Loading...
CC RESOLUTION 4779 RESOLUTION NO. 4779 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) NO. 959 AND ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 12-01 FOR THE 222 KANSAS STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AND A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 222 KANSAS STREET. The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows; SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that: A. On February 26, 2009, the Planning Commission ("Commission") approved an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for an Environmental Assessment No. EA-788, Subdivision (SUB) No. 08-01, and Smoky Hollow Site Plan Review (SHSP) No. 08-01 to allow: a) the construction of five one and two-story buildings totaling 79,513 square feet and b) a subdivision into 55 condominium air space units. The project would have been constructed subject to the requirements of the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone; the proposed uses were light industrial, general office, and restaurant uses and the proposed floor area ratio (FAR) was 0.37; B. On January 19, 2012, Mar Ventures, Inc., filed an application on behalf of SMPO Lab, LLC, for an Environmental Assessment (EA No. 959), a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the 4.83-acre project site from Smoky Hollow Mixed Use to "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan" (222 KSSP); a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the subject property from the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan boundaries and to establish a new "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan" (222 KSSP) and to establish the development standards within the Specific Plan; a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map to rezone the project site from the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone with a Grand Avenue Commercial (GAC) Overlay District to the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) Zone; a Zone Text Amendment; to add a new ESMC § 15-3-2(A)(8) "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan"; and to modify ESMC Chapter 15-11; a Development Agreement to provide public benefits in exchange for development rights; a Subdivision of the "Phase 2" property into four parcels and 20 condominium units; and Site Plan Review for construction of a 45,152 square-foot facility operated by the USDA on the southern portion of the property (Phase 1), and two office buildings totaling 31,000 square feet in floor area on the northern portion of the property (Phase 2) ("proposed project"); -1- C. The applications from Mar Ventures, Inc. on behalf of SMPO Lab, LLC were reviewed by the City of El Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC"); D. In addition, the City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805, adopted March 16, 1993); E. An Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for EA No. 773 (approved by the El Segundo Planning Commission on February 26, 2009) was prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines § 15164. Pursuant to CEQA, the Addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA § 15164(c)) however, an addendum is to be considered by the decision-making body before to making a decision on the project (CEQA § 15164(d)); F. The Planning and Building Safety Department completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for July 12, 2012; G. On July 12, 2012, the Commission held a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications including, without limitation, information provided to the Commission by City staff and public testimony, and representatives of Mar Ventures, Inc. and SMPO Lab, LLC; H. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2721 recommending City Council approval of Environmental Assessment (Ea) No. 959; Adopt General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 12-01, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 12- 01, Zone Change (ZC) No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 12- 01; and approve Development Agreement (DA) No, 12-01, Subdivision (SUB) No. 12-02 (VTM 71903), and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 12-01; I. On August 7, 2012, the City Council held a public hearing and considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony and the applicant, Mar Ventures, Inc; J. On August 7, 2012, the City Council introduced and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 1470 approving Specific Plan Amendment No. 12-01, Zone Change No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment No. 12-01, Development Agreement No. 12-01, Subdivision No. 12-02, and Site Plan Review No. 12-01; -2- K. On August 21, 2012, the City Council reintroduced a revised ordinance and considered the information provided by City staff, public testimony and the applicant, Mar Ventures, Inc.; and L. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the entire administrative record including, without limitation, testimony and evidence presented to the Council at its August 7, 2012 and August 21, 2012 hearings including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department. SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following facts exist: A. The subject property is located at 222 Kansas Street, between Grand Avenue and Franklin Avenue, currently in the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan (SHSP) and proposed in the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) Zone; B. The property is comprised of two parcels with a total area of 4.83 acres. The property is bounded by Grand Avenue to the north, Kansas Street to the west, Franklin Avenue to the south, and a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) and light industrial uses to the east; C. The surrounding land uses are primarily multi-family residential, general office, light industrial, and auto-repair uses to the north, medical offices, and light industrial uses to the east, office and light industrial uses to the south, and light industrial uses to the west; D. The proposed project involves an Environmental Assessment (EA No. 959), a General Plan Amendment to re-designate the 4.83-acre project site from Smoky Hollow Mixed Use to "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan" (222 KSSP); a Specific Plan Amendment to remove the subject property from the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan boundaries and to establish a new "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan" (222 KSSP) and to establish the development standards within the Specific Plan; a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map to rezone the project site from the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone with a Grand Avenue Commercial (GAC) Overlay District to the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) Zone; a Zone Text Amendment to add a new ESMC § 15-3-2(A)(8) "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan"; and to modify ESMC Chapter 15-11; a Development Agreement to provide public benefits in exchange for development rights; a Subdivision of the "Phase 2" property into four parcels and 20 condominium units; and Site Plan Review for construction of a 45,152 square-foot facility operated by the USDA on the southern portion of the property (Phase 1), and two office buildings totaling 31,000 square feet in -3- floor area on the northern portion of the property (Phase 2) (which site plan is incorporated into the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan as Exhibits 2 - 8 ("Approved Site Plan"); E. The subject site is roughly rectangular in shape, relatively flat with approximately a one percent slope from north to south, with the exception of a 15 to 25-foot tall stockpile of crushed rock in the southeast corner; F. The majority of the 4.83-acre site is currently vacant and undeveloped. A 6,593 square-foot portion of the site at the northeast corner is paved and used as overflow vehicle parking and storage for the Jim and Jack's auto repair facility across Grand Avenue; G. Vehicular access to the proposed USDA facility would be provided from two driveway entrances on Franklin Avenue and a driveway entrance on Kansas Street. Vehicular access to the office/industrial buildings in the north portion of the site would be provided from a second driveway entrance on Kansas Street. The two office/industrial buildings would be located on separate lots and would share driveway access through a Reciprocal Access Agreement. Vehicular access to the overflow vehicle parking and storage lot for Jim and Jack's would be provided from a driveway entrance on Grand Avenue; H. One hundred-eight parking spaces would be provided for the USDA facility in two separate parking areas and six loading spaces. One hundred-three parking spaces and one loading space would be provided for the two office/industrial buildings on a separate abutting lot. Twenty-one parking spaces would be provided on the Jim and Jack's overflow vehicle parking and storage lot; I. The proposed General Plan re-designation and rezoning of the Project Area would change the General Plan Land Use designation from Smoky Hollow Mixed Use to the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan designation and rezone the area from the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone with a Grand Avenue Commercial (GAC) Zone Overlay District to the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) Zone; J. The proposed 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan incorporates a list of permitted uses, development standards, and architectural guidelines to guide development within the Specific Plan area; K. The proposed 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan eliminates the Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone 15,000 square-foot limit on general and/multimedia related office uses per site and permits office and other uses up to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60; -4- L. The proposed Zone Text Amendment would amend the following: 1) ESMC § 15-3-2(A) to add the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (KSSP); 2) ESMC § 15-11-1(A)(1) to remove the Project Area from the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area; 3) ESMC § 15-11-2(D)(8) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit 11-2 (Smoky Hollow Block Conditions Survey Map); 4) ESMC § 15-11-2(D)(9) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit 11-3 (Smoky Hollow Target of Opportunity Map); 5) ESMC § 15-11-2(E) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit 11-4 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Base District Map); 6) ESMC § 15-11-2(F) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit 11-5 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Circulation Plan Map); 7) ESMC § 15-11- 2(F)(5) to remove the Project Area from the Exhibit 11-6 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Cooperative Parking Opportunities Map); 8) ESMC § 15-11- 2(G)(3) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit 11-7 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Sewer Master Plan Map); 9) ESMC § 15-11-2(G)(3) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit 11-8 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Flood Control & Drainage Map); 10) ESMC § 15-11-3(A) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit III-1 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Land Use Map); 11) ESMC § 15-11-3(D) to remove the Project Area from Exhibit III- 2 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Floating Zone Map); and 12) ESMC § 15- 11-5 (Appendix A; Boundary Description) to remove the Project Area from the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area; M. The proposed Subdivision would divide the 1.55-acre parcel in Phase 2 into four separate lots. Lot 1 would be developed with a two-story, 12,655 square-foot office/industrial building; Lot 2 would be developed with a two- story, 17,051 square-foot office/industrial building; Lot 3 would be developed with a parking area for 103 parking spaces; and Lot 4 would be redeveloped into a 21-parking space vehicle parking and storage area for the Jim and Jack's auto-repair facility. Lots 1 and 2 would each be further divided into ten condominium air space units. Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be tied to each other through shared access and parking restrictions on the property; and N. The proposed project includes a dedication of 10 feet along Grand Avenue, 5 feet along Kansas Street, and 5 feet along Franklin Avenue to be used for public right-of-way improvements. The total area of this dedication is 7,920 square feet. Further, the project includes an irrevocable offer to dedicate an additional 9 feet along Grand Avenue. SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. The City Council makes the following environmental findings: A. Because of the facts identified in Section 2 of this Resolution, the proposed project was analyzed for its environmental impacts and an Addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Environmental Assessment No. 788 (Segundo -5- Business Park) was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15164. Under CEQA, an Addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration is needed if minor technical changes or additions to the proposed project occur (CEQA Guidelines §15164). An addendum is appropriate only if these minor technical changes or additions do not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. The Addendum need not be circulated for public review (CEQA Guidelines §15164(c)); however, an addendum must be considered by the decision- making body before making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines §15164(d)). B. Before the July 12, 2012 Planning Commission meeting, an Addendum to the IS/MND was prepared and some of the mitigation measures in the IS/MND were modified or removed and new measures were added. The affected measures are listed below and the changes are discussed in detail in the Addendum to the IS/MND: 1) Mitigation Measure MM AQ-2 regarding Air Quality - VOC emissions (revised mitigation); 2) Mitigation Measure MM CR-2 regarding Cultural Resources (revised mitigation); 3) Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-3 regarding Hazards — Oil Wells (deleted and replaced mitigation); 4) Mitigation Measures MM HAZ-4 and MM HAZ-5 regarding Hazards — Oil Wells (deleted mitigation); 5) Mitigation Measure MM PS-6 regarding Public Safety — Oil Wells (revised mitigation); 6) Mitigation Measure PS-9 regarding School Development Impact Fee (added mitigation); 7) Mitigation Measure PS-9 regarding Library Mitigation Fee (deleted mitigation); and 8) Mitigation Measure PS-10 regarding Parks Facility Fee (added mitigation). The Addendum makes minor technical changes and corrections to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist, merely adds new information to the MND and no new significant impacts or increase in impacts are identified. Further, all of the mitigation measures listed in the IS/MND, including the revised mitigation measures added by the Addendum that have been deleted or substituted have been reviewed at a public hearing, and the new mitigation measures are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant impacts and will not cause any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15704.1 and 15164(c), recirculation of the document is not required, and based upon the evidence presented to the City Council, the City need not prepare an environmental impact report for the project and need only consider the IS/MND and the Addendum before making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). SECTION 4: General Plan and Specific Plan. The proposed project conforms to the City's General Plan and the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan for the reasons identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2721 as adopted on July 12, 2012. The findings in Resolution No. 2721 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth below. -6- SECTION 5: Approvals. A. The City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact as set forth in Exhibit "A," which are incorporated into this Resolution by reference. B. The City Council, in accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a) and 21081.6, adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as set forth in attached Exhibit "B," which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. The City Council adopts each of the mitigation measures expressly set forth in the MMRP as conditions of approval of the project. The other project conditions of approval and compliance with applicable codes, policies, and regulations will further ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposed project will not be greater than set forth in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and these findings. C. The City Council amends the proposed Land Use Plan ("Land Use Designations — Commercial Designations" subsection) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect the addition of the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan, including a description of the allowed uses and the maximum land use density allowed, to the Commercial Land Use Designations subsection. The corresponding changes as set forth in attached Exhibit "C," which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. D. The City Council amends the proposed Land Use Plan ("Northeast Quadrant" subsection) of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reflect the change of the Project area from Smoky Hollow Mixed Use to 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan. The corresponding