Loading...
2005 FEB 15 CC PACKET-3CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT (REVISED) PUBLIC HEARING: December 15, 2004 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 631, Development Agreement No. 03 -1. General Plan Amendment No. 03-4 & 03 -5. Zone Change No. 03 -2 & 03 -3. Zone Text Amendment No. 04 -1, and Subdivision No. 03 -7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 061630) APPLICANT: Mar Ventures, Inc. and City of El Segundo PROPERTY OWNER: Honeywell International Inc., General Chemical, Air Products Inc., H. Kramer & Company, Chevron, Union Pacific Railroad, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) REQUEST: Redesignation and Rezoning of 85.8 acres of land From Industrial to Commercial Use and Development of a 425,000 Square Foot Shopping Center PROPERTY INVOLVED: 850 South Sepulveda Blvd., 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (generally north east corner of Sepulveda Blvd. /Rosecrans Ave.) Introduction The proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo project consists of two components within a 110 -acre project site (1) the redesignation and rezoning of approximately 85 8 acres of property within the City of El Segundo currently and formerly used for industrial purposes to a new Commercial Center (C-4) classification, hereinafter referred to as the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, and (2) construction and operation of a proposed shopping center development project to implement the new Commercial Center land use and zoning designation on a 43 3 gross acre portion of the project site, hereinafter referred to as the Plaza El Segundo project The public hearing for the proposed project was opened for public testimony at a special hearing on November 15, 2004 At that hearing the Planning 1 3 4 r',' Commission took public testimony and continued the public hearing to a special hearing on December 15, 2004 Recommendation Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the facts as contained within this report and conduct a public hearing, and adopt Resolution No 2575 (Exhibit 1) recommending that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment No 631, Development Agreement No 03 -1, General Plan Amendment No 03 -4 & 03 -5, Zone Change No 03 -2 & 03 -3, Zone Text Amendment No 04 -1, and Subdivision No 03 -7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No 061630) with conditions Project Description The following applications are proposed 1) Environmental Assessment No. 631 (EA No. 631) 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 began on October 5, 2004 and ended on November 19, 2004 2) Development Agreement No. 03 -1 (DA No. 03 -1) - An eight -year Development Agreement with a possible five year extension (Exhibit 1 — Attachment F) is proposed to allow the developer sufficient time to build the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project, provide the City with some assurances regarding the uses that will be located in the project, and provide a mechanism for the contribution of funds for aquatic related uses in the City 3) General Plan Amendment No. 03-4 (GPA No. 03-41 — A General Plan Amendment is requested by Mar Ventures, Inc in order to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to re- designate the 54 9 gross acre property owned by Honeywell International Inc from Heavy Industrial to a new Commercial Center land use designation 42 of these acres are part of the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project area and 12 9 acres are part of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning 4) General Plan Amendment No. 03 -5 (GPA No. 03 -5) — A General Plan Amendment is requested by the City in order to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to re- designate approximately 30 9 gross acres of land owned by General Chemical, Air Products Inc, Chevron, Union Pacific Railroad, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad from Heavy Industrial to a new Commercial Center land use designation The General Plan Amendment would also add the Commercial Center land use designation to currently undesignated railroad right -of -way within the project boundaries J � f 5) Zone Change No. 03 -2 (ZC No. 03 -2) — An amendment to the Zoning Map is required by Mar Ventures, Inc to change the zoning for approximately 54 9 gross acres of land owned by Honeywell International Inc from Heavy Industrial (M -2) to a new Commercial Center (C-4) zoning classification 42 of these acres are part of the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project area and 12 9 acres are part of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning 6) Zone Change No. 03 -3 (ZC No. 03 -3) — An amendment to the Zoning Map is requested by the City in order to rezone approximately 30 9 gross acres of land owned by General Chemical, Air Products Inc, Chevron, Union Pacific Railroad, and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad from Heavy Industrial to a new Commercial Center (C-4) zoning classification The Zone Change would also add the Commercial Center (C4) zoning classification to currently unclassified railroad right -of -way within the project boundaries 7) Zone Text Amendment No. 04 -1 (ZTA No. 04 -1) - An amendment to Section 15 -3 -2 of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) is required to list the proposed Commercial Center (C-4) Zone as one of the zoning classifications within the City Additionally a new chapter (15 -5G) which defines the uses and development standards that would regulate the new C-4 Zone would also be added to the ESMC Finally, Section 15 -15 -6 of the ESMC would be amended to add loading area development standards for the new C-4 Zone 8) Subdivision No. 03 -7 (SUB No. 03 -7) - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 061630 The Plaza El Segundo project area would be subdivided into twenty parcels with lots ranging in size from approximately 0 5- to 5 5 -acres The Plaza El Segundo project site is currently comprised of three separate legal parcels No subdivision is currently proposed for the remaining portions of the Rosecrans /Sepulveda Rezoning site All eight applications require review and recommendations by the Planning Commission The City Council will take final action on all of the applications IV. Background The subject property currently contains several industrial businesses Air Products, Inc operates an industrial gas production facility at 2031 Rosecrans Avenue and Learned Lumber operates a wholesale lumber yard at 653 South Douglas Street The chemical production facilities of Honeywell International Inc and General Chemical have been demolished There are no Development Agreements or other land use entitlements in place which would allow for any additional development on the project site The Planning Commission has approved several projects applications in the last ten years These include a three lot subdivision of the parcels at the corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue, the construction of an 80,000 cubic yards engineered fill at the northwest corner of the project site, the approval of a refrigerant plant 3 J ��8 modification for Honeywell International, and the approval of a nitrogen gas pipeline from the Air Products facility to the International Rectifier facility on Kansas Street in the Smoky Hollow area of town The refrigerant plant has been demolished and the Air Products pipeline was not constructed V. Analysis Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses The approximately 110 -acre subject property studied in the DEIR, which includes the 85 8 acre irregularly shaped Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is located in the southern portion of the City of El Segundo at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue The site is comprised of 13 separate parcels of varying sizes, ranging from 1 8 acres to 29 2 acres presently owned by multiple persons The entire Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is roughly bounded by Hughes Way to the north, Douglas Street to the east, Rosecrans Avenue to the south, and Sepulveda Boulevard to the west Two railroad spurs run through the middle of the site. The northern spur belongs to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and the southern spur belongs to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad Both of these railroads serve the Chevron Oil Refinery on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard adjacent to the project site Regional access to the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is provided from the San Diego Freeway (1 -405), located approximately 1 5 miles to the east of the site, and the Century Freeway (1 -105), located approximately 1 4 miles north of the site Mayor arterials that provide access to the site include El Segundo Boulevard, Sepulveda Boulevard, and Rosecrans Avenue The majority of the site was historically devoted to industrial chemical manufacturing facilities Honeywell International and General Chemical had operational facilities on the site until 2003 At that time the facilities were closed and demolition of the facilities commenced in anticipation of the sale of the properties and eventual re -use A 7 -acre portion of the site along Rosecrans Avenue is currently used by Air Products Inc for the production of industrial gases Air Products also owns an 8 9 acre vacant parcel of land in the interior of the project site Other current uses of the project site include a lumber yard operated by Learned Lumber on land leased from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) at the east end of the project site Foundation remains from a brass foundry budding are located in the north east end of the project site on a portion of an 11 acre property owned by H Kramer & Company Additionally, the elevated Metro Green Line light rail traverses the property in a north -south alignment near the east end of the project site The surrounding properties are a mix of light industrial, heavy industrial, office, retail, and entertainment uses On the north side of the project site are light industrial buildings for self- storage, freight forwarding, and aerospace uses A 4 J 4 ,i reclaimed water treatment plant and municipal golf course are also located to the north of the project East of the project site are light industrial buildings and uses along Douglas Street as well as office, entertainment and restaurant uses in the Continental Park development along Rosecrans Avenue South of the project site on the south Side of Rosecrans Avenue in the City of Manhattan Beach is the Manhattan Village shopping center, which consists of retail, restaurants, banks, and a movie theater West of the project site on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard is the Chevron Oil Refinery Land Use Zone North: self- storage, warehouse, light industrial M -1 South: retail, office Manhattan Beach East: office, entertainment, light industrial MU -N, M -1 West: oil refinery M -2 Proiect Characteristics — Land Use Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning. The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning would take place within an approximately 85 8 -acre area located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue in the City of El Segundo This site is currently zoned Light Industrial (M- 1) and Heavy Industrial (M -2) under the City of El Segundo Municipal Code The proposed redesignation and rezoning of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site would change the General Plan land use designation of this area to a new Commercial Center designation and rezone the area to a new Commercial Center (C-4) Zone The Commercial Center land use designation and C -4 Zone would comprise a new classifications in the General Plan and El Segundo Municipal Code and would be implemented through adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Zone Text Amendment. The proposed General Plan Amendment would establish the density and uses intended for the area The proposed Zone Text Amendment would establish permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, uses subject to administrative use permit, uses subject to conditional use permit, and development standards (for example, height and floor area limitations, and setback requirements, etc ) and requirements for the C-4 zone As applied to the whole of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site, the proposed Commercial Center land use designation and C-4 zoning would permit up to 850,000 square feet of commercial shopping center development within the approximately 85 8 -acre site An existing industrial gas production facility, operated by Air Products, Inc at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue, could remain as a legal non - conforming use in the C-4 Zone However, it is anticipated that the Air Products, Inc facilities would relocate onto an approximately 0 5 -1 0 acre portion of the 3 8 acre portion of the project site that would retain its current Heavy Industrial (M -2) zoning 5 �J V In addition, the existing lumber distribution use (Learned Lumber) that is presently located within the subject property would also retain its current Light Industrial (M -1) zoning classification The land on which the lumber yard sits is expected to be reconfigured to accommodate the realignment of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks The size of the lumber yard will remain comparable to today The proposed project anticipates possible expansion of an existing recreational vehicle (RV) storage facility currently located outside the boundaries of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site on the H Kramer & Company property This use may be expanded onto a portion of the H Kramer & Company property that would be within the boundaries of the subject property Construction of development to the maximum levels permitted under the C-4 zone on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is anticipated to be completed by 2012 The southeastern portion of the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is under multiple ownerships and includes some environmental conditions that will require a relatively long time frame to remediate before development can occur Consequently, the applicant is not requesting entitlements for the 66 7 gross acres that are part of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning but not included with the proposed Plaza El Segundo development which is located on the northwestern portion of the project area As will be discussed later, development of the entire Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site in accordance with the levels of development permitted under the proposed C-4 zoning was analyzed in the EIR at a Program level The Program DEIR identifies the additional environmental evaluation required for developing those 66 7 acres Plaza El Segundo Project. The proposed Plaza El Segundo would be constructed on approximately 43 3 gross acres within the 85 8 acre Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site and would implement the new C-4 zoning on that portion of the site The proposed Plaza El Segundo would be located on approximately 37 3 gross acres located north of the UPRR tracks and approximately 4 7 gross acres located immediately at the northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue The proposed Plaza El Segundo project would consist of a shopping center of up to 425,000 square feet The shopping center would contain large retail stores, specialty retail, and other uses which could include a fitness center, spa, and a variety of sit -down restaurants and limited fast food restaurants The types of retail tenant categories could include a Whole Foods grocery store, home improvement, department store, electronics and appliances, home furnishings, pet supply, books, soft goods and sporting goods The proposed shopping center would consist of several one - and two -story buildings with a maximum height of 65 feet All development within the proposed Plaza El Segundo would conform to the proposed C -4 development standards The development site for the proposed Plaza El Segundo is currently under a single ownership and, with the completion of certain requirements related to site 51 environmental remediation that are discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) section below, can be made ready for construction of new development in the near term The proposed Plaza El Segundo project comprises a detailed development plan for a portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site As such, the proposed Plaza El Segundo was analyzed at a Project level in accordance with the requirements set forth in CEQA and the Program EIR Density Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning The proposed project envisions up to a maximum of 850,000 net square feet of built floor area (as defined in Section 15 -1 -6 of the El Segundo Municipal Code) on approximately 85 8 gross acres of land in the C-4 Zone Based on the net floor area, the overall Sepulveda Rosecrans Site Rezoning floor area ratio (FAR) for the project would be 0 275.1. The 0 275 1 FAR would exclude the planned extensions of Park Place and Allied Way Plaza El Segundo The proposed Plaza El Segundo development consists of 43.3 gross acres (38 1 net acres) The proposed FAR for this development is 0 256.1 based on 425,000 square feet of development on 38 1 net acres The proposed subdivision of the Plaza El Segundo site includes 20 parcels These parcels range from 0 5 to 5 5 acres in size As a result, FARs on individual parcels may range from approximately 0 00 1 to 0 49 1 One of the proposed parcels (Parcel 10) would have no FAR at all because it is the proposed location for a stormwater retention basin The proposed C-4 Zone would provide for the transfer of density rights within the development area to insure that the overall density of the site is consistent with the C-4 Zoning limitation Parcels utilized for FAR transfer purposes will have covenants recorded against them stating the maximum FAR permitted on the parcel The following table provides a breakdown of the proposed FAR by parcel Parcel No. Acres Blda. Area FAR 1 17 9,750 013 2 1 3 10,000 018 3 3 1 50,000 037 4 25 30,000 028 5 55 98,497 041 6 22 30,000 031 7 1 5 18,000 028 8 1 7 19,000 0 26 9 30 30,000 023 ern Parcel Acres Bldg. Area FAR No. 10 27 0 000 11 05 6,200 028 12 07 6,200 020 13 06 6,200 024 14 09 8,000 020 15 07 5,000 016 16 24 16,000 0 15 17 16 15,000 022 18 10 8,000 018 19 28 23,153 0 19 20 1 7 36,000 049 Road 3.5 TOTAL 43.3 425,000 0.26 Circulation Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning The full buildout of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning includes an extension of Park Place (a four -lane east -west street) from its current terminus at Nash Street to Sepulveda Boulevard. The roadway extension would include a signalized intersection at Sepulveda Boulevard south of Hughes Way The roadway would also include a grade separation structure to allow the roadway to pass beneath the Union Pacific Railroad and realigned Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks that bisect the project site This roadway extension will not be constructed from Nash Street to the intersection of Park Place and Allied Way until the southeastern portion of the project area receives land use entitlements Access to the site on Rosecrans Avenue is expected to be from the signalized intersection at Village Drive and from several existing and new driveways along Rosecrans Avenue Since no project plans have been developed for the portion of the Site Rezoning area south of the Plaza El Segundo development, the exact location of future access points is not yet known There is additional vehicle access to the eastern portion of the site via Chapman Way, which is a private road that begins at Douglas Street dust south of the intersection of Alaska Avenue This access road serves the Learned Lumber and H Kramer & Company sites It currently serves the RV storage that is located outside of the Site Rezoning area and would serve the expanded RV storage area if it were to be developed This roadway has at -grade crossings of the Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks 8 mot- n Plaza El Segundo Primary ingress and egress to the proposed Plaza El Segundo is provided from Sepulveda Boulevard, via a new traffic signal located halfway between Hughes Way and Rosecrans Avenue The eastern leg of this intersection will be served by the portion of the new east -west Park Place roadway extension that will be constructed as part of Plaza El Segundo It will be constructed to El Segundo roadway standards consistent with the adopted Circulation Element This roadway will have a maximum right -of -way width of 80 feet and extend eastward approximately 300 to 500 feet Two additional right-in/right-out driveways to the north of the new intersection will also be provided to facilitate traffic flow through the proposed shopping center A second new roadway extension will be constructed to roadway standards consistent with the adopted Circulation Element in a north -south alignment to connect the new segment of Park Place to Hughes Way via Allied Way, which presently terminates at the northern boundary of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site Access to the 4 7 -acre portion of the Plaza Del Segundo site would be via 2 driveways on Sepulveda Boulevard Surface parking spaces will be provided to serve the Plaza Del Segundo development Phasing The Plaza El Segundo portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning is proposed to be constructed as one phase Construction is expected to commence in early 2005 and to be completed in 2007 Additional entitlements will also have to be approved by the City for any development of the remaining 425,000 square feet of commercial uses that are to occur southeast of the Plaza El Segundo project within the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning site Utilities Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning In order to accommodate the development that would be permitted on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, several existing utilities will be relocated and other infrastructure improvements will be required These infrastructure improvements include drainage facilities, water, sewer, reclaimed water, and limited rail improvements Proposed development would connect into the existing water, sewer, and reclaimed water lines Specific infrastructure requirements that may be included as part of the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning are as follows • Portions of an existing 42 -inch reclaimed water line may be relocated • A number of pipelines within the railroad right -of -ways may be abandoned or relocated vertically to accommodate roadway improvements 0 �J2 • The pipelines within the BNSF railroad right -of -way will either be abandoned or realigned when the railroad right -of -way is relocated to the north The BNSF railroad line will be moved to a new alignment dust south of and parallel to the UPRR • Storm water retention basins would be constructed as development occurs, with the configuration of retention facilities dependent upon location and phasing of development • New water, sewer, and stormwater pipelines will be constructed and located in the new Park Place and Allied Way public rights -of -way These utility lines will connect with other existing utility lines to provide service to the properties • A 15 -inch diameter sewer pipeline that is located north of the Plaza El Segundo site will be required to be replaced with an 18 -inch diameter pipeline in order to serve the project An interim on -site stormwater retention pond will be constructed within the proposed Plaza El Segundo site to retain storm water runoff Portions of an existing 42 -inch reclaimed water line that crosses the site from north to south approximately 5 to 7 feet below the existing ground surface may be relocated The proposed Plaza El Segundo will connect into the existing water and sewer lines Once full buildout of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning is undertaken, the interim stormwater retention basin on the Plaza El Segundo site will be replaced with a larger retention basin that will serve the full development While the exact location of this retention pond is not know, it will likely be located between the two realigned railroad tracks closer to the east end of the property Parking and Loading Parking for the Plaza El Segundo portion of the Sepulveda/ Rosecrans Site Rezoning is proposed to be located in surface parking lots that will surround the proposed shopping center buildings Based on a total of 425,000 square feet, including 380,000 square feet of commercial /retail space and 45,000 square feet of restaurant floor area in the Plaza El Segundo development as described in the Environmental Impact Report, 1,580 parking spaces are required The developer proposes to provide 2,164 parking spaces, which exceeds the City's parking requirements Since the development on the remainder of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning is not yet known, although the C -4 Zoning contains general parking requirements, the specific parking requirements have not been determined When a specific project entitlement is proposed for this portion of the project site, parking and loading spaces will be required to meet the City's development standards Since the ESMC defines the loading space requirements by zone, there are currently no loading space standards for the C-4 Zone The applicant has requested a Zone Text Amendment to establish loading standards for the C -4 10 r� -. Zone The proposed standard would require one loading space per 10,000 square foot tenant in multi- tenant buildings up to 25,000 square feet in size Buildings between 10,000 and 25,000 square feet would require also one loading space Loading spaces requirements for buildings larger than 25,000 in the C-4 Zone would be the same as in the other commercial and industrial zones (i e , 25,001- 100,000 sq ft = 2 spaces, 100,001 - 250,000 sq ft = 3 spaces) Development on the proposed Plaza El Segundo project would meet the proposed development standards Development Aareement The proposed Development Agreement establishes an eight -year duration of the Agreement Either the developer or the City will also be allowed to unilaterally extend the Agreement for a term of five -years Typical Development Agreements approved by the City, including the Agreements for the Everest Storage and the Campus El Segundo project have included similar times and extension periods Recent Development Agreements for the Grand Avenue Corporate Center and Mattel Inc , have set eight -year terms with no extension provisions The applicant has proposed to contribute $1,500,000 to the City that will be paid at the time of permit issuance to assist the City in developing and improving the recreational aquatics facilities in the City The applicant has proposed to contribute $250,000 over a two -year period to the City to assist the City in enhancing the downtown business environment In order for the City to adequately support the increase traffic associated with the project, a number of off -site traffic improvements were identified in the Environmental Impact Report The developer will be required to construct these improvements and pay a traffic mitigation fee at the time Certificates of Occupancy are issued City staff and the developer are still in discussions on whether to apply the current Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee or require the development to be subject to