air Quality /Construction Impacts and Operational Impacts from Stationary
Sources.
Effect: The proposed project would generate emissions from construction
activities and during operation from stationary sources.
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a),the City Council
finds that the following changes, alterations, or requirements are hereby incorporated into the
Reduced Project which will mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the significant environmental
45
120
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
effects of the project with respect to electricity. Because the Reduced Project would involve less
construction and would be at a lower density at buildout, the effects of the Reduced Project with
respect to construction and stationary source emissions are expected to be less than those of the
Original Project. The Original Project's air quality construction and stationary source impacts
were not found to be significant; therefore, the Reduced Project's impacts are also not significant.
Fact:
(a' Construction Impacts - The Project Site totals 46+ acres in ten phases over
seven years, or an average of 4.6 acres per phase. As a worst -case assumption, the largest single
simultaneous development area was analyzed for a ten (10) acre disturbance area. A 10 -acre
disturbance "footprint" would allow for the simultaneous development/overlap of two separate
project phases.
An assumed construction disturbance "footprint" of ten acres leads to a predicted
daily PM -10 emission rate of 264 pounds with the use of "standard" dust control. Application of
a more enhanced dust control program would reduce PM -10 emissions during construction to
around 102 pounds per day, which is less than the SCAQMD threshold of 150 pounds per day.
With the use of BACMs, daily PM -10 emission levels will be below this significance threshold
for the assumed 10 -acre disturbance area.
Daily off -road equipment emissions will be at less than regionally significant
levels. Additional on -road emissions will result from trucks bringing construction materials and
from construction worker commuting. The on -road pollution contribution may cause the daily
NOx emissions to slightly exceed thresholds. Use of low emissions tune -ups would reduce NOx
emissions to below the SCAQMD threshold of significance,
(b Operational Impacts from Stationary Sources -Small additional amounts
of pollutants will be generated from energy consumption (off -site power plants and on -site
natural gas combustion for space heating, hot water, food services, etc.). A co- generation facility
may also be included in the proposed project. The facility emissions would offset energy
consumption emissions that would be generated at other sources (power plants, heaters, etc.), and
may not be built at this site unless the SCAQMD issues permits after appropriate review to
assure that local air quality impacts would be below SCAQMD thresholds.
Mitigation Measures:
C -6. Maintain soil moisture at a minimum of 12 percent for any cut - and -fill
-me
12 It
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
areas within 100 feet of the property line to the depth of the cut.
C -7. Water as necessary to prevent a visible dust cloud from exceeding 100 feet
from the disturbance area or from passing across the Project Site
boundary.
C -8. Apply chemical stabilizer to any disturbed area to prevent a visible cloud
from forming during high wind conditions.
C -9. Water any non - stabilized disturbed areas twice per day.
C -10. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path
prior to public road entry, or install wheel washers adjacent to a paved
apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads.
C -11. Remove any visible track -out into public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence.
C -12. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any
vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has resulted.
C -13. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty
material onto public roads.
C -14. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce
blowoff during hauling.
C -15. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds
exceed 25 mph.
l
C -16. All diesel - fueled, off -road equipment shall be delivered to the site, and
maintained while on site, with engines tuned to minimum NO, generation
consistent with good fuel economy.
18. Traffic /Parking
t
Effect: The proposed project will need to provide adequate parking to
accommodate guests and visitors.
47
122
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Finding: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a), the City Council
finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not expressly identify or contain substantial
evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Reduced Project with respect to
parking. The effects of the Reduced Project with respect to parking are expected to be similar to
those of the Original Project. Adequate parking for the Park Site will be provided on an interim
basis on the Park Site itself and on a long -term basis within an adjacent parking structure on the
Project Site. The Original Project's parking impacts were found not to be significant; therefore,
the Reduced Project's parking impacts are also not significant.
Fact: The proposed project will provide parking as required under the City of El
Segundo Municipal Code. Parking for the Park Site will be provided on the Park Site on an
interim basis. On a long -term basis, such parking will be provide in an adjacent parking structure
on the Project Site.
C. 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 Reduced Project which lessen
the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts cannot be totally avoided
or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Reduced Project is implemented. All of the
remaining unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified below are acceptable when
balanced against the overriding benefits of the Reduced Project as set forth in Section V below.
The alternatives to the Reduced Project discussed in the FEIR have been rejected for the reasons
set forth in Section III.F below. The differences between the Reduced Project and Original
Project do not affect this finding.
Traffic /Street System
Effect: Traffic generated by the proposed project would impact the street system
in the viciniV of the Project Site.
Finding: The City Council finds the following changes, alterations, or
requirements are hereby incorporated into the project which will lessen the significant
environmental effects of the project with respect to traffic. Nevertheless, the Original Project
would have a significant adverse impact at six intersections. Although the Reduced Project
would generate proportionately leAs traffic than the Original Project, it would still result in
significant and unavoidable impacts at these intersections. Because the proposed improvements
at the intersections of Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard and at Rosecrans Avenue and
Aviation Boulevard cannot be achieved within the existing right -of -way and the additional
M
12 )
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
required right -of -way to implement the improvements is not available, the City Council further
finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make mitigation measures nos. B -9 and B -10 of the
FEIR infeasible. The City Council further finds that reconfiguring major roadways such as
Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo Boulevard and Aviation Boulevard with reversible lanes or
grade separations would create secondary impacts to parking, access and circulation and would
require significant acquisition of right -of -way. Furthermore, Sepulveda Boulevard and El
Segundo Boulevard currently have raised medians, which would provide additional barriers to
the feasibility of such improvements. For these reasons, the City Council further finds, pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make the reconfiguring of major roadways with reversible
lanes or grade separations infeasible. The City Council further finds that, pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(a)(2), the implementation of the sub - regional traffic
improvement package proposed by Applicant is beyond the scope of the proposed project in that
it would address impacts beyond those created by the proposed project and would require multi -
jurisdictional cooperation beyond the Applicant's control.
Fact: The proposed project would significantly impact two intersections during
the morning peak hour only, two intersections during the evening peak hour only and two
intersections during both peak hours for a total of six intersections significantly impacted with
Nash Street and Douglas Street remaining as one -way operations. The proposed project is
expected to significantly impact one intersection during the morning peak hour only, three
intersections during the evening peak hour only and two intersections during both the morning
and evening peak hours for a total of six intersections significantly impacted with Nash Street
and Douglas Street modified to two -way operations. Because the Specific Plan limits the total
number of vehicle trips generated by the project, any change in the precise mix of uses in the
project would not result in increased traffic impacts.
The project's implementation of a TDM Program, connection of Maple Avenue
from Nash St(eet to Douglas Street, contribution of a "fair share" payment for programmed
roadway improvements and implementation of physical roadway improvement mitigation
measures reduce most significant project impacts to a less than significant levels according to
City of El Segundo impact criteria. However, the proposed improvements at the intersections of
Rosecrans Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard and at Rosecrans Avenue and Aviation Boulevard
cannot be achieved within the existing right-of-way and the additional required right -of -way to
implement the improvements is not available. Therefore, the significant traffic impacts at both
intersections will remain unmitigated, even with the implementation of the following mitigation
measures.
EEG
124
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
The Applicant is proposing to apply a portion of Traffic Impact Fees paid by the
project towards the City's share of costs of implementing a sub - regional improvement package in
conjunction with other neighboring cities. The package could improve traffic conditions and
address the impacts of future regional traffic growth, especially along Sepulveda Boulevard.
However, because it has not yet been determined if such a package is feasible and desirable, or
whether it would be funded by other cities, the EIR assumes a "worst case" scenario and
identifies significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
B -1. The Applicant/developer shall implement TDM measures to increase the
convenience and attractiveness of the other transportation alternative
among employees and visitors. Services such as carpool and vanpool
matching, vanpool formation and leasing assistance, and preferred parking
for employees who carpool or vanpool together, should be provided by the
project to facilitate ridesharing. These services would work well in
conjunction with, and benefit those who wish to take advantage of, the
high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on the nearby I -105 and I -405
freeways.
B -2. The Applicant/developer shall purchase a transit bus (shuttle) for the City
to operate during peak commuting and lunchtime hours with circulation
through the project, downtown El Segundo and the Green Line stations at
the City's discretion. The type of vehicle to be purchased and route shall
be established by the City of El Segundo.
B -3. Bicycle travel shall be supported with the design and construction of a
Bicycle Station at Mariposa Avenue and Nash Street utilizing an existing
easement that has been made available for such use on the Hilton Garden
hm property. The design and construction shall be subject to City of El
Segundo review and approval.
B -4. The Applicant/developer shall include the support of bicycle travel
through such on -site amenities as internal bicycle lanes or pathways that
lead to the external roadway system, bicycle racks or lockers that are
distributed throughout the project, and on -site shower facilities and clothes
lockers for employees.
B -5. The Applicant/developer shall include the establishment of a centralized
50
125
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
transportation management office (TMO) within the project to carry out
and market the above trip- reduction strategies.
B -6. Maple Avenue between Nash Street and Douglas Street - Maple Avenue
shall be constructed as a private road within the project but open to
through traffic. While this improvement does not mitigate any specific
significant intersection traffic impact, it does provide for improved
circulation in the surrounding community.
B-`l. Imperial Highway and Sepulveda Boulevard - The existing traffic signal
operation shall be upgraded to include a westbound right -turn overlap.
B -8. El Segundo Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard - The east and westbound
approaches of El Segundo Boulevard shall be modified to provide double
left turn lanes, and one right -turn only lane.
Continued Operation of Nash and Douglas as One -Way Operation
B -11. Imperial Highway and Nash Street /Westbound I -105 Off -Ramp - The
eastbound approach of Imperial Highway shall be restriped to include one
through lane, a shared through/right turn lane, and one right -turn only lane.
The southbound approach should be restriped for one left-turn lane, two
through lanes, and one right -turn lane. These modifications will require
Caltrans approval.
B -12. Atwood Way and I -105 Freeway Eastbound On -Ramp - The existing
intersection shall be modified to provide two northbound through lanes
and one right -turn only lane. In the eastbound direction one left turn lane,
one shared through/right turn lane, and one right -turn only lane should be
provided. The eastbound right -turn only lane should be approximately 150
feet in length with a 60 -foot reversal. In the westbound direction one
shared left/through lane and one shared through/right -turn lane should be
provided. The signal should provide split phasing. Modification of Nash
Street and Douglas Street to two -way operations.
Modification of Nhsh Street and Douglas Street as Two -Way Operations
B -13. Atwood Way and 1 -105 Freeway Eastbound On -Ramp -The northbound
approach shall be constructed to include one left -turn lane, one through
51
126
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
lane, and one shared through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach
shall be striped with one left -turn lane, and one shared through/right turn
lane and one right -turn only lane. The right -turn only lane shall be
approximately 150 feet in length with a 60 -foot reversal. The westbound
approach shall be striped with one shared left/through lane and one right -
turn only lane.
B -14. El Segundo Boulevard and Douglas Street -The north and southbound
approaches shall be modified to include dual left -turn lanes, one through
4
lane, and one shared through/right lane.
2. Air Quality /Operational Impacts from Mobile Emissions.
Effect: Emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site could
significantly impact air quality.
Finding: The City Council finds the following changes, alterations, or
requirements are hereby incorporated into the project which will lessen the significant
environmental effects of the project with respect to air quality effects from mobile emissions.
Nevertheless, the proposed project would have significant adverse air quality impacts. The
Reduced Project would generate proportionately fewer vehicle trips which would generate less
emissions than the Original Project as set forth in Chapter VI of the FEIR. Although the
Reduced Project's impacts on air quality from mobile emissions will be less than those of the
Original Project, the Reduced Project's air quality from mobile emissions would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Fact:
(a) Mobile Source Emissions - Emissions of ROC and NOx from mobile
sources attributed to the project will exceed SCAQMD thresholds by 2005. Levels of CO, ROC,
and NOx, the three primary mobile source pollutants, individually and cumulatively exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds by 2010 and beyond. Although there is some reduction in the
project - related emissions burden from the retirement of older cars in the future traffic fleet (Year
2020 is less than Year 2010 for CO, ROC and NOx), the rate of reduction is not enough to
reduce the emissions to below the threshold of significance. Therefore, regional emissions
(mobile source) impacts will be significant for all pollutants except PM -10.
Because the degree of "excess" emissions substantially exceeds the strict
SCAQMD thresholds, there is little potential to mitigate the impact by "extra" transportation
52
127
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
control measures not already included in project design. The project presumes trip reductions
from MTA transit opportunities, from mixed -use trip reduction (internal trips), and from pass -by
capture by retail uses. However, air quality impacts are still considered significant and not
mitigable to less than significant levels.
(b) Microscale Air Quality Impacts - The increase in traffic around the project
area may create localized violations of ambient health standards. The proposed project of itself
will not cause any localized CO levels to be high enough to cause.one -hour CO standards to be
exceeded. The maximum "with project" CO levels are all less than 10 ppm above the non -local
background. However, the proposed project may create localized CO exposures exceeding the
8 -hour CO standard due to a combination of greater traffic volumes and greater congestion.
Project - related CO impacts for 8 -hour exposures are thus considered individually and
cumulatively significant.
Mitigation Measures:
C -1. A desirable pedestrian environment shall be provided on the Project Site;
C -2. Bicycle parking/racks with reasonable security against theft shall be
provided on the Project Site;
C -3. Comfortable transit access either on the Project Site or at a very close
nearby location shall be provided; and
C -4. Employee trips shall be reduced through preferred parking for carpoolers.
C -5. One -half of one percent of required on -site parking shall be accessible to
electric automobile charging stations.
D. , Insignificant Cumulative Impacts.
The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not
expressly identify or contain substantial evidence which identifies significant adverse cumulative
environmental effects associated with the Reduced Project in conjunction with the related
projects identified in Section 111 of the DEIR (collectively, the "Related Projects ") with respect to
the areas listed below. The differ&ces between the Reduced Project and the Original Project do
not affect this finding.
Geology and Soils - Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the
53
128
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Related Projects would result in further "infilling" of various land uses in the City of El Segundo
and the City of Los Angeles. Geotechnical hazards are site - specific and there is little, if any,
cumulative relationship between development of the proposed project and the Related Projects.
As such, construction of the Related Projects is not anticipated to combine with the proposed
project to cumulatively expose people or structures to such geologic hazards as landslides and/or
unstable soils, or to increase the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore, no
cumulative geological impacts are anticipated from the proposed project and the Related
Projects.
2. Cultural Resources - Development of the proposed project in conjunction with the
Related Projects would result in further "infill" development in the City of El Segundo. Grading
and construction of the Related Projects could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts
to cultural resources if the Related Projects sites contain significant cultural resources and such
resources are not adequately protected. However, the presence of cultural resources on any of the
Related Project sites is speculative and uncertain. However, the proposed project's incremental
contribution to any potential cumulative cultural resources impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level by adequate implementation of proposed cultural resources mitigation
measures and would not be cumulatively considered.