changes as set forth in attached Exhibit "D," which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. E. The City Council amends the 1992 General Plan Summary of Existing Trends Buildout (Exhibit LU-3) of the Land Use Element to reflect the change of the Project area from Smoky Hollow Mixed Use to 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan. The corresponding changes to the Land Use Element as set forth in attached Exhibit "E," which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. F, The City Council amends the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the change of the Project area from Smoky Hollow Mixed Use to 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan. The corresponding changes to the Land Use Map as set forth in attached Exhibit "F," which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. -7- G. Subject to the conditions listed on the attached Exhibit "G," which are incorporated into this Resolution by reference, the City Council adopts the Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for Environmental Assessment No. 959, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Environmental Assessment No. 959, General Plan Amendment No. 12-01, and Subdivision No. 12-02. SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 7: Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. SECTION 8: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. SECTION 9: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution. SECTION 10: A copy of this Resolution must be mailed to Mar Ventures, Inc., SMPO Lab, LLC, and to any other person requesting a copy. -8- SECTION 11: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED th's 4th da .of September 2012. ■Z- 1-'4./ Carl Jacobsof , .yor ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ) I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Resolution No. 4779 was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 4th day of September 2012, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Jacobson, Fuentes, Fisher, Atkinson, Fellhauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None '/(141/'{ Tracy We er, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney By: �21-{ e,,,,a H. Berger, Assistant City Attorney 9 ,,, /f Y Y n , E I l i i- vii , d. c; a k in ot. 12,-4- t A" ,/ P:\Plannin &Building Safety\O Planning-Old\PROJECTS(Planning)\951-9751A A-959\Cit Council 09042O112Reso and 9 9 Attachments 09042012\EA-959 CC Reso 09042012.doc -9- CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4779 Exhibit A Findings of Fact On February 26, 2009, the City of El Segundo Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2651 approving an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for Environmental Assessment No. 788 ("Segundo Business Park'). The project reviewed by the IS/MND consisted of the construction of five office and light industrial buildings totaling 79,513 square feet and their subdivision into 55 condominium air space units on a 4.68-acre site. The project was approved for floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.37. On January 19, 2012, the applicant filed an application for Environmental Assessment (EA) No. 959, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 12-01, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 12-01, Zone Change (ZC) No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 12-01, Development Agreement (DA) No. 12-01, Subdivision (SUB) No. 12-02 (VTM No. 71903), and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 12-01 ("222 Kansas Street Specific Plan"). This application modified the original approval and consists of constructing a 45,152 square-foot USDA facility including office, warehouse, and laboratory space, and two 2-story buildings totaling approximately 31,000 square feet intended for general/medical office and/or light industrial uses. The proposed project would not be built under the development standards in the MM Zone. Rather, a new Specific Plan would modify the permitted uses and development standards to accommodate the specific needs of the proposed development. The modifications are summarized in table 1 below: Table 1 Comparison of Projects Approved Segundo Proposed 222 Kansas Difference Business Park Project Street Specific Plan Project Project Area 88,249 square feet 74,858 square feet -13,391 Square (Gross) feet Site Area 4.7 acres 4.83 acres +.13 acres Number of 5 Buildings 3 Buildings -2 Buildings Buildings Floor Area Ratio 0.37 0.34 -0.03 FAR (FAR) Number of Lots 1 Lot 5 Lots +4 Lots Number of Air 55 Units 20 Units -35 Units Space Units • Building Height 35 Feet 40 Feet +5 Feet Uses Light Industrial Office/laboratory/warehouse N/A General Office General Office Restaurant Medical Office Light Industrial Parking and 289 Parking Spaces, 232 Parking Spaces, -69 parking Loading Spaces 5 Loading Spaces, and 7 Loading Spaces, and spaces; Provided 5 Bicycle Spaces 14 Bicycle Spaces +2 loading spaces; and 1 +9 bicycle spaces Landscaping 25,443 Square Feet 29,960 Square Feet +4,517 Square Area Provided _ Feet Public Benefit N/A $450,000 In-Lieu Payment for +$400,000 at USDA Facility for the loss of project tax revenue ($50,000 total Completion will be reimbursed to the developer after project completion) As a result of the project modifications, the City prepared an Addendum to the previously adopted IS/MND, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines § 15164). On July 12, 2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2721 and recommended that the City Council approve Environmental Assessment (EA) No. 959, General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 12-01, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 12-01, Zone Change (ZC) No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 12-01, Development Agreement (DA) No. 12-01, Subdivision (SUB) No. 12-02 (VTM No. 71903), and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 12-01 with conditions. After receiving, reviewing, and considering all the information in the administrative record regarding the project, the City Council finds, determines, and declares for the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project as follows: I. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA. An Addendum was prepared under the authority of Public Resources Code § 21166 and of 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq. (the CEQA Guidelines). Specifically, CEQA Guidelines § 15164(b) allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines § 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration are present. CEQA Guidelines § 15162 states that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration must be prepared unless the lead agency determines on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record one or more of the following: "(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase n the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; 2 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT. Based on the impact comparison provided in the Addendum for Environmental Assessment No. 959, the revised project would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts under CEQA. Thus, in comparison to the analysis provided in the 2009 IS/MND for Environmental Assessment No. 788, the revised project would not: a) result in increased impacts related to degradation of the environment or impacts to biological or cultural resources; b) result in increased cumulative impacts; or c) result in increased substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. A. Impacts Found to be Not Potentially Significant by the Initial Study The Initial Study identified the following environmental effects as not potentially significant. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum, and the record of proceedings for the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Aesthetics a) Scenic vistas b) Scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway 2. Agriculture/Forestry Resources (All thresholds) 3. Biological Resources (All thresholds 4. Cultural Resources a) Historical Resources 5. Geology/Soils a) Fault Rupture b) Seismic-related ground failure c) Landslides d) Wastewater Disposal Systems 6. Hazards/Hazardous Materials a) Safety Hazards Associated with a Private Airstrip b) Wildfires 7. Hydrology/Water Quality a) Housing within 100-year Flood Hazard Area 3 b) Structures within 100-year Flood Hazard Area c) Levee or Dam Failure d) Inundation 8. Land Use/Planning a) Divide an Established Community b) Conflict with Conservation Plan 9. Mineral Resources a) Loss of Delineated Mineral Resource Recovery Site 10. Noise a) Private Airstrip Noise 11. Population/Housing a) Displace Housing b) Displace People 12. Public Services a) Other Facilities (Library) 13. Utilities/Service Systems a) Complies with Solid Waste Regulations B. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant in the Initial Study (with no mitigation required). The Initial Study identified the following environmental effects as less than significant. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum, and the record of proceedings for the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Aesthetics a) Visual Quality and Character of the Site 2. Air Quality a) Conflict or Obstruction of Applicable Air Quality Plan b) Objectionable Odors 3. Geology and Soils. a) Strong Seismic Groundshaking b) Erosion or Loss of Topsoil c) Unstable Geologic Unit or Soil d) Expansive Soils 4. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (All thresholds) 5. Hazards/Hazardous Materials a) Exposure to Hazardous Materials b) Safety Hazards Associated with Public Airport c) Emergency Plans 6. Hydrology/Water Quality a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements b) Groundwater Supplies or Recharge c) Alter Existing Drainage Patterns d) Runoff Water e) Degrade Water Quality 4 7. Land Use and Planning a) Conflict with Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation 8. Mineral Resources a) Loss of Valued Mineral Resources 9. Noise a) Operational Noise b) Groundborne Vibration and Noise (Operation) c) Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels d) Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels e) Public Airport Noise 10. Population and Housing a) Population Growth 11. Transportation/Traffic (All thresholds) 12. Utilities/Service Systems a) Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements b) Construction or Expansion of Water or Wastewater Treatment Facilities c) Construction or Expansion of Stormwater Drainage facilities d) Sufficient Water Supplies e) Determination by Wastewater Treatment Provider of Adequate Capacity f) Sufficient Landfill Capacity g) Construction or Expansion of Energy Production or Transmission Facilities C. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant But Which Can Be Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels with Mitigation Measures. The City Council finds that the following environmental effects were identified as Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum, and implementation of the identified mitigation measures would avoid of lessen the potential environmental effects listed below to a level of significance. 1. Aesthetics. a) Facts/Effects. (i) New Sources of Light or Glare. Reflective light or glare is primarily a daytime phenomenon caused by sunlight reflecting from highly finished surfaces, such as window glass or other reflective materials, and to a lesser degree from lightly colored surfaces. Typically, the primary cause of adverse glare is buildings with exterior façades of highly reflective glass or mirror-like material from which the sun reflects when it is at low angles in the periods following sunrise and before sunset. Building design incorporates the use of glass surfaces through the proposed buildings' exterior facades. Use of non-reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors, as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass would reduce impacts related to daytime glare. Additionally, landscaping adjacent to the structures would soften and diffuse glare from the surfaces and windows of the new structures. Implementation of mitigation measure MM AES-1 would reduce 5 impacts from daytime glare to a less-than-significant level by eliminating or minimizing increased glare through the use of non-reflective glass and non-reflective textured surfaces in the proposed development. During the evening and nighttime hours, substantial light or glare can result from the installation of high-intensity lighting fixtures or the use of highly reflective glass or other building materials. Headlights from vehicles can also create light or glare if sensitive uses are affected. New permanent sources of lighting would be established on the project site as a result of project development that would increase the level of light on the site from current levels, due to the low intensity nature of the existing uses on the site. However, the only light-sensitive use in the project area is the multifamily residential use located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Grand Avenue and Kansas Street. The proposed project was designed to locate the office portion of the proposed uses at the northwest corner of the project site, which are nearest to and most compatible with the nearby multifamily residential uses. In addition, the lighting proposed would be limited to the amount required to safely light driveways, public space areas within the project site, and the sidewalks along Grand Avenue and Kansas Street. All outdoor lighting would be directed onto driveways, walkways and public areas and away from adjacent properties and public right-of- ways to avoid any light or glare impacts from lighting fixtures. Mitigation measures MM AES-1 and MM AES-2 would ensure that potential impacts from light and glare during evening hours are less than significant. Lighting would be established on-site during construction. Lighting used during construction would consist primarily of security lights, although lighting may be used for construction activities occurring during early morning or evening hours, particularly in the winter. This lighting would be temporary in nature and would not result in any substantial long- term light or glare impacts. Mitigation measure MM AES-2 would ensure that potential impacts from construction lighting are less than significant. In summary, project impacts related to a new source of light or glare would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Mitigation Measures: MM AES-1. Expansive areas of highly reflective materials, such as mirrored glass, are not permitted. Nonreflective building materials must be used to the maximum extent possible to reduce potential glare impacts. MM AES-2. Exterior lighting must be designed to minimize off-site glare. This may include, without limitation, the use of shielded or recessed lighting fixtures. 6 c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. 2. Air Quality. a)Facts/Effects. (i) Air Quality Standard Violations (Construction) The project site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The proposed project would develop approximately 74,858 sf of office and laboratory uses in three buildings (45,152 sf of testing laboratory uses in one building, 29,706 sf of office uses in two buildings) that would not exceed a total FAR of 0.34. In addition, approximately 232 parking stalls (plus 7 loading spaces) would be provided on the project site and approximately 0.69 acre of the 4.83 acres total would be dedicated to landscaping. The proposed project would generate air pollutants as a result of construction and operation-related emissions. The majority of construction emissions are generated by construction equipment and from dust resulting from construction activity, whereas operational emissions are primarily related with vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. The SCAQMD has developed the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that establishes suggested significance thresholds based on the volume of pollution emitted. According to the Handbook, any project in the SCAB with daily operational emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds should be considered as having an individually significant air quality impact; however these thresholds do not apply to cumulative development: • 55 pounds per day (lbs/day) of ROG (reactive organic gases) • 55 lbs/day of NOX (oxides of nitrogen) • 550 lbs/day of CO (carbon monoxide) • 150 lbs/day of PM10 (respirable 10-micron diameter particulate matter) • 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 (respirable 2.5 micron diameter particulate matter) • 150 lbs/day of SOx (oxides of sulfur) For construction emissions, if a proposed project would exceed the following thresholds it should be considered as having an individually and cumulatively significant air quality impact. • 550 lbs/day of CO • 75 lbs/day of reactive organic gases (VOC) • 100 lbs/day of NOX • 150 lbs/day of SOx • 150 lbs/day of PM10 • 55 lbs/day of PM2.5 7 Construction Phase Project related construction activities would include site excavation, grading and relocation of utility infrastructure; construction of the new office and laboratory uses; paving of surface parking lots; and architectural coating. For purposes of this analysis, it is understood that construction would be completed in approximately 11 months, with grading beginning in late summer/fall 2012. Building construction is anticipated to begin in fall 2012, and completed in summer 2013. Paving would begin in spring 2013 with completion anticipated in summer 2013. Architectural coatings would also begin in spring 2013, with completion in summer 