the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee in effect at the time of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy The City is preparing to update the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program to incorporate the proposed improvements that were adopted as part of the Circulation Element Update If this update is completed before the Plaza El Segundo is constructed, the amount of Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee is likely to be different than the amount that would be required under the current program Staff has no way of estimating the potential change in the mitigation fee until the program is updated As currently drafted, the development agreement and conditions of approval require payment of fees based upon the fees in effect at the time building permits are issued In order to ensure that the Plaza El Segundo development is designed for retail tenants that will enhance one of the entrances to the City and avoid the aesthetic appearance of a large strip mall, there are a number of requirements limiting 11 structure and tenant sizes set forth in the Development Agreement The total floor area that could be devoted to tenants that occupy less than 10,000 square feet of building space is 75,000 square feet With respect to the 75,000 square feet, a maximum of 8 building pads may be less than 10,000 square feet each Two additional budding pads less than 10,000 square feet each may be used for full - service restaurants No budding pads on the property may be less than 5,000 square feet in size ,- No primary use of the property shall occupy less than 1,500 square feet with the exception of the specific retail tenants identified in Exhibit C to the Development Agreement or other similar small non - personal services tenants subject to approval of the Director of Planning and Building Safety The Agreement also limits the maximum size of any single budding or tenant to 125,000 square feet This prohibits "superstore" sized tenants who may be interested in the site in the future The applicant desires to lease one of the buildings to a "Whole Foods ", specialty grocery store tenant The development agreement prohibits any grocery store tenant other than Whole Foods for one year following Plaza El Segundo achieving 90% occupancy (382,500 square feet) If Whole Foods were to close their store after this time period another grocery store or a different retail use could open in its place Whole Foods operates as a specialty grocery store that focuses on natural and health foods and products As such, Whole Foods provides an alternative that caters to a different retail customer than traditional "supermarket" grocery stores The City Council in its sole discretion has the authority to allow for a grocery store other than Whole Foods This Agreement limits the number and type of restaurants that would be permitted in the Plaza El Segundo development In order to maintain high quality tenants, no drive- through or "food- to -go" restaurants are allowed "Fast Food" as defined in the draft Development Agreement, would not be permitted directly adjacent to the Sepulveda Boulevard street frontage (within 150 feet) or south of the two railroad lines extending south to the northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Boulevard The Agreement requires one full - service restaurant to be developed with the initial development and one full - service restaurant would have to be opened within two years of the Plaza El Segundo achieving 90% occupancy If no tenant could be found for a second restaurant tenant in this time, the floor area allocated to this restaurant could be used for a non - restaurant tenant consistent with the C-4 Zone Additionally, the draft Development Agreement would allow one bank and one day spa (with a minimum of 5,000 square feet) These would be the only personal service type uses that would be allowed in the Plaza El Segundo development through the Development Agreement that are not proposed to be permitted uses in the C -4 Zone The Development Agreement represents the City's and developers understanding with respect to the mayor deal points related to the project There may be minor modifications made to the agreement after the Commission's 12 consideration of this project and prior to or during the City Council hearing of this project VI. General Plan Consistency The El Segundo General Plan land use designation for the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is currently Heavy Industrial and Light Industrial These designations are intended for manufacturing and industrial uses that currently and formerly were located on the subject properties The proposed project would change the designation of the approximately 85 8 gross acres of the 110 -acre subject property from Heavy Industrial to a new Commercial Center land use designation This new designation seeks a range of commercial uses in an integrated shopping center design, which promotes 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 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 finds the benefits of the development will be shared by many constituencies in the City The development will provide significant fiscal benefit to the City by generating additional business license and sales tax revenue for the City's General Fund 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 new larger format retail uses that do not currently exist in the City Therefore, these uses will meet quality of life goals by benefiting the residential and business communities with more diverse retail uses not currently available in the City 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 retail and restaurant 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 13 �; Cr 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 the proposed development would be attributed to the number of employees in a new development The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning is proposed to generate approximately 1,904 full time fobs in El Segundo when fully developed Of these, approximately 952 fobs would be more immediately generated by the development of the Plaza El Segundo portion of the development Currently there is virtually no permanent employment on the Plaza El Segundo site and limited employment on the Air Products and Learned Lumber sites Therefore, the project meets the fob 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 Commercial Center Land Use Designation is to provide for retail and other commercial services, 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 Campus El Segundo project. The applicant for the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project prepared a brief Fiscal Benefit Analysis This Fiscal Benefit Analysis for the proposed project concluded that the project could generate an annual marginal fiscal benefit (project versus existing conditions) of $2,319,421 Staff has used the City's recently revised Fiscal Impact Model to also prepare an estimate of the fiscal benefits of the project The results of the City's model indicates the net fiscal benefit of the Plaza El Segundo development would be approximately $1,980,000 in the first year rising to $2,413,241 in the eighth year of operation If ultimately approved, the additional 425,000 square feet development on the remaining portions of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning could generate an additional $2,170,000 annually (Exhibit 2) 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 or will be developed as part of the project, as supported by the Draft EIR, a substantial commitment of City resources or City funded infrastructure is not required The project also proposes several roadway improvements to ensure that the project would not overburden the existing roadway infrastructure Based on this, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with Policy ED1 -2 3 14 Land Use The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and the Plaza El Segundo project, as proposed would be an integrated shopping center which serves a broad cross section of the City, as contemplated by the General Plan Amendment The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning project would include a maximum of 850,000 gross square feet of commercial uses such as retail sales and service Restaurants and a fitness center incorporated into the development would contribute to a diversification of the mixed -use nature of the project Implementation of the proposed project will meet relevant goals and policies with regard to the Land Use Element The project will help the tax base through the development of new commercial uses without adversely affecting the viability of downtown (Goal LU4) The types of products and services expected to be provided for the most part are not already available in El Segundo The Plaza El Segundo portion of the development is likely to include electronics goods, a department store, home furnishings, pet supplies and other merchandise in stores which due to their size will provide a different range of products than the smaller stores in downtown Objective LU4 -1 encourages high quality retail facilities in proximity to mayor employment centers The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is immediately adjacent to the 2,000,000 square foot Continental Park office development, the 2,000,000 square foot Raytheon campus and other office buildings along the Rosecrans commercial corridor The proposed project will provide additional services to these employment centers The project will be conditioned to require maintenance and permanent upkeep on all the landscaping developed in conjunction with the project as required by Policy LU4 -1 1 Any development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site would be required to meet all health and safety and environmental regulations and would be built to meet all current seismic safety standards, as overseen by the City of El Segundo's Building Safety Division The appropriate regulatory agencies, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( LARWQCB) would be required to approve the remediation of the existing sod and water contamination on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site The LARWQCB determines what level of contaminants are acceptable to allow construction at the subject site (Policy LU4 -1 2 and Policy LU4 -1 4) The redesignation and rezoning of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site would allow for the productive reuse of an area that was previously and is currently utilized for chemical manufacturing and industrial uses Any proposed development would comply with all the zoning regulations and development standards for the C-4 Zone (Policy LU4 -2 1) 15 J0 Although the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is not located within a quarter - mile of a Green Line Station, two are located within relatively close proximity The Douglas /Rosecrans Station is located approximately 0 4 miles east and El Segundo /Nash Station is located approximately 0 5 miles north which will help encourage transit ridership to the project (Policy LU4-4 4) The redesignation and rezoning of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site would allow for the development for a blighted former industrial /chemical use area into a new shopping /retail opportunity for the surrounding area This reuse would occur through the combined efforts of the City of El Segundo and private applicants and would conform to the new C-4 development standards (Objective LL15 -3) The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is only partially served by water and sewer lines. Additional facilities will be installed as development is approved on a project by project basis (Policy LU7 -1 2) As development on the site is approved, stormwater retention basin(s) would be required to contain the stormwater runoff The size of these basin(s) would depend on the size of the individual developments and would be determined through the completion of a hydrology study More information regarding hydrology can be found in Section IV F (Policy LU7 -1 4) All new on -site utilities required for development(s) on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site will be placed underground with the construction of the individual project (Policy LU7 -2 3) Landscaping, in compliance with the development standards for the Commercial Center (C -4) Zone, would be required for any development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site (Policy 7 -2 5) The proposed project will be required to have strategic safety plans and a fire life safety plan in place (Policy LU 7 -1 1 and Policy LU 7 -1 2) All on -site utilities will be placed underground (Policy LU7 -2 3) Circulation The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the City's Circulation Element The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning will include the construction of two new roadways that are included in the 2004 Circulation Element update Master Plan of Streets The extension of Park Place and Allied Way will be built to the standards contained in the General Plan (Policy C1 -1 2, Policy C1 -1 4, and Policy C1 -1 11) 16 Access to development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site would be provided from Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue Additional access will be provided from Allied Way and potentially from a road connecting Sepulveda Boulevard with Nash Street via Park Place This would allow emergency vehicle access to the site from all four sides of the subject property (Policy C1 -1 10) Any new roadway links proposed for the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site would be constructed in accordance with the City of El Segundo roadway standards (Policy C1 -1 10 and Policy C1 -1 11) The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning will include the widening of Sepulveda Boulevard on the east side of the street to provide acceleration and deceleration lanes to serve the project The developer will dedicate property for the lane widening (Policy C1 -1 14) The Traffic Study for the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development was conducted in June 2004 This traffic study analyzed the potential traffic related impacts associated with the full buildout of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site under the new C-4 Zone and recommended mitigation measures as required by Policy C1 -1 14 The names of the Park Place and Allied Way will be retained for the extensions of the two streets ensuring uniformity of naming on a continuous roadway link (Policy C1 -1 18) Future development of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site will include landscaping, internal walkways and other amenities (e g , pedestrian benches, gathering places, etc) which will facilitate pedestrian movements and ensure that any future uses were accessible and visitor friendly (Policy C2 -1 3) Future development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site will incorporate sidewalks along project boundaries and any new roadways (Policy C2 -1 4) The Plaza El Segundo development will have sidewalks around the perimeter and other internal pedestrian walkways with linkages to surrounding properties and public transit stops (Policies C2 -1 3, C2 -1 6, and C2 -3 3) While future development projects on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site, other than the Plaza El Segundo Development, are currently unknown, most projects of this type provide on -site amenities such as internal bicycle lanes or pathways that lead to the adjacent roadway system, bicycle racks or lockers that are distributed throughout the site, and on -site shower facilities and clothes lockers for employees for tenants 50,000 square feet or larger It is therefore, anticipated that future developments on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site will be conditioned to provide these types of amenities (Policy C2 -2 2) The Plaza El Segundo development will be required to provide bicycle racks and lockers that are distributed throughout the site 17 The proposed project will adhere to any applicable regulations regarding preferential parking areas or promotion of ride share (Policy C2 -51) 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 Parking would be provided on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site in accordance with the City of El Segundo's parking requirements for the Commercial Center (C-4) Zone (Policy C3 -2 1) Policy C3 -1 1 requires 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 Council to approve the project with significant unmitigated 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 VIII 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 the Development Agreement includes a contribution by the developer to the City to assist the City in developing and improving the recreational aquatics facilities in the City This would expand the recreational opportunities for residents and employees in the City (Goal OS1, Objective OS1 -1, and Objective OS1 -3) 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, and the application of the City's Water Conservation in Landscape regulations (Title 10- Chapter 2 of the ESMC), as required by mitigation measures M 2-4, M2 5, M2 6, M 2 -10, M2 -13, and M2 -16 and Condition of Approval No 8, would be consistent and further Policies CN2 -5, CN2 -7, CN2 -12 All development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site, including the Plaza El Segundo development, would be required to include a comprehensive and coherent 18 JVJ design for the development, including landscaping and amenities, in order to improve the existing aesthetic appearance of the site (Policy CN2 -7) All development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site, including the Plaza El Segundo development, will be required to include facilities capable of holding stormwater runoff resulting from the development Additionally, reclaimed water would be used to the extent possible in the irrigation of the landscaping (Policy CN2 -11) All development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site will be required to utilize reclaimed water for landscaping to the extent source reclaimed water is available (Policy CN2 -12) 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 The project has identified and is currently under Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) orders to remediate soil and ground water contamination as contemplated by Goal CN3 and Policy CN3 -2 to protect groundwater from contamination Air Quality The implementation of transportation demand management programs, as required by Mitigation Measure L -8 (bike, ndeshare matching, and transit options), and as required by Chapters 15 -16 and 15 -17 of the El Segundo Municipal Code will provide compliance with air quality objectives to encourage alternative commuting strategies (AQ1 -1), reduce vehicle trips (AQ3 -1 1, AQ3- 12), and promote non - motorized transportation (AQ4 -11) Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for off -site traffic mitigation measures must be paid to the City to offset development impacts (AQ5 -1 2) related to the project The amount would be $250,000 under the current program rate, however the amount is actually determined at the time of budding occupancy based upon the rates in effect at that time Additionally, the applicant will be responsible for approximately $5,000,000 in costs for on -site and off -site traffic improvements required for the Plaza El Segundo development The project will implement a number of traffic improvements, as required by mitigation measures L -1, L -2, L -3, L-4, L -5, L -6, L -7, L -9, L -10, L -11, L -14, L -15, L -16, L -17, and L -19 which will improve traffic flow (Policy AQ 7 -1 1, AQ 7 -2 1) Mitigation measure M 5 -1 provides that the proposed project will incorporate energy conservation devices (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 1 -1, 1 -2, 1- 3, 1 -4, and 1 -5 which address construction hours, equipment mufflers, construction equipment staging, and noise barriers, will be consistent with relevant policies of the City's Noise Element (Policies N1 -2 1, N1 -2 1B, N1 -2 1C, 19 N1 -3 1, N1 -3 5, and Program N1 -2 1A) For further analysis of noise impacts, refer to Section VIII of this report Pubic Safety The development on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site will end eighty years of industrial use by several companies which will significantly reduce the quantity of many hazardous materials that have been handled on the site (Objective PS3 -1) The developer will remediate soil and groundwater contamination under the authority of the LARWQCB (Policy PS4 -1 1) Public Safety Element Policy PS6 -1 2 to continue efforts to reduce fire hazards would be furthered by preparation of fire life safety plans (mitigation measures K1 -2, K1 -5, K 1 -7, and K -1 10) and the reduction of fire prone industrial facilities As required by mitigation measures K1 -3 and K 1 -8, fire access roads will be provided throughout the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site (Policy PS6 -1 2E) Hazardous Materials and Waste Management As a re -use of a previously developed industrial site, that will be remediated to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agencies and will 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 G -1 and G -2 will ensure that site contamination is remediated Zoning Consistency The following table compares the proposed site development standards to the proposed C-4 Zone Since the only specific development proposed on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site is the Plaza El Segundo development, the comparison below is for the Plaza El Segundo project C-4 ZONE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS STANDARDS PROJECT* Building Area 0 275 FAR 0 00 1 to 0 49 FAR* Lot Area 10,000 s f min 21,780 s f min Street Frontage 20' min 20' min ** Building Height 65' max 65' max Setbacks Front 25' min 25' min 20 J Side (Interior) 0' min 0' min ' ** (Street Side) 25' min 25' min Rear (interior) 10' min 10' min (Street Side) 25' min 25' min Landscaping a) Vehicular - 5% of VUA 5% min Use Area b) Budding - 5' min 5' mm perimeter c) Property Fully Landscaped Fully perimeter Landscaped Parking Spaces 1,580 spaces 2,164 spaces * The overall FAR in the C-4 would not be permitted to exceed 0 275 1 As part of the proposed C-4 zoning regulations, individual parcels within the project area could exceed 0 275 1 as long as the overall FAR was not exceeded A Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) procedure is proposed to be included in the C-4 Zone to ensure the overall FAR does not exceed the limits in the zone. The Development Agreement allows a "by right" transfer of FAR between individual parcels within Plaza El Segundo so long as no parcel exceeds a 0 6 1 FAR Additionally, the Development Agreement prohibits the transfer of FAR from properties located outside the Plaza El Segundo Project to properties located within the Project The overall FAR for the Plaza El Segundo development in the C-4 Zone would be 0 26 1 The portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning site east of the Plaza El Segundo project was studied in the EIR to be developed with a maximum of 425,000 square feet Since the FAR for this portion of the project, based on 32 7 net acres in the C-4 Zone would be 0 298 1, the development would have to be reduced in size or other mechanisms, such as TDR with the Plaza El Segundo site, would be required as part of the future entitlements for a project at that location ** The C-4 zone has been drafted to establish a standard street frontage of 100 feet on a public right -of -way Staff is also proposing that flag lots be permitted with a minimum street frontage of 20 feet Four such flag lots are proposed as part of the Plaza El Segundo development Through the subdivision process, the applicant desires to create a separate parcel for each budding, to facilitate financing of the project Due to the roadway configuration and the desire on the applicant's part to provide some parking on each parcel, it was 21 not feasible to establish a subdivision of the property in which all lots could meet the 100 foot lot frontage criteria that is typical of other zones in the City Staff thinks the 20' lot frontages on flag lots will provide sufficient safeguards for access to public rights -of -way for each property The layout of the Plaza El Segundo development, as is typical for many shopping center projects, consists primarily of one long row of buildings with parking in front In order to accommodate the applicant's desire to have one row of buildings with separate property owners, the applicant has requested the C-4 Zone permit a zero interior side yard setback standard Due to the conceptual nature of the proposed plans, and the possibility that the final budding 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 budding permit As discussed in the Development Agreement subsection above, the Development Agreement will also provide additional land use controls on the mix of tenant and budding sizes and the number and location of various types of restaurants These additional requirements are consistent with the proposed C-4 zoning regulations. Vll. Inter - Departmental Comments INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS DEPARTMENT COMMENT City Manager' Office None In response to the Notice of Preparation, general Building Safety comments related to compliance with building and other codes, and requiring eotechnical reports were provided Recreation and Parks None Comments pertaining to standard recommended security Police measures were provided in response to the Notice of Preparation Finance None The Fire Department submitted several comments to clarify statements related to hazardous materials handling Fire made in the Draft EIR In comments included in the Draft EIR the Fire Department also commented on the potential impact of the project on Fire Station No 2 Library None 22 v6 1 DEPARTMENT COMMENT The Engineering Division provided comments on the Revised Notice of Preparation related to Caltrans Public Works permitting requirements for improvements to Sepulveda Boulevard, and that the County should review wastewater designs for the project Appendices Volume 1 of the Draft EIR contains copies of the comments that were received from City staff This report incorporates all the interdepartmental comments received as of November 8, 2004 (Exhibit 3) Staff has incorporated all of the Building Safety Manager's comments into the draft conditions of approval Except for the recommendation that parking should be prohibited along the north side of the Plaza El Segundo development, the Police Department's comments have been incorporated by reference into the draft conditions of approval (No 25) as part of Draft Resolution No 2575 A strategic security plan, as required by mitigation measures Nos K 2 -2 and K.2-4, will also address the security issues raised by the Police Department The Fire Department's comment related to the requirements for grease interceptors has been incorporated into Condition of Approval No 78 Since the H Kramer & Company property at the east end of the project site has not undergone environmental review of sod conditions, no development rights are proposed for that site and additional sod investigations for arsenic and other chemicals will be required before any development can proceed on that site The developer is in the process of developing the final remedial action plan that will address methods for groundwater remediation According to the LARWQCB, development of the site can proceed on the Plaza El Segundo site upon