Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