2013. The site is currently cleared and limited demolition would be required. Construction activities would not involve substantial use of construction equipment that would typically contribute to air quality impacts. Minimal earth disturbing activities would occur and diesel equipment associated with construction of the proposed project would be limited. It is important to note that the MND prepared for the previous project identified mitigation measures to limit the amount of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions released into the local area during construction activities, consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, as well as mitigation to reduce VOC emissions during architectural coating. These mitigation measures and the corresponding reductions in emissions were accounted for in this analysis and are listed below. The regional air pollutant emissions resulting from construction of the proposed project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), and the results are presented in Table 4 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day). Further information regarding the modeling of construction-related air quality emissions is included in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum prepared for this analysis (Appendix A). In general, the primary source of CO and NOx emissions would be generated by construction equipment and off-site vehicle trips, while the primary source of PM10 and PM25 emissions would be generated by ground disturbance. As shown, the daily construction emissions are below the SCAQMD thresholds for all criteria pollutants. Mitigation measure MM AQ-2 of the 2009 MND required the use of low- VOC paints and coatings. As the industry standard has changed for the better since preparation of the 2009 MND, it is now recommended that the previous mitigation measure MM AQ-2 be modified to require that all architectural coatings reduce VOC emissions by a minimum of 20 percent below the CaIEEMod default of 250 g/I. This modification of mitigation measure MM AQ-2 would reduce VOC emissions accordingly and the proposed project would continue to result in a less- than-significant construction air quality impact, similar to the finding of the 2009 MND. This change in mitigation measure MM AQ-2 is consistent with the current industry standard, which has changed since preparation of the 2009 MND for the project site, and has the same intent as the mitigation measure MMAQ-2 incorporated in the previous 8 MND and is equally, if not more, effective that the previous mitigation measure. Accordingly, it is not considered new or substantially different mitigation. Table 4 Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day Peak Day Emissions in Pounds per Day Emission Source ROG NOx I CO Sax 1 PM,o PMu Site Grading(Month 1,2) On Site 6.15 48.06 29.04 0.05 5.09 3.89 Off Site 0.09 0.09 1.06 0.00 0.16 0.01 Maximum Daily Emissions 6.24 48.15 30.10 0.05 5.25 3.90 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Building(Month 3,4,5,6,7) On Site 4.60 30.24 18.61 0.03 2.02 2.02 Off Site 0.90 5.64 7.78 0.02 1.10 0.21 Maximum Daily Emissions 5.50 35.88 26.39 0.05 3.12 2.23 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Building,Paving,Coating(Month 8,9,10,11)a On Site 47.63 57.29 37.21 0.06 4.33 4.33 Off Site 1.03 5.37 9.32 0.02 1.46 0.21 Maximum Daily Emissions 48.66 62.66 46.53 0.08 5.79 4.54 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No Architectural Coating(Month 12) On Site 39.17 2.96 1.94 0.00 0.27 0.27 Off Site 0.08 0.09 0.83 0.00 0.14 0.01 Maximum Daily Emissions 39.25 3.05 2.77 0.00 0.41 0.28 SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No SOURCE: Atkins(2012) (CaIEEMod data are available in Appendix A). a. Assumes that activities may occur concurrently and reports worst case emissions from all activities combined. With incorporation of mitigation measures MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-2, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality during construction activities. (ii) Result in a Cumulative Increase in Pollutant for Which the Region Is in Nonattainment 9 The project site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. Despite consistent improvements in pollution levels in the SCAB over the past thirty years, levels of ozone (for which ROG and NOx are precursors), PM10, and PM2.5 are above national and state standards. Therefore, projects could cumulatively exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. In determining the significance of the proposed project's contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor provides separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or operational impacts. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed using the same significance criteria as used for project specific impacts; that is, individual development projects that generate construction-related or operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD-recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in non- attainment. The proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD daily significance threshold and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Accordingly, with incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant air quality impact. (iii) Expose Sensitive Receptors To determine potential criteria pollutant concentrations during construction activities, SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LST) to determine maximum allowable concentrations for projects 5 acres or less in total area for on-site emissions of CO, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Off-site emissions would be generated from soil and debris hauling and vendor/worker trips along area roadways, and would not be considered localized, and are, therefore, not evaluated for LST emissions. LSTs are developed based upon the size or total area of the emissions source, the ambient air quality in each Source Receptor Area (SRA) in which the emission source is located, and the distance to the sensitive receptor. The project is located in Source Receptor Area (SRA) 3. The sensitive receptor in the proposed project vicinity that has the largest potential to be affected by construction activities is the multifamily residential use located approximately 100 feet from the project site, at the northwest corner of Kansas Street and Grand Avenue. Table 6 (Localized Significance Thresholds for SRA 3) summarizes the LSTs for construction. The threshold for construction listed in this table is based on the approximately 5-acre site with a receiver located approximately 100 feet from the proposed construction site. A project with daily emission rates below the thresholds during construction is considered to have a less-than-significant effect on local air quality. 10 Table 6 Localized Significance Thresholds for SRA 3 Pollutant 100 Feet(within 50 meters) CO 1,984 lbs/day NO2 189 lbs/day PM10 46 lbs/day PM2.5 11 lbs/day SOURCE: SCAQMD (2012). The proposed project site is approximately 4.8 acres in size, and construction emissions are therefore comparable to the LSTs identified in the look-up table presented as Table 6. Total worst-case construction emissions for the proposed project with mitigation are included in Table 7 (Total Construction Emissions with Mitigation and Localized Significance Thresholds). Table 7 compares the total worst- case construction emissions to the LSTs for SRA 3. Table 7 Total Construction Emissions with Mitigation and Localized Significance Threshold Maximum On-Site Thresholds of Quantify of Pollutant Significant Pollutant Construction Emissions Significance° Exceeding Threshold Impact? CO 37.21 1,984 lbs/day 0 No NO2 57.29 189 lbs/day 0 No PMio 5.09 46 lbs/day 0 No PM2.5 4.33 11 lbs/day 0 No SOURCE: SCAQMD 12012). a. Thresholds of Significance are measured at 50 meters from the proposed project site. Table 7 shows the maximum on-site construction emissions with mitigation measure MM AQ-1 incorporated. With incorporation of MM AQ-1, LSTs would not be exceeded and the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality. b) Mitigation Measures: MM AQ-1. The project Applicant's construction contractor must implement all rules and regulations by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD that are applicable to the development of the project (such as Rule 402 [Nuisance] and Rule 403 [Fugitive Dust]) and that are in effect at the time of development. The following measures are required to implement Rule 403. These measures are identified by SCAQMD as reducing PM10 levels generated by construction activities between 30 and 85 percent depending on the source of PM10. 11 (a) Water trucks must be utilized on the site and be available to be used throughout the day during site grading and excavation to keep the soil damp enough to prevent PM10 levels being increased by construction activities. (b) Areas scheduled for grading, or actually being graded, must be wetted down in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (c) All unpaved parking or staging areas, or unpaved road surface must be watered three times daily or have chemical soil stabilizers applied according to manufacturer's specifications. (d) Exposed piles (e.g., gravel, sand, and dirt) must be enclosed, covered, watered twice daily, or approved soil binders must be applied to exposed piles according to manufacturer's specifications. (e) The construction disturbance area must be kept as small as possible. (f) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials must be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface before leaving the site to prevent PM10 and PM2.5 from reaching the surrounding areas. (g) Wheel washers must be installed where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads and used to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. (h) Streets adjacent to the project site must be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads. (i) Wind barriers must be installed along the perimeter of the site. (j) All excavating and grading operations must be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour over a 3-minute period. MM AQ-2. The project Applicant's construction contractor must use low-VOC or ultra-low VOC paints that reduce VOC emissions of all architectural coatings by a minimum of 20 percent from the CaIEEMod default, or a maximum of 200 g/I. 12 c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. 3. Cultural Resources. a) Facts/Effects. (i) Archeological Resources. The project site was previously fully developed and was already subject to extensive disruption, including the introduction of fill materials. Any archaeological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been previously disturbed. In addition, the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) records search previously conducted for the project site revealed that no archaeological resources are located on the project site (included in Appendix C [Cultural Resources Correspondence]). Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources and result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the potential for damage to, or destruction of, these resources would be a potentially significant impact. If archaeological resources are discovered during construction, the Applicant would be required to implement the following mitigation measure MM CR-1, which would ensure proper evaluation and treatment of archaeological resources, if found. Compliance with mitigation measure MM CR-1 would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. (ii) Paleontological Resources. The project site was previously fully developed and was already subject to extensive disruption, including the introduction of fill materials. Any paleontological resources which may have existed at one time have likely been previously disturbed. In addition, a records check for paleontological resources was requested from the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History for the project site previously. This records search revealed that no paleontological resources are located on the project site (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History Letters, included in Appendix C). Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources and result in a significant impact. Therefore, the potential for damage to, or destruction of, these resources would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-1, as discussed above in Section V(b), would reduce any potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. (iii) Human Remains. A Sacred Lands File records search was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission previously for the project site. The records search failed to indicate the presence 13 of Native American cultural resources in the project area (Native American Heritage Commission Letter, included in Appendix C). In addition, no formal cemeteries are known to have occupied any portion of the project site, so any human remains encountered would likely come from archaeological or historical archaeological contexts. Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in §§5097 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). Because the area is underlain by disturbed soils, the presence of human remains is remote. However, if remains are encountered, disturbing these remains could violate PRC and HSC provisions, as well as destroy the resource. Implementation of mitigation measure MM CR-2 would ensure that this potential impact is less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and protection of human remains, if any are discovered. Compliance with mitigation measure MM CR-1 would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Therefore, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. b) Mitigation Measures: MM CR-1. In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities, all earth-disturbing work within a 100-meter radius must be temporarily suspended or redirected until a qualified archeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel must be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist or paleontologist, as appropriate, must prepare a research design for recovery of the resources in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation that satisfies the requirements of Public Resources Code §21083.2. The archaeologist or paleontologist must complete a report of the excavations and findings, and must submit the report for peer review by three County-certified archaeologists or paleontologists, as appropriate. Upon approval of the report, the County must submit the report to the Los Angeles Archeological Information Center and keep the report on file at the County of Los Angeles. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. MM CR-2. If human remains are discovered during any demolition/construction activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the remains must be halted immediately, and the Los Angeles County coroner must be notified immediately, pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Health and 14 Safety Code §7050.5. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC must be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project developer must also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. (c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. 