completion of Interim Remedial Measures (IRMs) The LARWQCB has approved the IRMs for the Plaza El Segundo and that work is currently taking place on the site In a letter dated November 10, 2003 (Draft EIR Appendix Volume 1- Appendix C), the Fire Department comments that the there might be an impact on fire service necessitating the need for a Fire Station closer to the protect site if the City relocated Fire Station No 2 to the Corporate Campus Specific Plan site on Mariposa Avenue as currently planned After further review of the project, the Planning Staff and the Fire Department concluded that the development of the Sepulveda Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo would not create a significant environmental impact on emergency services and that no mitigation measures were required While the potential relocation of the Fire Station could increase response times, the development of the proposed project does not create an impact that the applicant would have to mitigate 23 �b8 Staff has developed a draft condition of approval to address a number of traffic related issues raised by the Public Works Department Condition of Approval No 55 requires the submittal of a Traffic, Circulation and Parking Plan for to ensure implementation of site specific traffic designs that mitigate impacts of the final building designs Condition No 59 requires Caltrans review and approval for any improvements to Sepulveda Boulevard Staff has incorporated the Engineer Division's comments related to the ownership of storm drains, water and wastewater mains into draft Condition of Approval No. 67 Public Comments Comments from public agencies and other interested parties received since the circulation of the Draft EIR on October 5, 2004 are attached as Exhibit 4 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 19, 2004, in the Final EIR prior to review by the City Council Several issues were raised in the public and agency comment letters that are addressed briefly in this report Several letters suggested that the full extension of Park Place should be constructed from Nash Street to Sepulveda Boulevard as part of the Plaza El Segundo development project This will not be possible do to a variety of reasons including lack of ownership control of the properties east of the UPRR right -of -way and the amount of time it would take to secure railroad and Public Utilities Commission approval of the railroad re- alignment More significantly, the full roadway is not needed to mitigate the environmental impacts of the Plaza El Segundo project Such improvements will be needed for the full build out of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and will be required as part of the future "Phase II" development east of the UPRR right -of -way Several commentators suggested that the 110 -acre property should be used as a park or for residential use instead of the proposed commercial use The contaminated soils on the property are intended to be remediated to levels that will permit only non - residential use, not the stricter clean -up standards that are required for residential re -use of the property The current property owner of the Plaza El Segundo site, Honeywell International, Inc, will require deed restrictions to prohibit outdoor recreational or residential uses by any future owner(s) of the property Additionally, the City cannot rezone private property to eliminate all economic use of the property (such as a park use) without paying the property owner dust compensation The California Department of Fish and Game commented that there may be a significant impact on the loss of grasslands used as foraging habitat for rare or 24 vf).i threatened predatory birds This potential issue was not discussed in the Draft EIR The City's biological resource consultant is reviewing the issue and will provide a response in the Final EIR Caltrans raised questions regarding the impact of the project on the 1-405 Freeway The Draft EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact on the 1-405 Freeway As part of the response to comments that will be incorporated into the Final EIR, the City's traffic consultant will try to determine if there is any feasible mitigation that can be imposed to reduce the level of significance of the impact VIII. Environmental 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 November 26, 2003 to December 26, 2003 A Revised Notice of Preparation was also prepared and circulated for public review from March 25, 2004 to April 30, 2004 The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR began on October 5, 2004 and ended on November 19, 2004 In accordance with the City's local CEQA guidelines (City Council Resolution No 3805), the Planning Commission opened a special public hearing on November 15, 2004, to take public testimony on the Draft EIR and make recommendations to the City Council and continued the public hearing to a special meeting on December 15, 2004 Revisions to the Draft EIR, responses to comments received from the public by November 19, 2004, as well as written comments from the public, governmental agencies, and other interested parties during the public review period received by November 19, 2004, 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 19, 2004 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 Reporting Program based upon mitigation measures they may adopt The City Council will conduct a separately noticed public hearing on the project that will be scheduled upon the completion of the response to comments and the Final EIR Program /Project EIR The EIR is structured as a Program EIR and a Project EIR in one document The Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning is analyzed at a "program level ", in accordance with the requirements of CEQA Since there are number of factors that could not be studied in sufficient detail to conduct a "project level" review of the entire proposed 850,000 square foot project, the Program EIR includes a review of the issues that could be fully addressed, and establishes a mechanism, 25 v � IJ (called "Subsequent Environmental Documentation ") for determining what additional information will have to be provided and studied in order for a "project level' review to be conducted The characterization of the sod conditions of the property owned by General Chemical and H Kramer & Company could not be studied due to ownership and bankruptcy issues Until these issues are resolved a "project level' analysis of the specific impacts of development on these portions of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning Site cannot be determined No entitlements to construct any buildings can be approved until the subsequent environmental analysis is conducted and approved by the City All of the environmental conditions associated with development on the Plaza El Segundo project could be analyzed Therefore, a "project level' review was prepared to implement the Program EIR requirements for that portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning If the EIR is certified, the Plaza El Segundo development could be approved and constructed (425,000 square feet) without any further environmental review As required by CEQA, the EIR also includes an analysis of alternatives to the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development projects The alternatives include a No Project Alternative, a Reduced Traffic Generation Commercial Alternative, and an Alternative Land Use (Industrial) Alternative For the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, an additional Rezoning of the Plaza El Segundo Development Site Only Alternative is also included in the Draft 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 aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and sods, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, noise, population /housing /employment, public services (fire and police protection), transportation and traffic, utilities, and cultural resources The Draft EIR concluded that all potentially significant project related impacts identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of traffic, operational and temporary construction related air quality, and temporary construction- related noise 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 -68) of the Draft EIR summarizes the potential environmental impacts, the proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance of each potential impact after mitigation. Below is a discussion of the 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 26 J,7 Study analyzed the project traffic impacts on 25 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 improvements of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), the Campus El Segundo project, the El Segundo General Plan Circulation Element update, and redevelopment of the Los Angeles Air Force Base. 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 2007 for the Plaza El Segundo project and 2012 for the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, the future traffic conditions with the proposed project were estimated The Traffic Impact Study concluded that the forecasted average daily trip generation for the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning would be 28,334, of which 1,167 trips would be in the A M peak hour, 2,657 trips would be in the P M peak hour, and 3,515 would be during the Saturday midday peak hour The Traffic Study concluded that the Plaza El Segundo portion of the overall project would generate 19,151 average daily trips, 915 A M peak hour trips, 1,790 P M peak hour trips, and 2,344 Saturday midday peak hour trips For the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, the Study identified no intersections which would require mitigation during the A M peak hour only Eight intersections during the P M peak hour only and three intersections during the A M and P M peak hours would require mitigation to reduce protect related impacts to a level of insignificance One intersection would also have impacts during the P M peak and Saturday midday peak (Rosecrans /Aviation) For the Plaza El Segundo development portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, the study identified one intersection in the A M peak hour only, two in the P M peak hour only, two in the A M and PM, one in the A M , P M and Saturday midday peak, and one intersection in the Saturday midday peak only would require mitigation to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level The Draft EIR also analyzed the traffic impacts of the project on the adjacent freeway system and concluded that the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo development would create significant traffic impacts for the southbound 1-405 between the 1 -105 interchange and El Segundo Boulevard during the P M peak hour No feasible mitigation measures were identified, which would enable these impacts to be reduced to an insignificant level Additionally, since the intersection of El Segundo Boulevard/ Sepulveda Boulevard is part of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan network, the significant unavoidable P M peak period traffic impact at this intersection is also considered as a significant impact to the CMP network An analysis of the cumulative traffic from 52 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 15 intersections that would be significantly impacted by cumulative growth in conjunction with the 27 Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and 13 of these 15 significantly impacted intersections with dust the Plaza El Segundo development CEQA does not require a project to mitigate all cumulative growth, only its fare share contribution toward cumulative impacts The Draft EIR recommends a number of mitigation measures (L -1 through L -20) to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the proposed project and several potential roadway improvement projects (Mitigation Measures L -1 though L -7) to improve the traffic flow at the intersections directly impacted by the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning Mitigation measures would include intersection improvements at El Segundo Boulevard /Sepulveda Boulevard (L -1), El Segundo Boulevard /Aviation Boulevard (L -2), Park Place /Nash Street (L -3), Park Place /Douglas Street (L -4), Rosecrans Avenue /Sepulveda Boulevard (L -5), Rosecrans Avenue /Continental Way (L -6), and Rosecrans Avenue /Douglas Street (L -7) For the Plaza El Segundo development, mitigation measures L -1, L -2, L -5, and L -6 would be required to improve intersections However, the study concluded that proposed mitigation measures L -1 which affects the intersection of El Segundo Boulevard /Sepulveda Boulevard would not reduce the significant P M peak hour traffic impacts to a level of insignificance for the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning Additionally the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue /Aviation Boulevard would also have a significant impact that could not be mitigated during the midday Saturday peak period only The intersection of El Segundo Boulevard /Sepulveda Boulevard would also remain a significant impact for the Plaza El Segundo development in the P M only even with mitigation measure L -1 No feasible mitigation measures were identified which could eliminate the impacts at these two intersections As a result, significant unavoidable project related traffic impacts would remain at these intersections The proposed mitigation measures at the other identified impacted intersections would reduce the traffic impacts to insignificant levels Additionally, since the final design of the protect has not been developed, staff has drafted condition No 56 to require the submittal of a Traffic, Circulation and Parking Plan prior to the issuance of each budding permit to ensure that site specific traffic issues have been fully evaluated Since the precise mix of land uses may differ from those described above, Condition No 31 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 for the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning to 28,334 per day and limit the Plaza El Segundo portion of the development to 19,151 average daily vehicle trips This would insure that no matter the mix of commercial, restaurant and other uses permitted in the C-4 Zone that are ultimately developed on the project site, the traffic impacts would not exceed the levels evaluated in the EIR 28 Air Quality According to the Draft EIR, the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning will have negative air quality impacts associated with project related mobile source 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 Carbon Monoxide (CO), Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) and Nitrous Oxides (NOx), and Particulate Matter (PM10) The Plaza El Segundo portion of the project would also exceed the SCQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, NOx, and PM10 Because the degree of "excess" emissions substantially exceeds the strict SCAQMD limits, the Draft EIR concluded that the impact could not be mitigated to insignificant levels As a result, the projects' impacts will remain significant and unavoidable The Draft EIR also concluded that the daily construction impacts associated with the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning would exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds for ROC, CO, NOx, and PM10 These are significant and unavoidable short-term environmental impacts The Draft EIR concluded that the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project would exceed SCAQMD construction emission thresholds for ROC and NOx Between 2007 and 2012, emissions from construction activities from the portion of the Sepulveda/ Rosecrans Rezoning Site south of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks may occur simultaneously with operation of the Plaza El Segundo Combined emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance threshold for ROC, CO, NOx, and PM10 These three construction- related impacts would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts below the significance thresholds Noise The Draft EIR identified a significant and unavoidable construction- related noise impact at two locations (FedEx facility at 645 Allied Way and Pacific Theatres at 831 South Douglas Street) adjacent to the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning Construction equipment would increase the ambient noise levels by 26 and 14 decibels, respectively This is in excess of the eight decibel level permitted in the ESMC A potential construction related noise impact to residents on Oak Avenue in the City of Manhattan Beach can be fully mitigated by Mitigation Measure 1 -1, which requires a temporary plywood noise barrier be constructed at the southern end of the project site during construction There would be a significant unavoidable construction— related noise impact at just the FedEx facility at 645 Allied Way with the Plaza El Segundo development 29 o 74 Statement of Overndina Considerations As indicated above, the Draft EIR identifies significant project related traffic impacts, operational and construction related air quality impacts, and construction related noise impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level In such cases, CEQA requires that the project cannot be approved unless special findings of overriding considerations can be made by the City Council CEQA Section 15093(a) states "CEQA requires the decision making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed protect 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 creation of approximately 1,904 jobs, the contribution to recreational facilities, and 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 Considerations as required by CEQA Cumulative Impacts The Draft EIR concluded that the Sepulveda Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo development would contribute to a significant cumulative impact on traffic, solid waste disposal capacity, and population and housing caused by regional growth There are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the cumulative regional impact The traffic from the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning, when combined with traffic from other known projects in the area would create significant cumulative impacts at 15 intersections All but three of these intersections would be significantly impact from the other identified projects even if the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning were not fully developed The Plaza El Segundo development would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant traffic impacts at 13 intersections in the surrounding area 30 Alternatives The Draft EIR concluded that the Reduced Traffic Generation Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative to both the Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo development because this alternative would reduce impacts compared to each of the proposed projects and meet most of the project objectives Other alternatives might create fewer impacts but they do not meet the project objectives for development of a commercial shopping center 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, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zone Text Amendment, Development Agreement, and Subdivision applications The required findings for each application are attached as Exhibit 5 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 November 26, 2003 to December 26, 2004 A Revised Notice of Preparation was also prepared and circulated for public review from March 25, 2004 to April 30, 2004 The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR extends from October 5, 2004 to November 19, 2004 A Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on October 5, 2004 2 The Final EIR will be presented to the City Council, which will review and consider information contained in the Final EIR before approval or denial of the project, (Section 15090). Pursuant to City Environmental Guidelines, 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 Budding Safety, City of El Segundo, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245 The custodian of the record is the Director of Planning and Building Safety (Section 15091). 4 The Final EIR will reflect the City's independent judgment and analysis (Section 15090) The Planning Commission has 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 31 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 Planning and Building Safety 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). Any further potential changes or alterations to the project or proposed mitigation measures will be addressed and analyzed in the Final EIR 6 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, air quality, temporary construction- related noise impacts, and cumulative solid waste, population and housing, and traffic impacts 7 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 8 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, operational and temporary construction related air quality, and temporary construction - related noise impacts, and cumulative solid waste, population and housing, and traffic impacts 9 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 The Planning Commission finds that all the mitigation measures now incorporated into the project are desirable and feasible General Plan Amendment Findings 10 There are no required 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 Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning would change the land use designation on a portion of the project site from Heavy Industrial to Commercial Center The permitted uses and allowed density in the new Commercial Center land use designation are generally consistent with other commercial land use designations in the City The 32 J ! I proposed land use designation is also consistent with all the bwldout assumptions in the General Plan and with the recently adopted Circulation Element update 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 Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning would change the zoning classification of the property from M -2 to C-4 The proposed Zone Change is necessary to maintain consistency with the proposed General Plan land uses designation of Commercial Center Without the General Plan Amendment and Zone change the proposed uses would not be consistent with the current zoning Zone Text Amendment Findings 12 The proposed Zone Text Amendment is necessary to carry out the proposed project because the proposed C-4 Zone does not currently exist in any part of the City Additionally, Section 15 -15 -6 is proposed to be revised to establish loading area development standards for the proposed C-4 Zone. An amendment to Section 15 -3 -1 of the ESMC to list the C -4 as a zoning classification 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 land uses, and programs specified in the general plan and the proposed Commercial Center land use designation In addition, the Development Agreement would provide the following public benefits in exchange for valuable development rights (eight -year entitlement) (a) Development of a property that is currently vacant and underutilized (b) Increasing and further stabilizing the City's tax base through development of new commercial businesses (c) Increase in employment opportunities for the City's residents (d) Increasing the diversity of retail uses and services in the City (e) Increasing City revenues through the generation of taxes that outweigh the City cost of services (f) Development of a project that is consistent with the Elements of the General Plan (g) Contribution of $1,500,000 to the City aquatic related recreational uses (h) The project would reduce the maximum permitted floor area ratio on the property from 0 6 1 to 0 275 1 (i) Improvements to roadways and intersections in the project vicinity 33 J I (j �) Expansion of the planned ITS network to make it even more effective in relieving congestion (k) Contribution of approximately $119,000 in police, fire, and library, mitigation fees to offset the impacts of the project on public services (q Contribution of approximately $250,000 in traffic impact mitigation fees to offset the impacts of the project on public roadway infrastructure (m) Contribution of approximately $250,000 to enhance, promote and maintain the public improvements adjacent to businesses and property owners in the Downtown Specific Plan area of El Segundo 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 new land use designation and zoning classification, 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 other commercially zoned districts in the City 15 The project is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, as described in Section IX 11 above The proposed reduced project permits a lower floor area ratio than allowed under the current M -2 zoning (0 275 1 vs 0 6 1) The project would facilitate constructing public roadways, 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 southeast quadrant of the City by providing a broad range of commercial uses 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, operational and temporary construction related air quality, and temporary construction- related noise impacts, and cumulative solid waste and traffic impacts The 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 C-4 development standards and development agreement will ensure that the project will be 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 Commercial Center land use designation and the proposed C-4 Zone, and it is compatible with its surrounding developments The project will promote public convenience, general welfare, and good land use 34 07� practice, 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 2575 and is supported by substantial evidence as noted in the Resolution Subdivision Findings 18 The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 061630 is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code §§ 65451 and 65454 Each proposed lot will be consistent with the minimum lot size and minimum street frontage requirements proposed in the C-4 Zone All parcels will have frontage on a public street 19 The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Each proposed lot would be consistent in size and lot frontage with other parcels in the surrounding area 20 The site is physically suitable for the type of development The vacant 110 - acre Sepulveda /Rosecrans Rezoning site is generally flat with several unlined natural depressions 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 individual parcels within the proposed Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo development would not have cumulative densities exceeding 0 275 1, due to the requirement in the proposed C-4 zone that the overall FAR not exceed an overall FAR of 0.275 1, this density is well within FAR standards for commercial developments 22 The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably inure 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 Most of the project site was also previously developed with heavy industrial uses from 1920 to 2003 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 exception of unavoidable traffic, air quality and noise impacts, cumulative solid waste, population and housing and regional traffic Those mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR will be 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 Park Place and Allied Way roadway extensions to serve the subdivision will be designed to provide safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian movements throughout the project site Subdivision 35 JC1iJ 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 over the 42 -inch reclaimed water easement on the property The MTA aerial easement will not be disturbed by the design of the proposed project X. Conclusion Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project, subject to the conditions contained in Draft Resolution No 2575 Xt. Exhibits 1 Draft Planning Commission Resolution No 2575 A Land Use Element Text Change B Land Use Element Exhibit LU -3 C Land Use Map D Zoning Map E Draft Development Agreement a) Property Description b) Assignment and Assumption Agreement c) List of Tenants d) Definitions F Conditions of Approval Including Zoning Text 2 Fiscal Impact Analysis 3 Interdepartmental Comments 4 Public Agency and Other Comments 5 Required Findings 6 Applications 7 Plans 8 Draft EIR (Distributed separately on October 5, 2004) 9 Excerpts of Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated November 15, 2004 Prepared by Paul Garry, Senior Planner Kimberly C (Atensen, AICP, Planning Manager Planning a d Building Safety Department 36 p Planning addBuddmg Safety Department P \Planning & Building Safety \PROJECTS \626 - 650 \EA- 631 \Planning Commission Packet \12 -15-04 Hearing \EA -631 sr 12 -15- 04 doc 37 ��n \ LU CL \ - \!; ;) :; / / ) ....... ....... � � ! \ - \!; / ) /} /\ ) ! ! jSG c v U rn n n 0 t N LL s a S s » @o;u aZd53`' -rvorv4 op « °o -pHrvry m^47 _» C °� °8 ry <a o� ry re 86= F��'a 8 n H OV 0 z ° � e= <u au' J �`F EXHIBIT 5 REQUIRED FINDINGS CEQA Findinas 1 The Draft EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA (Section 15090) 2 The Final EIR was presented to the decision making body of the lead agency and that decision making body reviewed and considered information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project (Section 15090). 