3. Hydrology & Water Quality - The proposed project is not anticipated to combine
with the Related Projects to produce significant cumulative storm drainage water quality impacts.
First, the proposed project is located in an urbanized area where most of the surrounding
properties are already developed. The storm drainage system serving this area has been designed
to accommodate runoff from this built -out environment. While the proposed project will
increase the amount of site - generated runoff compared to existing conditions, the proposed
project will most likely generate less runoff than the previous use of the property, due to a greater
proportion of landscaping. Furthermore, other than Related Project No. 17, the Related Projects
identified in the FEIR are not located in the immediate area of the proposed project and are not
served by the Mariposa and/or Douglas Street storm drains. The proposed project will be
designed to limit its drainage so as not to exceed the capacity of the local storm drain system,
including any additional drainage from Related Project No. 17.
4. Aesthetics - Related Projects are spread throughout the project locale and
neighboring environs. However, only Related Project No. 17, which is located southerly of the
intersection of Mariposa Avenue and Douglas Street, is close enough to combine with the
proposed project to produce cumulative aesthetic character and/or view impacts. Given that both
the proposed project and Related Project No. 17 are compatible uses for the local area, that there
are no nearby sensitive receptors that would be disturbed by the two projects, and that no
significant scenic resources would be affected, the cumulative effect would be less than
54
129
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
significant. Development of the project in conjunction with the Related Projects would
cumulatively contribute to night sky illumination impacts in the area; however, additional light
sources associated with the Related Projects would not be out of character with the highly
urbanized nature of the project locale. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would result
with regard to artificial light.
5. Land Use - Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the
Related Projects would result in cumulative land use changes in this area of the City. In
particular, Related Projects Nos. 17, 22, 25 and 27 would result in new development in the
vicinity of the Project Site. However, these Related Projects consist principally of office and
light industrial development that, in conjunction with the proposed project, would reinforce the
development of this area of the City as a concentrated center of business and employment.
Because this development is envisioned and planned for in the General Plan, it would not result
in significant land use incompatibilities or substantial conflict with applicable plans and
regulations. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to land use would be less than significant.
6. Hazardous Materials - Potential cumulative hazardous materials impacts resulting
from the development of the Project Site and the Related Project could occur from: a) the use,
storage or generation of hazardous substances; and b) the proximity of the Project Site and
Related Project Sites to existing facilities which use, store or generate hazardous materials.
There are a total of 23 Related Projects within a one -mile radius of the Project Site. Based on the
distance between the Related Projects and the Project Site, existing regulations regarding the use,
storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, laws governing underground storage
tanks, and the location of the Related Project sites, cumulative hazardous materials impacts are
considered to be less than significant.
7. Public Services /Police Protection - Implementation of the proposed project in
conjunction with the Related Projects would further increase the demand for police protection
and services. The El Segundo Police Department ( "ESPD ") has stated that the development of
the proposed, project and the Related Projects in the area may result in the need for increased
staffing for existing facilities. However, some of the Related Projects are not within the City of
El Segundo boundaries and would not significantly impact the ESPD. As with the proposed
project, incorporation of measures to minimize demand for police service would likely be
reviewed and implemented on a case -by -case basis in an effort to reduce impacts associated with
future developments. Each Related Project within the City would also have to pay the Police
Service Mitigation Fee. In additidn, the ESPD monitors the need for police service and addresses
personnel needs. Through this process, the ability of the ESPD to accommodate future growth
and maintain acceptable levels of service would be assured. Therefore, cumulative impacts on
police services would be less than significant.
FIB]
13G
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
8. Public Services /Fire Protection - Implementation of the proposed project in
conjunction with the Related Projects would further increase the demand for fire protection and
suppression services. The El Segundo Fire Department ('ESFD") has stated that the existing level
of staffing appears to be sufficient for the development of the proposed project and the Related
Projects in the area. In addition, some of the Related Projects are not within the City of El
Segundo boundaries and would not significantly impact the ESFD. As with the proposed project,
measures to minimize demand for fire service would likely be reviewed and implemented on a
case -by -case bases in an effort to reduce impacts associated with future developments. Each
Related Project within the City would also have to pay the required Fire Service Mitigation Fee.
In addition, the ESFD monitors the need for fire services and addresses personnel and equipment
needs. Through this process, the ability of the ESFD to accommodate future growth and
maintain acceptable levels of service would be assured. Therefore, cumulative impacts on fire
services would be less than significant.
9. Utilities /Sewer - Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the
Related Projects would further increase demand for wastewater treatment service at the JWPCP.
The total wastewater generation by the Original Project and Related Projects that would be
served by the JWPCP would be 1,769,663 gpd. JWPCP has sufficient sewage treatment capacity
to accommodate the sewage from the proposed project and Related Projects. If required,
mitigation measures for the related developments would reduce cumulative wastewater
generation, as would City- mandated water conservation measures. With the implementation of
the required mitigation measures for the project, cumulative impacts to wastewater
service /supply would be less than significant.
10. Utilities /Water - Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with the
Related Projects would further increase demand for water service provided by the West Basin
Municipal Water District ( "WBMWD "). The total water consumption by the Original Project
and Related Projects within the WBMWD service area would be 2,235,915 gpd. There is
adequate future water supply to accommodate the cumulative demand for water supply. As with
the proposed project, all Related Projects would be subject to the locally mandated water
conservation programs. If required, mitigation measures for the related development would also
reduce cumulative water consumption. Cumulative impacts to water service /supply would be
less than significant.
11. Utilities /Natural Gas - Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with
the Related Projects would furthed increase demand for natural gas service. The total natural gas
consumption by the Original Project and Related Projects would be 9,512,788 cubic feet /day.
The cumulative demand for natural gas can be accommodated by existing supplies and
distribution capacity. Compliance with requirement of Title 24 of the California Administrative
56
131
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Code would reduce the cumulative demand for natural gas. The Related Projects are likely to
require "will serve" letters from the Gas Company as well. Cumulative impacts to natural gas
service /supply would be less than significant.
12. Utilities /Electricity - Implementation of the proposed project in conjunction with
the Related Projects would further increase demand for electricity service provided by SCE. The
total electricity consumption by the Original Project and Related Projects within the SCE service
area would be 352,585 kilowatts per day. LAX and any other Related Projects located within the
City of Los Angeles would receive electricity from the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power ( "LADWP "). If required, mitigation measures for the related developments would also
reduce cumulative electricity consumption, as would compliance with Title 24 of the California
Administrative Code. Cumulative impacts to electricity service would be less than significant.
E. Cumulative Impacts That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance.
The City Council finds that in response to each cumulative impact identified
below, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Reduced Project which
lessen the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts cannot be totally
avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Reduced Project is implemented. The
Reduced Project's contribution to these cumulative impacts would be cumulatively considerable
under CEQA. All of the remaining unavoidable cumulative effects identified below are
acceptable when balanced against the overriding benefits of the Reduced Project as set forth in
Section V below. The alternatives to the project discussed in the FEIR have been rejected for the
reasons set forth in Section MY below. The differences between the Reduced Project and the
Original Project do not affect this finding.
1. Traffic - Project traffic in conjunction with traffic from the Related
Projects would cause a number of area intersections to experience LOS E and LOS F conditions
by the year 2009. When the addition of cumulative development in the study area is taken into
consideration, twelve additional intersections would be significantly impacted if Nash Street and
Douglas Street remain as one -way configurations and thirteen additional intersections would be
significantly impacted if Nash Street and Douglas Street are modified to two -way operations.
However, it is likely that the future conditions will be better than this "worst case" analysis
because it is not likely that all of Related Projects will be built or built to the intensity currently
envisioned. In addition, several of the Related Projects will be conditioned to provide traffic
enhancements to mitigate their oA project impacts, but none of these mitigations is included in
this analysis.
2. Air Quality. Implementation of the project in conjunction with the Related
57
132
CITY COUNCIL "SOLUTION NO' 4241
during both the
asin
the South Coast Air daily trip generation of
t levels in redicted ollutants,
existing air P °1lutan elated Pr °jects have P mablle source obile
bases. The and Nix, the three puma olds. Because m
Project would increase thresh a
o erational p CO QC SCAQIAD eshoIds to b
cnon and P Levels of g ificanec thr
Constar s exceed the CAQMD sign e excel
280,148 daily trip ' ro ect individually the S , bstantially to the ality
the proPpSed p j - t individually cause ontribute su
from from the project PM_l0, it will c to cumulative air qu
is except h. The project's co Project emissions ]l ollutan plus
exceeded for a P illative 9'0'4 iderable- educed Project
all cum cons EIR, the R orate
emissions from ulatively V U of the F at l2 seP
impacts is therefore cum in Chapter > +3dB increase) ctutmlative
No iscusSed act ( ore), ill
As d ificant imp 3 d$ or m Site w
3 cause a sign increases ( to the Pack
ment would ificant roads adj dBCNf'L contour
develop ulatively sign including ,fie 70 r 5p feet
Cumulative Despite the C o u perimeter roads, �L range atn near the Park, will rem
roadway 70 dB CN unacceptable for
wise levels along 60 to very Low including ally
buildout n the upper ]armed project uses> nsidered normally area roadways'
be in most p ` L contour co of all p u las
Continue to table for m 75 dB C]`lE t of -Way Nash and Do g
idered accep within the riff alternative on area roadways'
Cons adway centerline- will remain two-way
ftom the ro sitive uses h the traffic noise increases °nconsiderable'
less noise sen a traffic throug cumulatively
even avid ificant
etsal of arc ulatively sib illative impact is used
The bettet disP t eliminate cum ificant cum lementation of the Prop
will reduce, but no to this sign
roject'scontribution and Em 10 ent. lrrc loynent
The P Id further increase emoPed pYOJect in
o illation Housino ectswou e plop innately 50,$83 pew.
41 - the Related Pt j surroilTiding aTeaa Th P
undo and ,nerate apPT However, because job
project in conjunction wt of E1 Seg ulatively ti owth. significant
the City eats would cum al job V e Cansideted a si
opportunities in the Related Proj contribute rove Would not b roject in conjunction
tian with nCTementally b the proposed P the South Bay
conjune roject would such job g o ulauon in Bath
jobs. The p beneficial effect`oyment generated by p p d for housing -
growth is considered a the emP increase the regional demon area are expected
act. however, itantly the unding
ects would cone° and consequently sumo
cumulative imp Froj area Subregion and
with the Rela e and surrounding Cities S 2010 'This suggests that housing lling Can
ent in the South Bay Cities
and residents Psr
Cities SubYeg d emP] °dip en the years average number the projections for slow
population betwe 1 tight, and the onfitans proposed In
to rise faster than housing elated Projects c tally prop xo ects-
will become increasingo the R same list. Related P j
A review w housing units are curl' tnrction, it is
availability only 8 >3`0 new , ons
be expected to increase• ion> would be created b hh and h °using ' and housing
owth m the leg 50 >8813 jobs ated job gr ttiwih
imately between PYOje act on P°Pirlation g siderable.
housing Sr ulatively con
comparison, aPPTOX is arity ill iv mi will be cum
on the substantia; Pa significant c tribution
Based ed that there w incremeutal con
conclud and that the pr °Jett s
demand, 58
1 ti
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
5. Utilities /Solid Waste. Implementation of the proposed project in
conjunction with the Related Projects would further increase demand on landfill capacity. The
total solid waste generation by the Original Project and the Related Projects would be 433,635
pounds per day. Cumulative solid waste generation would represent 1.7 percent of the permitted
daily amount currently accepted at the Puente Hills Landfill facilities and 3.3 percent of the
permitted daily amount currently accepted at the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. As with the
proposed project,, the Related Projects would be required to participate in recycling programs,
thus reducing the amount of solid waste to be disposed of at the landfills described above.
Source reduction and recycling programs mandated by AB 939 would also reduce cumulative
solid waste generation. Although the proposed project and Related Projects would not produce
an amount of solid waste that exceeds available landfill capacity, they would contribute to a
significant adverse cumulative impact on solid waste disposal capacity caused by regional
growth. The project's contribution to this significant impact would be cumulatively considerable.
F. Project Alternatives.
The City Council certifies that (a) the FEIR describes a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of
the project and would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed project;
and (b) the City Council evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in
favor of the Reduced Project. Furthermore, the City Council certifies that it has considered the
merits of the Reduced Project by studying the adequate descriptions of the alternatives that are
discussed in the FEIR and making informed comparisons.
No Project Alternative (Alternative A).
Description: Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not
be constructed and the Project Site would remain vacant. The No Project Alternative assumes
the continuation of existing conditions as well as development of the Related Projects.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the
No Project Alternative identified in the FEIR infeasible. This alternative does not fulfill the
basic objectives of the project. 13 tcause the Reduced Project generally has similar or less impacts
than the Original Project, the differences between the Reduced Project and the Original Project
do not affect this finding.
Fact: The No Project Alternative is discussed at pages VI -4 - VI -9 of the DEM.
59
13 4
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
Because no development would occur on the Project Site, this alternative would not fulfill any of
the basic project objectives, including the objectives to develop a project with a variety of uses as
provided in the Urban Mixed -Use North and Multimedia Overlay Zones, to result in a project
that is architecturally distinctive or of superior design, to provide parking on the Project Site, to
optimize employment opportunities within the City of El Segundo, to facilitate internal
pedestrian movement to a number of places which would adhere to livable community principles
and increase the quality of life. Compared to the Original Project, this alternative would have
less impacts with respect to traffic, air quality (short- term), air quality (long - term), noise (short-
term), noise (long - term), geology and soils, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land
use compatibility, population, housing and employment, hazardous materials, police protection,
fire protection, sewer, water, solid waste, natural gas and electricity. The alternative would have
comparable impacts with respect to land use (general plan/zoning consistency). The No Project
Alternative would have greater impacts than the Original Project with respect to aesthetics.
2. Reduced Density Alternative (Alternative B)
Description: Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the size of the proposed
project would be reduced by 731,000 gross square feet, for a total of 1,833,200 gross square feet,
which represents approximately a 30 percent reduction. The Reduced Density Alternative would
include the same mix of land uses as the proposed project, including the 14,200 square -foot fire
station. However, the Reduced Density Alternative reduces the office component of the
proposed project by 572,000 gross square feet for a total of 1,428,000 gross square feet. Also,
the Reduced Density Alternative reduces the retail component of the proposed project by 44,000
gross square feet for a total of 109,000 gross square feet. With the exception of the fire station,
all other uses would be reduced by at least 3,000 gross square feet.
Findin : The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section
21081(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the
Reduced Density Alternative identified in the FEIR infeasible. This alternative does not meet the
basic project objectives as fully as the Reduced Project.