4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. a) Facts/Effects. (i) Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials Construction and operation of the proposed project would not require extensive or on-going use of materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Likewise, implementation of the proposed project would not involve substantial transport or disposal of hazardous materials. While not anticipated to be substantial, some hazardous materials common to office and light industrial uses would be used in varying amounts during construction and operation of the proposed project. An example of hazardous materials handling during construction includes fueling and servicing construction equipment on- site, and the transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents. These materials are generally disposed of at non-hazardous Class II and III landfills (along with solid waste). It should be noted that potential impacts with respect to the oil well located on the project site are addressed below. It is expected that the proposed development would not involve substantial use of hazardous materials. However, hazardous materials common to office and light industrial uses can be expected. The use, transport, and disposal of any hazardous materials during operation of the proposed project is subject to federal, state, and local health and safety regulations. The following mitigation measure would ensure that this impact is less than significant by requiring compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous materials use, transportation, and disposal through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements. Adherence to MM HAZ-1 and federal, state and local regulations would ensure that potential risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous 15 materials and disposal of hazardous wastes would remain less than significant. (ii) Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment. The project site was formerly home to International Rectifier Corporation (IRC), a worldwide supplier of power semiconductors that convert electrical energy to operate power supplies, lighting ballasts, and motor drives, but now stands vacant. A series of Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) have been conducted to evaluate the potential for hazards and hazardous materials on the project site. These ESAs are summarized in Appendix D [Peer Review Summary of Hazardous Materials Reports]) prepared for this analysis, and the conclusions and recommendations of each ESA are included therein. Most recently, a Phase I ESA dated October 21, 2011, included an observation of the project site, a review of the site history (including all previous assessments), review of available regulatory records and an environmental assessment of the project site. The Phase I ESA concluded that as of 2011 there was no evidence of recognized environmental conditions at the project site, with the exception of the following: • Chlorinated solvent petroleum hydrocarbons and metals impacts exist due to historical industrial operations • Petroleum hydrocarbon impacts due to former oil production and oil wells on site • Soils stockpile on site • A clarifier on the exterior of the facility located to the west is equipped with a lock box, but this site is not part of the Tiered Permit program In addition, the 2011 Phase I ESA recommended the following: • Request agency oversight to develop a workplan for the remediation of the project site to include chlorinated solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons and metals. • The project site may require methane mitigation systems be implemented for former oil producing areas in addition to on-site oil wells. • Profile the on-site oil/debris stockpile for all components analyzed, including asbestos. • Confirm that the site was not part of the Tiered Permit program during operation by IRC. However, since completion of the Phase I ESA, the City determined that the underground storage tanks previously identified on the project site were removed. Additionally, the on-site oil well investigated as part of the previous ESAs was officially abandoned in accordance with DOGGR guidelines. Recently, a second oil well was thought to exist on the project site. However, after extensive investigation, this second well could not be located. In the event that this well is located during 16 construction, the well will be abandoned according to DOGGR regulations. Construction Effects Construction activities for the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously- identified hazardous substances in the soil. Exposure to unanticipated hazardous substances could also occur from previously-unidentified soil contamination caused by migrating contaminants originating at nearby listed sites. Exposure to hazardous materials during construction activities could occur as a result of any of the following: • Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials • Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail to wash their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking) • Inhalation of airborne dust released from dried hazardous materials If any previously unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation, the construction activities required could pose health and safety risks capable of resulting in various short-term or long-term adverse health effects in exposed persons. In order to address the potential for encountering unknown contamination within the project area, mitigation measure MM HAZ-2 would minimize the potential risk of contamination by implementing investigation and remediation efforts at the project site to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-2 and adherence to all local, State and federal regulations would reduce potentially significant effects associated with the potential exposure of unknown hazardous materials through project construction activities to a less-than- significant level. Operational Effects It is anticipated that operation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This analysis reviews the potential possibilities of such a risk. The proposed project would include the use of common hazardous materials typical of office and laboratory facilities in addition to paints, solvents, cleaning product, and similar materials. Additionally, grounds and landscape maintenance could also include the use a variety of products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. The properties and health effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials that would be stored and used on the project site. As common maintenance 17 products and chemicals would be consumed by use and with adherence to warning labels and storage recommendations from the individual manufacturers, these hazardous materials would not pose any greater risk than at any other similar development in the immediate project area. The oil well identified on the project site was abandoned in accordance with DOGGR guidelines, and the City of El Segundo Fire Department confirmed that all underground storage tanks were removed in accordance with applicable regulations.' Recently, a second oil well was thought to exist on the project site. However, after extensive investigation, this second well could not be located. In the event that this well is located during construction, the well will be abandoned according to DOGGR regulations. Therefore, mitigation measures MM HAZ-4 and MM HAZ-5 associated with operation of the identified oil- wells adopted as part of the previous MND would no longer be required. Mitigation measure MM HAZ-3 of the previous MND was modified to reflect comments received by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). However, the modified MM HAZ-3 has the same intent as that incorporated in the previous MND and is equally, if not more, effective than the previous mitigation measure. Accordingly, it is not considered new or substantially different mitigation. The recognized environmental conditions identified in the 2011 Phase I ESA and recommendations made to reduce potential impacts related to these conditions are essentially the same as was identified and recommended in the previously adopted MND. Therefore, implementation of MM HAZ-2 would ensure that all recognized environmental conditions identified in the 2011 Phase I ESA are properly addressed prior to implementation of the proposed project. Accordingly, operation of the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact regarding potential exposure to hazardous materials during construction or operation; no new mitigation measures would be required. (iii) Emissions or Handling of Hazardous Materials Near Schools. The closest school to the project site is the El Segundo Middle School, located at 332 Center Street, located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Hazardous emissions could occur during construction of the proposed project. However, these emissions would be within the acceptable levels as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Further, emissions related to construction are not considered acutely hazardous. As required by mitigation measure MM HAZ-1, the Applicant's construction contractor would be required to adhere to all regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Operation of uses of the proposed project would include the handling and/or storage of potentially hazardous materials on the project site. However, the types of hazardous materials anticipated would be limited to commonly-used types and quantities for similar office and laboratory facilities. Further, as described above, the oil well known to exist on the ' Steve H. Tsumura, Email communication between Environmental Safety Manager, City of El Segundo Fire Department, and Carrie Garlett, Senior Project Manager, Atkins (April 16, 2012). 18 project site has been abandoned in accordance with DOGGR guidelines and therefore, would not be a safety risk to El Segundo Middle School. Recently, a second oil well was thought to exist on the project site. However, after extensive investigation, this second well could not be located. In the event that this well is located during construction, the well will be abandoned according to DOGGR regulations. Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations would regulate, control, or respond to hazardous waste, transport, disposal, or clean-up in order to ensure that hazardous materials do not pose a significant risk to the school. If ground contamination is found at the project site before or during construction of future development, implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-2 would ensure the health and safety of all students, staff, and visitors to El Segundo Middle School. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials within the vicinity of a school. b) Mitigation Measures: MM HAZ-1. The Applicant and construction contractor must comply with existing hazardous materials regulations, which are codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations, and their enabling legislation set forth in Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, the Applicant and construction contractor must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous waste, including, but not limited to, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations and as implemented by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. MM HAZ-2. In the event that soil or groundwater contamination is encountered that could present a threat to human health or the environment during construction in the project area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must immediately cease. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and implemented after completion of additional soil investigation to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and the Planning and Building Safety Department. The Risk Management Plan must (1) identify the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2) describe measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, without limitation, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be notified (e.g., El Segundo Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements must be prepared 19 and in place before commencement of work in any contaminated area. MM HAZ-3. A site plan that identifies the proposed project and the distance between the proposed buildings and any on-site oil wells must be submitted to the City of El Segundo for approval. The buildings of the proposed development must be built "not in proximity to a well" as defined by DOGGR which includes development with: 1) two adjacent sides that are free and clear of structures or property lines for no less than 10 feet, 2) a third side that is free and clear of structures or property lines for no less than 50 feet, and 3) a fourth side to remain open (no defined distance from structures or property lines). (c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. 5. Noise a) Facts/Effects. (i) Construction-Related Temporary Noise. The project site is currently vacant and located within a fully developed, urban area. The primary source of noise within the project vicinity is vehicular traffic. Noise in the City also occurs from various stationary sources, such as mechanical equipment associated with building structures, the operation of various types of businesses, and noise sources produced at residential locations. The analysis presented below is based on the Noise Technical Memorandum prepared for the proposed project (Appendix E of the Initial Study). Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at four locations around the project site, which are depicted in Figure 9 (Noise Monitoring Locations), in order to identify representative noise levels at various areas. The noise levels were measured using a Larson-Davis Model 814 precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The noise measurements were taken on April 18, 2012, starting at 2:12 PM and ending at 3:10 PM; each lasting for 15 minutes. The average noise level and source measured at each location is identified in Table 10 (Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected Locations). The existing noise levels ranged from a low of 61.1 dBA Leq to a high of 67.8 dBA Leq. These daytime noise levels are characteristic of a noisy, urban area. Implementation of the proposed project could result in increased ambient noise levels during construction and operation. 20 ! '*,__ v .113,3 A� r i. - —- - 4 }i s, 1 _l 1 1 1. 3 ..7 a; z. ' -- ... AVE i GRAND { ' —Z- — „—,. I I . .�+�c I 1 I. ' . ■ r i , ® o J m W y a 1. h ■J •�- �'r�EELL,SEGUNDO BLVD - V7 t: n Tiv—i ,s�:�._�r,nK+ae.a�iiaoaRwmims`ai�l`•_-._E • i�-�__;� . . — s��y , Figure 9 Noise Monitoring Locations ATKI NS Table 10 Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected Locations Sound Start Duration Level Min Max Position Time (minutes) (dBA L1) dBA dBA Sources Location 1:301 Kansas Street(Residential) 2:12 PM 15 65.1 52.3 78.5 Traffic on Grand Avenue Location 2:233 Kansas Street(Commercial) 2:30 PM 15 61.1 49.4 79.1 Traffic on Kansas Street Location 3: 145 Kansas Street(Commercial) 2:48 PM 15 59.5 50.0 74.5 Traffic on Kansas Street Location 4: North side of Grand Avenue—between Kansas Traffic on Grand Street and Washington Street(Commercial) 3:09 PM 15 67.8 51.9 79.5 Avenue SOURCE: Atkins(April 18,2012). , Construction Noise Project-related construction activities would include site excavation, grading and relocation of utility infrastructure; construction of the new office and laboratory uses; paving of surface parking lots; and 21 architectural coating. The USEPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table 11 (Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment) and Table 12 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels). These noise levels would diminish with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. The nearest sensitive receptors are multifamily residential uses, located at the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Kansas Street, approximately 100 feet from the proposed project site. Based on the information presented in Table 12, construction activity noise levels at the residential uses to the northwest would range from approximately 71 to 80 dBA during construction of the proposed project. Most construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single- event disturbances from grading and external building construction are possible. Construction-related noise is exempt pursuant to El Segundo Municipal Code § 7-2-10(D) as long as construction-related activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday, provided the noise level does not exceed 65 dBA and the limits established in Subsection 7-2-4(C) of the El Segundo Municipal Code. Subsection 7-2-4(C) would allow for a 20 dBA increase above 65 dBA (to 85 dBA) to occur for no more than one minute and a 15 dBA increase (to 80 dBA) to occur for a maximum of one minute. As noted above, construction noise levels are anticipated to reach up to 80 dBA at the nearest residential receptor and would exceed these standards. However, the MND prepared for the previously approved project identified mitigation measures to reduce construction related noise levels. 22 Table 11 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Noise Levels in dBA Leg at 50 feefa Front Loader 73-86 Trucks 82-95 Cranes(moveable) 75-88 Cranes(derrick) 86-89 Vibrator 68-82 Saws 72-82 Pneumatic Impact Equipment 83-88 Jackhammers 81-98 Pumps 68-72 Generators 71-83 Compressors 75-87 Concrete Mixers 75-88 Concrete Pumps 81-85 Back Hoe 73-95 Tractor 77-98 Scraper/Grader 80-93 Paver 85-88 SOURCE: USEPA(1971). a. Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table. Table 12 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels Noise Level at 50 Feet Noise Level at 100 Feet Construction Phase with Mufflers(dBA Leg) with Mufflers(dBA Le,;) Ground Clearing 82 74 Excavation/Grading 86 80 Foundations 77 71 Structural 83 77 External Finishing 86 80 SOURCE: USEPA (1971). The noise levels at the off-site sensitive uses were determined with the following equation from the HMMH Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,Final Report:Leq=Leq at 50 ff.-20 Log(D/50),where Leq=noise level of noise source,D=distance from the noise source to the receiver,Leq at 50 rt=noise level of source at 50 feet. Mitigation measure MM NOI-1 would be required of the currently proposed project. Implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1 would reduce noise-related construction impacts to a less-than- significant level by requiring BMPs and restricting the time during which excessive noise-producing construction activities may occur. 