3 The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis (Section 15090). 4 The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based (Section 15091). 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) 6 Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091) 7 The public agency will adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects (Section 15091) 8, The Draft Environmental Impact Report was made available for public review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law The EIR concluded that with mitigation the proposed project will not have a significant, adverse effect on the environment, or, that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns (Section 15092). 9 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 1 � EXHIBIT 5 REQUIRED FINDINGS 10 That the Planning Commission authorizes and directs the Director of Planning and Budding Safety to file with the appropriate agencies a Certificate of Fee Exemption and De Mmimis finding in accordance with Pub Res Code §§ 21152, 21167(f), 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 General Plan Amendment Findings: There are no required findings for a General Plan Amendment However, an amendment must be internally consistent with the rest of the General Plan Zone Change Findings: Section 15 -26-4B of the El Segundo Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission, in making its recommendation on a change in zoning, recite, among other things "the facts and reasons which make the approval or denial necessary to carry out the general purpose of this Title " Zone Text Amendment Findings: Section 15 -26-46 of the El Segundo Municipal Code also requires that the Planning Commission, in making its recommendation on revisions to the text of the Zoning Code, recite, among other things "the facts and reasons which make the approval or denial necessary to carry out the general purpose of this Title " Development Agreement Findings: California Government Code § 65864 authorizes the City to enter into Development Agreements with property owners to ensure projects may be built in accordance with the applicable policies, rules, and regulations at the time of approval of the project A Development Agreement may specify the duration of the Agreement, permitted uses of the property, and provisions for dedications of land for public purposes The Planning Commission is authorized by City Council Resolution No 3268 to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve a Development Agreement if the following findings can be made 1 The project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan, 2 h �l8fi EXHIBIT 5 REQUIRED FINDINGS 2 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, 3 The project is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice, 4 The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare, and 5 The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values Subdivision Findings: The Planning Commission shall recommend denial of a tentative map, vesting tentative map or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings consistent with California Government Code § 66474 of the 1 That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in California Government Code § 65451 2 That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans 3 That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development 4 That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development 5 That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat 6 That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems 7 That the design of the subdivision or type of Improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision P \Planning & Building Safety \Projects \626 - 650 \Ea - 631 \Planning Commission Packet \12 -15 -04 Heanng'EA -631 sr 12 -15 -04 doc 3 ,1 J � f City of El Segundo COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 3224167 APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1) A o 3- ► t 0A ci3 —a Date July 26, 2004 The Applicant Mar Ventures, Inc. 2050 West 1901h Street, Suite 108, Torrance, CA (Applicant must have legal or equitable interest in the real property Attach evidence ) (If not owner, a written statement from owners stating they are aware of this application ) Honeywell International, Inc. 220 Commerce Drive, Suite 150, Irvine, CA 92602 Owner's Name Address Phone (310) 512 -5731 Property Situated at: See Attached (Exact legal description If legal description is by metes and bounds, attach a copy) General 42.0 acres north of UPRR trackage east of Sepulveda Locations —�? 9acresbetween UP -RR& BNSF trackage north of Rosecrans Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue Existing Zoning- M -2 Existing General Plan /Specific Plan REQUEST Under the provisions of City Council Resolution No 3268 and Government Code Sec 65864 -65869 5, application for consideration of a Development Agreement for the above described property Describe the proposed project in its entirety Include information on the type of construction proposed, materials to be used, and type of uses involved (i e , bank, general office, restaurant, etc ) Provide details on square footages, heights, number of stories, number of parking spaces etc 425,000 sq ft of 1 and 2 story retail, including restaurants, with a minimum of 2300 parking spaces 2 Provide a detailed explanation of how the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan Specifically reference the applicable General Plan and Specific Plan sections Property is undergoing a General Plan Amendment to Commercial and a Rezone to C4 — Commercial Center. 3 Describe how the proposed protect is compatible with the uses and regulations prescribed for the zoning district in which it is located The C4 — Commercial Center zone is designed to reflect the desired project. 4 Describe how the proposed projects'_design would be compatible and integrated with, and not be detrimental to, existing development on adjacent and surrounding neighboring properties Property to the east is a compatible urban mixed -use designation; to the north is light industrial, and to the west is a refinery, The proposed use is compatible. 5 Submit a scaled site plan showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings, dimensions of the property, abutting streets, utilities, easements, ingress and egress, parking areas, loading area, landscaping, etc , along with elevations, sections, floor plans, etc , of all existing and proposed buildings and structures (See Plot Plan Checklist) Provided separately 6 Attach the proposed Development Agreement. The Development Agreement shall include the duration of the agreement, permitted uses of the property, density or intensity of use, maximum height and size of all buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes 1Lr J L .i I,(We) w eLL- lit !` e�1v�t�len 4ttt3cundersigned, depose and say that (I am/We are) the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I(we) have familiarized myself(ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief 7 zr�� xr• -� K , 20_ cSign� atur� SDate 20 0 Lf Signature D to I hereby authorize to act for me in all matters relevant to this applicati n. I understand that thi erson will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all mfo anon and correspon en e. Owner's Signat e AGENT AFFIDAVIT [,(We) r iNL the undersigned, depose and say that (I am/We are) 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 plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. A L" Si g�na�re Date W L2 " t(JSn T , 20_ Signature Date COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT NO. rt_ - ")_ Up O� Lf (Area A. Plaza Del Segundo Pro ect) Date: war 12, 2003 The Applicant: Mar Ventures, Inc., 2050 W. 190th Street, Suite 201, Torrance, CA 90504 "(310)- 787 -4730 Name (Check One Address Phone Owner __ Lessee , Agent X Property Owner: Honeywell International, Inc., 6 Journey St, Suite 375, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Name Address - Phone (310) 512 -5731 Property Situated at:_ See attached (Exact legal description. Provide attachment N necessary) General S veda Blvd. Rosecrans Ave Hughes Way Location: epul _ batwaan and Address or Street/ Avenue Street! Avenue Street/ Avenue Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Heavy Industrial 1 Describe the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use reedesignation that is requested with this application. Ame=lrient to General Catanercial. 2 Does public necessity require the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redeslgnahon9 (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding properties as well as the subject property) The property is currently heavy industrial and this use has been phased out. 3 Is the property Involved In the proposed land use redesignation and /or amendment more su table and I 1 consistent with the purposes, objectives, goals and policies, of the applicable General Plan Elements than the present designation? (Answer completely Give all reasons for your answer and specifically cite applicable General Plan sections ) All industrial uses are obsolete or are defunct. General corercial permits all retail uses, which is the most viable use of this site. Would the use(s) permitted by the proposed land use redesignahon and /or amendment be detrimental in any way to the surrounding properties? (Explain reasons supporting your answers ) No. Property to the east is a compatible urban mixed -use designation; to the north is light industrial, and to the south is commercial (Manhattan Beach) . Are there any deed or other restrictions concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? If so, give expiration date of the restrictions and attach a copy of the restrictions. None Explain how the proposed redesignation and /or amendment would be integrated, internally consistent and compatible with all of the Elements of the General Plan, as a whole. (Cite specific applicable General Plan sections ) The proposed General Plan Amendment would be consistent with Goal LU 4 -1, the development of high quality retail in proximity to major employment center Heavy industrial use is in decline, elimination of this use would be consistent with Goal HM1 elimination of the risk of chemical discharge OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We Ho N,-,!6 w el\ being duly sworn depose and "say that I/We am the OWNER of the property involved in this application and thatI /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation(s) of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on do ments and all plan attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of mylour knowled e-a belief t 20 fat STATEOFCALIFORNIA, ) DIRECTOR REAL ESTATE County of Los Angeles )ss. On this day of 20 , before me, the underslgne7 &Not6ry Prublic iris; and for said County and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and E;11 -(,, 3 I CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of 0 A L>' GORIVSA County of 0P -ANeii;_� On ,,In„ ,� I�LYJ� before me, RR,? FNT 2o�eKT,SV✓, n1oTAR� PuRtZG Name and Title of icer (e g , "Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared pµzLyp E. l4AMNa: =L Name(s) of Signer(s) Ej personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to ROBERTSON 4BRENT COMM 01387571 m Hoary PuWkcamornla W ORANGE COUNTY -� My Comm. Exi Nw 26 2D Me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument ------------OPTIONAL ----- _ –_- Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document, APPLS cArronM Fn2 A OtEm.zAL- PL-4A) Am. A,DAA67AJ Document Date Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s) ❑ Partner - 0 Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -m -Fact ❑ irustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing Number of Pages Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Tdle(s) ❑ Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing General sti - _ J acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and State AGENT AUTHORIZATION MA2v tn,c I hereby autKbe 1 to act for me In all matters relevant to this application I understand that this n th e exclusive co act o the project and will be sent all information and correspondence Owner'ssi ure PIP {1, IKAI^ _ i � E t L1 ill i. AGENT AFFIDAVIT We A1Ao.< N \ucken3 ie, %IAA- being duty sworn depose and say that Me am the AGENT of the property Involved In this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respe to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on pcum nts and all plans, attached hereto are In all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and b Ii f. Signature *ate STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss On this �_ day of Ajo ye/U[Lil and for said County and State, personally appeared_i be the person whose name i C acknowledged -roe EgaF#aelsNe e�teerEed- lMe�same ANNAMAAIE CALVIN z WITNESS my iQ� 1382479 N P rc CAUFOPNIA les Anpd. Caw Ny Comm Espmes Oct 29,2006 r 2 5, 20_ ©--�_, before me, the undersigned Notary Public In lu Mftttt0aZ74 known to me to _ subscribe to the within instrument, and 6)S Ange(c Sv C C!� �OrrrrG Notary Public in and for said County and State File application properly completed In the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public Applicant shall provide all Information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division Pay filing fee Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing. Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support FiisWhar request There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal. J () 1 F COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524.2344 FAX (310) 322.4167 APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT NO. F-A -B) LP (Area B: Rosecrans /SepulvedaUMae e pllan) 12, 2003 The Applicant: N,ar Ventures, Inc., 2050 W. 190th Street, Suite 201, Torrance, CA 90504'(310] 787 -4730 Name (Check One) Owner ^ Lessee __ Agent _ % Property Owner: Address Phone .1 International, Inc., 6 Journey St, Suite 375, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Name Address - V Phone (310) 512 -5731 Property Situated at: See attached (Exact legal description. Provide attachment if necessary) General (a) 4.7 acres at north east corner of Posecrans and Sepulveda Locaticxt- (b) 12.9 acres between/ VRR and BNSF trackage north of Rosecrans. Address or Street/ Avenue Street/ Avenue Street, Avenue Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: Heavy Industrial 1. Describe the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redesignation that is requested with this application. Amendment to General Cctttnercial. 2. Does public necessity require the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redesignation? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding properties as well as the subject property) The property is currently heavy industrial and this use has been phased cut. 3. Is the property involved in the proposed land use redesignation and /or amendment more suitable and 1 r consistent with the purposes, objectives, goals and policies, of the applicable General Plan Elements than the present designation'? (Answer completely Give all reasons for your answer and specifically cite applicable General Plan sections ) All industrial uses are obsolete or are defunct. General commercial permits all retail uses, which is the most viable use of this site, A Would the use(s) permitted by the proposed land use redesignatton and /or amendment be detrimental to any way to the surrounding properties? (Explain reasons supporting your answers ) No. Property to the east is a compatible urban mixed use designation; to the north is light industrial, and to the south is coitaiiercial (Manhattan Beach). Ate there any deed or other restrictions concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? If so, give expiration date of the restrictions and attach a copy of the restrictions None 6, Explain how the proposed redesignatton and /or amendment would be integrated, internally consistent and compatible with all of the Elements of the General Plan, as a whole, (Cite specific applicable General Plan sections ) The proposed General Plan Amendment would be consistent with Goal LU 4 -1, the development of high quality retail in proximity to major employment center Heavy industrial use is in decline, elimination of this use would be consistent with Goal HM1 elimination of the risk of chemical discharge OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We Honey well being duly sworn depose and "say that I/We am the OWNER of the property involved to this application and thatI /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation(s) of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents a all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief.' STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss Signature J PR IP F, Ht,PI L -r -. Df % �%I„ ,�Rr t �A� F�;�tr� "t a e On this day of 20 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public to and forsaid County and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and �A-� 3 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of County of C)R.Rn7C-1 6 On No,) alaoO3 before me, &ZEM7 QDFh EFZ�iSOAJ, A.1(7—.tgVV Name and Title of Officer (e g Jane Doe Notary Public ") personally appeared NrL7P c 14AMMEL Name(s) of Signer(s) personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same In his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon ROBERTSON behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument CON61. #7367537 N 4BRENT Notary Pu611c- caNromin in w ORANGE COUNW WITNESS my hand and official seal My Comm E%p Nov 26 2056 t - Signature of Notary Public Though the Information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document Appts[ AT -sonl FOR A RENERAt_ rpLAA) AfKP.AjnMCATj_ Document Date Number of Pages L4 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s) ❑ Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing Signer's Name N ■ 0 ■ ■ ■ Individual Corporate Officer Title(s) Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ General Attorney -in -Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other Signer Is Representing �J8 EA -c-31 acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and State M.c2 c� AGENT AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize K v�N t° ` to actfor me in all matters relevant to this application I understand that theperwjll Ve the esi a contact on the project d will be sent all information and correspondence Owner's Signature L Ufi;ECiGR RE,'L ES7AlE AGENT AFFIDAVIT I, We Aft`"^ rkCk c \kIk' "15 —1 1 being duly sworn depose and say that Me am the AGENT of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the Information on ocuments and ail plans, attached hereto rein all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and b of Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss On this day of— , 20Y_, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name _ subscribe to the within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said County and State 1 File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public. 2 Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division 3 Pay filing fee. 4 Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing. 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 forfiling an appeal. J J EA -' ,�i CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss County of US Rn C? -G /-e i 0n WVr✓ 114&Y l2120aareme, 6�4?�Kj Deae -/y,7 ��) ^ n Neme antl iytle o�10PoCer (0 g Jane Doe Notary Public) personally appeared ,4?7 Namais) of Signegs) personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(p) whose name($) isMn subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hefe"ekhey executed the same in hisAim' hen authorized capaclty{we), and that by hisi'herkheir signature(K on the instrument the person(g), or y ANNAMAAIE CALVIN the entity upon behalf of which the person(�j COMM f E CAL 9 acted, executed the instrument IA NOTAAY 4UBLLC CAIIFUPNIA N Yt Los AnpeN11 ca9mv WITNESS my han official seal Mr Comm Eltpinr Oct 29, 2006 Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below 1s not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document �rY� Title or Type of Document �� �R,�i`ayi %^(� Q `kf� r.T1 P`O'1 Document Date Number of Pages Signers) Other Than Named Above Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name ❑ Individual Top of thumb here ❑ Corporate Officer — Tltle(s) ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee C Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing 61999Nalwnal Notary Assonal ,on•9350De Sato Ave PC Bov2402•COatswDnb CA913132402• enaaonainolaryorg Prod No 5 °9 Reorder Call Toll Free 1 800 876 6827 y t Planning Staff: Date received Signature GPA revised 09/04/97 IoI Planning Staff Date received* Signature GPA revised 09104/97 C A- z y a � k 's �a `1 j j o t f Uk t O O 4 � d H a r �A - (r'� I COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 APPLICATION FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT NO. (I - `i) 3 v S N l0. 1, Date: I 1 The Applicant: L, iv, S) � � I SPG,U(1 �� 3C) x(44) Sifr-tt an a, et 9�a�S Name Address Phone (Check One) Owner _ Lessee Agent l Property Owner: ft,{ Qf���CIS 14�cV fUT1 I R kfu>nP c � a Cq Nadia Address Phone 1 qq Property Situated at: i� � (��r G S� W I rw. f �¢ 5c Oy1 yENU, \ RO B( T A n (Exact legal description. Provide attachmeni if necessa ) General Location: 0'oSeCfclYy5 between Stnv1ye ano] NCl5k and Address or Streett Avenue Stre1et/ Avenue l Street/ Avenue 1 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation: � Cmi v� nd0StSt/ } ,I n d r\ jvS�ffG 1 1 Describe the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redesignation that is requested with this application ` V)- C,ty �r�QaScS to {(�' � 'PS (A?\( he -q)c S�bJra "1 Pfo�i�) °� �rJ G i1C�/J (ornfht'('t l�l� ``f'i 1uri V' << � � 5� a ,tf7%1 @�IJYI firyir ,,.'Jd�1 �e,m,� CamP, =rCWI rcka,� VSeS SeJerc,l e4K tnj 1 2 Does public necessity require the proposed amendment and /or proposed land use redesignation? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding properties as well as the subject property) Sthte '�� tiffier� �G.nN f��c ���,tGl i1e��)y�n5 do nod" (Ietrn�i �or"�Pfcr�+1 u5�` }� tA 16 IirqVif -CJ J Sc B��P(r)=S 1*, C�n�:CfC4)or\ k,fi)) Qlctz+.,44 AO Vf"JeC� 1- q'4 t -� ff�-Q-OW �0-17 41,-A A <,ffi forger 3 Is the property involved in the proposed land use redesignation andlor amendment more suitable and consistent with the purposes, objectives, goals and policies, of the applicable General Plan Elements than the present designation? (Answer completely Give all reasons for your answer and specifically cite applicable General Plan sections) efyY C�ir1 (nefLlV� fcc�FSi[�►�G��v1 .� �l�Sc Pfb�tl lr'S "111 Fcr� t;Tm�� a 54UQ�Ih�j lfnkFr IyU�v- w fl nor') mPn� T�114c,F,c �-P�rh Tbrr�fitC 1P>1k�( ior�ii� PGS1� —ihc M0nk14itA1� V;��aI'l� ShSF�incj irrlf'Pr P `;J-" In rlanhallan &P�ch 4 Would the use(s) permitted by the proposed land use redesignation and /or amendment be detrimental in any way to the surrounding properties? (Explain reasons supporting your answers ) i he tr.v,i�(1Mehka) (GMOpr l,t� o� frC rummercrlti ISn� t, -Ifh fihe 5Vrr"djlly �,, � °�1<p�5 �•.,l }� �e Siivt�ii�. lrl ern ynv,r ?r1 r�e,.�'�•,� Zm�,uzf i>e�� „f // 5 Are there any deed or other restrictions concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? If so, give expiration date of the restrictions and attach a copy of the restrictions \�Y Q� lS uf��."je qt�V� �°P� fr'4'{ Ir(,��a(\5 on fi� )v QT °�e(�t es tnlli(% �yyo'A- I k65r� fe r- )IgN9�)m b�ihPPf�PPI�l�S C+V'01 A I 0 cvrntheC(l,a (_ 6 Explain how the proposed redesignation and /or amendment would be integrated, internally consistent and compatible with all of the Elements of the General Plan, as a whole (Cite specific applicable General Plan sections ) jhe re C -Lil- (Ura,P'rr((d l P`• hhakiurl tno t I r'J V\Xk ")Thr'f \ct. OCI c(e5tci11nt�iiins in 'hr afecy Thz rfeQLQSA pf,dPGt h(S cal6, 6f-rn r4jej,riw kbt In�he tlrPFr (Ireula�luh 41ernCrr� vQe�afe file rs cmc((tPJvf �cln i�cr�erctk Q�kV1. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly sworn depose and say that I/We am the OWNER of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation(s) of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss 20 Signature Date 2 `i () :: On this day of 20 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and State AGENT AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize to act for mein all matters relevant to this application I understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence Owner's Signature AGENT AFFIDAVIT I, We being dulyswom depose and saythat I/We am the AGENT of the property involved in this application and that Me have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief ,20 Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss. On this day of , 20 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed the same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested bythe Planning Division 3 `41(If, COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524.2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 >rA-631 ZC D3 "0- PROJECT NO —_ Date _ November 12, 2003 (Area A; Plaza Del Segundo Protect) The Applicant Mar. Ventures, Inc., 2050 W 190th St., Ste #201, Torrance, CA 90504 Name Address Phone (310) 787 -4730 (Check One) Owner — Lessee__ Agent X Property Owner, Honeywell International, Inc.1 6 Journrney St, Suite 375, Aliso Viejo. �A_9�656 --- - -- Name Address Phone a Property Situated at* __See (310) 512 -5731 (Exact legal description Provide attachment ff necessary) General Sepulveda Blvd between Ave and Hughes Way Location: Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue Existing Zoning: Heavy Industrial M -2_ Request Under the provisions of Chapter 15 -26 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Zone Change for the above described property 1. Does public necessity require the proposed change? Is there a real need in the community for more of the types of uses permitted by the Zone requested that can be accommodated in the areas already for such zones? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding property as well as the property proposed to be reclassified) General Commercial (C -3) zoned areas are limited predominately to smaller parcels north of the subject site on Sepulveda Boulevard None of these parcels are large enough to allow modem retail development As a result, El Segundo is significantly under - retailed compared with surrounding cities The subject site is a key gateway intersection for the city, uses along both sides of Rosecrans Avenue are mixed -use or commercial, uses along Sepulveda Boulevard tend to be commercial or industrial The proposed use islthus"in = character with surrounding use v L0 2 Is the property involved in the proposed reclassification more suitable for the purposes permitted in the proposed zone than for the purposes permitted in the present classification? (Answer -completely, give all 'C—=A- Cc� I 4u" reasons for your answer ) There is no demand for new heavy industrial uses, and the existing heavy industrial use has been phased out as a result of changes in Air Quality standards Heavy industrial use is inappropriate at this location, C -3 uses are consistent with nearby landowners Would the uses permitted by the proposed zone change be detnmental in any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reasons supporting your answers ) The C -3 uses would not be detrimental, in fact, they would be beneficial, providing needed retail and commercial services to the adjacent Raytheon Company and Rosecrans office corridor There is a dearth of diversified retail services in the immediate vicinity What were the original deed restrictions, if any, concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? Give expiration date of these restrictions (You may attach a copy of these restrictions, after properly underscoring the portions that are in answer to this question ) None. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We F�re�w, \ 1 r r� �o �l _--being duly sworn dispose and say that I /We am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that 11we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and fling this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information or� documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the g9et-ofigy /our knowledge akd elief (zoo STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) DIRECTOR -REAL ESTATE County of Los Angeles )ss On this _ day of_ , 20___, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared -------known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and state AGENT AUTHORIZATION �J _ 408 FE �� I CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of A T 4, ,6A County of On before me, B NT Qo&=pTsON Air ARu Pub xC Name and Title o OK�cer (e g "Jane Doe Notary Public ") personally appeared PNSrr? F NAMMt =L_ Rr personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to S 9BRFNTR�6ERT50N_j CONK 7387831 N y PNi �s w ORANGE COUNTY Y My CWAL Exp "282M me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) Is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same In his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the Instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument Though the Information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document paps -r r AT3nj Po* A 2-0o amG (11411,146 C' Document Date Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s) ❑ Partner - Limited F1 General ❑ Attorney -In -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing Number of Pages Signer's Name El El El El El Individual Corporate Officer Title(s) Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ General Attorney -In -Fact Trustee Guardian or Conservator Other Signer Is Representing c A- (L3 � here I hereby authorize "K Vll�k 1 Vic- to act for me in this peas ill be the exclusive co tact on the project an¢' Owner's Signature PHIL F. ;;,r NU1 =_L DIREC-ICR REriL ES) IHIE 'ters relevant to this application I understand that sent all information and correspondence AGENT AFFIDAVIT I, We Mc c- Venw ce5 _,-r— _ being duly sworn dispose and say that I /We am the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that Iiwe 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 info atio on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of mylour kn le ge nil belief -- - - - - -- -� - - - -- —t l� -� 7=, 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss On this _ M —,— day of NOVBM 8fa and for said county and State, personally appeared_ be the person whose name t S acknowledged to me that hetshe-executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal Signature Date 20 01— before me, the undersigned Notary Public in cti_ /lA/{ u�ZIG__ —_ —known to me to subscribe to the within instrument, and Notary Public in and for said County and state Procedures for filing application 1 File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public 2 Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division 3 Pay filing fee 4 Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing 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 Signature -- - -_ - -- ZC_, 3 A- L-) I 41G CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of (-()s ss On Nov -ep YJ-C✓ 2WAfore me, r " 1 rV4nW ri4 . e N.m ��n rme m raxoar 1a personally appeared ANNAMAAIE CALVIN Comm ►1382479 r^ N NOTARY POBLIC CALIFORNIA N Ins Anp lis Cali ` MY Cmmo E1pim Oct, 29 2008 " (/V v C- a-1, V/ n g Jana boa Notary Pubhe ) Z Ili Wersonally known to me 0 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personor whose name(Rj Isfere subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s§@Ahoy executed the same in his{keEki+eir authorized capacltypeaj- and that by hlsill" Aaw signature(s) on the Instrument the person(%), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(X) acted, executed the Instrument Wicial sea ry Publ¢ OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document jL 1_ /� Title or Type of Document T I V n. 1 i( d; 1 m I yY n 2n �. L 1" Document Date Number of Pages V/1 Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacrty(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name ❑ Individual Top of th9mb here ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s) ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing _ Q>1999 Neaonal NOlary HSSOa,alion 9350De5o10 AVe PO BOx2402 Chua.w db CA9131324o2..i.t1eli . noiaryorg Prof Ne 5907 Reorder Call Toll Free 1600d765827 z H �y Z f k 1 O � n F� N njC`n 3 150 v ll�\ ® ®®®®EHEU0mF M B iS LL COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE PROJECT NO F-A- { f l ?" (' O� Date November 12, 2003 The Applicant 11731_• Ventures, Inc Name (Check One) 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524.2344 FAX (310) 3224167 (Area B: Rosecrans /Sepulveda Masterplan) 2050 W 190th St., Ste $201, Torrance, CA 90504 - Owner - — Lessee__ Agent X Address Phone (310) 787 -4730 Property Owner: Honeywell International, Inc. , 6 Journey St, Suite 375, Aliso Vielo. CA 92656 Name Address Phone See attached (310) 512 -5731 Property Situated at*.— _ (Exact legal description Provide attachment if necessary) General (a) 4.7 acres at the north east corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda Location: ' (b) 12.9 acres betweenJUPRF and BNSF trackage north of_Rosecrans_ Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue Existing Zoning. Heavy Industrial M -2` Request Under the provisions of Chapter 15 -26 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Zone Change for the above described property. 1 Does public necessity require the proposed change? Is there a real need In the community for more of the types of uses permitted by the Zone requested that can be accommodated In the areas already for such zones? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding property as well as the property proposed to be reclassified) General Commercial (C -3) zoned areas are limited predominately to smaller parcels north of the subject site on Sepulveda Boulevard None of these parcels are large enough to allow modern retail development As a result, El Segundo is significantly under - retailed compared with surrounding cities The subject site is a key gateway intersection for the city, uses along both sides ofRosecrans Avenue are mixed -use or commercial, uses along Sepulveda Boulevard tend to be commercial or industrial The proposed use is thus in character with surrounding use 2. Is the property involved in the proposed reclassification more suitable for the purposes permitted in the proposed zone than for the purposes permitted In the present classification? (Answer completely; give all 1 rf3 reasons for your answer ) There is no demand for r1ew heavy industrial uses, and the existing heavy industrial use has been phased out as a result of changes in Air Quality standards Heavy industrial use is inappropriate at this 10 ation, C -3 uses are consistent with nearby landowners Would the uses permittediby the proposed zone change be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reason supporting your answers ) The C -3 uses would not e detrimental, in fact, they would be beneficial, providing needed retail and comme cial services to the adjacent Raytheon Company and Rosecrans office corridor There is a dearth of diversified retail services in the immediate vwimty 4. What were the original de d restrictions, If any, concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? Give expiration Vats of these restrictions (You may attach a copy of these restrictions, after properly underscoring the ortions that are in answer to this question ) None. OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We HOncy W eit rcb CM of being duly sworn dispose and say that Me am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that Ilwe have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to anng and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contai ed and the information on d cuments and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the be of �iylonrjsnowledge and bel f. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss On this day of and for said county and State, pers be the person whose name acknowledged to me that he /she e WITNESS my hand and official PHILIP E HArvpn!rr DIRECIGR -REAL ESTA Date 20__, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in appeared known to me to subscribe to the within instrument, and �d he same Notary Public in and for said County and state AGENT AUTHORIZATION 2 EA - Cr 414 CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT State of -CA t_=FC'm2A)ra County of C)PIAN C19 On Nov Jaylor7 before me, T Etor3�t�TSON ur —Ar^V PvA�I� Name and Title of Officer (e g "Jane Doe, Notary Public ") personally appeared PHI 1_r P E NAmill Name(s) of Signer(s) ® personally known to me -OR- ❑ proved to SERENT ROBERTSON COMM.6H7676s+ Notary Pubik6altfurrda (ma ORANGE COUNTY + My Comm. E:0. Nov 26 2006 me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in hts /her /their authorized capacity(tes), and that by hts /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument Though the information below is not required by law, It may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document APPLSCATrW rf3p A Z0nJSN6; CLIAnJ r E Document Date Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Titles(s) ❑ Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Attorney -In -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing here Number of Pages Signer's Name ❑ Individual ❑ Corporate Officer ❑ Title(s) ❑ Partner - ❑ Limited ❑ ❑ Attorney -in-Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing General here EA-co:�, ( authorize ���'� vF I(_, -to actfor mein all matters relevant to this application I understand that q Nil) be the egclusive o tact on the project 4eTwlirh be sent all information and correspondence, Owner's Signature �-�- Lln��i AGENT AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly swum dispose and say that Me am the AGENT(S) of the property tnvoi ed in this application and that Ilwe 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 contaI ed and the 14kmation on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the be t of my /our krI w dgeland belief ) Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss On this day of 20_ before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared _ __ _known to me to be the person whose name _ subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she ex cuted he same. WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and state Procedures for filing application 1. File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public 2. Applicant shall provide all i formation, drawings and other materials as requested by the - Planning Division 3. Pay filing fee 4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing. 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 rece 9 EA_ ZC CALIFORNIA ALL - PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ss County of LD -e k On N.Liyel 13155_ 12—"2 eto e, ✓7Ql YICI i I � il c2.� it ✓`)/tfli'� Data Q�r ,•' Name and Tile of officer le g Jane Doe Notary Poll personally appeared 1141 ' �4h W Name(a) d s,grer(sl personally known to me ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(A whose narl Isere subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hehsheiMey executed the same in hisfhedlhei authorized ANNAMAHIE CALVIN capacity(ree}, and that by NSA"fkNeu Comm.l 1382478 signatura(a'J on the instrument the persopFs'), or entity MoiLo'i'� � acted, a ecuted the instrumenih the personal 5 Ylr rim om ",30 � WITNESS my hand ajdAicial se Signature of Notary Publ¢ OPTIONAL Though the information below 1s not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons retying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document Document Date Number of Pages Signer(s) Other Than Named Above Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name a E3 Individual Top or tnt,mc here ❑ Corporate Officer — Title(s) G Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General O Attorney-m- Fact Trustee C Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other Signer Is Representing Z 1999 National Nolary Assonaaon 9350De5oto AVe PO Box24e2 Chatsworth OA910132402•www naLOnalnotaryorg Prod No 5 °07 Reorder Can Toll Free 1B 06]6682] L ��41 i z 0� r i� c ab O � N J 1 .Pd O � Cm] � d a I..... ® ®®®9EH000` V ex 18 COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE PROJECT NO t A- 63) d :z( U1 3 Date )) ) 3) D 3 hra 6 The Applicant 11 Name Address (Check One Owner _ Lessee Agent 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310)524.2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 ,vanic r�a�we - i iwo Veda a Property Situated at Nut'<� rte c�" (Of t� e d- Of SP 0 U i VP G. gr i�b5 P C (r7 i1 S (Exact legal description Pro Vide attachment if necessary) General }} Location oS°C,fctn5 between SenJ\Jf& end N6b SI, Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue Existing Zoning In I !n n d M Request Under the provisions of Chapter 15 -26 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Zone Change for the above described property Does public necessity require the proposed change? Is there a real need in the communityfor more of the types of uses permitted by the Zone requested that can be accommodated in the areas already for such zones? (Fully explain your answer, considering the surrounding property as well as the property proposed to be reclassified) � , ,� N �)1C r) u. { P ,f tie H�r,Py � PI� Gn d %CrX, A f hPri11(I rn 10ht bef)e ,j ' oj' a mi{ 1o�t�fi,tip c1��tnl Gn tam r„ >v Iun USA T►,�� large �evel��w��e ti,�' S�,�u�,F F�)( ((Dff)nel(ka� s)6jlrn) st,,- 'S 1 4 L;l 2 Is the property involved in the proposed reclassification more suitable for the purposes permitted in the proposed zone than for the purposes permitted in the present classification? (Answer completely, give all reasons for your answer) 3 Would the uses permitted by the proposed zone change be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reasons supporting your answers ) 7h� CV, 6S'°d t'SP1S The (vmmeIIti V)r'S 0OnH -0)e Kw (Ckl1s (');(iciy(', Sh,tlyc ttter) C_ 7tie �hlsbin� non- ronr>Pff.(q l SAS �,hrc�t l�aaJ) a t'rihkly} w'),,1d { 5 /t7wlec( (riwG,vl FfS T" w n1u��b 44' ers to I,rmIfIr1r4ttS 4 What were the original deed restrictions, if any, concerning the type and class of uses on the property involved? Give expiration date of these restrictions (You may attach a copy of these restrictions, after properly underscoring the portions that are in answer to this question ) OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly swom dispose and say that I/W e am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief Signature STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss Date 20 On this day of 20 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said Co,inty and state 2 Ctrl, ed r''Sht�i�ns Woil P it) Y7'k -It 4- 0MA)c((tA ( Usr 0t ti�ie Apt,�)�- OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly swom dispose and say that I/W e am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief Signature STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss Date 20 On this day of 20 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said Co,inty and state 2 AGENT AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize to act for mein all matters relevant to this application I understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence Owner's Signature AGENT AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly sworn dispose and say that I/We am the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that IN e have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segurido with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss 20 On this day of 20 , before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and state Procedures for filing application 1. File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division. Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and /or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public 2 Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested by the Planning Division 3 Pay filing fee 4 Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing 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 ZC APP Planning Staff Date received EA Signature ZC s e_ COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 APPLICATION FOR A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT PROJECT NO tA- 16 21A O LH I\' <w 6 The A plica t 1 C , y% ( k S� vrtido , 3S C) u, n (�- Name (Check One) Owner _ Lessee Agent Property Situated at. � Chc>ntcli {�Ci�ey�t� 1 Address �l k% &Q C r 01 Ae f 6-f (Exact legal description AWIC Phone if necessary) Date 4--1 �4 0 S Phone General ' pj yPd U (h d kG S vI Location Se {CI y\5 kdC between 'r t Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue I Existing Zoning m-- I on j 1�1- S_ Request Under the provisions of Title 15, Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Zone Text Amendment for the above described property 1 Does public necessity require the proposed amendment? Descnbe the nature of the proposed amendment, including the section(s) of the Municipal Code to be amended -r)-,o r fb �o5e J (iccF �) or� Gfpl1) ILA{t Zvi J�' vl�e C�� c�CrC �4t'\C�� Q��ne� OT1 T}1e �foi1P1`I2°5 IhVUIVeoI T�-° ahem( -iil 4 ��lr� ti1l�ti f�t��lnt non - �rc�tl'� v5� k� (on�,nvc In PQJ)jr)S 2 Would the changes proposed by the amendment be detrimental in any way to the surrounding property? (Explain reasons supporting your answers) r a \�. Acve�vPt^ncp� >kctiSr�ai�5 �et�5t���r�� �� vThPr rvMm`yCtq' GhN yntt t ,�'1 OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I, We being duly sworn dispose and saythat I/We am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss 20 On this day of 20 before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal Notary Public in and for said County and state AGENT AUTHORIZATION 1 hereby authorize to act for mein all matters relevant to this application I understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence. Owner's Signature AGENT AFFIDAVIT 1, We being duly sworn dispose and say that I/We am the AGENT(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief Signature Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) County of Los Angeles )ss 20 On this day of 20 before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said county and State, personally appeared known to me to be the person whose name subscribe to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he /she executed he same WITNESS my hand and official seal 2 Notary Public in and for said County and state Procedures for filing application 1 File application properly completed in the office of the Planning Division Signature of the owner, owners, lessee, and/or agent shall be notarized before a Notary Public 2 Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested bythe Planning Division 3 Pay filing fee 4 Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing 5 Applicant must be present at the hearing and may offer additional evidence to support his /her request 6 There shall be an additional fee for filing an appeal Planning Staff. Date received EA Signature ZTA 3 =i 2 4 The applicant, Mar venturesl_I1 Name (Check Ones Owner Property Owner: Hone 11 Interi Name Community, Economic and Development Services Department 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 www elsegundo.org APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PROJECT No. P-h ol) S V 8 03�� Area Ao Plaza -5 Segundo Pro3ect) Date. —�??nE� 12, 2003 Agent _X. Inc., 6 Jou Address 787 -4730 375 Phone Phone Property Situated at: -- See attached --- ----------- ---- -------- --- -------------- --------- (Exact legal description Provide attachment if necessary) General Location* _ Sepulveda Blvd. -_- -- between F 2secrans Ave and Hughes Way - -- Address and Street, Avenue Street, Avenue Existing Zoning. Heavy Industrial M -2 Tentative Parcel Map X Vesting Tentative Parcel Map ___- Tentative Tract Map ___ Vesting Tentative Tract Map _ -_- Final Tract Map ____ Final Vesting Tract Map Request Under the provisions of Title 14 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of a Subdivision for the above described property SUBMIT WITH THIS APPLICATION , 13 copies of the above noted map(s) prepared in accordance with Title 14, "El Segundo Municipal Code" 1 _ 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 _ Ho N e-* W e 11 �cA ;onc> _ ........ the undersigned, depose and say that I /We am the OWNER(S) of the property involved in this application and that I /we have familiarized myself (ourselves) w th 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 eIief ----- - - - - -- — — Q _ \� L�2 �, 20 - - - - -- Signature t Dat AGENT AUTHORIZATION A'U -4Rv.� ►Wtct.K,��- .2�.E.I KA t ✓L�n,T vn -�5,1, in.0 I hereby authorize _________________ to act for me /us in all matters relevant to this application understand that this person will be the exclusive contact on the project and will be sent all information and correspondence Owner's Signature AGENT AFFIDAVIT We f5 Mf1 C�c ✓ e z�y + p✓v-� kw�;t M�YI V� t i the undersigned, s gned, depose and saythat INVe am LA_ (, Z 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 EI 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 12- 2003 - -- -- g nature ------- - - - - -- - - -�— Signature nature Date 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 applications 2 Applicant shall provide ail 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 Signature ---------- _ _ SUB ___ -___- P /PWAa F..'/..bd. um. u �� r 7iYd ' � • - • ��������:,�_ ���_ -; ,� p��� � �r ��' N %,, �. _ -.:,� _ �, �, ___ y ,' IIIII''� ►r�'r � �� _Iilll�. %,, �:_F����1, iii .,, G�� -_ �.��- ��i" ��, ��� j.�.�.�. �.��.�.�� �. �C.� ; � � ����. ��� .��r- .�.�r; �` ��... �r ��, ` �. `�� �., p� �r� �. .. • � ppNN - - .- .. � ., �t � COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND 350 Main Street DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 322 -4167 INITIAL STUDY APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE A GENERAL INFORMATION Area A. Plaza Del Segundo Pro]eCt 1. Name, address and phone number of current property owner Honeywell International., ncc6Journey St, Suite 375, Aliso VieJo CA_ 926 (310) 512 -5731 B. (Note: Property Owner's signature is required on Page 6 and 7) 2. Address of protect Assessor's Block and Lot No 3. Name, address, and telephone number of applicant, including name of person to be contacted concerning this protect (if differentfrom Property Owner), � VeZtures, 2050 W. 190th Street, Suite 201, Torrance, CA CA 90504 - Allan W. Mackenzie, President (310) 787 -4735 (Note: Applicant's signature is required on Page 7) 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this protect, including those required by city, regional, state, and federal agencies General Plan Amendment, Re.ZOning, ccmiTunity facilities district, tentatktre map, Development Agreement, Revenue Snaring Agreement, Remedial Action Plan, Health Risk Assesment 5 Existing zoning district. _ HeaVIrIdustr].al 112 6. Proposed use of site (protect for which this form is filed). Retail PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use additional sheets as necessary 1 Site size' 37.5 Acres 2 Total square footage of building(s) or structure(s) 425,000 Square Ft 3. Number of floors of construction- 2 (maximum) 4. Amount of on-site parking provided, 2100 cars approximately .j` 1 5 Proposed scheduling Conmtencenent of construction six weeks to one year after approval= Construction duration one year. 6 assocjsted projects and relationship to larger protect or series of projects ' Possible future develogtterit 7 If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale price or rents, and type of household size expected 6 If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of building area, and nature of loading facilities provided Project No EA Development of ccm=ity oriented reail center, including possible grocery, home improvment, electronics sales, fitness center and restaurant space. Loading will be provided at the rear of the industial buildings. 7x J ✓J a) 3 If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and nature of loading facilities 10 If institutional, indicate the majorfuncbon, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, nature of loading facilities provided and community benefit to be derived from the project 11. If the project requires a variance, conditional use permit or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures Attach photographs of the site Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted The site has been utilized for chemical manufacturing (until early 2003). Metal buildings and industrial process facilities dominate the site. Rail spurs serve the buildings, Demolition is underway About 10 acres'are vacant, undisturbed land, Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc ), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc ), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc) Attach photographs of the vicinity Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted All adjacent properties are either-industrial (west w ross Sepulveda the Chevron Refinery; South across the railroad tracks; Honeywell and General Chemical); or offic %onmercial (storage and Raytheon to the north) . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Brief explanations of ail answers are required on attached sheets, or refer to previous responses to Items B and C above Land Use Planning Would the proposal Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the pro)ect7 YES MAYBE NO X X 0 lY J YES MAYBE NO C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity _^ _ X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e g impacts to ___ ___� _ X_ sods or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 2. Population and Housing. Would the proposal X a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e g , through projects in an undeveloped area or eytension of major infrastructure)? X C) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving X a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive sods? _X_ Q Unique geologic or physical features? _X 4 Water. Would the proposal result in a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X__ such as flooding? C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface _____ ____ _ X` water quality (e g , temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 0 lY J t YES MAYBE NO d) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water _ X movements? e) Change In the quality of ground waters, either through direct ___ __,___ _X__ additions or withdrawals, or through Interception of an aquifier by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capacity? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater _____ _X- h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater _ -- otherwise available for public water supptiao 5. Air Quality Would the proposal a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing X or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X b) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any ___ _�___ X_ changes in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? _` ____ _ X 6. Transportation /Circulation Would the proposal result in a) increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X C) Hazards to safety from design features (e g , sharp curves or X_ dangerous intersections or incompatible uses (e g , farm equipment)? C) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ___ --- X__ X d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? _______ _ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? _____ _____ _ X X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e g , bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? _X__ 7. Biological Resources Would the proposal result in impacts to a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats _ ^__ X- (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? 5 t YES MAYBE NO b) Locally designated species (e g , heritage trees)? _ X b) Locally designated natural communities (e g , oak forest, ___ ____ _ X_ coastal habitat, etc )? d) Wetland habitat (e g , marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? _ X_ e) Wildlifedtspersalnr migration corridors? _X_ 0 4 t X C) Use non - renewable resources in a wasle'ful and inefficient _ X manner? d) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource _ X that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. Hazards Would the proposal involve. a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous _ X substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or _ X emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? _____ ____ _ X C) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health _ _ X hazards? d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, _ X or trees? 10 Noise Would the proposal result in a) Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11 Public Services Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas a) Fire protection? _ X b) Police protection? _ X C) Schools? 0 4 t �Y J J YES MAYBE NO d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? —X— e) Other governmental services? X_ 12 Utilities and Service Systems Would the proposal result m X a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities a) Power or natural gas? _X— b) Communications systems? C) Local orregional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Stonn water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13 Aesthetics Would the proposal a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? _____ --- ___ _ X_ C) Create light or glare? 14 Cultural Resources, Would the proposal a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X C) Affect tnstoncal resources? _ X e) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would _ X affect unique ethnic cultural values? f) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X impact area? 15 Recreation Would the proposal a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or _ X other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? _ X 7 �Y J J OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT j, (We) yicmpbw�l1 am (are) the OWNER(S) of the property involved to this application, I (we) have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application, and the information on all documents and all plans is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief Ow er's Signature � Date \` 3 Ovine s nature Date PHILIP E. HAMMEL DIRECTOR -REAL ESTATE e YES MAYBE NO 16 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endaggered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to _____ _______ __X_ the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goa(s? C) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ___ _ X but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects ) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause , substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT j, (We) yicmpbw�l1 am (are) the OWNER(S) of the property involved to this application, I (we) have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application, and the information on all documents and all plans is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief Ow er's Signature � Date \` 3 Ovine s nature Date PHILIP E. HAMMEL DIRECTOR -REAL ESTATE e Community, Economic and Development Services Department Initial Study Applicant Questionnaire 1 (a) The property currently has a General Plan designation of Industrial, and or Heavy Industrial zonmg A General Plan Amendment and a rezoning are being applied for. 4 (a) Currently, approximately half the property is unimproved Upon development apart from landscaped areas, substantially all of the property will be improved, increasing run -off 4 (h) Remediation of existing hazardous materials and possible treatment of contaminated groundwater will improve groundwater quality. 6 (a) The development of the site for retail use will result in a higher intensity of traffic generation than at present. 10(a) Increased traffic generation may result in increased noise levels, although this will be offset by termination of current industrial processes and related rail use 11(a) The increased number of structures will result in an increased risk of fire However, the discontinuation of the use of highly hazardous chemicals and gases will reduce the risk and complexity of fire suppression 11 (b) Increased traffic and a large retail development may increase the police response effort 12 (b) Improved communications systems including the provision of high bandwidth transmission technologies may be a requirement of new development 12 (d) While industrial wastewater processing requirements will diminish, sewer systems will have to accommodate new development 12 (c) New water distribution facilities will be provided as part of the redevelopment. Cessation of industrial processing will result in a decline in water usage, offset by new development impacts j8 COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND 350 Main street DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 524 -2344 FAX (310) 3224167 INITIAL STUDY APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE A GE ERALINFORMATION Area B: Rosecrans /Sepulveda Masterplan 1 Name, address and phone number of current property owner Honeywell International- Inc 6 Journ(nLSt�Suite 375�_Aliso Viejo CA_ 9'2 5 (310) 512 -5731 B 2 (Note, Property Owner's signature is required on Page 6 and T) Address of project Assessor's Block and Lot No 3 Name, address, and telephone number of applicant, including name of person to be contacted concerning this project (d differentfrom Property Owner) Mar Ver�turesr 2050 W. 190th Street, Suite 201, Torrance, CA CA 90504 - Allan W. Mackenzie, President (310) 787 -4730 (Note: Applicant's signature is required on Page 7) 4 List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state, and federal agencies- General Plan AmerAment, Rezoning, canmunity facilities district, tentative map, Development Agreement, Revenue Sharing Agreement, Remedial Action Plan, Health Risk Assesment 5. Existing zoning district, _ H Industrial m2 6. Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed) RetaiL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use additional sheets as necessary 1 Site size 2. Total square footage of building(s) or structure(s) _3 Number of floors of con struchon 4. Amount of on -site parking provided 1 EA -(y�( `Y39 5 Proposed scheduling Commencement of construction six weeks to one year after approval. Construction duration one year. 6 Associated protects and relationship to larger protector series of projects Fossiblti future development of , , Prob es ty -t9.t"bja—'aS1llth---- -- --- --- -- - - -- 7 If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale price or rents, and type of household size expected 8 if commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of building area and nature of loading facilities provided Protect No EA _ Development of community oriented retail center, including possible grocery, home improvement, electronics sales, fitness center and restaurant space Loading will be provided at the rear of the industrial buildings C 91 a) b) If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and nature of loading faalibes. 10 If institutional, indicate the majorfunction, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, nature of loading facilities provided and community benefit to be derived from the project, it. If the project requires a variance, conditional use permit or rezoning application, stale this and indicate clearly why the application is required ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, sod stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures Attach photographs of the site Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted The site has been utilized fox chemical manufacturing (until early 2003). Metal buildings and industrial process facilities dominate the site. Rail spurs serve the buildings, Detmlition is underway About 10 acres,are' vacant, undisturbed land, 2. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc) Attach photographs of the vicinity Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted All adjacent properties are either industrial (west across Sepulveda the Chevron Refinery; South across the railroad tracks: Honeywell and General Chemical), or office /commercial (storage and Raytheon) to the north ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Brief explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets, or refer to previous responses to Items B and C above YES MAYBE NO Land Use Planning. Would the proposal Conflict with general plan designation orzoning? _X Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? 441 4 L11`i x4 YES MAYBE NO C) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity9 _ X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e g impacts to _ _ X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 2 Population and Housing Would the proposal X a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or _ X_ indirectly (e g , through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X C) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result to or expose people to potential impacts involving X a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? _ _g_ d) Setche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? _ --X— a) Landslides or mudflows? X e) Erosion, changes to topography or unstable soil conditions X _ from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the Land? _ -- --- _ X h) Expansive soils? _ X 1) Unique geologic or physical features? X_ 4. Water. Would the proposal result to a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards X such as flooding? C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e g , temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? _ X d) Changes in the amount of Surface watarin any water body? 4 L11`i x4 EA -t-c, <4. YES MAYBE NO d) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water _ X movements? e) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct _« _ X additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifier by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capacity? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? _ X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X iJ Scbstan4al reduction in the amount of groundwater _______ otherwise available for public water suppiies? 5. Air Quality. Would the proposal. a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing X or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? _ X b) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any X changes in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? _ X 6, Transportation /Circulation. Would the proposal result in a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X C) Hazards to safety from design features (a g , sharp curves or X__ dangerous intersections or incompatible uses (e g , farm equipment)? C) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ___ f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e,g , bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7 Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to; a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, J and birds)? 5 EA -t-c, <4. YES MAYBE NO b) Locally designated species (e.g , heritage trees)? _ X_ b) Locally designated natural communities (e g , oak forest, _ __,_ _ X_ coastal habitat, etc )? X d) Wetland habitat (e g , marsh, riparian and vernal pool)7 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? _____ _X_ �t X C) Use non - renewable resources In a wasteful and inefriclent _ X manner? d) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or _ X emergency evacuation plan? C) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X C) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health _ X hazards? d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, of trees? 10 Noise Would the proposal result in a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. Public Services Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? C) Schools? ttA -Cv'> �t 7 EA -L:S I 44;, YES MAYBE NO d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _X e) Other governmental services? ___ _ X- 12 Utilities and Service Systems Would the proposal result in i –X a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities a) Power or natural gas? _,_ �_ _ X— b) Communications systems? C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Stotts water drainage) t) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13 Aesthetics Would the proposal a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect) C) Create light or glare? 14 Cultural Resources Would the proposal. a) Disturb paleontological resources? _ X b) Disturb archaeological resources? _ _ X C) Affect historical resources? _ X e) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would _ X affect unique ethnic cultural values? t) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential X impact area? 15 Recreation. Would the proposal a) Increase the demand for neighborhood orregional parks or other recreational facilities? - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 7 EA -L:S I 44;, YES MAYBE NO 16 Mandatory Findings of Significance a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of _ X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish orwildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to X ----- - -- - -- ---- the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? C) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed In conjunction with the effects of past pro)ects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT 1, (We) Fb n e J W a ii Z ^�"`-� r�o.1�oY.c.�1 am (are) the O WNER(S) of the property involved in this application, I (we) have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application, and the Information on all document4andl pl ans is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief. L'Ie Owner' s Signature ae Owner's Signature Date PHUP E. NA11 NIEL DI I 'k ,R t,UtL ESTATE Community, Economic and Development Services Department Initial Study Applicant Questionnaire 1 (a) The property currently has a General Plan designation of Industrial, and or Heavy Industrial zoning A General Plan Amendment and a rezoning are being applied for 4 (a) Currently, approximately half the property is unimproved Upon development apart from landscaped areas, substantially all of the property will be improved, increasing run -off 4 (h) Remediation of existing hazardous materials and possible treatment of contaminated groundwater will improve groundwater quality. 6 (a) The development of the site for retail use will result in a higher intensity of traffic generation than at present. 10(a) Increased traffic generation may result in increased noise levels, although this will be offset by termination of current industrial processes and related rail use 11(a) The increased number of structures will result in an increased risk of fire However, the discontinuation of the use of highly hazardous chemicals and gases will reduce the risk and complexity of fire suppression 11 (b) Increased traffic and a large retail development may increase the police response effort. 12 (b) Improved communications systems including the provision of high bandwidth transmission technologies may be a requirement of new development 12 (d) While industrial wastewater processing requirements will diminish, sewer systems will have to accommodate new development. 12 (c) New water distribution facilities will be provided as part of the redevelopment Cessation of industrial processing will result in a decline in water usage, offset by new development impacts _ CJ-v 1 447 ]IJ • • . %�N` gvrmsr I F o � J�i5k all! I.�w:.�.rr�i, IN 11 Pro 31 /,Is 44;; 'I III JJ mry g m m �� no:aounu n snw ae e, � i N ! Y o a 4�Fbf�Iby4i44YYY Hb �OiE (9K I $ e. �NO! .1a �t: o-sdg�aggssgdr R_ 133il1S HSVN N v Al — J __ �)lvm - �gra4 �w A � _ � 929 , �•y .k... I a v%�, � w �,� � i nI U w a g _,, O-v °- , • � it <F '� � I 11 I N �I J� -> - - - - - -- ,y 08tlA31l108, - Od3S - - ER = ,xv 5 a 0 o °0< �m � 0 a mDp y x !R m a oc m 2 " D o V d p NZ Pm m m r r n 2 D z� ��o m 0 u m n 'w H D m m W N m a c m a a 0 c v gq d del W n c { a 0 0 3 'w oAm xz <cn ow m 3rn c a� �rn $n n A z z n m� 0 I I — o py n � ` � O N c a a � n o �• z MTP my v _i ay 3S !B a I I i���tyyy Imrtr I II T" I� r 1 I it d n _. lµ I k 1 I 1 � I I, I tl51 1 1� f�� n h � I I I I Illl _ VI I, Ind -~UII I I Nr W °c 7 s 0 a �a a n w 'y i ,Q I '.t I f 1 ! R I 1 II D � N T 1 D 3 I d�v CO' xNx T �'L .m ,m �L vo _p z m (1 r� o � M y R 1. y W u �;E F im m m n O ,z t b w tz !� 2 �D � m r < pqT C) cL n 4 ° z D m O c S m m C zz i� sC P '7 Ci A i N i- 4- 7 I i f t 1 i I 1 I t- �m �P m r m O z f m F r < 0 P iz - ! �I Y� Lr r y � I III F o° xA � d(Y 1X E � x S t m - e m r m m � < m e r � z r < § B i $y s I !s 1 ^R is �cn - m < P ; d� z 'z n � r 3 — I ! 5 b op- oa 9 m m �c 2mm $D gm g� z m m l i r 7 z m n o �a R n `m w m n o `a a N o° d O b o x� _x M r m D —i z pm a m r °m O z km Fm I'M r 'm Om z z O om 2 m < O z r_ TW { Y 4� I ds a , III p' I E In t; iK r 1� V R 5 I�IJ I� • , 1 L, 0 I F_ li li II m r' 1 1 T ' �Im cn = m - r m G D I 0 s r, d e.a n � s o k r �yy von z �_i - -`;u N — �z n dr + im _ D z O < m n N S jo a yi Yo = i O j ay • z m r = Z Z c t n ® aN iii m r m ` m + # m; D� <s m ��u OZ z n � ` t, - MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 15, 2004 Chairman Funk called the meeting of the El Segundo Planning CALL TO ORDER Commission to order at 7 03 p m in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California Commissioner Schiltz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag PLEDGE TO FLAG PRESENT CARLSON, FUNK, KRETZMER, SCHILTZ ROLL CALL ABSENT NONE Chairman Funk nominated Commissioner Carlson as the Vice - Chairman ELECTION OF VICE - of the Planning Commission Commissioner Kretzmer seconded the CHAIRMAN nomination Commissioner Kretzmer moved, seconded by Commissioner Schiltz, to MOTION elect Commissioner Carlson as the Planning Commission Vice - Chairman There being no objection, this motion unanimously carried None PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Funk presented the Consent Calendar CONSENT CALENDAR None CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT CALENDAR Vice - Chairman Carlson moved, seconded by Commissioner Schiltz, to MOTION approve the October 14, 2004, Minutes as submitted Passed 3 -0, Commissioner Kretzmer abstained Two pieces of late correspondence were submitted to the Planning WRITTEN Commission (of record) November 14, 2004, letter from Barbara COMMUNICATIONS Bnney and the November 11, 2004, letter from Brett Bowyer Planning Manager Christensen advised that another piece of late correspondence had just been received and that staff will be providing a copy of that correspondence to the Commission 1 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, November 15, 2004 qJ(I Chairman Funk presented Item 1 -2, Environmental Assessment No 631, Development Agreement No 03 -1, General Plan Amendment No 03-4 & 03 -5, Zone Change No 03 -2 & 03 -3, Zone Text Amendment No 04 -1 & 04 -2, and Subdivision No 03 -7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No 061630) Sepulveda / Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development Project Address 850 South Sepulveda Boulevard, 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (generally northeast corner of Sepulveda BoulevardlRosecrans Avenue Applicant Mar Ventures, Inc, and the City of El Segundo Planning Manager Christensen provided a brief overview of this matter, explained that because a number of items have been raised regarding final negotiations on the Development Agreement, staff is recommending this item be continued to another hearing, to be determined upon polling the Commission's availability She questioned if the Commission would be able to meet on December 16th She added that the Commission may wish to consider public testimony this evening regarding this matter, and mentioned that copies of staff report and the agenda are located in the lobby for use by the public City Attorney Hensley noted his recommendation for the Commission to request that the audience members hold their comments until the December 16th meeting, but stated if they are unable to be present at the continued meeting, they should be allowed to provide comments this evening He stated that a full staff report will be provided at that meeting, that the applicant will make their own presentation, and that additional information will be included in the staff report regarding the potential revisions to the Development Agreement and the project entitlements. Commissioner Kretzmer advised that he would not be available to meet on December 16th The Commission selected December 15th as the meeting date wherein this matter would be continued Chairman Funk opened the public hearing Brian Crowley, 510 California Street Mr Crowley asked that the Development Agreement include the requirement that a certain percentage of El Segundo residents be provided lobs at this project site, noting that that would help to reduce traffic, asked that the applicant beautify the site with landscaping and that monument signs be on the corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and PUBLIC HEARINGS, NEW BUSINESS, EA NO. 631, DA NO. 03- 1, GPA NO. 03-4 and 03 -5, ZC NO. 03 -2 & 03 -3, ZTA NO. 04 -1 & 04 -2, and SD NO. 03 -7 (VTTM NO. 061630) Redesignation and rezoning of 85.8 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial Use and development of a 425,000- square- foot shopping center 2 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, November 15, 2004 Rosecrans Avenue because the site Is an Important gateway to the City of El Segundo, he questioned why this project requires a new zoning designation of C-4, not C -3, and he urged the City to take Into consideration when making Its decision the long -term impacts their decisions will have upon this City Mr Crowley noted his opposition to Including in this agreement any donations that do not relate to the project, such as the offer to provide funding for aquatic facilities, and he expressed his belief that the proposed traffic mitigation of $250,000 Is a very small amount of money for the traffic Impact to the area streets Martin McCarthy, representing the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce Mr McCarthy noted that the board of the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce gave unanimous approval of this project, stated that the Chamber Is pleased with the owners of Plaza El Segundo agreeing to support the local schools as well as finance some Improvements to the City's aquatic programs, and donating $250,000 over two years to the marketing and promotion of Downtown El Segundo He urged support of this request Edna Freeman, 418 Loma Vista Street Ms Freeman urged Plaza El Segundo to provide an assisted living facility for seniors, noting that the waiting lists are long for these type of facilities There being no objection, Chairman Funk continued this hearing to December 15, 2004 PUBLICHEARINGS, Chairman Funk presented Item J -3, Environmental Assessment No CONTINUED 636, Subdivision No 04 -02 (VTM No 60995) and Variance No. 04 -01 BUSINESS, EA Address 910 East Grand Avenue Applicant and Property Owners NO. 636, SUBD NO. Albert and Madeleine Marco 04-02 (VTM NO. 60995) and VAR Having not been present at the last meeting, Commissioner Kretzmer NO. 04 -01 advised that he had reviewed the videotape discussion of this matter A request for and noted that he reviewed all related written materials conversion of an existing 35 -unit Commissioner Kretzmer moved, seconded by Vice- Chairman Carlson, apartment complex to reopen the public hearing in regard to this matter Motion carried 4 -0 to condominium use. Albert Marco, applicant Mr Marco stated that after evaluating Chairman Funk's concerns with parking, he has decided to place in the CC &R's that no garage doors will be permitted within the parking area, and he offered to combine four 3 El Segundo Planning Commission Minutes, November 15, 2004 j J V MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 15, 2004 Chairman Funk called the special meeting of the El Segundo Planning Commission to order at 7 00 p m in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California Vice- Chairman Carlson led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag PRESENT CARLSON, FRICK, FUNK, KRETZMER, WAGNER ABSENT NONE Liz Garnholz, resident Ms Garnholz suggested that audience speakers' input be limited to not repeating statements that will be made by others during the evening None Planning Manager Christensen advised that the Planning Commissioners were given the following letters related to this evening's agenda item, letters that had been submitted after the agenda package had been distributed, the December 8, 2004 letter from Benny Dehghi, Honeywell international, Inc, and the December 15, 2004, letter from Milan D