Fact: The Reduced Density Alternative is discussed at pages VI -10 - VI -18 of the
DEIR. While this alternative would achieve most of the basic project objectives, it would not
meet as fully as the Reduced Project the objectives of developing a project that is financially
viable and at the same time providing benefits to the City, generating significant local and
regional revenues through businesst, property and sales tax revenues, and optimizing employment
opportunities within the City, while mitigating to the extent feasible, the proposed project's
environmental impacts. Compared to the Original Project, this alternative would have less
impacts with respect to traffic, air quality (short- term), air quality (long - term), noise (short- term),
60
135
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
noise (long - term), population, housing and employment, hazardous materials, police protection,
sewer, water, solid waste, natural gas and electricity. The impacts of this alternative with respect
to geology and soils, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, aesthetics, land use (general
plan/zoning consistency) and land use compatibility would be comparable to those of the
Original Project.
Alternative Land Use Mix (Alternative C).
Description: The Alternative Land Use Mix consists of the same total square
footage as the proposed project, but eliminates the R &D /light industrial and medical /dental uses.
The Alternative Land Use Mix increases telecommunications /web hosting uses by 220,000 gross
square feet above amount included in the proposed project, for a total of 295,000 gross square
feet. In addition, the retail component of the proposed project would be reduced by 58,000 gross
square feet under the Alternative Land Use Mix. Finally, the Alternative Land Use Mix reduces
the restaurant use by 52,000 gross square feet compared to the proposed project. All other land
uses (e.g. office, health club, hotel/conference, etc.) would be the same size as the proposed
project.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section
21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technological or other considerations make the
Alternative Land Use Mix Alternative identified in the FEIR infeasible. The additional
considerations are the significant additional or more severe environmental effects set forth below.
This alternative is rejected on environmental grounds. The impacts of the Alternative Land Use
Mix are generally comparable to the Original Project. Because the Reduced Project will have
less impacts in several categories than the Original Project, the Reduced Project will generally
have less impacts in such categories than the Alternative Land Use Mix.
Fact: The Alternative Land Use Mix Alternative is discussed at pages VI -19 -
VI -27 of the DEIR. This alternative appears to meet all of the basic project objectives with the
exception of providing R &D /light industrial and medical /dental uses, and providing a mix of
uses to promote walking and decrease vehicle trips. Compared to the Original Project, this
alternative would have less impacts with respect to traffic, air quality (long - term), noise (long-
term), population, housing and employment, hazardous materials, police protection, fire
protection, sewer and water. The impacts of this alternative with respect to air quality (short -
term), noise (short- term), geology and soils, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality,
aesthetics, land use (general planJoning consistency), land use compatibility, and solid waste
would be comparable to those of the Original Project. Impacts relating to natural gas and
electricity would be greater than the Original Project.
61
13 6
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
4. Reduced Density and Alternative Land Use Mix (Alternative D).
Description: Under the Reduced Density and Alternative Land Use Mix, the size
of the proposed project would be reduced by 1,535,000 gross square feet, for a total of 1,029,200
gross square feet, which represents a 60 percent reduction. The Reduced Density and Alternative
Land Use Mix reduces the commercial office space of the proposed project by 1,500,000 gross
square feet for a total of 500,000 gross square feet. The Reduced Density and Alternative Land
Use Mix also reduces the retail component by 15,000 gross square feet, but increases the
telecommunicatigns /web hosting use by 425,000 gross square feet compared to the proposed
project. With the exception of the fire station, all of the other land uses proposed by the project
(e.g. R &D /light industrial, restaurant, health club, medical dental, etc.) would be deleted under
the Reduced Density and Alternative Land Use Mix.
Finding: The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section
21081(a)(3), that specific legal, economic, social, technological or other considerations make the
Reduced Density and Alternative Land Use Alternative identified in the FEIR infeasible. This
alternative would not meet the basic project objectives as fully as the Reduced Project.
Fact: The Reduced Density and Alternative Land Use Alternative is discussed at
pages VI -28 - VI -36 of the DEIR. This alternative appears to meet some of the project objectives
with the exception of providing the following land uses: R &D /light industrial, restaurant, health
club, hotel/conference, medical/dental, and day care, all of which are included in the proposed
project description. As such, this alternative does not meet as fully as the Reduced Project the
objective of developing a project with a variety of uses as provided in the Urban Mixed -Use
North and Multimedia Overlay Zones. In addition, this alternative may not be financially viable
for the Applicant. It would also provide fewer fiscal benefits to the City and would not generate
as significant local and regional revenues. This alternative would also not meet the objective of
facilitating internal pedestrian movement to a number of places which would adhere to livable
community principles and increase the quality of life. Compared to the Original Project, this
alternative vvlould have less impacts with respect to traffic, air quality (short- term), air quality
(long - term), noise (short- term), noise (long - term), land use (general plan/zoning consistency),
population, housing and employment, hazardous materials, police protection, fire protection,
sewer, water, water and solid waste. This alternative would have comparable impacts with
respect to geology and soils, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, aesthetics and land
use compatibility. This alternative would have greater impacts than the Original Project with
respect to natural gas and electricity.
131
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
5. Park Alternative (Alternative E).
Description: Under the Park Alternative, a five -acre park would be provided at
the southeast corner of the Project Site near the intersection of Mariposa Avenue and Douglas
Street. The five -acre park would include soccer and baseball fields, and possibly other
recreational facilities such as tennis courts, volleyball courts, swimming pool, and ancillary
buildings and structures (e.g. restrooms, bleachers, snack bar, etc.). The park would include
night lighting for evening use and would include shared parking with other Project Site land uses.
In addition to the five -acre park, the Park Alternative would also include the same mix of land
uses as the proposed project as well the same amount of square footage as the Original Project.
Under this alternative, buildings proposed at the southeast corner of the site under the proposed
project would be moved to other areas on the site, resulting in an increase in density in such areas
compared to the Original Project.
Findin : The City Council finds, pursuant to Public Resources Section
21081(a)(3), that specific economic, social or other considerations make the Park Alternative
identified in the FEIR infeasible. The additional considerations are the significant additional or
more severe environmental effects set forth below. Therefore, this alternative is rejected on
environmental grounds. The impacts of the Park Alternative are generally comparable to the
Original Project. Because the Reduced Project will have less impacts in several categories than
the Original Project, the Reduced Project will generally have less impacts in such categories than
the Park Alternative.
Fact: The Park Alternative is discussed at pages VI -37 - VI -45 of the DEIR.
While this alternative appears to meet all of the project objectives, it would also create a number
of significant adverse environmental effects. Compared to the Original Project, this alternative
would have less impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality. The impacts of the Park
Alternative with respect to air quality (short- term), noise (short- term), geology and soils, cultural
resources, land use (general plan/zoning consistency), land use compatibility, hazardous
materials, and solid waste would be comparable to those of the Original Project. Impacts relating
to traffic, air quality (long - term), aesthetics, population, housing and employment, police
protection, fire protection, sewer, water, natural gas and electricity would be greater than the
Original Project.
IV. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
A. Growth Inducing Impacts. The proposed project would foster economic growth
by increasing the number of employees and customers on the Project Site, who could, in turn,
63
138
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
also patronize local businesses and services in the area. As described in Section IV.J
(Population, Housing and Employment) of the FEIR, construction of the proposed project would
result in increased employment opportunities in the construction field. Implementation of the
proposed project would provide employment for approximately 7,763 persons by project
completion in the year 2009. The proposed project does not include housing and therefore would
not include (direct) permanent population growth. No significant population, housing or
employment impacts would be created by the proposed project. The proposed project would not
induce growth in an area that is not already developed with infrastructure to accommodate such
growth.
The Project Site is within the highly developed urban setting and the proposed project
does not include the construction of new infrastructure that would accommodate additional
growth in an inappropriate location. The proposed project can be adequately serviced by existing
and/or expansion of existing water and sewer lines and roadways. Police and fire services in the
area would also adequately serve the project. Thus, the Reduced Project would not result in
significant growth inducing impacts.
B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes. Construction of the proposed
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 proposed project would also require the long -term consumption of these
nonrenewable resources at reduced levels typical for such a development. Long -term increases in
ambient air pollution and noise levels would also occur as a result of the proposed project. The
proposed project would also add traffic to local roads, resulting in significant, unavoidable
transportation/circulation impacts at various study intersections. 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 FEIR as well as existing city, county,
state and federal safety.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Reduced
Project as discussed in Section III.0 above and the unavoidable significant cumulative impacts
discussed in Section 111. E above are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the
Reduced Project. This determination is based on the following factors and the substantial public,
social, economic, and environmental benefits flowing from the Reduced Project as identified in
the FEIR and the record of proceedings in the matter. The differences between the Original
Project and the Reduced Project do not materially affect this finding.
64
139
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
• Creation of new jobs and increased sales tax revenues;
• Increased amount of commercial retail stores, restaurants, day care and
other commercial amenities for residents and employees;
• Onsite and offsite infrastructure improvements;
• Full land utilization to attract a mix of neighborhood and regional- serving
commercial uses;
• Superior urban design with many pedestrian- friendly features, which will
further strengthen the sense of community, adhere to livable community
principles, and enhance the quality of life in the City;
Facilitation of the long -term economic health of the eastside of the
City;
• Development of a property that is currently vacant and unused;
• Increased and further stabilized City tax base through development of new
commercial businesses;
• Increased City revenues through a generation of taxes that outweigh the
City cost of services;
• Increased employment opportunities for the City's citizenry;
• Development of a project that will increase the use of MTA Green Line;
• Development of a project that is consistent with the elements of the
General Plan;
• Dedication of a one -acre site for the relocation of Fire Station No. 2;
• Contribution of a Bike Station adjacent to the Nash - Mariposa Green Line
Station;
• Acquisition of approximately five acres of land for public recreational
facilities at below fair market value as confirmed by an independent
appraisal;
• Development of a high quality project with distinctive architecture,
abundant open space, and lush landscaping; and
• Provision of needed office space to allow existing businesses in the City to
expand and to attract new businesses to the City.
VI. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
The City Council finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding
made herein is contained in the FFIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, and in the
record of proceedings in the matter. To the extent applicable, each of the other findings made by
the City Council in connection with its approval of the entitlement applications listed in Section I
above are also incorporated herein by this reference.
65
140
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "A"
The FEIR evaluates the Project's potential for adverse environmental impacts. When
considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City Council that the Reduced
Project will have a potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat upon which
wildlife depends. Based on the FEIR, 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 City Council
finds that the Project would be de minimis in its effect on fish and wildlife.
P:\Planning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \526 - 550 \Ea -548 \1246101 v2 - CEQA Findings -Revised 12- 11- 01.doc
t
141
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONTTORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROCEDURES
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a "reporting or
monitoring program for the changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment' (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section 15097
of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). The
Community, Economic and Development Services Department for the City of El Segundo is the Lead
Agency for the El 4egundo Corporate Campus Project.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts
of the proposed project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design
features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid or to reduce potentially significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is
designed to monitor implementation of the mitigation measures identified for the El Segundo Corporate
Campus Project. The MMRP is subject to review and approval by the Lead Agency as part of the
certification of the EIR and adoption of project conditions. The required mitigation measures are listed
and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying identification of the following:
• Monitoring Phase, the phase of the project during which the mitigation measure shall be
monitored
Pre- Construction, including the design phase
Construction
Post- Construction
• The Implementing Party, the agency with the power to implement the mitigation measure
• The Enforcement Agency, the agency with the power to enforce the mitigation measure, and
1
• The Monitoring Agency, the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance,
implementation and development are made.
The MMRP performance shall be monitored annually to determine the effectiveness of the measures
implemented in any given year and reevaluate the mitigation needs for the upcoming year.
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page I
1440
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November- 2001
I. TRAFFIC
B -1. The project applicant /developer shall implement TDM measures to increase the
convenience and attractiveness of the other transportation alternatives among employees
and visitors. Services such as carpool and vanpool matching, vanpool formation and
leasing assistance, and preferred parking for employees who carpool or vanpool together,
shall be provided by the project to facilitate ridesharing. These services would work well
in conjunction with, and benefit those who wish to take advantage of, the high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes on the nearby I -105 and I -405 freeways.
Monitoring Phase: Post- Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division
B -2. The project applicant/developer shall purchase a transit bus (shuttle) for the City to
operate during peak commuting and lunchtime hours with circulation through the project,
downtown El Segundo and the Green Line stations at the City's discretion. The type of
vehicle to be purchased and route shall be established by the City of El Segundo.
Monitoring Phase:
Post- Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division, Department of Public Works,
Department of Recreation and Parks
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division, Department of Public Works
Department of Recreation and Parks
B -3. Bicycle travel shall be supported with the design and construction of a Bicycle Station at
Mariposa Avenue and Nash Street utilizing an existing easement that has been made
available for such use on the Hilton Garden Inn property. The design and construction
shall be subject to City of El Segundo review and approval.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
l Enforcement Agency: Planning Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Planting Division, Department of Public Works
B -4. The project applicant shall include the support of bicycle travel through such on -site
amenities as internal bicycle lanes or pathways that lead to the external roadway system,
bicycle racks or lockers that are distributed throughout the project, and on -site shower
facilities and clothesilockers for employees.
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monaca ing and Reporting Progrmn Page 2
143
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO, 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Planning Division
B -5. The project applicant shall include the establishment of a centralized transportation
management office (TMO) within the project to carry out and market the above trip -
reduction strategies.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre- Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
B -6. Maple Avenue between Nash Street and Douglas Street — Maple Avenue shall be
constructed as a private road within the project but open to through traffic. While this
improvement does not mitigate any specific significant intersection traffic impact, it does
provide for improved circulation in the surrounding community.
Monitoring Phase: Pre- Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Planning Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Department of Public Works
B -7. Imperial Highway and Sepulveda Boulevard — The existing traffic signal operation shall
be upgraded to include a westbound right -turn overlap.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works,
City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works,
City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation
B -8. El Segundo Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard — The east and westbound approaches
of El Segundo Boulevard shall be modified to provide double left turn lanes, two through
1 lanes, and one right -turn only lane.
Monitoring Phase: Pre- Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Caltrans
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Caltrans
B -9. Imperial Highway and Nash Street /Westbound I -105 Off -Ramp — The eastbound
approach of Imperial Highway shall be restriped to include one through lane, a shared
through/right turn lane, and one right -twin only lane. The southbound approach should be
restriped for one left -turn lane, two through lanes, and one right -turn only lane. These
El Segundo Corporate Cmnpus Po oject
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Aograni Page 3 14 4
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 1001
modifications will require Caltrans approval. This is required only for one -way
operations of Nash - Douglas couplet.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Department of Public Works, Caltrans,
City of Los Angeles
Monitoring Agency:
Department of Public Works, Caltrans,
City of Los Angeles
B -10. Atwood Way and I -105 Freeway Eastbound On -Ramp — The existing intersection shall
be modified to provide two northbound through lanes and one right turn only lane, In the
eastbound direction one left turn lane, and one shared through/right turn lane, and one
right -turn only lane should be provided. The eastbound right -turn only lane should be
approximately 150 feet in length with a 60 -foot reversal. In the westbound direction one
shared left/through lane and one shared through/right -turn lane should be provided. The
signal should provide split phasing. This is required only for one -way operations of
Nash - Douglas couplet.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Caltrans
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Caltrans
B -11. Atwood Way and I -105 Freeway Eastbound On -Ramp — The northbound approach shall
be constructed to include one left -tum lane, one through lane, and one shared
through/right turn lane. The eastbound approach shall be striped with one left -turn lane,
and one shared through/right turn lane and one right -turn only lane. The right -turn only
lane shall be approximately 150 feet in length with a 60 -foot reversal. The westbound
approach shall be striped with one shared left /through lane and one right -turn only lane.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Caltrans
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Caltrans
I
B -12. El Segundo Boulevard and Douglas Street -- The north and southbound approaches shall
be modified to include dual left -turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared
through/right lane. This is required only for two -way operation of Nash and Douglas
Streets.