23 As a general rule, a sound wall is able to reduce noise by 5 to 10 dBA. Accordingly, noise levels would be reduced to levels that would be below the City of El Segundo's 80 dBA limit. With implementation of the mitigation measures, construction of the proposed project would not expose noise sensitive receptors to noise levels in excess of the established standards, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed project vicinity by complying with the mitigation incorporated. Construction Phase As discussed above, noise generated during construction of the proposed project could create temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. However, construction work hours are restricted by provisions in the El Segundo Municipal Code, and implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. (ii) Groundborne Vibration and Noise (Construction). Certain construction activities that would occur under the proposed project would have the potential to generate groundborne vibration. Table 13 (Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment) identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate at the project site during construction. Equipment utilized during project construction would include dump trucks, front loaders, excavators, which are similar to small bulldozers, and concrete mixers, material delivery and soil export trucks, which are similar to loaded trucks and a crane for building construction. Table 13 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Appmdmate VdB EgWpment 50 Feet 75 Feeh Large Bulldozer 81 75 Caisson Drilling 81 75 Loaded Trucks 80 74 Jackhammer 73 67 Small Bulldozer 52 46 SOURCE: U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration,Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment(May 2006). a. The vibration levels at the off-site sensitive uses are determined with the following equation from the HMMH Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,Final Report:Lv(D)=Lv(25 ft)—20log(D/25), where Lv=vibration level of equipment,D=distance from the equipment to the receiver,Lv(25 ft)_ vibration level of equipment at 25 feet. Based on the information presented in Table 13, vibration levels could reach a maximum of approximately 81 VdB at 50 feet from the source 24 and 75 VdB at 75 feet. The nearest vibration sensitive receptors (residential) are located at approximately 100 feet from the project site and vibration levels would be below 75VdB. Accordingly, sensitive receptors would not experience vibration levels during construction of the proposed project that would exceed the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance. Further, mitigation measure MM NOI-1 would ensure that construction-related vibration impacts do not occur during recognized sleep hours and that vibration-inducing construction equipment is staged as far from vibration sensitive receptors as feasible. Operation of the proposed project would not include any substantial sources of groundborne vibration. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors on- or off-site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures would be required. b) Mitigation Measures: MM NOI-1. The project Applicant's construction contractor must require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: (a) The project's construction contractor must provide advance notification to adjacent property owners and post notices around the boundaries of the Proposed Project site with information detailing the schedule of construction activities. (b) All construction equipment with a high noise- generating potential, including all equipment powered by internal combustion engines, must be muffled or controlled. (c) All noise-generating construction equipment and construction staging areas must be placed away from noise-sensitive uses, where feasible. (d) High noise-producing activities must be scheduled between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM to minimize disruption to sensitive uses and delivery of materials and equipment must occur between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. (e) Noise attenuation measures must be implemented to the extent feasible, which may include, without limitation, noise barriers or noise blankets. (f) Machinery, including motors, must be turned off when not in use. 25 c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. 6. Public Services (a) Facts/Effects (i) New or Physically Altered Fire Protection Facilities. The proposed project would receive fire services from the El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD). First response service to the proposed project site would be provided by Fire Station #1 located at 314 Main Street, approximately one mile east of the project site. The second response team would be Fire Station #2 located at 2261 East Mariposa Avenue, approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the proposed project site. On average, there are 14 to 18 firefighters on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week.2 ESFD has 53 sworn personnel and 7 nonsworn personnel.3 The current person-to-population ratio of sworn positions in the ESFD per every 1,000 residents is 3.18. The average response time for ESFD is four to five minutes.4 The ESFD is organized into six divisions: Administration, Suppression, Paramedic, Prevention, Environmental Safety, and Emergency Management. ESFD is a participating agency of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) CUPA program. LACoFD handles hazardous materials response for the City of El Segundo. The proposed project would increase the City's building inventory by approximately 74,858 sf, would generate new activity on the project site, and increase traffic, the combination of which could result in increased emergency response demands for both fire protection and paramedic services, and fire prevention inspections. The project would be in compliance with all applicable State and Local Building and Fire Codes. Compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential impacts to the City's fire department. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. Impacts are not significant enough to necessitate additional fire personnel or facilities. Implementation of mitigation measures MM PS-1 through MM PS-6 would ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to fire services. The project would install a fire sprinkler protection system throughout the building and would be in compliance with all applicable State and Local Building and Fire Codes. Through 2 City of El Segundo website, El Segundo Fire Department Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.elsegundo.org/depts/fire/faq.asp (accessed May 7, 2012). 3 City of El Segundo website, El Segundo Fire Department Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.elsegundo.org/depts/fire/faq.asp (accessed May 7, 2012). 4 Lisa LeCates, email correspondence (Re: Staffing and response time information request) from El Segundo Fire Department to Jennifer Lee, Environmental Specialist, Atkins (May 2, 2011). 26 implementation of the ESFD required mitigation measures and payment of the Fire Services Mitigation Fee, as required by the City, impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. The on-site oil well that was investigated as part of previous ESAs prepared for the project site has been officially abandoned in accordance with DOGGR guidelines and conditions at the site would not increase the need for fire protection services. In addition, a second oil well was thought to exist on the project site. However, after extensive investigation, this second well could not be located. In the event that this well is located during construction, the well will be abandoned according to DOGGR regulations and would not increase the need for fire protection services at the site. (ii) New or Physically Altered Police Protection Facilities. The proposed project would receive police protection services from the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD), which serves the entire City. The ESPD operates out of one station, located approximately one mile west of the project site at 348 Main Street. The project site is located at the intersection of Kansas Street and Grand Avenue, which is included as part of the City's established patrol route. Patrol officers travel along these streets regularly. ESPD is staffed with 65 sworn personnel and 32 nonsworn personnels currently protecting 16,664 residents and a daytime population of approximately 70,000 in the City. The person-to- population ratio of sworn positions in the ESPD per every 1,000 residents is 3.9 (or 1 sworn officer per 256 residents) and the ratio of sworn positions for the daytime population is 1.077 (1 sworn officer per 1,077 individuals). The ESPD dispatches all calls from the 348 Main Street station regardless of the crime location within the City. Therefore, it is assumed that response times to the project site and the vicinity would be consistent with the City's average response time (daytime and nighttime) of 3 minutes and 30 seconds.6 The proposed project would not add new residents to the site. However, the proposed project would result in the addition of approximately 147 employees during the day. The addition of 147 employees to the daytime population would result in a change to the person-to-population ratio for the daytime population would be 1.079 (1 sworn officer per 1,079 individuals). This would not result in an increase in response time and would therefore not impact public safety. Additionally, the proposed project would generate fewer employees than were estimated for the previously approved project. The previously approved project was estimated to result in 200-225 employees at the project site daily; accordingly, the proposed project would result in a conservative reduction of approximately 53 employees at the project site daily. A less than significant impact was identified with respect to police protection in the previously approved MND. As s Brian Evanski, Captain, email correspondence (Re: Staffing and Response time information request) from El Segundo Police Department to Jennifer Lee, Environmental Specialist, Atkins (May 3, 2011). 6 Brian Evanski, Captain, email correspondence (Re: Staffing and Response time information request) from El Segundo Police Department to Jennifer Lee, Environmental Specialist, Atkins (May 3, 2011). 27 described above, conditions have not changed substantially since preparation of the previously approved MND, and therefore, impacts to police protection services would not occur beyond the less-than- significant impact previously identified. Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger the need for expansion of new existing facilities or the need for additional ESPD staff. Nonetheless, the following mitigation measures would help reduced impacts to less than significant. (iii) New or Physically Altered School Facilities. The project site is served by the El Segundo Unified School District (ESUSD). ESUSD currently has two elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation school. The current total enrollment for ESUSD is 3,242 students with a pupil to teacher ratio of 23.1.' The proposed project would not create a need for new or expanded public school facilities. Since the project includes office and laboratory uses and would not substantially induce new residents into the City (which includes children who would attend schools administered by the ESUSD), the project would not place an additional burden on the school district. The proposed project would be required to pay the School District Development Impact Fee to the El Segundo Unified School District. This fee is required by State Law. Mitigation measure MM PS-9 has been incorporated into the Addendum to further reduce all potential impacts to schools. Impacts to existing schools in the area are anticipated to be less than significant. (iv) New or Physically Altered Park Facilities. Currently the City of El Segundo has a total of 74.26 acres of park space, which equates to approximately 4.46 acres of parks per 1,000 residents.8 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new office and laboratory uses on a currently vacant site. No residential units would be developed as part of the project, and thus, the project would not induce substantial population growth in the City. New employees at the proposed project site may utilize local parks and recreational facilities, including the nearby public golf course (The Lakes at El Segundo). In addition, the proposed project could indirectly induce new residents in the City. Nonetheless, it is not expected that this potential would significantly exacerbate the existing parks to resident ratio. Finally, with the incorporation of mitigation measure MM PS-10, the proposed project would be required to pay the Parks Facility Fee which would reduce all potential impacts to recreation to a less-than-significant level. (b) Mitigation Measures: MM PS-1. The Applicant must pay the City of El Segundo Fire Service Mitigation Fee at the rates established by City Council Resolution No. 4687, before the City issues a building permit. Education Data Partnership, District Profile: El Segundo Unified School District (May 24, 2011). 8 City of El Segundo, El Segundo Public Facilities Impact Fee Study(August 30, 2010), p. 30. 28 MM PS-2. A fire life safety plan, which must include complete plans and specifications, must be submitted to the El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD) for review and approval before commencement of construction of any portion of the proposed development. MM PS-3. The Applicant must provide fire access roadways to and throughout the property and submit a layout plan to the ESFD for approval before the City issues a building permit. MM PS-4. The Applicant must provide water flow and on-site fire hydrants as required by the ESFD. MM PS-5. The Applicant must submit separate plans for ESFD approval. The following installations require separate ESFD approval: (a) Automatic fire sprinklers. (b) Fire alarm system. (c) Underground fire service mains. (d) Fire pumps. (e) Emergency generators. (f) Any aboveground or underground storage tanks including elevator sumps and condensation tanks. MM PS-6. When the City issues building permits, if the second oil well (location currently unidentified on the project site) is not permanently capped, the project Applicant must comply with the mitigation measures identified in the letter "Request for Alternative Method, California Fire Code Section 3406.3.1.3.2 Segundo Business Park 222 Kansas Street and 1545 East Franklin Avenue" (dated September 16, 2008). MM PS-7. The Applicant must pay the City of El Segundo Police Service Mitigation Fee at the rates established by City Council Resolution No. 4687 before the City issues a building permit. MM PS-8. The Applicant must submit a strategic security plan, which must include definitive plans and specifications, to the El Segundo Police Department (ESPD) for review and approval before commencement of construction of any portion of the proposed project. The strategic security plan must include, without limitation, the following items: (a) Depending upon the size of the structure and its location in relation to the streets, the size of the displayed address may vary from a minimum of 4" to as much as 24". 29 (b) Building entrances and exits must be limited in number and located in a manner to increase security and visibility of the building. (c) All landscaping must be low profile especially around perimeter fencing, windows, doors and entryways taking special care not to limit visibility and provide climbing access. (d) Adequate street, walkway, building and parking lot lighting must be provided to enhance security. (e) Provisions for on-site security personnel. MM PS-9. The Applicant must pay the City of El Segundo School District Development Impact Fee at the rates established by the El Segundo Unified School District before the City issues a building permit. MM PS-10. The Applicant must pay the City of El Segundo Parks Facility Fee at the rates established by City Council Resolution No. 4687 before the City issues a building permit. (c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. 7. Recreation a) Facts/Effects. (i) Increase Use of Parks. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational. Physical impacts to recreation facilities are generally associated with population growth. The proposed project would result in the construction of office and laboratory uses that would not result in a direct population increase. As no housing would be developed under the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would not generate substantial population growth that would increase the use of recreational facilities. Further, a recent Impact Fee Study prepared by the City established a Parks Facility Fee. Accordingly, with the incorporation of mitigation measure MM PS-10, the proposed project would be required to pay the Parks Facility Fee which would reduce all potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to recreational facilities. (ii) Construction or Expansion of Recreational Facilities. The proposed project does not include the construction of recreational facilities. Phase 1 would include a small landscaped area along Kansas Street, adjacent to the USDA building and Phase 2 would include 30 employee patios along Kansas Street and Grand Avenue, adjacent to the two proposed buildings. However, these facilities do not constitute recreational facilities. As explained above, the increase in population at the project site, or the indirect population increase within the City, would not exacerbate existing park standard ratios. Further, with the incorporation of mitigation measure MM PS-10, the proposed project would be required to pay the Parks Facility Fee which would reduce all potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the proposed project would not require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. b) Mitigation Measures: MM PS-1. The Applicant must pay the City of El Segundo Parks Facility Fee at the rates established by City Council Resolution No. 4687 before the City issues a building permit. c) Finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project and the project has been conditioned to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental effect as identified in the MND. D. Insignificant Cumulative Impacts. The City Council finds that the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence which identifies significant adverse cumulative environmental effects associated with the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project with respect to the areas listed below: 1. Aesthetics. 2. Agricultural Resources. 3. Air Quality. 4. Biological Resources. 5. Cultural Resources. 6. Geology and Soils. 7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 8. Hydrology and Water Quality. 9. Land Use and Planning. 10. Mineral Resources. 11. Noise. 12. Population and Housing. 13. Public Services. 14. Recreation. 