Smith, Jr, Smith, Crane, Robinson & Parker, LLP (both of record) She advised that copies are available in the lobby for the public None Chairman Funk presented Item J -1, Environmental Assessment No 631, Development Agreement No 03 -1, General Plan Amendment No 03-4 & 03 -5, Zone Change No 03 -2 & 03 -3, Zone Text Amendment No 04 -1, and Subdivision No 03 -7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No 061630) Sepulveda /Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development Project Applicant Mar Ventures, Inc, and City of El Segundo Address 850 South Sepulveda Boulevard, 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (generally northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue) Senior Planner Paul Garry presented the staff report (of record) He stated that this proposal consists of two components within a 110 -acre CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE TO FLAG ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS CONSENT CALENDAR WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS PUBLIC HEARINGS, NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED BUSINESS, EA NO. 631, DA NO. 03 -1, GPA NO. 03-4 & 03- 5, ZC NO. 03 -2 & 03- 3, ZTA NO. 04 -1, AND SUED. NO. 03 -7 (Vesting Tentative Tract No. 061630), Sepulveda - El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 41 31,; project site -- the first is the redesignation and rezoning of approximately 85 8 acres of property within the City of El Segundo currently and formerly used for industrial purposes to a new commercial center, or C-4 classification — this is referred to as the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site rezoning, and noted that the second component is the construction of a shopping center development on a 43 3 -acre portion of the rezoning site — this is referred to as the Plaza El Segundo project Senior Planner Garry advised that there are eight planning applications associated with the project that require recommendations from the Planning Commission He noted that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is proposed for this project, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), advised that the public review and comment period for the EIR began October 5, 2004, and ended on November 19, 2004, stated that an 8 -year development agreement is proposed to allow the developer sufficient time to build the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project and to provide the City with assurances regarding the uses that will be located in the project and to provide a mechanism for the contribution of funds for aquatic- related uses and economic development/support for the Downtown area Senior Planner Garry explained that a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are requested by the applicant in order to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the zoning map to redesignate the 54 9 -acre property, owned by Honeywell International, Inc., from Heavy Industrial to the new commercial center land use designation, that a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are also requested by the City in order to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate approximately 31 acres of land owned by General Chemical, Air Products, Chevron, Union Pacific Railroad and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad from Heavy Industrial to a new Commercial Center, C-4 land use designation He advised that the Plaza EI Segundo project would also include a subdivision to create 20 parcels ranging in size from a half acre to 5 5 acres, and he mentioned that City Council will take actions on all eight applications Senior Planner Garry advised that the Honeywell portion of the site is currently undergoing remediation and that it will comply with all requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to accommodate commercial development He stated that a 7 -acre portion of the site along Rosecrans Avenue is currently being used by Air Products for production of industrial gases, and stated that the Air Products facility could remain as a legal /nonconforming use in the C-4 zone, but added that staff anticipates the Air Products facility will relocate onto an approximate 1 -acre portion of the project site that would retain its Heavy Industrial zoning He added that the Learned Lumber yard would also retain its current Light Industrial zoning classification, but that the land on which the Learned Lumber yard sits is Rosecrans Site Rezoning and Plaza El Segundo Development Project Redesignation and rezoning of 85 8 acres of land from Industrial to Commercial Use and development of a 425,000- square -foot shopping center. 2 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 Lj i� iJ expected to be reconfigured to accommodate the realignment of the Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad tracks Senior Planner Garry stated that the C-4 designation would permit up to 850,000 square feet of commercial shopping center development within the approximately 85 8 -acre site Senior Planner Garry explained that the Plaza El Segundo development project will be constructed on approximately 43 acres within the 85 -acre rezoning site and would implement the new C-4 zoning on that portion of this site, that the Plaza El Segundo project would consist of a shopping center of up to 425,000 square feet, and that the shopping center would contain large retail stores, specialty retail and other uses, which could Include a fitness center, day spa and a variety of sit -down restaurants and fast -food restaurants He noted that the proposed shopping center would consist of several one- and two -story buildings with a maximum height of 65 feet. He commented on the ingress /egress proposals for this project, advised that the Plaza El Segundo portion of the site rezoning is proposed to be constructed as one phase and to be completed In 2007, stated that additional entitlements will also have to be approved by the City for any development of the remaining 425,000 square feet of commercial uses that are to occur southeast of the Plaza El Segundo project within the Sepulveda /Rosecrans rezoning site He commented on infrastructure improvements that will be necessary, advised that the developer is proposing to provide 2,164 parking spaces on the Plaza El Segundo portion, which exceeds the City's parking requirement for 1,580 spaces With regard to the Development Agreement, Senior Planner Garry advised that either the developer or the City would be allowed to extend the 8 -year agreement for an additional 5 years, stated that the applicant has proposed to contribute $1 5 million to assist the City in developing and improving its recreational aquatic facilities in the City, and that the applicant has also proposed to contribute $250,000 over a 2 -year period to assist the City in enhancing the Downtown business environment Senior Planner Garry stated that staff believes the project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan as its proposed to be amended, that the Plaza El Segundo portion of the development is also consistent with the development standards proposed in the new C-4 zoning classification, advised that the overall floor area ratio (FAR) in the C -4 zone would not be permitted to exceed 275 1, but explained that as part of the C -4 zoning regulations, individual parcels within the Plaza EI Segundo development could exceed 275 1 as long as the overall FAR was not exceeded He added that a transfer of development rights procedure is proposed to be included in the C -4 zone to ensure the overall FAR does not exceed the limits in the zone 3 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 461 Senior Planner Garry highlighted the findings of the EIR, revisions to the DER, responses to verbal /written comments received from the public, government agencies and other interested parties during the public review period — noting that all comments will be responded to and will be Included In the final EIR He explained that the City Council's action will be whether or not to certify the EIR and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program based upon mitigation measures It may adopt, and advised the Commission that the City Council will conduct a separately noticed public hearing on the project, which will be scheduled upon completion of the responses to comments in the final EIR Senior Planner Garry stated the DER concluded that all potential and significant project- related Impacts Identified in the EIR — with the exception of traffic, operational and temporary construction- related air quality and temporary construction- related noise Impacts -- are at a less - than- significant level, advised that the EIR concluded the project would exceed the thresholds for carbon monoxide, reactive organic compounds, nitrous oxide, and particulate matter, and that the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project would also exceed the AQMD significance threshold for these same pollutants He stated that because the degree of excess emissions substantially exceeds strict AQMD limits, the DER concluded the impact could not be mitigated to an Insignificant level, and as a result, the project's impacts will remain significant and unavoidable He stated the DER also concluded that daily construction Impacts associated with the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site rezoning would exceed AQMD daily thresholds for reactive organic compounds, nitrous oxide, and particulate matters, noted that these are significant and unavoidable short-term environmental impacts, that the DER concluded the Plaza El Segundo portion of the project would also exceed the AQMD construction emission thresholds for reactive organic compounds and nitrous oxide, and he highlighted the various Impacts related to construction and the mitigation measures to reduce these Impacts Liz Culhane, Crain & Associates (City's traffic consultant) Ms Culhane presented the findings of the traffic analysis for the project, highlighted the traffic study process and the details of this project She stated that in conducting a traffic study, they first look at the existing conditions, future conditions without the project, future conditions with the project, Identify whether there are any Impacts, and then look at what the cumulative development will do to the surrounding area She advised that for this program and project level, they looked at 25 intersections in the El Segundo community, the surrounding communities, and four freeway segments, and noted that these study intersections and segments were identified based on their proximity to the project and the likelihood for impact She stated that at program 4 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 4621 level following full development of the project (850,000 square feet of shopping center), the project trips assigned to the study intersections out to year 2012, there are approximately 28,000 daily trips, 1,167 a m peak trips, 2,657 p m peak trips, and 3,515 Saturday mid -day trips She noted that 13 project- related Impacts were identified and with mitigation for these Impacts, all but two of them have been successfully mitigated to a level of Insignificance Additionally, there are 16 cumulative Impacts and one freeway Impact She noted that at project level there are seven project- related Impacts related to the first 425,000 square feet of the shopping center to be completed In 2007 All but one project- related Impact are mitigated to a level of Insignificance Additionally, there are 14 cumulative Impacts and one freeway Impact Ms Culhane stated that all 25 Intersections were Included In the study area and were evaluated In the traffic analysis as to their proximity to the project She commented on the various Improvements adjoining the site, such as adding a second left -hand turn lane and a third through lane eastbound, at Aviation and El Segundo, adding a north -bound right- turn lane, a traffic signal at the extension of Park Place, a free right -turn lane westbound at Rosecrans and Sepulveda, and at that Intersection, a third westbound left -turn lane She noted that along Park Place with this extension, a traffic signal will be added at Park Place and Nash, one at Douglas and Park Place, one added at Continental Way, and a westbound right -turn lane at Douglas and Rosecrans. In addition to these physical Improvements, she noted there would also be enhancements to the existing signal system, Improved connectivity between the street and freeway system, and a local monitoring of Rosecrans at the ramps (an end -user type of monitoring system to look at what the traffic currently is in order to be able to adjust travel patterns based upon that system, change routes, alter times), believing that this will Improve traffic conditions She passed around a sample of that monitoring system to the Commission With regard to the project level rather than the overall program level, Ms Culhane stated there are seven impacts, six which have been successfully mitigated, stated that the two intersections which are not successfully mitigated at program level are Rosecrans and Aviation and El Segundo and Sepulveda Boulevard, stated that at project level, the first 425,000 square feet of shopping center, the intersection that is not fully /successfully mitigated is El Segundo and Sepulveda Boulevard, however, the improvements that would be implemented with this project at project level would be the second left -hand westbound lane at El Segundo and Sepulveda, and the third eastbound through lane, a conversion from what is an existing right -turn lane to a through right -turn lane At Aviation and El Segundo, she noted that being added would be a northbound right -turn lane, a traffic signal at Park Place and Sepulveda She added that at Rosecrans and Sepulveda, the same 5 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 z60' type of enhancements would be added as at the program level the third westbound lane, the free right -turn westbound lane, the lane northbound along the project frontage, a traffic signal at Continental and Rosecrans, and the signal system Improvements described earlier Senior Planner Garry stated that the DEIR concluded the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site rezoning and Plaza El Segundo development would also contribute to a significant cumulative impact on traffic, solid waste disposal capacity, population and housing caused by regional growth, and advised there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the cumulative regional impacts He stated that for projects with significant, unavoidable environmental Impacts, CEQA requires that the project cannot be approved unless special findings of overriding considerations can be made by City Council, and stated that a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by City Council, stating the specific reasons why the project's benefits outweigh its significant environmental impacts He noted that based on the consistency of the project with the General Plan, the creation of approximately 1,900 jobs, the contribution to recreational facilities, Downtown Improvements, other economic and social benefits that will benefit the City, and the nature of the unavoidable impacts, staff recommends that the overriding benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts and that staff recommends to City Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by CEQA Senior Planner Garry concluded that the Planning Commission's responsibility Is to make recommendations to City Council related to the environmental review, the General Plan Amendment, the Zone Change, the Zone Text Amendment, the Development Agreement, and the Subdivision applications, that it is staffs recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council to make the required findings to certify the EIR and to approve each application as outlined in staff report, and that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council approve the project, subject to the conditions contained in draft Resolution 2575 Senior Planner Garry stated that one EIR comment letter was submitted on Monday and distributed to the Commission this evening from Honeywell, seeking clarification regarding the Regional Water Quality Control Board's requirements on the amount of area subject to shallow soil removal as part of the interim remediation measures, and that another late submittal was received this evening from the City of Manhattan Beach Planning Manager Christensen advised that staff received the letter from Manhattan Beach after the start of this evening's meeting and that 6 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 (i copies will be made available to the Commission and the public, and she mentioned that a mechanical device for the ATS system is also available for the public's viewing Vice - Chairman Carlson moved, seconded by Commissioner Frick, to MOTION limit each speaker to five minutes for public input Passed 5 -0 City Attorney Mark Hensley stated that it is common practice when there is a large number of people wishing to speak at a public hearing, to make a request that speakers not repeat the same comments, but noted that under the Brown Act, everyone has the right to speak for the entire five minutes and to say everything they want to say within that timeframe Chairman Funk opened the public hearing Bill Mason, Honeywell representative Mr Mason stated that the Honeywell plant at the corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda is approximately 60 acres, advised that it was permanently shut down in January 2003, and commented on the proposed plan to rebuild an upscale retail center on this site, believing that it will fill some of El Segundo's shopping needs that are not being met today He expressed his belief that this project will provide significant benefits to the City, such as a substantial increase in tax revenues, upgrading the appearance of the property, expanding shopping choices, and creating a beautifully landscaped and inviting location to shop and dine Allan Mackenzie, Mar Ventures applicant Mr Mackenzie provided a description of the project, a history on the use of this site, proposed site amenities, and expected public benefits He noted that this is a project with a land area of approximately 110 acres, pointing out that only 43 acres (40 percent of the total) has a specific project currently planned, 425,000 square feet of retail, and advised that the rest of the land area is to be rezoned, but with no specific project proposed at this time He mentioned that when a specific project does arise for the remainder of the land, an updated environmental assessment and traffic study will be required, but at this point, he will be referring to the 425,000- square -foot project Mr Mackenzie noted that the retail designation as proposed under the C-4 designation has a significantly lower density than the industrial designation, pointed out that this project is one of the lowest density projects in the history of Rosecrans development, which has an FAR of approximately 0 27, meaning there will be fewer traffic trips per acre 7 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 4 6.. � than with an Industrial designation He advised that the immediate project area has been fully demolished and that the environmental measures have started, stated that there are two state agencies Involved in the oversight of the remediation efforts the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment, and he stated that nothing will be permitted to happen on this site until all sods testing is complete Mr Mackenzie expressed his belief that El Segundo Is significantly underserved with retail, and stated that this project will have a good mix of uses He advised that they have made numerous presentations to various community groups, both in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach, noted that some adjustments to the retail mix have been made as a result of that input, and he commented on some of the stores and restaurants that are anticipated to be at this location He noted that there is a signed lease with Whole Foods He commented on the various site amenities, such as fountains in the plaza area, tree groves (noting that they are in partnership with El Segundo's Tree Musketeer's), and plaza areas between the restaurants Mr Mackenzie stated that they are in discussions with Edison to see If there is a way to widen the intersection at El Segundo and Sepulveda Boulevard, noted that they are looking at immediate fixes to Rosecrans and intersections along Rosecrans, believing there are things that can be done relatively inexpensively to further improve traffic over its current condition He noted that they are also talking with staff at Manhattan Beach, exchanging ideas with them to improve traffic on Rosecrans. For the Plaza El Segundo project, Mr Mackenzie noted that there are significant traffic improvements being proposed, about $1 7 million In off- site improvements, approximately $4 million in on -site public roadways, and dedicating $4 5 million in land along the front of the property to mitigate traffic Mr Mackenzie expressed his belief that traffic will be redistributed, that these cars are already on the roadways traveling to other destinations for shopping purposes, and explained that as a result of greater convenience of these shops to the residents of El Segundo and north Manhattan Beach, there will actually be a reduction in traffic trips in some of the outlying street areas He summarized the public benefits of this project the reuse of an underutilized Industrial site, remediated land, production of tax revenues to the City of approximately $2 million per year, contributions that will benefit City and local schools, contributions to the City's aquatics facilities, and a contribution to the promotion of Downtown El Segundo to assist in the marketing in this immediate area He stated that he has no objections to the Conditions of Approval, and expressed his belief that the letter from Honeywell is seeking clarification on a couple conditions He expressed his appreciation of City staff for all the hard work that has gone into this project and he thanked all those individuals, groups and other cities that S El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 166 have provided Input Joe Brandon, 746 Sierra Street Mr Brandon stated that he Is not convinced an extra lane Is going to mitigate the traffic problems and he questioned whether this area needs another shopping center, noting that Manhattan Village has had a lot of tenant turnover He also stated that a $250,000 contribution for downtown is not much of a benefit when the City recently spent millions on it He stated that at least public restrooms should be built in the downtown Steven Kaufmann, Richards, Watson & Gershon Mr Kaufman noted that he is representing the city of Manhattan Beach, advised that Manhattan Beach is requesting that the Planning Commission continue this public hearing and its vote on this matter until the Planning Commission has had a chance to consider the responses to comments on the DEIR He stated that this is a substantial project that will generate serious traffic and air quality impacts on Manhattan Beach and El Segundo He noted his concern that neither the Commission nor the public has seen those responses to comments that are being prepared and expressed his belief that the Commission cannot make a well - informed recommendation to City Council without all the facts before this body He noted that staff from Manhattan Beach has met with El Segundo Planning staff, that they have had a couple good meetings with the developer, but that they are still trying to resolve outstanding issues, and that a continuance would facilitate the potential for resolve as well Alan Peters, El Segundo resident Mr Peters noted his support for Improving blighted areas, believing this project is going in that direction He stated that he shares those concerns for traffic and unmitigateable measures, but stated that the project has a large number of contributions to the City, such as adding to the City's tax base, Infrastructure improvements, school and athletic Improvements He urged the applicant to create as much open space as possible with this project, to create a park -like atmosphere where possible BIII Eisen, 3514 Crest Drive, Manhattan Beach Mr Eisen stated that he Is speaking on behalf of himself and the Residents for a Quality City, a Manhattan Beach group, commented on the importance of public hearings, and urged that more public hearings 9 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 take place on this project He addressed his concerns with traffic and gridlock along Rosecrans, questioning how the current gridlock problem can be mitigated He suggested that the City consider alternative projects for this site, such as the El Segundo Generating Station being relocated — pointing out that at its peak time, it was generating approximately $3 million a year for El Segundo through its utility user tax He stated if that facility expanded and was relocated to this site, it could potentially generate $4 million a year for El Segundo Henry Stuart, 648 West Maple Avenue Mr Stuart, Chairman of the Aquatics Task Force, commented on the need to establish a new aquatics facility in El Segundo, noted that the current aquatics facility is overburdened and in high demand, and he addressed the applicant's contribution to the aquatics facilities in El Segundo He urged approval of the applicant's proposal, Don Brann, 640 California Street Mr Bran, Superintendent of Wiseburn School District, speaking on behalf of himself as a resident, stated that the project offers a positive change in the use of this land, noting that it is a good reuse of the site and huge step in the right direction, stated that the developers are very experienced and highly competent in creating a beautiful project that will be enjoyed by many of the City's residents, and he briefly addressed the sales tax benefit to the City Gerry Chong, 232 West Oak Avenue Mr Chong noted his support for the proposed development, stating that the developers are competent and reputable He stated that improving this blighted property will have a positive impact upon this community in being developed with a state -of -the art commercial shopping center. Martin McCarthy, 420 Sierra Street Mr McCarthy, Vice - President of the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce, highlighted the Chamber's enthusiasm for this project, and he encouraged the Planning Commission's support for the proposal Ron Swanson, 629 California Street Mr Swanson applauded the development team for a thorough fob, for listening to the community and taking into serious consideration that input He expressed his belief that there are more positive aspects to this project than there are negative aspects 10 EI Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 Wendy Phillips, 121 Marine Place, Manhattan Beach Ms Phillips stated that she is an employee of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, but that she is speaking tonight as a resident of Manhattan Beach She thanked staff for answering her questions; stated that she is not opposed to developing this site, but that she is concerned with this project and the lack of public engagement over other land uses and over the cleanup standards that are proposed for this protect She addressed her concern with this major commercial development without the community's input for other land use proposals, and she suggested that the City update its General Plan which was mostly adopted in 1992 before going forward with consideration of this project, believing that a