Monitoring Phase: V Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs Page 4
14 5
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
QYv of El Segundo November 2001
II. AIR QUALITY
Minor diversion to less polluting transportation can be achieved by the following mitigation measures:
C -1
C -2.
C -3
A desirable pedestrian environment shall be provided on the project site.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Bicycle parking /racks v
project site.
Construction, Post- Construction
Applicant
Planning Division
Planning Division
ith reasonable security against theft shall be provided on the
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
Comfortable transit access either on the project site or at a very close nearby location
shall be provided.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
C -4. Employee trips shall be reduced through preferred panting for carpoolers.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
C -5. 1 One -half of one percent of required on -site parking shall be accessible to electric
automobile charging stations.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agencty:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
El Segundo Corporate Canapus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 5
146
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Clearing /Grading
C -6. Maintain soil moisture at a minimum of 12 percent for any cut - and -fill areas within 100
feet of the property line to the depth of the cut.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
SCAQMD
Building Safety Division
C -7. Water as necessary to prevent a visible dust cloud from exceeding 100 feet from the
disturbance area or from passing across the project site boundary.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Disturbed Area
Construction
Applicant
SCAQMD
Building Safety Division
C -S. Apply chemical stabilizer to any disturbed area to prevent a visible cloud from forming
during high wind conditions.
C -9. Water any non - stabilized disturbed areas twice per day.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division
Track -Out Control
C -10. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path prior to public
road entry, or install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on
public roads.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
SCAQMD
Building Safety Division
C -11. Remove any visibletrack-out into public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring mid Reporting Program Page 6 147
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of Et Segundo November 2001
C -12. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel
on unpaved surfaces has resulted.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
SCAQMD
Building Safety Division
C -13. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto
public roads.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Dirt Hauling
C -14. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blowoff during
hauling.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division
High Wind Operations
C -15. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
SCAQMD
Building Safety Division
NO Emissions
i
C -16. All diesel- fueled, off -road equipment shall be delivered to the site, and maintained while
on site, with engines tuned to minimum NOx generation consistent with good fuel
economy.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Parity:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
SCAQMD
Building Safety Division
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 7
j-48
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
1II. NOISE
D -1. Construction activities shall be prohibited during the hours from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. on
weekdays and Saturdays and any time on Sundays and holidays except in emergencies.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
D -2. Construction equipment shall be equipped with properly operating mufflers.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
D -3. Stationary on -site construction equipment and construction vehicle staging shall be
placed such that emitted noise is sufficiently minimized, to the satisfaction of the
Community, Economic and Development Services Department.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
IV. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -1. A comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall be submitted as part of the permitting
process for the project. Specific design recommendations presented in the
comprehensive geotechnical report shall be incorporated into the final design and
construction of the proposed project. The comprehensive geotechnical report shall
include, but not necessarily be limited to the following geotechnical hazards:
• Ground Shakin¢: The proposed development shall be designed and built to
provide life safety for occupants of the structures in the event of the strong
earthquake ground motions expected to occur in the vicinity of the site.
• Stability of Permanent Slopes and Temporary Excavations: The comprehensive
geotechnicalk report shall include specific recommendations for design and
construction of proposed temporary and permanent slopes to be incorporated into
the design and construction of each building prior to issuance of building permits.
El Segundo Coiporate Cmnpus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 8
149
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Expansive and Corrosive Soils: The comprehensive geotechnical report shall
evaluate the expansion and corrosion potential of the on -site materials. If the on-
site soils are determined to be expansive or corrosive, specific recommendations
shall be provided in the comprehensive geotechnical report that will reduce any
impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division
E -2. Erosion
4
Drainage collection devices shall be designed in conformance with City of El Segundo
grading and building codes to ensure that all runoff will be collected and transferred to
the proper collection devices. The applicant shall provide analysis of the drainage
volume created by the proposed project. All design of drainage flow, collection, and
discharge shall be in conformance with current city codes and subject to approval by the
City of El Segundo. On -site grading shall be performed in accordance with city codes so
that erosion of graded areas will not occur. All areas of construction shall be fine- graded
to direct runoff to the street or to the nearest available storm drain. No runoff within the
property boundaries shall be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the existing slopes. All
permanent slopes shall be planted in conformance with current city grading codes.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
E -3. The comprehensive geotechnical investigation shall use site - specific soil and
groundwater data to specifically evaluate the potential for liquefaction at the project site.
If there is a medium to high potential, specific recommendations shall be included in the
geotechnical report.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division
E-4. Prior to issuing a grying permit, the applicant shall obtain a haul route approval for the
export materials from the City and shall comply with applicable restrictions.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 9
150
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
E -5. Where the planned depth of excavation for foundations does not extend below the
existing fill soils, the existing fill soils shall be removed and recompacted in accordance
with the requirements of the appropriate governmental agencies and geotechnical
recommendations.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E-6. A registered civil engineer practicing geotechnical engineering, or his/her representative,
shall be present on site to observe grading operations and to observe foundation
excavations.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -7. Specifications for site grading shall be subject to approval by the City Building Official.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Pre - Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -8. Where there is sufficient space for sloped excavations, temporary cut slopes may be made
at a 1 %:1 or 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) gradient with the 1' /a:l slope made adjacent to
existing structures. However, the stability of the graded slopes shall be addressed during
the site - specific geotechnical investigation, and when grading plans are completed for the
proposed development.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Pre - Construction, Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -9. If temporary excavation slopes are to be maintained during the rainy season, it will be
necessary to direct V11 drainage away from the top of the slope. No water shall be
allowed to flow uncontrolled over the face of any temporary or permanent slope.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division
El Segundo Ccaporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitor ing and Reporting Program
Page 10
151
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of E1 Segundo November 2001
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division
E -10. Water shall not be allowed to pond at the top of the excavation or allowed to flow into the
excavation.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -11. Where sufficient space for sloped excavations is not available, shoring shall be used. The
shoring system may consist of soldier piles and lagging. The recommendations presented
in the site - specific geotechnical investigation report for the proper design of the shoring
4
system shall be followed.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -12. Final shoring plans and specifications shall be reviewed and approved by a civil engineer
practicing geotechnical engineering.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Pre- Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E -13. The recommendations presented in the site - specific 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.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
E-14. A drainage system shall be placed at the back of and /or the base of building walls below
grade.
Monitoring Phase: Pre- Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
E -15. Suspect or visibly impacted soil or groundwater would require analysis to assess the
contamination potential.
El Segundo Corporate Cainpus ProJecr
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 11
152
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
F -1. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered during the
course of grading or construction, all development must temporarily cease in these areas
until the resources are properly assessed and subsequent recommendations are
determined by a qualified consultant.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division
F -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 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.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Planning Division
I
VI. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Construction - Hydrology
G -1. The applicant shall prepare a master drainage plan for the proposed project site. 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. Such plans shall be reviewed and
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 12
153'
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 1001
approved by the City of
Works.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction — Water Quality
El Segundo and the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Pre -Construction
Applicant ,
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
G -2. The project applicant /developer shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 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.
Monitoring Phase: Pre- Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board ( LARWQCB)
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, LARWQCB
G -3. 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.
Monitoring Phase: Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Fire Department
G -4. 1 All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction shall be cleaned up promptly to
prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be washed away into the storm
drains.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Fire Department
G -5. If materials spills occur, they should not be hosed down. Dry cleaning methods shall be
employed whenever possible.
Monitoring Phase: Construction, Post- Construction
EI 7g.nda Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting PPoogrmn Page 13
154
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division
G -6. The proposed project shall comply with City of El Segundo Ordinance No. 1235 and No.
1329, which establishes storm water and urban pollution controls.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction, Post - Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division, Department of Public
Works
Building Safety Division, Department of Public
Works
G -7. Construction dumpsters shall be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting if left uncovered
for extended periods. All dumpsters shall be well maintained.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division
Building Safety Division
G -8. The project applicant/developer shall conduct inspections of the project site before and .
after storm events to determine whether control practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutant
loadings identified in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan are adequate and
properly implemented.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works,
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works,
LARWQCB
G -9. The project applicant/developer shall conduct street sweeping and truck wheel cleaning
to prevent dirt in storm water.
1 Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Operations
El Segundo Corpo ate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 14
155
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
G -10. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Article 2,
Section 25.5.30 et. etc.), the project applicant shall submit a Risk Management Plan for
the Self - Generating Electric Facility to the Certified Program Agency (i.e., City of El
Segundo Fire Department) for review and approval. In accordance with Title 19 of the
California Code of Regulations, the City of El Segundo Fire Department shall determine
whether the chemicals proposed for use, storage, and disposal with respect to the Self -
Generating Electric Facility exceed the threshold quantities for Accidental Release
Prevention. The project shall comply with the conditions of approval established by the
City of El Segundo Fire Department, including those conditions for regulating chemicals
that may exceed the threshold quantities.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Fire Department
Monitoring Agency:
Fire Department
G -11. The project owner /developer shall provide regular sweeping of private streets within the
project site with equipment designed for removal of hydrocarbon compounds.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division, Planning Division
G -12. The project owner /developer shall maintain all structural or treatment control Best
Management Practices for the life of the project.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
VII. AESTHETICS
Construction, Post - Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
H -1. To prevent new on -site sources of illumination from spilling onto adjacent streets and
properties, all exterior lighting associated with the project should be directed onto the site
and shielded from off -site locations.
Monitoring Phase: t
Construction, Post- Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Building Safety Division, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division, Planning Division
H -2. Every effort should be made to prevent new lighting sources from being directed toward
the sky to minimize atmospheric light pollution.
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 15
156
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City ofEl Segundo November 2001
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
VIII. LAND USE
No mitigation measures are required.
Construction, Post - Construction
Applicant
Building Safety Division, Planning Division
Building Safety Division, Planning Division
IX. POPULATION, HOUSING & EMPLOYMENT
No mitigation measures are required.
tW
XI.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
K -1. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (Chapter 6.95, Article 2,
Section 25.5.30 et. etc.), the project applicant shall submit a Risk Management Plan, if
necessary, for the Electric Co- Generation Facility to the Certified Program Agency (i.e.,
City of El Segundo Fire Department) for review and approval. In accordance with Title
19 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of El Segundo Fire Department shall
determine whether the chemicals proposed for use, storage, and disposal with respect to
the Self- Generating Electric Facility exceed the threshold quantities for Accidental
Release Prevention. The project shall comply with the conditions of approval established
by the City of El Segundo Fire Department.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
1
PUBLIC SERVICES
Police Protection
Pre - Construction, Construction, Post - Construction
Applicant
Fire Department
Fire Department
L.1 -1. The applicant shall pay a Police Service Mitigation Fee of $0.11 per gross square foot of
building area prior toithe occupancy of each building.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 16
157
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
L.1 -2. A strategic security plan, which shall include definitive plans and specifications, shall be
submitted to the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD) for review and approval prior to
commencement of construction of any portion of the proposed El Segundo Corporate
Campus project. The strategic security plan should address the following items:
a) Depending on the size of the structure and its location in relation to the
streets, the displayed address may vary from a minimum of 4" to as much
as 24 ".
b) Building entrances and exits shall be limited to keep control and visibility
of the building.
C) All landscaping shall be low profile especially around perimeter fencing,
windows, doors and entryways taking special care not to limit visibility
and provide climbing access.
d) Adequate street, walkway, building and parking lot lighting shall be
provided to enhance security.
e) Provisions for on -site security personnel.
Monitoring Phase: Pre- Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Police Department, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Police Department, Planning Division
Fire Protection
L.2 -1. The applicant shall pay a Fire Service Mitigation Fee of $0.14 per gross square foot of
building area prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division
L.2 -2. A fire life safety plan, which shall include definitive plans and specifications, shall be
submitted to the El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD) for review and approval prior to
commencement of construction of any portion of the proposed El Segundo Corporate
Campus development.
Monitoring Phase: Pre- Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Fire Department, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Fire Department, Building Safety Division
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 17 158
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City ojEY Segundo November 2001
L.2 -3. Provide fire access roadways throughout the property and submit a layout plan to the
ESFD for approval. A roadway should circulate around open - parking structures.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division, Building Safety Division
L.2 -4. Provide on -site fire hydrants as required by the ESFD.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Fire Department, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Fire Department, Planning Division
L.2 -5. The following installations require separate Fire Department approval. The applicant
shall submit separate plans for Fire Department review:
a) Automatic fire sprinklers,
b) Fire alarm system,
C) Underground fire service mains,
d) Fire Pumps,
e) Emergency generators, and
f) Any aboveground or underground storage tank including elevator sumps
and condensation tanks
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
XII. UTILITIES
Sewer
Pre - Construction, Construction
Applicant
Fire Department, Building Safety Division
Fire Department, Building Safety Division
M.1 -1. The project applicant shall be required to obtain a sewer connection permit from the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts (District 5) to obtain sanitary sewer service.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Parity:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
Monitoring Agency:
Department of Public Works, Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 18
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Water
M.1 -2. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts requires a Buildover Permit for construction
over its sewer easements. The applicant shall demonstrate through its Grading Plan that
all alterations to final sewer easements and rights of way shall be in accordance with
relevant Buildover Permit(s) to allow the construction of the proposed project and other
project components over the 10 -foot wide sewer easement.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre- Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division
M.1 -3. The proposed project shall comply with the City's Sewer Ordinance No. 1093, of the City
of EI Segundo Municipal Code, Title 12, Chapter I General Provisions, Policies and
Procedures.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: Building Safety Division, Department of Public Works
M.1 -4. Prior to a building permit being issued the project applicant shall submit the Final
Working Drawings to the City of El Segundo Department of Community, Economic and
Development Services and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Planning Division
M.2 -1. The proposed project shall include dual water connections for landscaping to
accommodate reclaimed water as it becomes more available to the site.