31 15. Transportation/Traffic. 16. Utilities and Service Systems. VI. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The City Council finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made in these Findings is contained in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which are incorporated herein by this reference, and in the record of proceedings in the matter. To the extent applicable, each of the other findings made by the City Council in connection with its approval of the entitlement applications listed in Section I above are also incorporated by this reference. P:\Planning&Building Safety\O Planning-Old\PROJECTS(Planning)\951-975\EA-959\City Council 09042012\Reso and Attachments 09042012\EA-959 CC Reso Exhibit A-CEQA findings.doc 32 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4779 Exhibit B CITY OF EL SEGUNDO SEGUNDO BUSINESS PARK Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum Environmental Assessment EA-959 General Plan Amendment GPA 12-01 Specific Plan Amendment SPA 12-01 Zone Change ZC 12-01 Zone Text Amendment ZTA 12-01 Subdivision SUB 12-02 Site Plan Review SPR 12-01 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Prepared for City of El Segundo Planning and Building and Safety Department 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 Prepared by Atkins 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 July 2012 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program INTRODUCTION The Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of: aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, hazards/hazardous materials, noise, and public services. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting MNDs ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approval. The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, such as design, construction, or operation (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6). The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) shall be used by the City El Segundo staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project. Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation, or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by environmental resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. The Project Applicant and the Applicant's contractor shall be responsible for implementation of all mitigation measures,unless otherwise noted in the table. City of El Segundo 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Project MMRP 1 0 cz 0 a) y O 0 E c N et 0_ 0 0 Q) . a 6 a) N U) CM 0 C C 0 SZ N N C) 0 0 0) 0 C v) N ID .0 DI C C C C .1 2 ac I ° m E ° m E ° m E = m E ° m E it ex . a) cu N ° cu CO a) C13 m aa) o aa) Q) (1n �U w 00 w �0 w �0 w Cl en w Cl� N • p O o cam' o .EZ' o •C .�' o c .- o c w CU U o L) a t!) 0 a co 0 a U) 0 a 0 CU v) 0 CL CO U U t °, m C v) o C �a) N co C C 71 O O O cm O t � -0 _o -0 f° _o c �a e p Y O O d • (1) cc Z cu U L V 0 L ° _ c L '� C O E C E C C O E C C H co co < (d V=) Zr) O O C W a .u, a a .N a Cl = a .P a Cl 0 N a1 H 0 o R' y vi W o a) a) c v _ — C °-c .°c m a a CO c0 'O a) •� °- = ° 0 °C a == 0 c a) c c> O Of -, as a - °' o a °_ o o a) '5 o �� �e Of O.0 c CO o ° c ' 0 � a � Oc a c ao) - ° c c c 5 C a) C .• a) O va) 0 C a)= O > co . a c o C 6 ,i 0 Q. E _ o ) um- c -0 c c c ) •a) c cn a) a cn • i o o cn o — a) O N a d (° .c L d (a •C 0 OCt CO -0 L a) E a) a, a a) -, 7 co 7 L a) N L ° 0 C N E O> C N a7 ° �y X O Q) M n • L Cr ,TD L La--' w a) • + O '2 E c ca N Q E " a) d a) - CU a° —a) ' � � L h 'o ° a ° )E CO i Z - Cl.) ° c w ca u o ca .0 a) a a a) a m a CO V) 2 p E X ) c ` a a) N ° a>,c a co c - . (o ) a) is w a c 73 6-o) - 0 C a) O co °C c N V . n▪ 7 a)N O) N▪ ` O o 7 O > ° c E O) Cl.) .-• O O > a —CO a = 0 C - ( a E > ° = ca ) ° i r °) ' 0 ° .- a) E n 7 c ° a) - _ io C rn .▪ n o -0 co m5 o m 4 Y m o o a a) — a) i 0 Q 0 a a) 2 -c c . 2 cn E a o a0 U E C ° C L > v ` a) L E c U >•o -° ° a) (1)i - a) v > 0 o ` 0 ° -0 a) o M , •h xa in ` Y > 0 0 L a c.)i L a) ° 0 ,_ 0 V) 0 _0 a) > c N y O o a E a) = a) c as > c -g o c ° ° -0 o a) ? a ° ai LL) c E ) a) co n s °ce (n O E E ` m L ° a o � c° o N co - a ' ° m a co Z E i_ 0 ° a , O c 0_o a) ° c c o 0>".� a i (° N ~ N U as CO O O ▪ N N L '" L (` a) N O a d a) -0 •o d) > E E o — `j L a) c co) m y c E E a) a) a: °) a E (cno a E • fl e a) •,a) • co O o) a g ca co o E E Ms a) a o a) a) ` co > .� ca ° 22 c° O (a — °c E a `p CCU E '-co aa9 i °)o a a) > •� N a) = a) a) ca in -° .S Q 0 E -o ¢ ° . co o w CS _o aa)) W 'in = H .E C7 (a � Cl ° rn o`oo • • • cO C - N C Z N v.) a a C a a a) U 2 2 2 _ > > \ 0 o 0 - E 2 \ a t 2 G 2 U, %\ \ A §� � £ i7 i � f \ � ` \ m E = G E = 2 E _ 2 CL) $ 7 � 17k / _ d t$ m E3 m_ 2e m 23 - e2 \ [ ® E � [ � \ () t o ..._>,..ƒ 3 o » $ \ U > c : o { \ § \ :as 0 \ / 2 I $ ■ 2C 0 § a 3 ® f ± a) � ■ _ 0 \ § / m = g § k C ƒ $ k k � ƒ # k n C 0) . � k = k / I 2 § C C) = \ f C o8 Q9 ® �\ U m ° o �a a) � § \ � . m � � � 2= =2 / \ \k C k -0 / 2 2 ko — \ mf — - _ Eg 0 IX � � ) 2 " 2 2 CD \ // $k \ \ o \ — — « e = � a) ° C > m S 2 6 6 m a o \ a � = 7 / - ' etc k £ \ = G $ E _ § 2 � £ ° 2 f ® / � � g = yf £ 7722 .2 \ O. / = Ip § q = b / \ \ \ \ / \ � � � / o \ 0 = W � � \ / E 7 e _ 2 o o f 2 \ k m - a) •- § 77 2 as o_ � ] 2 � = � I� ■ _ 22 � o � = e .v sa 0 0 ° 0C' - oo at 2 � — 2 C ( tC(3 � ° a) > CU = 2o3c = R ° § f E . ® m � kj ® � � - - -0 \ \ \ � © > 2 •a5 _ — _ ° / § $ /J ° � � k \ �I § � � aSa � § m § e \ \ % 2 / � ® E / \ � / C \ 7 \ $ \ 2 8 = 4 m — e § 7 / 2 e c o 0 § � e � g q2 .2= » a " � � / / 2 \ § Gg ® ° ° Mkt ce . � $ _ � C6 ta — # = 2bmEm = - o � � % @ _ § G _ ■ E �\\ a/ / � f2 £ o2a2sv / 72 ( � ® .2\ / a\ \ R / \ c } � g maa — = a - �� i � � 0 2 \ � = ate — ass a) — § = o \ � f ._ = a _ ._ _ $ % 00 ` % 2 = U5 ` \ \ EeGq 22 ` 22 $ / 7 \ kEk � E § \ ( � � ƒ E7 § Ea ■ a) o_ » E2cn I0- ® @ § m = a, = e = ■ E 3 = * » m e G a E E£ e $ § E g $ # c \ k ) k 2 Q o •E E ° o q \ • • • • • • 7 § / / = > E \ _ k \ f �� a g C' k � 0 ti CL Ce \ f ./ ot E c 2 ƒ g / E v) % ƒ G 2 U) %\ 41/ 2 \ ) a i32 D2 0 k0� 7 -0f .2 = 0 J I: ■ 0 7= « co 0) � d � E° \ \ 0 \ » ' » mm � E 22 � ma / § Ea 0 0k . E2 00_ « 3 x £ $ 0 U 7 ■■ » tin 7 a §a $ § § 2 ■ o o § \ .- 2 ct § % 0 Nr CD C o / / G % (A C 0 \ _ � f = / �� � § § / E$ // 2, U) m \ ®=- C cr)o o o k cu% ƒ2 \ CO ■ m7 $ � £ f S e o o e \ _0) 2m / S ± § 2 = m E CL 4- § k - § G ] Za7 % ® f � ® + @ / $ 2 « « > � § � k � � � ,a= E 0 �® EEk \ g22 \ 2 \ o_ a, s - c0 \ 4g\ 2 \ , E $ 72 ' E � = \ � § ca \E ° e/ t � 2 = $ � o tE7 ® I / k � � m@Rc « 2 �727 % cc b e a E 2 a 2 2 a) 3 Ec' ° � k k ° 2 :$ § / f 2 . § E @ g e § E2 222 � � &/ \ \ :\ , - E _I E 0 oo@ � � r « = 7 $ \ % \ o 0eo $ g0 » � / � � \ � � � \ \ k \ k / 2k / /® �2 \ 7k a mo o % = § � m � - o -g I § � • � 2 r 3 / 2 S = 2 — e § « = G m _ C f o ■ tcr Ea_< m © © en % o to04- 0- a _ E m G § ° ° & — ° E c E &•g s E t E C m « c e $ — CD § ° Ce § � = 'e � ' r0 ): � # ® 3222 E \ 7 \ � \ % \ % k7E § � � t * f _ " __. 00 ` 22u « f £ 2 = a ° g - ƒ t . - 2C ) - : % $ = $ ` = 2 ° f # § # O as meG — e § a' o £ a) a) o � otpppE7u \ E @ &% ao § o CO E23 » as • cooco o < ecc % �z \ Ze c U 0_ sY U 4) O a O - E c U 0 cc a U U 4) a V) IN co 0 C 0 lz a N 0 0) m e o) C) N Uy _ ° o I =- I c•�•C -°o a c a0 0 c U) 0 O c 0 0 O iD C C 0 c 0 c c a ••� D y- O X00 E � m E a) E X0=0 E cm E c i5. Q c C) •t rn a .` E to) -C 0) -C D �p ope as aai cA ° aai U 0 Cn cca °- N U b w E 0 w cop < a w �p w 0)C - Y i ° c ai �> c m- '° o c w CO is .. ca ca is a`) m Z'' 0 u mg 5 V) 0 aU) Z2 Uaco Udcr) t U I U c In m y cv � �C of d 0 .p -J o O a ii C c0 Y ~ O. ` _co O)cr,Q) z c 0 a) (D co O a a) O C ce _a U C C Cl) 0 — O) ) C ca O C = o E a C E E C U) 0 = 0 0 0 O U) 0 Zr) O .� 0 D CO a O) CL .c? o_ o_ LO _ O O QQ a) a C . ) L N C > co 0) O C C O C N C 0. C CO c Gi a m N p a s a y 0 c o a C O cu Ct CO U > o a a o a o � a) c o O of aL a) _ a c 2 .6 3 c a) a a ' m 0 'E o Tu h C °' Ui ° c g ¢ a c ca ddd °' c c c� °' c° c • C C m n) ca 'cn z .o a = m ca ° , a a m ca C f C— c c _ a) v) C 3 c) @ °) C a: Cl) a p c o .o a) co c 0 a c o) O O a cu co c8 •°- c co c c°n ca •- > to_c co rn c .o c i= Z a C is w .o CO a) U 0 O O O C C f6 N CD CZ 0 0) C o) a a°i c aa) -°o c .j 0 C 0_ 0_ fa C O C - 0 C@ 0 a) ° 0 C D 0 a U 0 CO Cl) Q C as J 0 O O_ ` a .0 0 O f� fa > o a a a) ° c a) >, ° 0 > y ° a . a) m > a a a) C c a) a) >- C C (6 C •--� 2 •� 0 0 O = .-- 1.,- _ ¢ Y_ O L6 ... w 0_ (a ca C 0 L--' O E - C E O _-zt E a (a C a a °) o) c U = --' - ca z a ca 0- cn ° J U 0_J 2 is N a o o v ° 0 o a) ° c L 0 -O CU o . _ o rn �' o 0 c in ¢ o E N m rn • ca = o o E 0 Q -0 - E a) a 2 ° c 0 0 0 L a g o ° >.. o c c°`a °O vi co c o a) c v -c E E Q is E co a a) E '° _c -C I- .c3 0 co ca cn CD c a) E 0 - c _ O ` to • O C a a) ac T c m Q 0 c a) '� 0 E c o O -Ti c ° Q a 0 ° 0 E d ca U) a) .E c . vi a) E D _a o c) O 1- .O a) o h a A c c N C 0 N cn CO 00 C .> N O .0 Q > T o - L 0 O a C C O -0 1 co 0 E O ft ° .q o f 0 E z ° ") a c .S s SU co o N .E CU cm U o 3 c o)-°: E e v°i .> • _c Ern c 0 ° CO N o 0 a 3 co o o x v aai U o aS 0 a' 0 c vi c Ku' •C > c _ o 01 p a E o 0 0 a) .> 0 O a) ` `= s ° _ ° w 0 C o= .° •ia ° U ° c coo) o rn 0 is `` c co a) in ao ° a? c 3 E '°- o ca c mc ca a) N ° o z ° c a o _= ° 1° cn 0'E -o ° o n 5 s aa, o .E Q .`� o ? o ,ri c a) a = 0 ° :° c y ° cn E U u°)i a E 2 a1 0 E v) o o E m a c •4 .3 o c 0 o O 2 �_ o •-• c c ( .� c N ° c C w E to 2' o ° p Z o ce c� a3 b . 0 a) c) 0 3 O c U) 0 C m a) UU)) U fa U E °- �.. CO .� ai N a) c° ..- v) •> U -O i E cnn a) -0 ` a E 0 0 w- _c as `) O (a ° a (a c C 0 a) c ••— E o c0) •o o E o - E c -0 3 = cn ca a 0 F o -a a 0 c°) t 11 01 c c �'� E a°i o O E c Q a o v coca = E 3 U 2 m - cn o o c U c a c ca O C a fy V U a _m d c a as o a O 0_ C a) CO .Q C O fa > c o i�. _ o ° Z ° o as . a o -0 rn•- c o ° ca E a)O o is c .� �' 0 a) 0 ° o •C aci v°i aci ° Q a o • 00t130) -0 .= 0 0 c°) -0 v Z L E 7 L O „ a) - •- In „,-S a > L Q 0 y c0i .—CD u) _c a) E _ ° c�a '— Q L_ O °0_.—°) 0)_ C C 0 c C '5 _o c°) a V) .o z E o m -o c`a aX) UU)) Ci c a Ci 0 I- c°.) E co a s a)) 0 < 3 � -o = CC 0 E .0 2 C a'S co CO C C N � C Z O ti t.) 0 0 ce ■' `' 0 g � N V M.. • L } d c G) o at ': ' 0 U ,�, N N If:i O to C 5 :i<. N cn I O A) O c O C c. C '� a, _ _ i8.i cr -0 E 0 m 4 r 7 m E M a) m a) o s.° m cm as 0 E d c a c!1 a J fn cc° a N O O) 0) r. W e LJJ c p `:'. LlJ c N 0 O c O 'c :Sy O c ' ,� c a)' c° C a) 0 3 a) cv U • Uan vacs i.5 5.7 cn >,t f U c rf e v I g x 0,c m a L .I c O m (3 _0 a)Q i p C7) A CO 0.c 0 E .21 7 0 o a) D)� 1.% ., .O+ o 1� N N e 0 0 •y ,0 C C O ' N ' j O O c y y c O a r=• C N cp C C.pp N f° a 6 c O Q ti= .. "I O C C I .G `,O N A y, — a O E Z I c •tie O .N c0) N.=-. N q!d C 0) O a) c c° '� 0 C c c° a) a) •0 O c 7 0 5 .c - 2 2 cc a '.,.. . U o 1 Y — a) a) 0 O N N L Cl) .L-.. N '� a) C L U) y a7 y c o Ca CO y IL d .0 L _c o O O 0 c° W CO L O CO co +...' L •c ,� N a a) g� J N �L CO 0 cA c O -o N C , .Q p o) U = "- 107= in = aa) V w U p c 3 rn = v_� co c ° f,..: , '3 a. cpca) 0) 0000. - m � ° 0c0c y EE °) ca) a! C � ` •� a l, a o � � E. c° c a) o 0 a) v :� •ca, ca cv2 c° 4- c o .0 -0 c) c c `a• =±. rn 0 0 o `o ,`::.,fi1 om S. E O_-o .,_ - a) a) N O ' w . O O O C 0 C7 N ` a) q•.`:: m cn E Q a) 7 o c.)) O E "0 ` 0 v' c m c c� �° i6 a) E -0 L 'c L O 0- , 0 y u`` a 'g c a n3 po ° c 3 c c 0 L a) 0 C 'co c " .o a ° O ° c o d 0 0 m 3 rn ° .0 z, E o 0 o E E 0 a) 0 `o w _ :;, ° m 9 0 c E ° c E c 0 c� o ° a) a> >' ° w a) c _0 ° eE o 0 0 _ �n is E a w -0 ),.: c" et aci c m cv ca ° m E °: m a a�i C c a o _o a z 0 2 l c a C 0 in C c ca •' a c 0 E a) 0 — O a) u) ~ 0 C `- U O 0 L in 2 .� C U .cn 53 a c c , 0 ° ) _ a o a) o d E Eo o e -� N c 0 _ aai E 0 _0 . N ° o E c 3 E E ems, c E E v) 0 c c o a-o o cn c E C E .o rn - m_ 0 ° 3 - o ° 0 ``0 rn 49 O c 0 0 a) d CO C 0 1' C .O ., ••— c f° to E .. c) f° •E C Cl_ a) N 0 ; Cl) CO N a) C 0. N C C .� N Q' L C in Y a, .c E O 0 ° c a) ,cn ca c C 0 E a E _ N 2 ,_ crj 0 c w 0 CD pp c° t c CO f° O a7 O 'V co c a• a) m to n3 a- O O O c 0 E ce G) E a a) a« y j c) m e c m c E c m a) 0 0 E c v CO 0 0 c Cv o -0L m -0 a) 0 0 2 0 0 o c° a) o 0 3 0 c 2 c 0 Q Ti) co a) cca ~ Y c -0 x c=°) c a.� co c a Q a co) L 0 ° ° w 0 cO Q.-a' 0 O V N d O C C C L p O ° ' U O) LL a3 T c U �p O N N p N U c•C w E 0 ° E E -E 0 2 n d o) .0' c m o a? m '6 cc° v y `m r. • m rn E :�' aci :� c 0 0 0 c or)o cn c a c in = 5 0_4-cn c ccnn '�• m a) 14") a) I ° 0 2 O a > aa) a0 -- a) E c 0 .a aa) - •c co o am; -o aa)a) Y`o w 0 >. o.o m e co O m y. ::: aai c :2 m E c ^ 0 0 0 0 c 0 v a a) c c c c 0 c y v c L 2 o 0 CD o 0 � a L 0 E a_ E . v E c° ci m Cn m w o_ Q c° W a a._ .,2 c° _ � H v --:z d M .r O %.) M F 0_ CY a U 'w °a: O a §f: i. C d O ix ti }' N I: a v) d N I- ! in N 4 d 0 p L vs C a?:=I 0 sz bg«';e N C C c o o 5 ,;� c a) 4b Q ° m E i, _ om E CL 0) O OC m a) T a) N cn .� � o .� P'.V:. o .c Z' w m w:r . m U Uav) €, UaIA 0) _ h; rn C vs s •C c c o j cti 2 cn an e G Z V 'i'yy L U U C -a .S Y ).- c �1 o o = . y p _ C E C '�, ; O C C a) 1 ;. O C ''.i, "-'::.1 Q C c - c m Nm •= o .i......c .�-. y ..O 2 ! .-::. �O Cl) C f 0 c • OC > U CD 0 s Cl) O) a O O T � CL O).0 E'ft..;ye a CO Jo O NL _ j V 0 cn cn N .r1:k LL -0 U ' N V) 7 O v rte+ c E c m C E a) :;' o a) a) 2 y m m a ° a) E t o E <:i Y t w E cif E 0 • coi ) c _o CD 0 CD a) _ 0 E 0 3 _ o r•'. r,e ci, m o 0 Cl)u) 7 O C a) 7 OO O a f wk CU a b. o a) O a) 0 ▪ m a) •0 7 D C C E E cn O arc ,L)0 ._17)(7) O wa'i' W $ o c m a E O c d Ica. -.6 . a) c .N o co 8 - 2 m cn c — ° y «CD o a) O n O c D p 0 a ' E . c 2. o m a o ° U ` v S 0. -- a � o a) ° 'rn �) - = ¢ mm E z 0 o d o u) — ) c ) a) a)2 o c 0, m o c a: � o w 2 C = �a m c' a) . c a) E c ' N S C as O' C u CO U a .N m O g c m Q O E o ' c ° ti c f m ce S 8 C a) N m o . ° a� .c uo O •E p C .� 5 ui U 615 gp a f) LL O a 0C _ _ C a)fn C O "0 'U . — 0 = 0 7 . O 0 )C c ; C 2 d � O c3 c c E .a - c o a .' 9.__.,_65- o ° 2 .rnf, ° E ) -o o aZ a ° a) N O a) m E C 41 2 ° C C O t O E a)_ U .V E 0) c a) 0 E 0 a o o > o a N0 N L c 2 c -0•c m > ` ` v CD c m _a CD .y ? v v a a o m a) a) o ° O c s t ) c) a _a) — ° ° v ° c cn o Z _ E •° d Q .? U o O a) a) H a o__ c c) Q ) a-o Q ca co 2 ui as . . c _a.c? t. a) Z o o c° • • • • • • ; Hv) C) .N c d t i 7 C _ U 2 0_ Ce U 4) 4 •o 0 0_ E C a, 0 U im- 0 4) a v) N v) N 0 Ln C SZ N N CV ty d l a c � a °c) I a _°c) l 0 c 0 !N -0 o -- a)a) -0 0 m _-_ N a0 (, �_ N 0 -00 N -- C Ii L. C c c c = c c = c c c c = , CO E = m E = 503E = N CO m E J 1= w p v) Ca a (I) i 0 ce U U) •O a E C 0 U U) a an U) N . O C 0 Y N ° 0) o) N W m C I C c UJ 'h -o a) 'o aac) C c - 0 0 a o = Oo E = Em E = Oo E = m E D 13 a a°') c a CO a m aa) 0 ca cn a aai (1) Q a d o cm_ as ai a ix N (I >b W E 0 W_ C C"0 W �� W C)0 N • C ° c ° c ai ° c N ° c a) W ,C C ' «s ° '•o ° CO co m is O U a Uaco c) aaco C) E. co 00 CO N 0 0) > 0) CO 01 d a) 0 a) a) c a) c i p • O�E Q c. 7 a) 7 N p . _o - _o - . - a Q^ -6 O O _O V _°a 0 4) Z 2 a) a co a) a) ° o ce U C U C c U C t 0 0 C . C E C E C co I_ C = E 0_ -N 0 CL .N Q d .u, Q CL .5.12 Q 0) 0 CO a C a) CU i O U O c O O O 44 4 75 W > a°') -o •5 ,_ > > N 2 O 2 = a a 2 as Et 50 C aL O Cl) CO CO C O CO 0 ` OTC O CO N co •fn N N c C ° C c °- C C U O C O C O CO Q C 0 co O) U '0 C co Q a1 f1 t1 O 0 C O CI) @ N C > U o a) to) (U CO = O „, C C CY) T.D U C S. C T� T� O C Q a1 N CO O O = CL CL N 0 0 «) an 0. d _0 d O co N. C N o) 0 a) O O U) a) 00 C a) _ C •O C - o a) c co ca cc _ O - C C 0 7 V a E = c a) -o a) T O O U - = T y • N a) ° — ° O C iii d ° •E 2 aa)) o !-' O_ a) N co a)• -o E co -0 Z. Q s = CO . co E = a) co = U 0- 0 E -o U c a) a) a) a) -- • El c o o-.°= v w E a) .S — U) m c W c az w n a) 0 CO E .� av oo ° _ . ° v .o o c U o a) a a s ° O C a°) aN) CL co p o a o -. in > N N c _0 o_c E) o) E _ Z. o o 0 as N 0! C N O- C > O '— ° ° �.., N t x E a) 0 U >,--61) O O U) co O N O •-C C .0 M O j p) O` •U aa)) -a N p E _ .2 cs '" a) c N .E Og CD w N Cr) _--, (` CO C U T.0 C .5 :? co 0-«_7.. co .c7) N E E -C 0 -0 .0 'U U Se O` T E Lll rn T a) CO (s (s p E C f6 N y 0 O O N N O fn Q N (s a as 0 co .CO CO t O a o)V ° _ W c N an m — ° an 3 ° N a a) w �� °• ar h = .- = O N .�-+ O U ~ •E d N CO O co —° > c a) Y d 2 = O =Cfl 0 ' = O C • E m U cn E = o U)) 0 — _ c ate) -.--, -O v •— .- �a E o E a, Eli .o _ U T >, U 5 a) 7 on C T co C C ad C rn U L = E C C C - -0 •--• C an d O O C p O a) co as U a) y as 0) C C •7 h a, C �> O O U N 'G U U —) .O a) 0-= C as c6O a) a) __co - m_T = > ._ •y U - O ca a) a • .a s - 'a = ° 3 a po .2 v m a�i •—_°) '> a�_ a 11 m a n a) ° _ • N - d Q t -C 0_ E o -0 a -, E o=0 c en ¢ c`v ac) > a o a a Q O en ` a en c o w a) .—c) =1 ° (1) - a) w Eo o t C 'n `m o C Hd a) -0 H 3 CO .... 