comprehensive update is necessary before committing to this land use She asked that the Planning Commission defer the CEQA certification and approval of the developer agreement until the City broadens its land use analysis She suggested that the City consider other land uses, such as open space, residential, and mixed -use She echoed her concerns with traffic Erma Cohen, Manhattan Beach resident Ms Cohen stated that traffic problems are at an all -time high and are a matter of great concern to her, noted her concern with possible land uses and cleanup, recommending that the remedtation be done to the extent that it will be adaptable to residential use as well as commercial use in the future She expressed her belief that another shopping center is not necessary, and noted her concern that Insufficient information has been given to the community and that more public review and comment is needed. Bill Fisher, 1225 East Oak Avenue Mr Fisher pointed out that the developers have put forth a plan with a lower FAR than what other developers might propose, expressed his belief that the design of this project will be a great enhancement to the City's image, and pointed out that the developer has made changes to support the communities' concerns He stated that this has been a long process with a lot of community input, and stated that he is pleased with what he has seen Conrad Walton, El Segundo resident Mr Walton stated that he only heard about this project two weeks ago, and commented on his concerns with the impact to traffic, noting that unmitigated traffic Impacts are unacceptable He stated the project would degrade the quality of life and property values He asked that the Commission extend the public review period 11 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 �� D Karol Wahlberci, 1301 Elm Avenue, Manhattan Beach Ms Wahlberg suggested that it would be appropriate to postpone the decision until everyone has had a chance to look at responses to the DER comments, stated that there are major concerns with traffic and environmental Impacts, noted that Sepulveda Boulevard is overburdened with traffic, and commented on safety concerns for pedestrians particularly kids crossing Sepulveda Boulevard She stated that it is important to be looking at other opportunities for this site and does not agree that it improves the area by adding jobs are reiterated her suggestion to extend the review period Floyd Carr, 424 Hlllcrest Street Mr Carr stated that this is a thoughtful and well planned project for El Segundo and one of the most publicized projects he's seen in a long while, and expressed his belief the environmental problems will be fully mitigated and that Honeywell will not sell the property until it is cleaned up He also stated other beach cities should widen their portions of Sepulveda Boulevard Phil White, President of the El Segundo Rotary Club Mr White stated that the proposed Plaza El Segundo will be an impressive addition to the business community; advised that at present, hotel guests must travel outside this town to do their shopping, and expressed his belief that this retail center will not compete with the City's downtown businesses, that it will compliment them Jan Cruikshank, El Segundo resident Ms Cruikshank noted her concern with the environmental impacts, stating that traffic is her greatest concern, especially those unavoidable impacts, things that can't be mitigated, but she stated that traffic should be addressed thoroughly before any building takes place, but she indicated she is supportive at the commercial use but she noted her support for continuing this matter before voting so that further public input can be provided Dick VanVranken, 423 Loma Vista Street Mr VanVranken stated that this property has been a blighted area for years, expressed his belief that these developers have put together a plan that will benefit the community, and he urged approval of this project He stated that traffic is better today than It has been in the past 12 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 4rV Don Vanqeloff, North Redondo Beach resident Mr Vanqeloff addressed his concerns with the traffic, stated that while there are a lot of positive aspects to this project, he would support more public hearings, and he suggested breaking up the rezoning into phases, believing that rezoning the entire site at this time will limit future options for this site He asked for more open space at this site Bill Bue, 748 Center Street Mr Bue, former mayor, stated that he has heard for years residents voice their concerns with traffic whenever a large project came to town, stating that he has yet to see gridlock conditions although traffic has always been bad on Rosecrans, expressed his belief that the developer has adequately studied the mitigation of traffic, and noted his support for this project Liz Garnholz, El Segundo resident Ms Garnholz stated that something does need to be done with this blighted site, addressed her concerns with air quality, traffic and the impacts upon the businesses in the downtown area, and with unmitigatable traffic conditions She commented on the cumulative trip generation from various projects, believing that 66,000 new trips per day will be experienced in this area She stated that we do not need unmitigatible bad air She addressed her concern for pedestrian safety off Sepulveda Boulevard, noting that soccer fields have been proposed on the other side of Sepulveda Boulevard Ms Garnholz expressed her belief that this project will kill the downtown businesses in El Segundo and that $250,000 is not much for downtown; she urged the City to consider quality of life issues when making its decision Brian Crowley, 501 California Street Mr Crowley stated that he is okay with the project and is pleased with the developer's traffic mitigation expenditure of approximately $10 million, he questioned whether the two -story building at the corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda can be relocated in order to accommodate future expansion at that intersection, and questioned if there is a guarantee that Caltrans will approve another stop light on Sepulveda Boulevard at Park Place He indicated that, if possible, to reduce car trips which would help reduce Impact on air quality Mr Crowley also suggested that the full Park Place extension should be built with Phase I of the project 13 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 �.171 BIII Watkins, 327 East Oak Avenue Mr Watkins stated that he finds the proposed changes to be a positive step for development of this blighted area and expressed his approval and support with what this City has done in its growth and change throughout the years He expressed his belief that this project has tremendous benefits for the City and the South Bay, and noted his belief that people in this community will use this shopping center and not have to drive as far as they currently do for shopping Gail Church, Executive Director of Tree Musketeers Ms Church stated that her group has been working with Continental Development for a number of years, and noted that she is very proud to be associated with them and honored to have a part in this project She briefly commented on the numerous trees that will be located to this site and the pleasing aesthetics it will have upon the environment, and she commented on the various infrastructure improvements as a result of this project, believing that it will have a positive impact upon property values in this community Allan Mackenzie, Mar Ventures, applicant (Invited by Chair Funk to respond to comments) Mr Mackenzie stated that they have been working with Mr Kaufmann, the attorney for Manhattan Beach, that they will continue to work with them, believing there are things that can be done, but he expressed his belief that this work can be done without the Planning Commission postponing its decision this evening on this project, that a postponement in decision is not necessary He stated that he has worked on this project for six years, that they have looked at all sorts of uses for this site, that they believe this is a viable use, pointed out that they do hear the concerns for open space and lush landscaping, and that they will find ways to address those desires. With regard to those comments about this project moving too fast, Mr Mackenzie stated that that is a common belief with most projects, indicated that they have done everything possible to get the word out into the community — reiterating that numerous community and group meetings have taken place on this matter He added that not only have they made presentations before to El Segundo, but that presentations have also been made to the cities of Manhattan Beach and Hawthorne and their residents With regard to the budding at the corner of Rosecrans and Sepulveda, Mr Mackenzie stated that their traffic experts have met with Caltrans and that it is his understanding Caltrans will approve the intersection 14 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 signalization He added that they are dedicating additional land at that corner to be set aside for street widening, advised that this piece of property is awkwardly shaped, and at this time, no decision has been made as to whether a budding would be located there or not He mentioned there are high voltage transmission lines along Rosecrans and that widening of the street would be limited without moving these lines He indicated that a signal warrant study has been done and that Caltrns is okay with a signal on Sepulveda at Park Place Richard Lundquist, applicant, Continental Development Corporation, 2041 Rosecrans Avenue Mr Lundquist stated that his company has a large office development along the Rosecrans corridor and that they are dust as concerned with traffic as everyone else is, he commented on intersection improvements, noting that the intersection of Rosecrans /Aviation will be about 65 percent larger than currently exists and that it will make a huge difference in traffic flow He explained that this protect cannot solve the regional commuter traffic woes from the Palos Verdes Peninsula all the way to Los Angeles and that this protect should not be burdened with that requirement, and that people will have a shorter commute when shopping He stated that they (the applicant) have voluntarily committed to contributing $1 million towards the traffic improvements in the area He commented that not all of Sepulveda Boulevard has four lanes south of the City of El Segundo He discussed the roadway improvements at the intersection of Aviation and Marine, the additional lanes on Rosecrans down to Marine, and a third lane down south of Manhattan Beach Boulevard There being no further input, Chairman Funk closed the public hearing Commissioner Kretzmer asked for a response from staff in regard to Manhattan Beach's request for a continuance City Attorney Hensley advised that City staff met with staff members from Manhattan Beach with respect to allowing them an additional opportunity to express their concerns about the protect, stating that a meeting took place a couple weeks ago, and advised that there are not ongoing discussions between the two cities with respect to those issues He stated there apparently are negotiations between the developer and Manhattan Beach, but that those negotiations are not going on between El Segundo and Manhattan Beach With respect to the request for a continuance, he stated there is no legal requirement to do so, having now held two public meetings (one being continued), and he highlighted staff's recommendation to move forward with the Commission's decision He noted that responses to the comments on the DER have not been released, but that those comments do not raise any legal 15 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 Y �;j concerns, and advised this Is not an unusual process for a Planning Commission to take while comments are still being received Planning Manager Christensen stated that all comments that were received during the public comment period and even comments received after the public comment period closed have been Included In the November 151h packet and in the revised packet for this evening's meeting, and advised that all communications will be addressed In the Final EIR that will be presented at Council's public hearing on this matter City Attorney Hensley explained that staff believes the comments which have come in do not raise substantial new issues or questions such that it's necessary to delay this process, advised that the public will have the opportunity to review those specific written responses prior to the Council public hearing and that the public will once again be able to comment, and reiterated that staff believes there are no significant issues raised that would cause staff to change any of its recommendations or to reconsider anything that's been discussed to date Planning Manager Christensen stated that once the responses have been completed and the document distributed, a date will be set for the Council hearing She noted that staff Is attempting to target January 18, 2005 for that Council meeting She added that a notice will be published in the newspaper Chairman Funk opened the public hearing to allow the attorney from Manhattan Beach to address Vice- Chairman Carlson's inquiry. Vice - Chairman Carlson questioned if Mr Kaufmann is making a claim or asserting that Manhattan Beach has not been given a fair comment period /process or there's been a procedural violation or whether he is asking the Commission to read the written questions and responses prior to making its decision on this matter Mr Kaufmann stated that the process does not satisfy him, stated that the responses should be included in the staff report prior to the Commission making its decision, and advised that he is not looking for another opportunity to comment Public hearing is closed Commissioner Frick questioned if the current bus routes are available and convenient to El Segundo residents to travel to and from this site She noted her support for the utilization of mass transit, questioning whether the El Segundo Shuttle service can be used for this site 16 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 r Ms Culhane stated that Rosecrans and Sepulveda are major corridors for several bus routes Director Jurps stated that it would be difficult to use the El Segundo Shuttle service for this site Planning Manager Christensen advised that the El Segundo lunch shuttle has a fixed service and does not operate the entire day and that it would be difficult to use this particular shuttle service at this site Commissioner Kretzmer questioned if there are plans by the developer to provide shuttle service to and from the project Ms Culhane stated there currently is no requirement that the developer provide shuttle service Commissioner Kretzmer expressed his belief that shuttle service should be a consideration for this project due to the significant number of trips this project will generate in an already severely impacted intersection He stated that the Planning Commission should look at every reasonable opportunity to reduce trips when possible, and suggested that an analysis be conducted to determine whether or not using shuttles for projects like this will help reduce the number of trips, whether it's worth addressing, whether it would it be cost effective, and what would be the effect upon traffic With the development agreement, City Attorney Hensley stated that the Commission is able to make a request of the developer for there to be additional requirements, that they would have to agree to those conditions in the negotiation process, and that the Planning Commission is permitted to request that an analysis be done, that it be brought back to the Commission, or that it be studied and reviewed by City Council If it is determined that there is a positive benefit, that the Commission can request it be imposed as a condition upon Council's hearing of the matter Commissioner Frick stated that she would be comfortable with the option to study the use of a shuttle service, that the analysis be reviewed by the City Council, and if it's determined there's a positive benefit, that Council impose that condition for shuttle service upon the developer She expressed her belief that the developer has gone over and above in mitigating traffic impacts from what she's seen in her experience while serving on this body She noted that she would be utilizing the shops at this center and that this would allow her to spend less time traveling to other cities for her shopping needs. 17 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 City Attorney Hensley explained that if this were the Commission's decision, it would be a request that will go forward to Council as part of the staff report Vice - Chairman Carlson questioned the benefits of rezoning dust a portion of the site versus rezoning the entire site to C-4 at one time Planning Manager Christensen explained that in order for the proposed Plaza El Segundo development project to occur, it cannot occur under the existing industrial zoning of the site, noted that a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change is required in order to construct a commercial development of this nature, and she explained there's no other way to proceed with anything on this site for the Plaza El Segundo project without making that change In terms of rezoning the other portions of the site that are proposed for change -- keeping in mind a small portion is being retained as M -1 and M -2 -- she noted that it relates to the complexities of how future commercial development on the site could occur, the basis for the environmental analysis, traffic analysis and the infrastructure construction in terms of the roadway network that will run through the site, that in order for that to occur, there's a variety of things that have to take place, such as railroad relocation, some relocation of existing businesses, and stated that the logical step is to make that General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at this time to accommodate the entire development because the City is not going to make those changes to support additional industrial development on this site She added that industrial zoning has a higher FAR than the proposal for commercial development of 275, and advised that the traffic analysis is based on a commercial development at a much lower FAR than Industrial development that can occur under the existing industrial zoning at a much higher FAR City Attorney Hensley added that the EIR was prepared at a program level and at a project level, that to approve the EIR, It potentially would be possible to excise out part of the zone change, but that It might require a reworking of the document and a substantial reworking of the document as far as what would be adopted He noted that If the entire area is not rezoned to C-4, the City could potentially have an applicant come in for an industrial use in that other area until the City does undertake the rezoning of It to a commercial use From staff's point of view, he explained that one of the reasons this was done comprehensively was to have that plan In place and not have future industrial users come onto the other portion of the site, that that was not a desirable option In essence, he stated it would legally leave that option open for industrial uses on this site Commissioner Kretzmer questioned why staff chose a C -4 designation over C -3 18 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 Director Jurps explained that C-4 has a lower FAR, that if the City adopts a C -3 zoning designation, there will be higher FAR's and, in theory, more traffic and more air quality problems Planning Manager Christensen added that this is more restrictive in terms of the range of land uses and the controls on them that are occurring both through the C-4 zoning and through the development agreement, that it also relates to the analysis done in the EIR in terms of traffic, air quality, and other factors, and that staff felt the C -3 zone allowed a broader range of uses and a higher FAR, different setbacks and lot frontage Due to the unique nature of the site and what was trying to be accomplished, she stated that staff believed it to be more appropriate to generate a new zone tailored to the area Craig Falnor, Vice- President of Chris Joseph & Associates, EIR Consultant Mr Fajnor explained that under CEQA, if they contemplate rezoning the entire site, the whole of the action needs to be looked at, otherwise, it could be considered piecemealing the project He added that they did look at an alternative of dust rezoning the Plaza El Segundo site, which is addressed in the EIR, and noted that a decision could be made based on that information Chairman Funk thanked everyone for attending this evening's meeting and for providing input throughout this lengthy process. She thanked staff and the consultants for their extensive work on this project, and thanked the applicant for being diligent in working with the various parties providing input on this proposal Chairman Funk noted the importance of putting to good use this very significant corner, stated that there are significant traffic impacts, but expressed her belief the developer has taken those impacts into serious consideration She highlighted the lower FAR at this site, which will make the density and impacts lower than that of an industrial designation She supported the belief that cars currently on these roadways will have to travel less by putting these stores closer to where the residents live and that in the long -run, it will reduce that traffic, will redistribute the current traffic She noted that there will also be new trips with the mix of stores to go into this center She pointed out that the net fiscal benefit for El Segundo is significant, talking about up to a $2 4 million increase in the tax base, and noted the developer's intent to balance the project with the quality of life goals, such as creating some open space, park -like features, and lush landscaping She expressed her belief that this protect is in the best interest of this community and region, noted that there has been adequate time for public review and comments and that she would support a motion to move this forward to the City Council — pointing out 19 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 41 ry that the public once again can provide Its Input at the Council meeting She noted her excitement In the utilization of this underutilized corner Vice- Chairman Carlson commended staff for their hard work on this project, expressed his belief that these developers have been extremely conscientious in planning this project, and noted his delight with the $10 million in improvements, believing that everything that could be done seems to have been attempted He pointed out that the developer has dedicated a large amount of project frontage for future street improvements, expressed his belief that the proposed changes to Rosecrans will be a positive step to control traffic flow, and stated that when the second part of this is built out, with the Park Place extension and then Douglas coming through to Manhattan Beach, this will substantially alleviate some of the traffic problems in that area He stated that these developers have gone through extraordinary lengths to make sure their good faith efforts are clear on the traffic issue, stated that no one has provided a viable alternative use for this site, and noted his support to put this property to use as proposed, believing this is an appropriate use for this site He commended the developers for doing as much as they have been able to do to try to mitigate the traffic problems Commissioner Kretzmer commended everyone involved In this project, thanked everyone for their Input this evening, believing the public input this evening was at the highest level he has enjoyed in all his years involved on this body, and stated that all the comments were thoughtful, necessary and appreciated He thanked Mr Mackenzie and his development team for this excellent project Commissioner Kretzmer addressed his on -going concerns with traffic in this area; noted his concern with adding 19,000 more car trips and unmitlgatable traffic issues, and addressed the need to study the use of shuttle buses to and from this site He briefly commented on the lack of regional coordination that leads to traffic conflict, stated that he doubts whether this area needs another shopping center, but noted his understanding that turning this site into a large park would not make good use of the owners' land He expressed his belief that even with his noted concerns, he believes commercial development Is the right thing to do at this site He expressed his belief that everybody involved has made extremely good - faith efforts to make this a good project He reiterated his concerns with traffic impacts and stated It's Incumbent to recommend to City Council that they study the use of shuttle buses or look at other alternatives to help reduce in any way they reasonably can the traffic at that particular intersection and along Sepulveda Boulevard Commissioner Wagner applauded the developers for listening to the community members and Incorporating those concerns, when possible, into their plans, expressed his belief that this is a great project for the 20 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 3'1% City relative to revenue, the schools and the aquatic's facility He thanked staff for their time and effort in this process Commissioner Kretzmer asked that the City Attorney craft appropriate language to take to City Council requesting that they review the possibility of shuttles or other such means of transportation to help reduce the car trips in connection with the project City Attorney Hensley clarified that the Planning Commission is recommending passing the resolution this evening and directing staff to pass on the message to Council that a study be done with respect to the shuttle or other means of transportation, and if that study determines there is a benefit to reducing traffic, that it be incorporated into the conditions of approval Commissioner Frick moved, seconded by Commissioner Kretzmer, to MOTION concur with staff recommendation to approve Resolution No. 2575 with direction to staff to study shuttle service to reduce vehicle trips to the site to be presented to the City Council Motion passed 5 -0 Director Jurps thanked the Commission for its efforts throughout this REPORT FROM process this evening, and on behalf of staff, he wished everyone a DIRECTOR happy holiday season Planning Manager Christensen noted that the next meeting will be January 13, 2005, but stated that there is nothing definitely scheduled for that meeting at this time Mr Brandon suggested that the developer buy a couple shuttle buses to PUBLIC be used for this site. COMMUNICATIONS Mr Crowley suggested that the MTA be contacted to determine if the routing of area shuttle buses can be altered to better service this site Commissioner Kretzmer, echoed by the Commission, wished staff and PLANNING the public a happy holiday season COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS None OTHER BUSINESS There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 10 23 ADJOURNMENT p m to January 13, 2005 21 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 `Y I � PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2005 5" � ' Z' � Seimone Ju ' s ecretary of the Planning mission and Director of Planning, & Building Safety d-L Robin Funk, Chairman of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, California 22 El Segundo Planning Commission Draft Minutes, December 15, 2004 =8o