Monitoring Phase:
Pre- Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Department of Public Works, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency:
Department of Public Works, Building Safety Division
M.2 -2. Reclaimed water, where appropriate and feasible, shall be used as a water source to
irrigate landscaped areas
Monitoring Phase: i Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Department of Public Works, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Department of Public Works, Building Safety Division
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 19
1VU
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
M.2 -3. Efficient irrigation systems shall be installed which minimize runoff and evaporation and
maximize the water which will reach plant roots (e.g. drip irrigation, automatic sprinklers
equipped with moisture sensors)
Monitoring Phase:
Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency:
Building Safety Division
M.2 -4. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be set to irrigate landscaping during early morning
hours or during the evening to reduce water losses from evaporation. Sprinklers shall
also be reset to water less often in cooler months and during the rainfall season so that
water is not wasted by excessive landscape irrigation.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency:
Department of Public Works
M.2 -5. Selection of drought - tolerant, low water consuming plant varieties shall be used to reduce
irrigation water consumption.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Planning Division, Department of Recreation & Parks
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Department of Recreation & Parks
M.2 -6. The proposed project shall comply with the City's Conservation Program, Ordinance No.
1194, of the City of El Segundo Municipal Code, Title 10 -Parks and Recreation, Chapter
2 Water Conservation in Landscaping and Resolution No. 3806.
Prior to a building permit being issued the project applicant shall submit the Final
Working Drawings to the City of El Segundo Department of Community,
Economic and Development Services for review and approval relative to
compliance with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance and Guidelines for
Water Conservation in Landscaping.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agendy: Planning Division, Department of Recreation & Parks
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Department of Recreation & Parks
Solid Waste
M.3 -1. The proposed project applicant shall develop an employee recycling and education
program.
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 20
161
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 200/
Monitoring Phase:
Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
M.3 -2. Where economically feasible, the proposed project shall incorporate the use of recycled
materials in building materials, furnishing operations and building maintenance.
Monitoring Phase: Construction, Post- Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Planning Division, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Building Safety Division
M.3 -3. The proposed project shall recycle all construction debris in a practical, available, and
accessible manner, to the maximum extent feasible, during the construction phase.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Department of Public Works, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency:
Department of Public Works, Building Safety Division
M.3 -4. The design of the proposed project shall allocate space for a recycling collection area for
use by both on -site employees and visitors, the design of which will adhere to siting
requirements in the City's recycling ordinance. The design of the collection area will
facilitate source separation and collection of additional materials that may be designated
as recyclable by the City in the future.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Planning Division, Building Safety Division
Monitoring Agency: Planning Division, Building Safety Division
M.3 -5. The proposed project applicant shall encourage employers to perform an annual waste
audit review to measure the effectiveness of the tenant education program and recycling
collection activities in tenant and /or property management agreements. The audit shall
include:
• A review of purchasing patterns to eliminate materials not compatible with the
established waste diversion program.
• A review of operating procedures which generate either large amounts of waste
or non- recyclhble materials.
• A review of occupancy uses and activities.
• The evaluation and expansion of recyclable materials to be included in a
recycling program.
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Page 21
162
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
• A review of employee awareness of recycling program goals, procedures, and
accomplishments, as well as evaluations and implementation of training for all
project occupants.
Monitoring Phase:
Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
Applicant
Enforcement Agency:
Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Planning Division
Natural Gas
No mitigation measures are required.
Electricity
M.54. The applicant shall consult with SCE during the design process of the proposed project
regarding potential energy conservation measures for the project. Examples of such
energy conservation measures include:
• Design windows (i.e., tinting, double pane glass, etc.) to reduce thermal gain and
loss and thus cooling loads during warm weather, and heating loads during cool
weather.
• Install thermal insulation in walls and ceilings that exceed requirements
established by the State of California Energy Conservation Standards.
• Install high - efficiency lamps for all street lights and outdoor security lighting.
• Time control interior and exterior lighting. These systems should be
programmed to account for variations in seasonal daylight times.
• Limit outdoor lighting while still maintaining minimum security and safety
standards.
• Deciduous trees should be planted near each building to provide shade in the
summer and to allow sunlight to access the unit during the winter.
• Built -in appliances, refrigerators, and space- conditioning equipment should
exceed the minimum efficiency levels mandated in the California Code of
Regulations.
• Finish exterior walls with light - colored materials and high- emissivity
characteristics to reduce cooling loads. Finish interior walls with light- colored
materials to reflect more light and thus increase lighting efficiency.
• Use natural ventilation wherever possible.
• A performance check of the installed space- conditioning system should be
completed by the developer /installer prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy to ensure that energy - efficiency measures incorporated into the project
operate as designed.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - Construction, Construction
Implementation Party: Applicant
Enforcement Agency: Southern California Edison, Building Safety Division
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 22
163
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4241
EXHIBIT "B"
City of El Segundo November 2001
Monitoring Agency: Southern California Edison, Building Safety Division
P:\Planning & Building Safcty \PROJECTS \526 - 550 \Ea - 548 \CC Reso EXH. B - MMRP.doc
El Segundo Corporate Campus Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 23
16
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code, TPG El Segundo
Partners, LLC, or its successor -in- interest, agrees that it will comply with the following provisions
as conditions for the City of El Segundo's approval of Environmental Assessment No. 548
Zone Change No. 01 -1 Zone Text Amendment No, 01 -1 Administrative Use Permit No. 01 -1,
and Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 53570) ( "Project Conditions ").
1. If TPG -El Segundo, LLC does not purchase the property by January 1, 2006 as stipulated in
Section 3.1 of Development Agreement No. 01 -1, all project entitlements shall be null and
void and the zoning and General Plan designations for the Project Site which existed prior to
the City's adoption of the project approvals shall instead apply to the property.
DEFINITIONS
2. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions will
govern the construction of the words and phrases used in these conditions.
A. "C.E.D.S. Director" means the City of Ef Segundo Director of Community, Economic and
Development Services, or designee.
B. "EIR" means the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed El Segundo
Corporate Campus project, El Segundo, California approved by the City Council of the
City of El Segundo on January 2, 2002.
C. "ESMC" means the El Segundo Municipal Code.
D. "MMRP" means the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the El Segundo
Corporate Campus project, El Segundo, California adopted by the City Council of the
City of El Segundo on January 2, 2002. The MMRP is incorporated by this reference into
these conditions of approval.
E. "Project Area" refers to one of the 26 developable lots on the Project Site as shown on
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570
F. "Project Site" refers to the 46.53 -acre site generally located south of Atwood Way, east
of Nash Street, west of Douglas Street, and north of Mariposa Avenue.
G. Except as otherwise specified in these Conditions of Approval, conditions shall be
satisfied prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each building within a Project Area.
AESTHETICS
Lighting
3. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in any Project Area, the applicant shall
submit a Lighting Master Plan for that Project Area for the review and approval of the
C.E.D.S. Director and the Police Chief. A Lighting Plan (construction drawings) and
Photometric Study, consistent with the Lighting Master Plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the C.E.D. S. Director and the Police Department prior to the issuance of each Building
Revision Date: 1/2/02 1 1 b 5
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Permit and shall be installed prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy in the
Project Area. The Lighting Plan and Photometric Study shall demonstrate that the proposed
project allows minimum off -site illumination but still complies with Police Department safety
requirements.
A. The Lighting Master Plan shall include, without limitation:
B. Foot - candle intensity;
C. Parking areas and structures;
D. Pedestrian walkways;
E. Access ways in and around buildings;
F. On -site light fixtures have been designed to direct the light downward and internal to the
proposed project site to minimize off -site illumination;
G. Type and height of lighting devices;
H. The City's Zoning Code; and,
I. Weather and vandal resistant covers on lighting fixtures.
Prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall provide evidence
to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Police Chief that outdoor lighting design has been installed
in compliance with the approved Lighting Master Plan for the building that is the subject of
the Certificate of Occupancy.
4. Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit in any Project Area, the applicant shall provide
evidence to the City C.E.D.S. Director and the Police Chief that outdoor lighting design shall
conform to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for the building that is the
subject of the Building Permit. The applicant shall obtain a letter of compliance from the FAA
and /or the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) to serve as evidence.
Materials and Design
5. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in any Project Area, the applicant shall
submit Fjnal Working Drawings to the C.E.D.S. Director for design review. The applicant
shall provide a Building Materials Sample Board of the materials and elevation drawings to
be utilized to the C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval. The design review shall include,
without limitation, the following design guidelines:
A. All buildings shall be in accordance with the Project Site's Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC &R's), if ahy.
B. All buildings shall be developed with nonreflective exterior building materials of a
contemporary nature, and low- reflectivity glass panel window.
Revision Date: 1/2/02 2 6
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
C. Exterior colors shall be light with limited use of accent color to enhance visual unity and
a contemporary appearance;
D. Within the office park component, exterior building materials will be of a contemporary
nature in balance with adjacent office developments. New technology will be acceptable
if compatible with other materials used in the project;
E. The elevations of any computer /telecommunications data center building(s) or other
similar use shall be designed to look like an office building, compatible in scale to office
buildings in the adjacent area.
F. Elevations of parking structures shall be compatible with main buildings.
G. Any computer /telecommunications data center building(s) or other similar building shall
be designed with floor -to- ceiling heights compatible for current industry standards for
office uses to facilitate any future conversion, if necessary.
H. The buildings shall be light in color with contrasting accent features. Building materials
shall be of non - reflective coatings and glazings;
1. All colors, textures, and materials on exterior elevation(s) shall be coordinated to achieve
a continuity of design;
J. All buildings shall utilize energy efficient floor plans and controlled HVAC and heat
generating equipment to reduce energy use for cooling and ventilation;
K. All roof- mounted mechanical equipment and communications devices shall be hidden
behind building parapets or screens to screen these devices from off -site ground level
view and the Metro Green Line. Telecommunications satellite dishes and antennas up to
175 feet high may be located on the property without a Wireless Communications
Facility Permit, if the facility is intended to serve only on -site buildings and is not
designed or used for wireless communication services for adjacent off -site properties,
except as may be permitted by state or federal law.
L. Ground level mechanical equipment, refuse collectors, storage tanks, generators, and
other similar facilities shall be screened from view with dense landscaping and /or walls
of materials and finishes compatible with adjacent buildings;
i
M. Service, storage, maintenance, utilities, loading, and refuse collection areas shall be
located out of the view of public roadways and buildings on adjacent sites, or screened
by dense landscaping and /or architectural barriers, as practicable;
N. Walls used to screen service areas shall be of the same materials and finishes as
adjacent buildings or compatible finishes;
O. No wood or chain -link fences shall be located within view of a public street;
P. Building design will meet the City's standards for the attenuation of interior noise;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 3 16 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Q. All service areas shall be located so that service vehicles have clear and convenient
access and do not disrupt vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
R. No loading will be permitted directly from public streets, except in designated areas as
approved by City C.E.D.S. Director; and,
S. All on -site utility systems including without limitation, water, electricity, gas, sewer and
storm drains, shall be installed underground;
No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued unless there is substantial compliance with the
aforementioned development standards.
Landscapina and Irrigation
6. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in any Project Area, the applicant shall
submit a Master Landscape and Irrigation Plan for the Project Area. The Master Landscape
and Irrigation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City C.E.D.S. Director, the
Director of Recreation and Parks, and the Police Chief. Landscaping for each building in the
Project Area shall be installed in accordance with the approved Master Landscape and
Irrigation Plan prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. The Master
Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall include, without limitation, the following:
A. All landscaped areas shall be provided with a permanent automatic watering or irrigation
system;
B. All on -site landscaped areas shall be maintained by the owner in a neat and clean
manner at all times;
C. All landscaped areas shall be designed to ensure efficient access to fire hydrants;
D. Dual plumbing shall be installed for reclaimed water irrigation;
E. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated with reclaimed water, if made available by the
provider. Until such time as reclaimed water is made available, potable water may be
utilized for irrigation;
F. All landscaping and irrigation shall comply with the City's Water Conservation
regulations and Zoning Code requirements;
G. All landscaping shall be designed to enhance site security in accordance with Police
Department policies;
H. All public rights -of -way abutting the site shall be landscaped;
1
I. The asphalt concrete raised paved median in Atwood Way shall be replaced with a
raised landscaped median with a permanent irrigation system. The applicant shall not be
responsible for the maintenance of the Atwood Way landscaping;
J. All landscaped areas shall include a majority of mature landscaping; and,
Revision Date: 1/2/02 4 168
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
K. Landscaping shall be installed along property perimeters and throughout the
employee /visitor parking areas.
Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in any Project Area, the applicant shall
provide a Landscape Plan and Architectural Plan (i.e. construction drawings), consistent
with the Master Landscaping Plan, to the C.E.D.S. Director, Director of Recreation and
Parks, and the Police Chief for review and approval, The Landscape Plan and Architectural
Plan shall demonstrate that errant nighttime illumination is generally screened from other
potentially sensitive uses, through building design and landscape treatments, but still
complies with Police Department safety requirements.
8. Where feasible, the applicant shall comply with the City's Water Conservation Program as
set forth in the ESMC. The Applicant shall comply with the guidelines set forth in the City's
Guidelines for Water Conservation in Landscaping. Prior to the issuance of each Building
Permit in any Project Area, the applicant's Landscape Plans shall be submitted to the
C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval.
Sim
9. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit in each Project Area, the applicant shall
submit to the C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval an overall Master Sign Program for
the Project Area. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within
the Project Area which is the subject of the Master Sign Program, the applicant shall submit
construction sign plans substantially consistent with the approved Master Sign Program for
the review and approval of the C.E.D.S. Director. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, signs shall be installed in accordance with the approved Master Sign Program.
The overall Master Sign Program shall include, without limitation:
A. Consistency with the Corporate Campus Specific Plan;
B. Compliance with the City's sign regulations governing permitting;
C. All signs shall be architecturally compatible with the proposed buildings;
D. All signs shall be compatible with the aesthetic objectives of the General Plan; and,
E. No sign shall impede traffic or pedestrian safety.
AIR QUALITY
10. During grading and construction, dust control measures shall be required in accordance with
the City's Dust Control Ordinance (Chapter 7 -3 of the ESMC). Grading shall be
discontinued during first -stage smog alerts and suspended when wind velocity exceeds 15
miles per hour. All hauling trucks shall have loads covered or wetted and loaded below the
sideboards to minimize dust.
11. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has promulgated rules and
applicable standards including, without limitation, the following: Rule 402 - Nuisances; Rule
403 - Fugitive Dust; and Rule 2202 - On -Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options. The
applicant shall use best management practices in compliance with Rule 402 during the
Revision Date: 1/2/02 5 169
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
operation of construction equipment. Construction activities shall be limited between the
hours of 7 A.M. to 6 P.M., Monday through Saturday, unless such hours are extended
pursuant to a Noise Permit issued by the C.E.D.S. Director. During the construction phase,
all unpaved construction areas shall be wetted at least twice daily during excavation,
grading, and construction and temporary covers for stockpiles shall be used to reduce dust
emissions by as much as 50 percent. The applicant shall ensure that all materials
transported off -site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered in compliance with
Rule 403. Resultant peak daily exhaust emissions from diesel- and gasoline - powered
construction equipment shall be monitored to control emission levels that exceed SCAQMD
screening thresholds. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading or unloading
queues shall keep their engines off, when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions.