0 0 .E • • • • • F- 0) C Ha0 Co p � oo C) o �Z co co N N 0 C _ U M City Council Resolution No. 4779 Exhibit C El Segundo General Plan Land Use Element Excerpt - Page 3-8 Land Use Designations Commercial Designations Add the following text in a separate paragraph immediately below 199 North Continental Boulevard Specific Plan on page 3-8: "222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Permits primarily office, light industrial, manufacturing. and research and development uses. The southerly portion may be used for governmental purposes subject to a development agreement. Commercial retail and restaurant uses are prohibited. The area is approximately 4.83 gross acres and the maximum FAR is 0.6. This designation is not intended to be used elsewhere within the City." S:\CTYCLRK\Documentcpy\RESOS\2012\4779 EA-959 CC Reso Exhibit C-GP excerpt Land Use Designations.doc City Council Resolution No. 4779 Exhibit D El Segundo General Plan Land Use Element Excerpt Pages 3-9 and 3-10 Proposed Land Use Plan Northwest Quadrant Modify the following text on pages 3-9 and 3-10: "The following is a discussion of the 1992 Land Use Plan, which indicates future land uses for the entire City. For ease of discussion, the City is divided into four quadrants and the proposed land use designations within that quadrant are discussed. To know what is allowed under each designation, please reference the land use definitions listed above. Northwest Quadrant The northwest quadrant of the City has the most varied mix of uses within the City. All of the City's residential units, the Downtown area, the Civic Center, and the older industrial area of Smoky Hollow, are located in this quadrant. The 1992 Plan retains the three residential designations found on the old Plan: single-family, two-family, and multi-family, plus a new designation of 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan.' The Plan shows 357.2 acres of single-family, 57.4 acres of two-family, 119.3 acres of multi-family and 5.65 acres of 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. This includes the re-designation of Imperial Avenue School, which is no longer used for educational purposes, from Planned Residential Development to 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. The total number of dwelling units projected by the Plan is 8,0892. One of the major goals of the 1992 Plan is to preserve the residential neighborhoods. The Smoky Hollow area, which houses many of the City's older industrial uses, has been designated Smoky Hollow Mixed-Use, in recognition of the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. The Specific Plan allows a combination of industrial, retail, office, and residential uses. The Smoky Hollow area is approximately 92.2 93.55 acres. 1 The 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan designation was added via General Plan Amendment 10-03. 2 The new total of 8,089 represents the maximum number of units developed under Option 1 of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. This number will be lower(7,843 units)if Option 2 is developed with a maximum of 58 units. The 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) consists of 4.83 acres, which were previously a part of the Smoky Hollow area. The 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan permits primarily office, light industrial, manufacturing, and research and development uses, The southerly portion may be used for governmental purposes subiect to a development agreement. Commercial retail and restaurant uses are prohibited." All other text in this section will remain unchanged. P:\Planning&Building Safety\O Planning-Old\PROJECTS(Planning)\951-975\EA-959\City Council 09042012\Reso and Attachments 09042012\EA-959 CC Reso Exhibit D-General Plan Land Use Element.doc City Council Resolution No. 4779 Exhibit E 1992 General Plan Summary of Existing Trends Buildout Land Use Category Acres Dwelling Square Footage Units Single-Family Residential 357.2 2,858 - Two-Family Residential 57.4 934 - 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific - - - Plan 5.65 3043 - Multi-Family Residential 119.7 3,389 - Neighborhood Commercial 6.6 851 89,110 Downtown Commercial 8.8 181 383,328 General Commercial 37.1 - 1,618,508 Corporate Office 216.6 - 12,539,209 Commercial Center 85.8 - 850,000 Smoky Hollow 94493.55 268 2,019,454 2,445,023 Urban Mixed-Use North 232.5 - 13,166,010 Urban Mixed-Use South 70.6 - 3,997,936 124th Street Specific Plan 3.9 1 73,530 Aviation Specific Plan 5.4 - 66,000 Downtown Specific Plan 26.3 2321 1,145,628 Corporate Campus Specific Plan 46.5 - 2,550,000 199 North Continental Boulevard - - - Specific Plan 1.75 - 70,132 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan 4.65 - 121,532 Parking 11.8 - - Light Industrial 356.1 - 18,529,000 Heavy Industrial 1001 - -2 Public Facilities 87.9 - - Federal Government 90.6 - - Open Space 78.3 77.0 - - Parks 50 - - Street and Railroad R.O.W 442.6 - - Totals 3,494.25 8,089 57,097,845 57,644,946 3,497 Population Projection 17,287 1 Existing construction and recently constructed,renovated commercial centers and legal non-conforming residential uses at densities that are currently higher than allowed by the land use designations in this plan will not realistically be converted to mixed commercial/residential uses and these buildings are expected to remain for the life of the Plan. 2 The heavy industrial shown on this plan includes the Chevron Refinery and former Southern California Edison Generation Station. These facilities have processing equipment and tanks rather than buildings and are expected to remain for the life of the Plan. Therefore,no estimated building square footage is shown. 3 This number represents the maximum number of dwelling units that can be developed in Option 1 of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. If Option 1 is not built,the maximum number of units that can be developed in Option 2 of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan is 58 residential dwelling units. City Council Resolution No. 4779 Exhibit F General Plan Land Use Map ►f 4 4 f f f f �4 f f►t v::4:::::::;f 4 4 f 4 f 4 f f f 4 4 4 f f f 4 1 f f i ♦f•f f►!f ..4♦fi CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 4779 EXHIBIT G CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 1470 EXHIBIT F CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In addition to all applicable provisions of the El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC"), SMPO Lab, LLC, Mar Canyon Grand, LLC, and Richard Kizirian of the Kizirian Trust agree to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of El Segundo's approval of an Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 959, General Plan Amendment No. 12-01, Specific Plan Amendment No. 12-01, Zone Change No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment No. 12-01, Development Agreement No. 12-01, Subdivision No. 12-02 (VTM 71903), and Site Plan Review No. 12-01 ("Project Conditions"). Planning and Building Safety Department 1. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit plans that demonstrate substantial compliance with the plans and conditions of approval on file with the Planning and Building Safety Department. Site Plan Review approval must be granted before building permits may be issued. Any subsequent modification to the project as approved, including the site plan, floor plan, elevations, landscaping and materials, must be referred to the Director of Planning and Building Safety to determine whether the Planning Commission should review the proposed modification. 2. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must obtain all the necessary approvals, licenses and permits and pay all the appropriate fees as required by the City. 3. The applicant must comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and the Errata to the Addendum. A Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared as part of the environmental review for the project and is attached as Exhibit "I" to this Resolution. All mitigation measures in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the proposed project are incorporated by this reference into these conditions of approval. All mitigation measures and conditions of approval must be listed on the plans submitted for plan check and on the plans for which a building permit is issued. 4. Any changes to the colors and materials of the exterior façade of the buildings must be in compliance with the 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan Section 4.3(L) Design Standards and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. 5. Before the City issues a building permit, the applicant must submit final landscaping and irrigation plans to the City of El Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department and the Parks and Recreation Department for review and approval to demonstrate compliance with the City's Water Conservation regulations and Guidelines for Water Conservation in Landscaping (ESMC §§ 10-2-1, et seq.). The plant materials used in landscaping must be compatible with the El Segundo climate pursuant to Sunset Western Garden Book's Zone 24 published by Sunset Books, Inc., Revised and Updated 2001 edition, which is available for review at the Planning and Building Safety Department. Additionally, the landscaping and irrigation must be completely installed before the City issues a final Certificate of Occupancy. Additionally, the final landscaping and irrigation plans must comply with the following: A. Reclaimed water must be used as the water source to irrigate landscaped areas, if feasible. To that end, dual water connections must be installed to allow for landscaping to be irrigated by reclaimed water, if feasible. B. Efficient irrigation systems must be installed which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water which will reach plant roots (e.g., drip irrigation, automatic sprinklers equipped with moisture sensors). C. Automatic sprinkler systems must be set to irrigate landscaping during early morning hours or during the evening to reduce water losses from evaporation. Sprinklers must also be reset to water less often in cooler months and during the rainfall season so that water is not wasted by excessive landscaping irrigation. D. Selection of drought-tolerant, low-water consuming plant varieties must be used to reduce irrigation water consumption, in compliance with ESMC §§ 10-2-1, et seq. 6. Employees must be provided current maps, routes and schedules for public transit routes serving the site; telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency and local transit operators; ridesharing promotional materials; and bicycle route and facility information. 7. Ground level mechanical equipment, refuse and recycling collectors, storage tanks, monitoring wells, generators, and other similar facilities must be screened from view with opaque walls of materials and finishes compatible with the overall design of the buildings in the project and provide dense landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Safety Department. 8. Trash and recycling enclosures must be provided and shown on the site plan that are sufficiently large enough to store the necessary bins required for the regular collection of commercial solid waste and recyclable materials. The site plan with -2- the location and dimensions of the trash and recycling enclosure and an elevation view of the enclosure must be provided to the Planning and Building Safety Department for review and approval before the City issues building permits. Separate trash and recycling facilities must be provided for each phase of the project (Phase 1: USDA Facility; Phase 2: 2 office buildings). 9. Exterior lighting must be designed to minimize off-site glare. 10. The building must be designed to comply with the ESMC standards for the attenuation of interior noise. 11. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must provide the Planning and Building Safety Department a status report on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) that includes the GBCI scorecard prepared by a qualified professional with a LEED AP credential. The Director of Planning and Building Safety will determine if the items identified on the scorecard and report, show a good faith effort to build to LEED standards and warrant release of this condition. The City can require peer review of the LEED report and GBCI scorecard by a qualified professional with a LEED AP credential hired by the City at the applicant's expense to advise the Director of Planning and Building Safety in his or her determination. Additionally, the City can require inspections for grading, site improvements, and buildings for the project by a qualified professional with a LEED AP credential to verify that the project has been constructed in compliance with the LEED report and GBCI scorecard to advise the Director of Planning and Building Safety in his or her determination. 12. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase 2, the applicant must submit a reciprocal access and parking agreement for joint use of the driveway entrance, drive aisle, and parking area on Lot 3 with Lots 1 and 2 of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. The reciprocal access agreement must be reviewed and approved as to form by the Director of Planning and Building Safety and City Attorney before recordation. The applicant must pay for all fees incurred by the City as a result of the City Attorney's review of the Reciprocal Access Agreement before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy. The reciprocal access agreement must be recorded before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy. 13. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy for any buildings or site improvements, the applicant must complete all the conditions of approval of Environmental Assessment No. 966 and Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 12-03. 14. Vacation of the existing Edison easements is required before the City issues building permits for any buildings or structures within the easement area. -3- 15. The project must meet all the design criteria of the Specific Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. 16. Before the City issues a building permit, landscaping plans must be reviewed and approved in compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of the Specific Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. 17. Before the City issues a building permit, plans for walls, fences, lighting fixtures and accessory structures must be reviewed and approved in compliance with the Site Plan Review criteria of the Specific Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. 18. Before the City issues any building permits for signs, a Master Sign Program must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety. Building Division Conditions 19_ Before building permits are issued, plans must show conformance with the 2010 California Building Code with El Segundo amendments, the 2010 California Green Building Code, 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Plumbing Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and the 2010 California Energy Code, all as adopted by the ESMC. 20. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must submit a geotechnical/soils report, along with an associated grading plan that addresses the current code to the Planning and Building Safety Department for review and approval. 21. Before grading permits are issued, the applicant must submit a soils report to the Planning and Building Safety Department for review and approval. 22. Before building permits are issued, plans must show compliance with accessibility requirements per the 2010 California Building Code, as adopted by the ESMC. 23. A covenant and agreement or equivalent instrument must be recorded to allow the use of disabled parking spaces on Lot 3 to serve the buildings on Lot 1 and 2. The covenant and agreement must be reviewed and approved as to form by the Planning and Building Safety Department and the City Attorney before recordation. The applicant must pay for all fees incurred by the City as a result of the City Attorney's review of the covenant before the City issues a final building permit. The covenant must also be recorded before the City issues a final building permit. -4- 24. A minimum slope of 2% must be provided at the north side of the Phase 1 building for drainage away from the building and to the street via a non-erosive device. 25. A minimum slope of 2% must be provided for drainage away from the Phase 2 buildings and to the street via a non-erosive device. Site drainage from lot 3 must be conducted to the street via a non-erosive device at a minimum 1% slope. 26. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan, (SUSMP) for each phase of development must be provided and approved by the Planning and Building Safety Department. 27. The Phase 1 building must demonstrate that the occupancy group for the S occupancy is a S-2 occupancy. The building must provide sprinklers in compliance with the El Segundo Municipal Code. The plans must clearly show that the maximum 250 foot exit travel distance is not exceeded for rooms P-03, P-04, P-05, and P-07. The percentage of openings for the Phase 1 building must comply with table 705.8 of the 2010 California Building Code, as measured from the north property line. 28. The Phase 2 buildings must comply with Section 1022 of the 2010 California Building Code for exit enclosures for the stairways. The exit enclosures must extend to the exterior of the building and must be of 1-hr construction. The percentage of openings for the Phase 2 buildings must comply with table 705.8 of the 2010 California Building Code, as measured from the interior property lines. Restroom facilities for men and women are required and the number of plumbing fixtures must comply with table 4-1 of the 2010 California Plumbing Code. 29. Both phases of the project require complete structural calculations and details, along with a civil grading plan, and architectural notes and details to be reviewed and approved by the Building Division before a building permit is issued. 30. Both phases of the project require a geotechnical report to be reviewed and approved by the Building Division before a building permit is issued. 31. Separate permit applications are required for accessory structures, such as light standards, walls, retaining walls, and equipment pad foundations. 32. Separate permit applications are required for each of the following permit types: signs, grading, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing. -5- Fire Department Conditions 33. The project must comply with all applicable requirements of the 2010 California Building and Fire Codes and the 2009 International Fire Code as adopted by the ESMC and El Segundo Fire Department Regulations. 34. Before a building permit is issued, the applicant must submit and obtain approval of a Fire/Life Safety Plan from the Fire Department. The Fire/Life Safety Plan must identify fire safety precautions during demolition and construction, emergency site access during construction, permanent fire department site access, fire water supply, fire hydrant locations, and any existing or proposed fire sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems. 35. A list of proposed chemicals for laboratory use must be provided to determine the types of hazards or permits necessary for the safe use or storage of lab chemicals to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 36. If a second well is located during construction, the well must be abandoned in compliance with DOGGR requirements and DOGGR documentation of the abandonment must be provided to the Fire Department and the Planning Division. Public Works Department Conditions 37. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy and records the final map, the applicant must dedicate 10 feet along the entire Grand Avenue frontage of the subject property and provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate an additional 9 feet along the entire Grand Avenue frontage of the subject property to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. The City has the right to exercise its right to accept the property subject to the offer of dedication on or after, the earlier of, September 1, 2024, or 15 years following the date on which the certificate of occupancy was issued for the last building on the property. If the City amends its Circulation Element such that property that is subject to the offer of dedication is no longer required for public right-of-way purposes, then the offer of dedication will automatically expire. The applicant must enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, holding the City harmless and indemnifying it from any hazardous materials or contamination that may affect the property offered for dedication. 38. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must dedicate five feet along the entire Kansas Street and Franklin Avenue frontage of the property to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 39. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must eliminate the mid-block crossing on Kansas Street to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. -6- 40. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must provide a pedestrian countdown display on the signal pedestrian heads at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Kansas Street to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 41. The Final Map must be recorded and filed with the City Engineer of the City of El Segundo and Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. 42. The applicant must ensure that encroachment permits deemed to be required by the City are secured from the Public Works Department before commencing any and all work in the public right-of-way. 43. All construction related parking must be accommodated on-site. No construction related parking will be permitted off-site. 44. Before the City issues any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must construct curb and gutter, sidewalk, and driveway approaches per SPPWC standards along Franklin Avenue and Kansas Street by an appropriately license contractor to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. Sidewalk must be a minimum of 5 feet wide on all three street frontages. 45, Before the City issues any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must construct curb ramps per SPPWC standard Type 1 at the corner of Kansas Street and Grand Avenue as well as at the corner of Kansas Street and Franklin Avenue. Developer to provide 5-foot wide sidewalk behind the curb ramps. 46. Before the City issues any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must resurface half of the street from the proposed curb and gutter to the centerline of the street along Kansas Street and Franklin Avenue to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 47. Before the City issues any Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must install a minimum 5-foot wide parkway including landscaping and street trees on Grand Avenue, Kansas Street and Franklin Avenue, in compliance with the General Plan Circulation Element standards and the Master Street Tree Plan, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Planning and Building Safety Department and the Parks and Recreation Department. 48. The applicant must provide a potable water service lateral and water meter for each new lot. Location and sizes of all proposed water meters must be approved by Public Works Department Water Division. 49. The applicant must provide sewer lateral with property cleanout on each lot. -7- 50, Any unused water service lateral and sanitary sewer laterals must be abandoned at the City main. 51. The project must comply with the latest NPDES requirements and provide Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment control, construction material control and erosion control. 52. Before the City issues a building permit, the applicant must provide a SUSMP (Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan): 53. Before the City issues a building permit, the applicant must provide a SWPPP (Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan). 54. Before the City issues a building permit, a registered civil engineer must provide storm (hydrologic and hydraulic) calculations for appropriate storm drain facilities to control on-site drainage and mitigate off-site impacts, as follows, subject to review and approval from Public Works Department: a. The design must follow the criteria contained in both the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual 2006 and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan or most recent editions. Flows shall not to impact neighboring properties. b. New development must not increase the rate of flow (cubic feet per second) or velocity (feet per second) of site run-off water to any off-site drainage areas beyond the measured or calculated pre-project rate and velocity. 55. Location and sizes of existing public utilities (water, sewer, etc.) must be shown on the plans. Indicate the location of any proposed connection points for the utility service. 56. All record drawings (As-built drawings) and supporting documentation must be submitted to the Department of Public Works before scheduling the project's final inspection. Police Department Conditions 57. Before the City issues a building permit, the applicant must submit a photometric light study to the Police Department for review and approval. A site plan must be provided showing buildings, parking areas, walkways, and the point-by-point photometric calculation of the required light levels. Foot candles must be measured on a horizontal plane and conform to a uniformity ratio of 4:1 average/minimum. The photometric study must be point-by-point and include the light loss factor (.7). Lighting levels must be adjusted to meet the minimum foot candle requirements within each area of the site. Street lighting shall not be included in the calculations. All interior or exterior corridors, passageways and -8- pedestrian walkways and open parking lot shall be illuminated at all times with a minimum maintained one foot-candle of light on the walking surface. 58. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, lighting devices must be enclosed and protected by weather and vandal resistant covers. The lighting devices must be shown on plans to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 59, Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, aisles, passageways and recesses related to and within all sides of the complex must be illuminated with a maintained minimum of .25 footcandles on the ground surface during hours of darkness. Compliance must be shown on plans to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 60. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the addressing, all entry doors, open parking lots, shipping/loading dock doors, trash dumpsters and guest parking must be illuminated with a maintained minimum of one footcandle of light on the ground surface during hours of darkness. 61. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, street addressing must be a minimum of 6 inches high and must be visible from the street or driving surface, of contrasting color to the background and directly illuminated during hours of darkness. Addressing must also be shown on plan elevations. 62. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, light standards with lighting fixtures mounted at 12 to 14 feet in height must be installed for all walkways. Light standards and lighting fixtures must be shown on plans to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 63. Before the City issues a building permit, landscaping must be designed and shown on the plans to minimize obstruction of light fixtures to ensure maintenance of required lighting levels to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 64. Before the City issues a building permit, all landscaping must be shown on the plans to be low profile around perimeter fencing, windows, doors and entryways so as not to limit visibility or provide climbing access to the satisfaction of the Police Department. Bushes must be trimmed to 2 to 3 feet and away from buildings. Dense bushes cannot be clumped together in a manner that provides easy concealment. 65. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, all loading dock pedestrian doors must have a panoramic door viewer (190-200 degrees) installed. Notes must be provided on the plans demonstrating compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Police Department. -9- 66. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, a latch guard must be placed over all single swing entry door locks and secondary security astragals must be installed in all double swing entry doors. 67. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, bicycle racks must be located in well-lit highly visible locations. Bicycle rack locations must be shown on the plans to the satisfaction of the Police Department. 68. Before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the USDA facility bicycle rack on Kansas Street must be relocated within the visitor parking lot in a secured area and shown on plans to the satisfaction of the Police Department. Construction Conditions 69. Before any construction occurs the perimeter of the property must be fenced with a minimum 6-foot high fence. The fence must be covered with a material approved by the Planning and Building Safety Department to prevent dust from leaving the site. 70. All haul trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials must either be covered or maintain two feet of freeboard. 71. NOx emissions during construction must be reduced by limiting the operation of heavy-duty construction equipment to no more than 5 pieces of equipment at any one time. 72. Staging of construction vehicles and vehicle entry and egress to the site must be approved by the Public Works Department. Temporary construction driveways must be approved by the Public Works Department. Temporary construction driveways must be removed before the City issues a certificate of occupancy. 73. Construction vehicles cannot use any route except the City's designated Truck Routes. 74. The applicant must develop and implement a construction management plan, as approved by the Public Works Department before a building permit is issued, which includes the following measures recommended by the SCAQMD: • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Provide temporary traffic controls during all phases of construction activities to maintain traffic flow (e.g., flag person). • Re-route construction trucks away from congested streets. • Maintain equipment and vehicles engines in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer's specifications and per SCAQMD rules, to minimize dust emissions. -10- • Suspend use of all construction equipment during second stage smog alerts. Contact SCAQMD at (800) 242-4022 for daily forecasts. • Use electricity from temporary power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline-powered generators. • Diesel-powered equipment such as booster pumps or generators should be replaced by electric equipment, if feasible. • Catalytic converters must be installed, if feasible. • Equipment must be equipped with two-to-four-degree engine time retard or pre-combustion chamber engines. • Use methanol or natural gas powered mobile equipment and pile drivers instead of diesel if readily available at competitive prices. • Use propane or butane powered on-site mobile equipment instead of gasoline if readily available at competitive prices. 75. During construction and operations, all waste must be disposed in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed, regulated disposal site by a licensed waste hauler. 76. All leaks, drips and spills occurring during construction must be cleaned up promptly and in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations to prevent contaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be washed away into the storm drains. 77. If materials spills occur, they must be cleaned up in a way that will not affect the storm drain system. 78. The project must comply with ESMC Chapter 5-4, which establishes storm water and urban pollution controls. 79. Before anticipated rainfall, construction dumpsters must be covered with tarps or plastic sheeting. 80. Inspections of the project site before and after storm events must be conducted to determine whether Best Management Practices have been implemented to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the Storm Water Prevention Plan. 81. The owner or contractor must conduct daily street sweeping and truck wheel cleaning to prevent dirt in the storm drain system. 82. Storm drain system must be safeguarded at all times during construction, 83. All diesel equipment must be operated with closed engine doors and must be equipped with factory-recommended mufflers. 84. Electrical power must be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. -11- 85. The applicant must provide a telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with the construction noise. The number must be posted on the project site and must be easily viewed from adjacent public areas. 86. During construction, the contractor must store and maintain equipment as far as possible from adjacent residential property locations northwest of the site. 87. As stated in ESMC Chapter 7-2, construction related noise is restricted to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and prohibited at anytime on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Service Fee Conditions 88. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay a one-time park facilities mitigation fee in accordance with Section 5.2 of the Development Agreement. The fee amount must be based upon the adopted fee at the time the building permit is issued. 89. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay a one-time fire services mitigation fee in accordance with Section 5.2 of the Development Agreement. The fee amount must be based upon the adopted fee at the time the building permit is issued. 90. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay a one-time police services mitigation fee in accordance with Section 5.2 of the Development Agreement. The fee amount must be based upon the adopted fee at the time the building permit is issued. 91. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay the required sewer connection fees (as specified in ESMC Title 12-3). 92. Pursuant to ESMC §§ 15-27A-1, et seq., and before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must pay a one time traffic mitigation fee in accordance with Section 5.2 of the Development Agreement. The fee amount must be based upon the adopted fee at the time the building permit is issued. 93. Before building permits are issued, the applicant must pay the required School Fees. This condition does not limit the applicant's ability to appeal or protest the payment of these fees to the school district(s). Miscellaneous 94. SMPO Lab, LLC, Mar Canyon Grand, LLC, and Richard Kizirian, on behalf of the Kizirian Trust, agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City's approval of Environmental Assessment -12- No. 959, General Plan Amendment No. 12-01, Specific Plan Amendment No. 12- 01, Zone Change No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment No. 12-01, Subdivision No. 12-02, Site Plan Review No. 12-01, or Development Agreement (DA) No. 12-01. Should the City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of the City approval of Environmental Assessment No. 959, General Plan Amendment No. 12-01, Specific Plan Amendment No. 12-01, Zone Change No. 12-01, Zone Text Amendment No. 12-01, Development Agreement (DA) No. 12-01, Subdivision No. 12-02, Site Plan Review No. 12-01, SMPO Lab, LLC, agrees to defend the City (at the City's request and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For purposes of this section "the City" includes the City of El Segundo's elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees. By signing this document, Steve Williams on behalf of SMPO Lab, LLC, Allan Mackenzie on behalf of Mar Canyon Grand, LLC, and Richard Kizirian, on behalf of the Kizirian Trust, certify that they have read, understood, and agree to the Project Conditions listed in this document. .1:Ce_40 6(M16.74(z-44-2_, Steve Williams, SMPO Lab, LLC Allan Mackenzie, President Mar Canyon Grand, LLC f-' Richa i Kizirian, Kizirian Trust P:\Planning&Building Safety\O Planning-Old\PROJECTS(Planning)\951-975\EA-959\City Council 09042012\Reso and Attachments 09042012\EA-959 CC Resolution Exhibit G-Conditions.doc -13-