Construction activities shall be phased and scheduled to avoid emission peaks, and
construction shall be discontinued during first- and second -stage smog alerts. On -site
vehicle speed during construction shall be limited to 15 mph. Prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide a Construction Management Plan
to the C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval relative to compliance with the appropriate
SCAQMD standards during the construction phase. Daily records will be maintained by the
applicant throughout the construction phase.
ALCOHOL
12. The sale of a full line of alcoholic beverages for on -site consumption at the proposed
restaurants, coffee shops, delicatessens, cafes and hotel(s) within the Project Site is
permitted, subject to the following conditions:
A. The on -site sale of alcoholic beverages is permitted between the hours of 10:00 a. m. to
2:00 a.m., seven days a week;
B. The applicant shall not advertise the sale of alcoholic beverages on the exterior walls or
windows of the subject restaurants or at any location in the Project Site. No self -
illuminating advertising for alcoholic beverages shall be located on the buildings or
windows;
C. Telephone numbers of local law enforcement shall be posted adjacent to the cashier's
areas within the bar and service area of the restaurants;
D. There shall be no alcoholic beverages consumed in open areas adjacent to the subject
restaurant under the control of the applicant, other than outdoor dining areas;
E. There shall be no loitering permitted on the premises under the control of the applicant.
Signage shall be posted on the premises prohibiting loitering;
F. The applicant shall provide adequate lighting above the entrance of the premises. This
lighting shall be of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the
appearance and conduct of all persons entering or exiting the premises;
G. The applicant shall instruct all employees in the regulations regarding no loitering and no
consumption of alcoholic beverages outside the subject restaurants. Employees shall
be instructed to enforce these regulations and to call local law enforcement if necessary;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 6 170
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
H. The applicant shall maintain the property in a neat and orderly fashion and maintain free
of litter all areas on the premises under which the applicant has control;
I. The total occupancy of the restaurants and hotels shall not exceed California Building
Code regulations;
J. There shall be no cover charge or prepayment fee for food and /or beverage service
required for admission to the restaurants;
K. The conditions of this approval shall be retained on the premises at all times and be
immediately produced upon request of any law enforcement officer or State Department
of Alcohol Beverage Control investigator. The restaurant manager and all employees of
the restaurant shall be knowledgeable of the conditions herein;
L. All servers of alcoholic beverages must be at least 18 years old;
M. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises requires the approval
of a separate Administrative Use Permit; and,
N. The applicant shall be required to maintain a valid permit to sell alcohol from the State
Department of Alcohol Beverage Control.
ENERGY
13. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit in each Project Area, the applicant shall provide an
Energy Conservation Plan to the C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval. The Energy
Conservation Plan shall incorporate energy conservation features in accordance with the
requirements of the City and State. Prior to the issuance of each Certification of Occupancy,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director that the approved energy
conservation features have been installed and will be maintained.
14. If a substation will be constructed, the Applicant shall develop plans, projected loads, and a
master plan for scheduling to the satisfaction of Southern California Edison,
FIRE
15. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit in each Project Area, the applicant shall provide
Fire Life Safety Plans to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Fire Chief for review and approval,
which includes, without limitation, the following:
A. Fire lanes;
B. Fire lane signing;
C. Fire lane access easementts or other recorded documents to the reasonable satisfaction
of the City Attorney;
D. Fire lane accessibility;
E. Gas detection systems;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 7 1171
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F. Minimum acceptable flow from any fire hydrant shall be 2,500 gallon per minute,
calculated at 20 psi;
G. Sprinklers within structures;
H. Underground looped fire mains, sprinklers and fire alarms; and,
Documentations that on -site fire main will be maintained if privately owned, or
documentation creating fire main easements on the project site if the mains will be
owned by the City of El Segundo.
Prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate to
the Fire Department that the development complies with, and adequate operational facilities
were installed consistent with the Fire Life Safety Plan, and that any required easement was
properly dedicated and recorded.
16. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit in each Project Area, the applicant shall develop
and submit an Evacuation Plan and Procedures for review and approval by the Fire
Department. Prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall
provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director, and the Fire Department that the approved
Evacuation Plan and procedures were implemented or are operational as appropriate.
17. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permits in each Project Area, the applicant
shall provide a Construction Safety Plan to the C.E.D.S. Director and Fire Department for
review and approval. The Construction Safety Plan shall document construction and staff
training procedures to ensure that best management practices during project grading and
construction will be utilized. The Construction Safety Plan shall identify an awareness
program for the subgrade installation of utilities and the potential for worker exposure to
related emissions, especially during excavation. Compliance with this measure shall be
verified by the C.E.D.S. Director prior to permit issuance.
18. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit in each Project Area, all hydrants determined
necessary by the Fire Department and the C.E.D.S. Director shall be installed in accordance
with approved plans and specifications. Fire hydrants shall be spaced no greater than 300
feet apart. One private hydrant shall be provided for each structure and each structure shall
be sprinklered in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and the National Fire
Code (NF, C)
GEOTECHNICAL (GRADING, TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND DRAINAGE)
19. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall prepare
and submit a Grading Plan for review and approval by the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director
of Public Works. The Grading Plan shall include, without limitation:
A. The Grading Plan shall demonstrate compliance with applicable City policies and
requirements;
B. The Grading Plan shall show cross sections for any grading purpose and the location of
and extent of existing and planned sewer easements and facilities;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 8 1 7 G
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
C. Grading depths shall not encroach upon or damage the existing sewer lines on the
property;
D. Haul routes for import/export trucks and other heavy construction related vehicles shall
be approved by the Director of Public Works;
E. All grading shall be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations of a
independent Geotechnical and Geological Report to be submitted by the applicant and
reviewed and approved by the City;
F. The Grading Plan shall detail where special restrictions apply due to soil contamination,
if applicable;
G. Additional, information, as required through the plan check process, shall be included as
appropriate;
H. Final grading shall be coordinated with the City Engineer at the time the Grading Permit
is issued; and,
I. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S. Director prior to issuance
of each Certificate of Occupancy.
HAZARDS
20. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit for grading in the southwest corner of the site, the
applicant shall submit a letter from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
("LARWQCB ") approving the grading and /or development of the southwest corner of the
site, which may have contaminated soil.
21. The applicant shall comply with any permit requirements imposed by the LARWQCB or the
Department of Toxic Substances Control ( "DTSC") related to development and /or grading on
the southwest corner of the site.
22. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit for the southwest corner of the project site, the
applicant shall provide any appropriate hazardous materials safety training for all City
employees needed to implement the project. If required, the training shall be related
specifically to safety issues that may arise during site grading and construction due to the
possible low -level VOC soil contamination that may exist in the site. All training shall be
completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the C.E.D.S. Director, and the Fire Chief.
23. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first Project Area, the applicant
shall record as a covenant running with the land, a disclosure that manufacturing and
fabrication activities are conducted within a one -mile radius of the site, including on the real
property owned by the Northrop Grumman Corporation, and that such operations may
involve the use of certain hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. It shall further
obligate all holders of real property interests on the Project Site that receive actual notice of
any Proposition 65 or related environmental notices produced and published by other
proximal industrial uses operated within a one -mile radius of the Project Site to use
reasonable efforts to disclose the same to their tenants and other occupants, provided,
Revision Date: 1/2/02 9 �}
�f�
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
however, that the recordation of such covenant or provision of such notice shall in no way
be deemed to be an assumption of any responsibility or liability by such interest holder
under Proposition 65 or other environmental law, policy or statute.
24. No child care facilities shall be located within any location designated on the "facility risk
map' as published by Northrop Grumman Corporation, dated October 31, 1997, on file in
the Planning Division, or on the "cancer risk from toxic air pollution map" as published by
SCAQMD, January 1999, on file in the Planning Division, unless it can be demonstrated to
the satisfaction of the C.E.D.S. Director that due to such factors as site conditions (e.g.,
building placement) sensitive receptors at such facilities will not be exposed to significant
levels of toxic emissions.
NOISE
25. During the construction phase of the project, activities will be allowed between the hours of
7 A.M. to 6 P.M., Monday through Saturday, unless such hours are extended pursuant to a
Noise Permit issued by the C.E.D.S. Director. Compliance for the operations phase will
meet with the placement, screening, and maintenance standards for all external mechanical
equipment. The proposed project shall be designed to ensure that noise generated by the
proposed project operations does not exceed the City's noise standards, as established by
the ESMC, for on -site or off -site receptors. A noise monitor shall be designated according to
the relevant codes. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit for each Project Area, the City
shall designate a Noise Ordinance Compliance/Verification Monitor. Prior to the issuance of
a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant's Final Working Drawings shall be
submitted to the C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval relative to compliance with the
City's Noise Ordinance.
POLICE / SAFETY
26. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit in each Project Area, the applicant shall submit an
overall Security and Crime Prevention Plan, to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Police
Department for review and approval, which shall address, without limitation the following:
A. Lighting;
B. Addressing;
C. Telephones;
D. Trash dumpsters (including space for recyclable materials);
E. Indoor and outdoor security cameras installed at strategic locations;
F. Parking lots and structuresi
G. Hotel key card systems;
H. Fences, walls,
I. Security hardware;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 10 17 [1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
J. Office;
K. On -site security personnel;
L. Locker rooms;
M. An Evacuation Plan and Procedures;
N. A combination of closed circuit television system and private security patrols to monitor
employee and other vehicle parking areas;
O. The employment of security personnel who will monitor and patrol the proposed Project
Site and coordinate with public safety officials;
P. The installation of lighting in entryways, elevators, lobbies, and parking areas designed
to eliminate potential areas of concealment;
Q. A diagram of the proposed project, which will include access routes, and any information
that might facilitate emergency response;
R. Compliance on all applicable items on Police Department checklist memo dated October
11, 2001.
All Security and Crime Prevention Plan measures shall be installed in conformance with the
approved plans or shall be operational prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
27. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, the applicant shall pay
a Police Service Mitigation Fee, equal to eleven cents per gross square foot of floor area,
($0.11 /sq.ft.). Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S. Director prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Plans
28. The City of El Segundo requires development project applicants to prepare and submit Final
Working 'Drawings for review and approval. The applicant shall provide Final Working
Drawings that comply with Policies and Requirements and these conditions of approval. The
Final Working Drawings shall indicate proposed uses, building sizes and heights, and the
specific location of structures, loading docks, staging areas, parking layout, landscaped
areas and recreational amenities. The Final Working Drawings shall include vehicular,
pedestrian and bicycle access, on- and off -site circulation, and linkage to other key elements
in the site vicinity, including thJ MTA Green Line. The Final Working Drawings shall indicate
building materials and architectural design elements that will be utilized in the construction
of the proposed structures. The Final Working Drawings shall include information on
security lighting and hardware and other detail required for compliance with the City's
security, safety and crime prevention standards. The Final Working Drawings shall
demonstrate compliance with the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code,
Revision Date: 1/2/02 11
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
California Plumbing Code, California Fire Code, California Sign Code, and California
Electrical Code, and approved Fire Life Safety Systems. In addition, the Final Working
Drawings shall clearly indicate the location of all entrances and exits, including emergency
vehicle access. All parcel buildings and structures shall be located in proximity to the
proposed parcel lines such that they meet all requirements for exterior wall and opening
protection. Additional information, as required through the plan check process, shall be
included as appropriate. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the
applicant shall coordinate with all applicable City and applicable County agencies to prepare
and submit Final Working Drawings to be approved by the C.E.D.S. Director, the
Department of Public Works, the Fire Department and the Police Department. Prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building, the applicant shall provide
evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director, the Department of Public Works, the Police Department,
and the Fire Department that Code and policy requirement conditions have been met.
29. The project shall provide the minimum and maximum floor areas for the uses as provided in
the Corporate Campus Specific Plan.
30. The maximum project size shall be determined by the vehicle trip generation for each use. A
maximum of 2,267 AM peak hour and 2,795 1PilPM peak hour vehicle trips shall be
permitted for the whole project. The trip generation for each use and building shall be
determined using the rates identified in Appendix B of the Corporate Campus Specific Plan.
The project shall be allowed to develop a combination of uses as permitted in the Corporate
Campus Specific Plan, consistent with the minimum floor areas indicated in The Corporate
Campus Specific Plan, as long as the total AM and PM peak trip generation established in
the EIR for the project as a whole is not exceeded, except as permitted by the Development
Agreement.
31. The City of El Segundo requires development project applicants to, prepare and submit a
Construction Management Plan for each Project Area for review and approval by the
C.E.D.S. Director and Director of Public Works. The Construction Management Plan shall
consider all stages of construction, including grading, dirt hauling, employee travel, materials
delivery, etc. The Construction Management Plan shall identify the types and approximate
number of construction vehicles to be utilized and shall provide haul routes, staging area
information and needed road or lane closures. The plan shall include, but not be limited to
construction hours, construction trailer locations, construction and staging areas,
construction crew parking; parking /access plan (including truck haul routes), construction
methods and schedules. The plan shall limit construction hours to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday ,through Saturday, and prohibit construction on Sundays and holidays or as
specified in the Municipal Code, unless such hours are extended pursuant to a Noise Permit
issued by the C.E.D.S. Director. During construction, the areas of construction shall be
enclosed by a six -foot high chain link fence. Gates of site fencing shall be located at
driveways and shall not open over sidewalk /public right -of -way. During construction, trash
shall be removed from the Project Site on an as needed basis. At the end of each
construction day, all open trgnches shall be completely closed or covered, or secured in
accordance with Cal OSHA standards. All gates and access points to the construction area
must be locked and /or fully secured at the end of construction each day. The applicant shall
provide a twenty -four hour, every day contact person /liaison to receive and respond to
complaints during construction.
Revision Date: 1/2102 12 176
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
32. A Construction Management Plan shall also be required for review and approval by the
C.E.D.S. Director and Department of Public Works for the installation of any utilities,
including telecommunication utilities, in the public right -of -way. Such a plan shall include,
without limitation, traffic control measures for any lane closures.
33. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director that grading or any construction on property
or within easements not owned or controlled by the applicant has been approved by the
property owner or easement holder. Separate Grading and /or Building Permit(s) shall be
obtained by the applicant with the easement holder as co- applicant, if needed.
34. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall submit
plans and specifications for any new curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches, wheelchair
ramps, and asphalt concrete (A.C.) pavement, that shall be constructed /reconstructed for
any missing public segments /areas on the perimeter of the Project Site adjacent to the
building or parcel that is the subject of the Building Permit, as reasonably required by the
Director of Public Works. Existing driveways and other concrete work not to be incorporated
into the construction shall be removed and replaced with standard curb and sidewalk. Prior
to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building that is the subject of the Building
Permit, the applicant shall install the required public improvements per the approved plans
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
DEDICATIONS AND FEES
35. The applicant shall dedicate one -acre of the property to the City for locating a future fire
station at a location mutually acceptable to the applicant and the City, as detailed in
Development Agreement 01 -1.
36. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Permit for each building, the applicant
shall pay a Library Service Mitigation Fee, equal to three cents per gross square foot of floor
area ($0.03 /sq.ft.). Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the C.E.D. Director
prior to issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy for each building.
37. The applicant shall be permitted to modify the location of the parcel boundaries as approved
on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 53570, consistent with the development standards in
the Corporate Campus Specific Plan to accommodate the size and location of the fire
station and park site properties, prior to recordation of Final Track Map No. 53570, provided
a maximum of 26 parcels are created
38. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project area, the applicant shall submit a
Lot Line Adjustment application, as needed, to realign the parcels to match the proposed
locations of the buildings.
39. The applicant shall maintain all existing easements on the site if the easement is still
required by its grantee.
40. The applicant shall provide reciprocal access agreements, subject to review and approval by
the City Attorney, between any parcels that do not have independent direct vehicle access
to a public right -of -way. Such agreements shall be recorded prior to issuance of any
Certificate of Occupancy for a building on an affected parcel.
Revision Date: 112/02 13
177
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any hotel, the hotel owner /operator shall agree
to the payment of transient occupancy taxes for any management training or other similar
guests of the hotel. Any hotel guests must re- register after a 30 -day extended stay in order
to ensure the payment of the transient occupancy tax. The agreement shall be reviewed
and approved by the C.E.D.S. Director and the City Attorney and recorded in the Office of
the County Recorder prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
42. Concurrent with the submittal of any plans or request for permits, the applicant shall provide
funds in trust to the C.E.D. Director to cover the reasonable first year costs, including City
consultants costs, of the monitoring of all conditions of approval and mitigation measures
adopted in the MMRP. Annually thereafter, the applicant shall replenish funds on the
anniversary of the approval date sufficient to cover the reasonable costs, including City
consultants' costs for each year. The C.E.D.S. Director, at his discretion, may hire a
consultant to coordinate and monitor compliance.
43. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, Building Permit, or Certificate of Occupancy, as
the case may be, the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director that all
mitigation measures in the MMRP have been or will be implemented pursuant to the
project's mitigation monitoring plan. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the
C.E.D.S. Director.
CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
44. All work within the City public right -of -way shall be in accordance with the latest edition of
the Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction and City of El Segundo
Standard Specifications. No work shall be performed in the public right -of -way without first
obtaining a Public Works Encroachment Permit.
45. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the reasonable satisfaction of the C.E.D.S. Director that all
applicable permits from other agencies have been obtained including, but not limited to,
Caltrans, State Water Quality Control Board's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
Systems (N.P.D.E.S) Permit, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works.
46. Following the receipt of all requisite permits, the applicant shall notify the C.E.D.S. Director
of the date that construction will commence.
47. At such timed deemed necessary by the C.E.D.S Director, the applicant shall provide an on-
site inspection office trailer for the use of City inspection personnel.
STORMWATER (GROUND HYDROLOGY AND GROUND WATER QUALITY)
48. The Los Angeles Regional `Hater Quality Control Board has promulgated rules and
standards including, without limitation, obtaining an NPDES Permit and regulations related
to underground and above ground storage tanks. The applicant's compliance with
LARWQCB will ensure compliance with the applicable sections of the California Water Code
(Section 13260), the Clean Water Act, and the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The applicant shall ensure that any on -site tanks for use in the storage of fuels, wasted oil,
Revision Date: 1/2/02 14
178
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
solvents or other chemicals, which are located either above ground or underground, shall be
placed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the LARWQCB.
49. The applicant shall adhere to any relevant requirements of the LARWQCB regarding
development of the site. The applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan ( SWPPP) which will demonstrate best management practices relevant to compliance
with LARWQCB requirements and the California General Construction Permit. Prior to the
issuance of a Grading Permit for the proposed project, the applicant shall provide a SWPPP
to the LARWQCB, the C.E.D.S. Director and Fire Department for review and approval
relative to compliance with the provisions and requirements of the LARWQCB. Prior to
issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall apply for the
appropriate notifications and /or registrations for any on -site storage tanks. The applicant
shall provide a copy to the City of the Notice of Intent required by the LARWCCB.
50. Prior to the issuance of a Grading and /or Building Permit for each Project Area, the
applicant shall provide a drainage plan for that portion of the Project Area affected that
eliminates pollutants to surface runoff as required by NPDES requirements. The drainage
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the C.E.D.S. Director and Public Works. Prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each Project Area, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the drainage plan has been implemented and is effective to the reasonable
satisfaction of the C.E.D.S. Director and Director of Public Works.
51. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide
evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and Public Works that pavement on -site shall be
adequately applied to prevent soil erosion. Further, paved areas on -site shall be regularly
maintained (i.e., all cracks repaired and debris removed on a regular basis) to prevent soil
erosion. The applicant shall install improvements pursuant to the approved plans prior to
final sign -off of the Permit. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit for each
Project Area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Directors and Public
Works that on -site drainage shall be directed to existing storm drains. The applicant shall
install said improvements per the approved plans prior to final sign -off of the Permit.
52. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant
shall prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) and provide evidence
to the C.E.D.S. Director and Director of Public Works that the project area that is the subject
of the Grading or Building Permit complies with City of El Segundo Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Controls (Title 5 - Health and Sanitation, Chapter 7 - Standards Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan Implementation of the El Segundo Municipal Code). The
applicant shall install said improvements per the approved plans prior to final sign -off of the
Permit.
53. Prior to the issuance of a Grading or Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant
shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and Director of Public Works that:
A. Collection basins to reduce silts in storm water prior to runoff drainage to the Los
Angeles Flood Control System have been adequately incorporated into the project
design;
B. On -site catch basins shall be designed and constructed to screen out larger matter to
prevent flooding of the project site resulting from debris caught in the drainage canal;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 15 17,9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
C. Drainage channels within parking lot and paved areas shall be designed and constructed
to direct storm water and /or irrigation run -off to collection basins provided on -site;
D. On -site drainage and hydrology improvements shall be designed in conformance with
applicable standards of the City of El Segundo and the Los Angeles County Department
of Public Works, including policies in the Public Safety Element of the City's General
Plan;
E. The project is in compliance with applicable permit requirements of the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works or Los Angeles County Flood Control District;
F. On -site drainage and hydrology improvements shall be designed using the necessary
hydraulic /hydrology and structural calculations required for permitting by the Los
Angeles County of Department of Public Works: and,
G. All on -site development shall be consistent with a Hydrology and Drainage Study and
the Final Working Drawings, as approved by the City; and,
H. Prior to the issuance of any subsequent Permit `Final Inspection Approval' for the
proposed project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and
Public Works that all the improvements herein have been constructed in compliance with
the appropriate regulations and specifications.
TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION /PARKING
54. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for the Project Site, the applicant shall
provide Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Debit/Credit
Calculations, and a Phasing Plan for CMP related improvements, to the C.E.D.S. Director
and Public Works for reasonable review and approval. The calculations shall include only
programs which meet all the minimum criteria (e.g., density) contained in the CMP. Prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, the applicant shall provide
evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director that the proposed project CMP debits /credits related
improvements were implemented and balanced on the Project Site in accordance with the
approved phasing plan. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S.
Director prior to permit issuance. As may be applicable, the City will give credit for CMP
related improvements towards the applicant's traffic mitigation impact fee, as appropriate.
55. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide a
Pedestrian Access /Circulation Plan to the C.E.D.S. Director, Recreation and Parks, and
Police for review and approval. The Plan shall identify the location of pedestrian, bicycle
accesses and indicate linkage to other key elements in the site vicinity, and within the
project itself, including parking areas, building entrances, bike racks, recreational elements,
etc. The Plan shall reflect a safe movement pattern, which does not significantly conflict with
vehicular movement and parking access areas. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S.
Director, Recreation and Parks, and Police that the approved pedestrian and bicycle access
features have been installed and will be adequately maintained per the approved plan.
Revision Date: 1/2/02 16
180
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
56. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall submit
plans for review and approval by the C.E.D.S. Director that show electric vehicle charging
stations for at least. one -half (1 /2) percent of the total number of required parking spaces.
Prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy, the charging stations shall have
been installed, per the approved plans. The charging station may receive credit under the
Air Quality Mitigation Plan, as appropriate.
57. Prior to the issuance of each Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall
submit a detailed Traffic, Circulation and Parking Plan, prepared by a licensed traffic
engineer, for review and approval by the Director of Public Works, the C.E.D.S. Director, the
Police Chief, the Fire Chief, and the City's Traffic Engineer. Alternatively, such a plan may
be submitted for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of
buildings will be completed within a reasonable time period of each other. The Traffic,
Circulation and Parking Plan shall include, without limitation, the following:
t
A. An analysis of the estimated traffic generation for the building(s);
B. An analysis of the current level of service (LOS) at adjacent intersections which may be
impacted by the project;
C. A Sensitivity Analysis, to determine if any of the mitigation measures, as identified in the
EIR, or other proposed improvements, such as construction of the internal private
roadway, must be implemented prior to the completion of a particular building(s) due to
the traffic generation from that particular building(s);
D. Sight distances for each structure and parking area associated with the building(s);
E. An analysis of the traffic volumes at each driveway or intersection associated with the
building(s) in order to determine if any offsite improvements are warranted (i.e.,
deceleration lanes, left -turn pockets, new or modified traffic signals, etc.) that were not
analyzed in the EIR due to the approximation of building locations in the EIR;
F. Any new traffic signals or modifications to existing traffic signals shall be subject to the
review and approval of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The
applicant shall pay the applicable county costs to provide plan check and inspection
services;
G. The applicant shall be required to dedicate any on -site land required to accommodate
any required intersection improvements (e.g., deceleration lanes);
H. All truck circulation;
I. Visitor parking;
4
J. All access points to the project site, which should be aligned with existing driveways and
intersections where possible;
K. Off -site circulation improvements;
L. All median modifications, if necessary;
Revision Date: 1/2/02 1
181
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
M. All dead end aisles eliminated to satisfy City Codes;
N. All truck turning radii;
0. The location of required loading spaces;
P. An analysis that shows the location and the timing of construction of the required parking
for the building or Project Area;
0. The parking shall be conveniently accessible;
R. Pedestrian crossing areas of the private roadways shall be called out on the plans and
appropriately designated; and,
S. All parcels and structures shall be connected by an accessible route of travel that meets
the requirements of Title 24 of the California Building Code.
Final site plan approval for each building(s) shall be contingent upon fulfillment of the above
traffic design review requirements. All Circulation and Parking Plan improvements which
require installation shall be installed prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy
for the building(s) which are the subject of the Traffic, Circulation and Parking Plan.
Compliance with these requirements shall be verified by the Director of Public Works, the
C.E.D.S. Director, the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, and the City's Traffic Engineer prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
58. No parking shall be allowed on the internal private roadways. The applicant shall install "No
Parking" signs, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department.
59. The applicant shall provide handicap accessible pedestrian walkways, with a minimum five -
foot width, within the required setbacks abutting all internal private roadways. Any internal
roadways dedicated to the City as public roadways may have handicap accessible
pedestrian walkways within the public right -of -way instead of locating them on private
property.
60. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall submit
Final Working Drawings to the C.E.D.S. Director for review and approval that shows that all
handicapped, carpool, vanpool, motorcycle, and bicycle parking and other TDM and TSM
physical requirements have been provided as reasonably required by the City. All TDM /TSM
physical requirements required by City regulations, as may be modified by Development
Agreement 01 -1, shall be installed prior to the issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy.
61. Prior to the construction of the portion of the private internal roadway for the proposed
project that would intersect Atwood Way, the applicant shall secure a Caltrans
Encroachment Permit to alter the Atwood Way on -ramp intersection improvements as set
forth in the EIR. The alterations to the intersection of the 1 -105 eastbound on -ramp at
Atwood Way shall be in accordance with relevant Caltrans Encroachment Permit
requirements and conditions and shall be shown on the Final Working Drawings. The
applicant shall be responsible for the costs of modifications to the intersection and
construction of all the private internal roadways. Prior to the issuance of a "Final Inspection
Revision Date: 1/2/02 18 18 2
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Approval" of the private internal roadway improvements, the applicant shall install the
intersection improvements. The improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer, and C.E.D.S. Director,
62. The private internal roadways shall be constructed in accordance with applicable
Department of Public Works construction standards for a public roadway with the minimum
dimensions required by the Corporate Campus 'Specific Plan, and shall comply with
applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as City
requirements for traffic signage, street lighting, drainage plans, and underground utility
service, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public works. The applicant
shall be responsible for the design, construction, and maintenance of the private internal
roadways.
63. The applicant shall prepare public assess easements on all the internal private roadways,
subject to the review and approval of the C.E.D.S Director and City Attorney to permit public
use of the internal private roadways. Upon approval, such easements shall be recorded with
the County Recorder prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for construction of the
roadways.
64. The applicant shall install off -site traffic related mitigation measures as set forth in the EIR
and MMRP at the time when amount of building (floor area or vehicle trips) triggers the
impact for which the mitigation measure is based, as documented in the required Traffic,
Circulation, and Parking Plan.
65. Should it be necessary to alter the striping of the Nash Street off -ramp from the 1 -105
Freeway, the applicant shall secure an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans and the City of
Los Angeles, as documented in the required Traffic, Circulation, and Parking Plan.
66. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall submit a
temporary lane closure plan for review and approval by the Director of Public Work, Fire
Chief and Police Chief if lane closures will be required during construction for a particular
building to insure construction vehicles, equipment and supplies do not interfere with local
emergency response routes and incidences.
67. If the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet is eliminated by the City Council, and both Nash Street
and Douglas Street are returned to two -way traffic by the City prior to the build out of the
project, the applicant shall bear the cost of designing and constructing needed traffic
improverents on the portion of the Nash and Douglas Streets fronting the project required
as the direct result of the proposed project.
68. Driveway entrances shall be clearly marked, as well as different areas of the parking lot, to
ensure visiting vehicles do not accidentally enter the truck staging area.
69. The applicant shall coordinatd construction lane closures with the Director of Public Works,
Police Chief and Fire Chief.
70. Concurrent with the sale of the park site to the City, the applicant shall record an Agreement
for the Maintenance of Off -site Parking, subject to the review and approval of the City
Attorney, to provide a parking spaces for public use for the park site to be located on one or
more of the Project Areas.
Revision Date. 1 /2 102 19 183
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
UTILITIES
71. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District requires a Buildover Permit for construction over
its sewer easements. The applicant shall demonstrate through its Grading Plans in the
affected Project Areas that all alterations to final sewer easements, relocation of sewer
manholes, and rights of way shall be in accordance with relevant Buildover Permit(s) to
allow the construction of the proposed project and other project components over the 10-
foot wide sewer easement. Prior to the issuance of the affected Grading Permits in the
affected Project Areas for the proposed project, the applicant shall provide evidence to the
C.E.D.S. Director that the Buildover Permit(s) has been obtained or the easement has been
relocated.
72. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide a
Utility Plan to the C.E.D.S. Director and Public Works for review and approval. The Utility
Plan shall demonstrate that all on -site utilities, including fiber optic utility lines from each
building to the public right -of -way, are placed underground. The applicant shall assume the
costs for the relocation of all utilities, without limitation, light poles, electrical vaults, and fire
hydrants, which are due to the proposed project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S.
Director and the Director of Public Works that the approved Utility Plan improvements has
been installed and appropriate access provided per the approved plan.
73. Encroachment Permits shall be obtained from the Engineering Division of the Public Works
Department for demolition haul -off. This Permit must be obtained at the same time the
permit for demolition is issued. An Encroachment Permit for grading is also required when
import or export of dirt exceeds fifty cubic yards. Demolition and grading may be listed on
one Encroachment Permit.
74. If new sewer laterals are required and constructed in the public right -of -way, they shall be a
minimum of six inches inside diameter. Material shall be "vitreous clay pipe." Each lateral
shall have a six -inch clean -out brought to grade at the property line and securely capped. A
B9 size box shall be placed around the clean -out for protection. The box shall have a cover
emblazoned with the word "sewer." If in a traffic area, the cover shall be traffic approved.
All elevations of planned sewer connections shall be reviewed and approved by the Director
of Public Works prior to starting construction. Existing sewer laterals shall be plugged at the
sewer mainline and capped at the property line. Existing six -inch wyes may be reused if
approved�by the Director of Public Works. Any required sewer laterals shall be installed
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building to be served.
75. No material storage is allowed in the public right -of -way except by Encroachment Permit
issued by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. If material storage is
allowed in the public right -of -way, it shall be confined to parkway areas and street parking
areas, as long as safe and adbquate pedestrian and vehicular passage is maintained at all
times as determined by the Engineering Division. Storage beyond these areas in the public
right -of -way requires prior approval of the Public Works Director and shall be limited to a
maximum period of 24 hours.
76. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall provide
evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public Works that proposed utility
Revision Date: 1/2/02 20
184
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
service improvements will be of a quality reasonably acceptable to the C.E.D.S. Director.
The developer shall encourage and promote a high quality, efficient, and sustainable
development through the incorporation and utilization of the best and most cost - effective
electrical, natural gas, communications, sewage handling, water conservation, and solid
waste disposal equipment and systems. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by
the C.E.D.S. Director prior to Building Permit issuance.
77. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall submit
Street and Public Right -of -Way Improvement Plans for review and approval to the Director
of Public Works and C.E.D.S. Director. Said plans shall include any required dedications
and sidewalks in accordance with City standards necessary for the building that is the
subject of the Permit. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building
that is the subject of the Permit, the applicant shall dedicate any required right -of -way and
install all sidewalks in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City.
Alternatively, the applicant may submit Street and Public Right -of -Way Improvement Plans,
if required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of buildings
will be completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
78. If any off -site upgrades are required due to changes in the proposed peak demands in
sewer services, a program for the implementation of the upgrades shall be provided to
demonstrate capacity availability within a reasonable time frame prior to occupancy. Prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director that adequate sewer capacity is
available to accommodate the building that is the subject of such Certificate of Occupancy.
Alternatively, the applicant may submit any sewer upgrade plans, if required, for a Project
Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of buildings will be completed within a
reasonable time period of each other.
79. If any off -site upgrades are required due to changes in the proposed peak demands in water
and wastewater service, a program for the implementation of the upgrades shall be provided
to demonstrate capacity availability within a reasonable time frame prior to occupancy. Prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director that adequate water and
wastewater capacity is available to accommodate the building that is the subject of such
Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively, the applicant may submit any water and wastewater
upgrade plans, if required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that
group of buildings will be completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
i
80. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public
Works that the appropriate additional on -site water and wastewater improvements as
identified by the El Segundo Water and Wastewater Division, or an equivalent service
provider, have been installed. Such additional measures shall include separate services for
potable and fire water systems, a separate water meter for each building, and potable
system to be a combined irrigation and domestic, or separated into domestic and irrigation
meters. Separate fire services with double detector check valves and backflow preventers
are required. Upon competition of the site plan, the exact size and number of fire lines will
be determined. Alternatively, the applicant may submit any improvement plans, if required,
for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of buildings will be
completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
Revision Date: 1/2/02 21
185
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
81. If any off -site upgrades are required due to changes in the proposed peak demands for
telecommunication services, a program for the implementation of the upgrades shall be
provided to demonstrate capacity availability within a reasonable time frame prior to
occupancy. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project
Area, the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public
Works that adequate facilities are available to accommodate the building that is the subject
of such Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively, the applicant may submit any improvement
plans, if required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of
buildings will be completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
82. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public
Works that any appropriate additional improvements for on -site telecommunication services
as identified by Pacific Bell, or an equivalent service provider, have been installed to
accommodate the building that is the subject of such Certificate of Occupancy. Such
additional improvements shall include that the developer shall provide the conduit trench
and point of entry to the site while Pacific Bell installs the cable to the point of entry. All
additional on -site improvements shall be provided by the applicant. If the existing facilities
serve adjacent properties, the services may require relocation. Alternatively, the applicant
may submit any improvement plans, if required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings
at one time if that group of buildings will be completed within a reasonable time period of
each other.
83. If any off -site upgrades are required due to changes in the proposed peak demands in
natural gas service, a program for the implementation of the upgrades shall be provided to
demonstrate capacity availability within a reasonable time frame prior to occupancy. Prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public Works
that adequate facilities are available to accommodate the building that is the subject of such
Certificate of Occupancy. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S.
Director prior to permit issuance. Alternatively, the applicant may submit any improvement
plans, if required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of
buildings will be completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
84. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public
Works thgt any appropriate additional on -site natural gas service improvements as identified
by The Gas Company, or an equivalent service provider, have been installed to
accommodate the building that is the subject of such Certificate of Occupancy. Compliance
with this measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S. Director and prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively, the applicant may submit any improvement plans, if
required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of buildings will
be completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
85. If any off -site upgrades are required due to changes in the proposed peak demands for
electrical service, a program for the implementation of the upgrades shall be provided to
demonstrate capacity availability within a reasonable time frame prior to occupancy. Prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public Works
Revision Date: 1/2/02 22
`6b 18
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
that adequate facilities are available to accommodate the building that is the subject of such
Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively, the applicant may submit any improvement plans, if
required, for a Project Area or a number of buildings at one time if that group of buildings will
be completed within a reasonable time period of each other.
86. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public
Works that any appropriate additional on -site electrical service improvements as identified
by The Edison Company, or an equivalent service provider, have been installed to
accommodate the building that is the subject of such Certificate of Occupancy. Alternatively,
the applicant may submit any improvement plans, if required, for a Project Area or a number
of buildings at one time if that group of buildings will be completed within a reasonable time
period of each other.
WATER
87. Prior to the issuance of the first Building Permit for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shall submit Off -site Reclaimed Water Facility Plans to the C.E.D.S. Director and
the Director of Public Works for review and approval. Such plans shall include the extension
of the reclaimed water trunk line in Nash Street from the termination of the line at a
separately planned extension near the intersection of Nash Street and Mariposa Avenue to
the furthest applicable extension of the Project Area necessary to provide service to the
Project Area. Said plans for the off -site improvements shall include an approval from West
Basin Municipal Water District, the supplier of reclaimed water. Alternatively, such plans
may be submitted for the whole project site prior to issuance of the first Building Permit any
Project Area.
88. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shall submit Final Working Drawings that incorporate On -site Irrigation Plans to the
C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public Works for review and approval. Such plans shall
indicate that reclaimed water shall be utilized in the irrigation systems for all landscape
areas and other uses, as approved by the Department of Public Works, when available from
the West Basin Municipal Water District or other supplier of reclaimed water. Such plans
shall include the installation of a dual water line system on -site to accommodate distribution
of potable water for landscaping until reclaimed water for landscaping becomes available for
the Project Area. In addition to the utilization of reclaimed water for irrigation, other water
conservation features such as low -flow devices and automated shut -offs shall be included
throughout the Project Site. Water management systems shall include both water
conservation and wastewater reduction features.
89. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area,
the applicant shall provide evidence to the C.E.D.S. Director and the Director of Public
Works that the connection with the City's reclaimed water system has been provided, the
approved water managemenj systems and water - saving devices have been incorporated
into project development, and that the water facilities have been installed per the approved
plans. If the water provider is unable to make reclaimed water available prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, then potable water may be utilized and the
Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued.
Revision Date: 1/2/02 23 p
18 7
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 4241 Exhibit "C"
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE No. 1345 Exhibit "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
90. The applicant shall install a loop water distribution system for the Project Site with service
connections to each of the 12 -inch water mains in the streets surrounding the project,
subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit for each Project Area, the applicant shall submit a construction phasing plan
for the water service, which shall include, without limitation, how the building which is the
subject of the permit will be connected to the looped water distribution system.
91. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each building within a Project Area,
the applicant shall pay the applicable water meter installation fees. Compliance with this
measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S. Director prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
92. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for each building within a Project Area, the
applicant shag pay the applicable sewer connection fees and charges. Compliance with this
measure shall be verified by the C.E.D.S. Director prior to Permit issuance.
INDEMNIFICATION
93. TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and
against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees),
injuries, or liability, arising from the City's approval of Resolution No. 2517. Should the City
be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether
the same be groundless or not, arising out of the City approval of the Resolution No. 2517,
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC agrees to defend the City (at the City's request and with
counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any judgment rendered
against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For purposes of this section, "the
City" includes the City of El Segundo's elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and
employees.
94. TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC must acknowledge receipt and acceptance of the Project
Conditions by executing the acknowledgement below.
By signing this document, TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC certifies that it has read,
and stood, and agrees to the Project Conditions listed in this document.
[Name i
Thomas S. Ricci
[Title] Senior Dice President
(if Corporation or similar entity, need two officer signatures or evidence that one signature
binds the company)
P: \Planning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS \526- 550 \Ea - 548 \Conditions of approval ver.7 -cc final.doc
Revision Date: 1/2/02 24 188
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 2, 2002
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Adoption of a Resolution and Ordinance approving a Development Agreement, Specific Plan
and related entitlements for the proposed Corporate Campus Specific Plan to construct a
2,175,000 gross square foot mixed -use project on a 46.5 -acre property bounded by Atwood
Way, Douglas Street, Mariposa Avenue, and Nash Street. (Environmental Assessment No.
548, Specific Plan No. 01 -1, Development Agreement No. 01 -1, General Plan Amendment No.
01 -2, Zone Change No. 01 -1, Zone Text Amendment No. 01 -1, Administrative Use Permit No.
01 -1, and Subdivision No. 01 -5 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 53570) Applicant TPG -El
Segundo Partners, LLC. Property owner: Federal Express Corporation.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Reading of Resolution approving Environmental Impact Report by title only;
2) Second reading and Adoption of Ordinance; or,
3) Other possible action /direction.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On December 18, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing on the above referenced item to
consider adoption of a Development Agreement, Specific Plan and related entitlements forthe
above referenced project. The public hearing was closed. The City Council voted to introduce
Ordinance No. 1345 to approve the proposed reduced project with a 0.99 floor area ratio as
requested by the applicant. The Council consensus was to vote on Resolution No. 4241 forthe
environmental review of the project at the January 2, 2002 meeting.
The attached Resolution is presented for adoption. If adopted without change, the provisions
will become effective immediately. The Ordinance is presented for a Second Reading and
Adoption. If adopted without change, the provisions will become effective in thirty days time.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft City Council Resolution No. 4241
2. Draft City Council Ordinance No. 1345
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Bud ?et:
N/A
Amount Requested:
N/A
Account Number:
NIA
Project Phase:
N/A
Appropriation Required:
N/A
es M. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
BY:
DATE:
P: \Planning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS\ 526 - 550 \Ea- 548\EA- 548.ais -3.doc
Gu8 1
18
Community, Economic and
Development Services Department
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
(310) 524 -2344
FAX (310) 322 -41ST
www.elsegunda.org
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
LA -bya L
PROJECT No. (Y-V
pate; 11/17/03
The applicant:
TPG -El Segundo Partners, LLC 515 S. Flower Street, 6th Floor, L.A.,CA 90071
Name Address Phone (213) 830 -2264
(Check One)
Owner Lessee Agent X Under purchase and sale agreement.
Property Owner.
Federal Express Corp. 3680 Hacks Cross Road, Bld
Address
H, 2nd Floor Memphis, TN 38125
Phone(901) 434 -8960
Property Situated at: Portion of Northeast quarter Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 14 West,
(Exact legal description. Provide attachment If necessary) SBM
General
Location: 827 N. Douglas Street between Atwood Way and Mariposa Avenue
Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue
Existing Zoning: Corporate Campus Specific Plan
Tentative Parcel Map _ Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
Tentative Tract Map — Vesting Tentative Tract Map
— Final Tract Map , Final Vesting Tract Map
i X Time extension for vesting map.
Request: Under the provisions of Title 14 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Subdivision for
the above described property.
i
SUBMIT WITH THIS APPLICATION:
13 copies of the above noted map(s) prepared in accordance vrith Title 14, "El Segundo Municipal Code".
1
190
Supporting documents or drawings to illustrate the proposed subdivision (parcel) map as fully as possible.
Other information as may be required by the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services or City
Engineer.
MISCELLANEOUS:
All deeds required shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Los Angeles, California.
Provide the City with one reproducible mylar copy of the map(s) after recordation in the County Recorder's office
together with two prints of the same.
All maps to be submitted in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, Division 2 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
I,We Federal Express Corporation the undersigned, depose and say that l/Weam
the OVYNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the
rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this appiication and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans attached hereto are in all
respects hue and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief.
NOTE: In lieu of property owner's signature, please reference
attached letter from Federal Express dated 4/19/01.
,20
Signature Data
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
TPG —El Segundo Partners, LLC /
I hereby authorize _Thomas S. Ricci to act for melus in all matters relevant to this application.I
understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all Information and
correspondence.
NOTE: In lieu of property owner's signature, please reference
attached letter from Federal Express dated 4/19101.
Owner's Signature i
AGENT AFFIDAVIT
Thomas S. Ricci,
I, We TPG —El Segundo Partners, LLC the undersigned, depose and say that l/Weam
19 1
the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the
rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and Filing this application and that the
foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all
respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief.
X
Procedures for filing application
1. File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division along with completed Initial Study
Applicant Questionnaire. Signature of the owner/ owners, lessee (If applicant), and /or agent shall be required
on all application's.
2. Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division as
indicated on the Notice to Applicants.
3. Pay filing fee (See fee schedule).
4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing.
5. Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his /her request.
6. There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal.
Planning Staff, Date received I k ( (3-s EA
Signature '� SUB
l
P /pie/+pram,Jmbdi Wbn
192
ffL-
1{ _JpN
4g y 4
L
x
5 y
Y
W
'2 SJaa
�
r �
Photo E:
PHOTO KEY
Atwood
-�
D
11 G
H
A{
Y C'.. f r A•
Project
)
• .
Site
o
?z
_
z
E i �
Photo F:
A
CB
East Mariposa
195
17-1
d ='
a