2018 Aug 21 - CC PACKET AGENDA
EL SEOUNDO CITY COUNCIL
• COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed
agenda items. Any writings or documents given to a majority of the City Council regarding any matter on
this agenda that the City received after issuing the agenda packet are available for public inspection in
the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. Such Documents may also be posted on the City's
website at www.elsegundo.org and additional copies will be available at the City Council meeting.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City-related business that is
within the jurisdiction of the City Council and/or items listed on the Agenda during the Public
Communications portions of the Meeting. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public Hearing
item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence
and the organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk
or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00 p.m. the prior
Tuesday). The request must include a brief general description of the business to be transacted or
discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings if
they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five
(5) minutes in length.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524-2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this
meeting.
MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2018 — 5:00 PM
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to Citv Business Only, — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of$50 or more to communicate
to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so
identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of$250.
1
1
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including
the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et sem.) for the purposes of
conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City
Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor
Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code
§54956.9(d)(1): -4- matters
1. Achambault v. City of EI Segundo, WCAB Case Nos. 79049(39, 53 and 56)
2. James v. City of EI Segundo, WCAB Case No. ADJ 10523289
3. Turnbull v. City of EI Segundo WCAB and Cal PERS Matter
4. Houston v. City of EI Segundo, Los Angeles County Civil Service
Commission
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -1-
matters.
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -1- matters.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -1- matters
1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Manager
APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't. Code § 54957): -0- matter
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov't Code § 54957) -0- matter
2
2
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0-
matters
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -8-
matters
1. Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Officers
Association; Police Support Services Employees Association; Fire Fighters
Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees Association; City Employee
Association; and Executive and Management/Confidential Employees
(unrepresented groups).
Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Greg
Carpenter and Human Resources Director.
3
3
AGENDA
r
EL SEOUNDO CITY COUNCIL
- COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed
agenda items. Any writings or documents given to a majority of the City Council regarding any matter on
this agenda that the City received after issuing the agenda packet, are available for public inspection in
the City Clerk's office during normal business hours. Such Documents may also be posted on the City's
website at www.elsegundo.org and additional copies will be available at the City Council meeting.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City-related business that is
within the jurisdiction of the City Council and/or items listed on the Agenda during the Public
Communications portions of the Meeting. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public Hearing
item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence
and the organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the Agenda by submitting a Written Request to the City Clerk
or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00 p.m. the prior
Tuesday). The request must include a brief general description of the business to be transacted or
discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings if
they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five
(5) minutes in length.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to
participate in this meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524-2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this
meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION — Pastor Chuck Brady, St. John's Lutheran Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Pimentel
4
4
PRESENTATIONS
a) Presentation — Chief Donovan introducing Firefighter Matthew Goodenough
b) Presentation — Chief Donovan recognizing Jose Zambrano's Charity run from
Los Angeles to Yarnell, Az.
c) Presentation — Chief Whalen will introduce the EI Segundo Police Department
Cadets; Michael Drohan, Nicole Reppucci, Anthony Gomez, Tanner Griffin,
Ahmed Faraz, Tommy Tran, Jonathan Pena, Joseline Heredia and Brandon
Mendoza.
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to Citv Business Oniv — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of$50 or more to communicate
to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so
identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of$250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to
take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after Public
Communications is closed.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS — (Related to Public Communications)
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the
Agenda by title only.
Recommendation —Approval.
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING)
1. Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment
No. EA-1011, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone Change No.
ZC 13-01, and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01 for the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan update project. (Applicant: City of EI Segundo)
Address: Smoky Hollow
(Fiscal Impact: None with this action)
Recommendation — 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Take testimony and other
evidence as presented; 3) Adopt a Resolution Certifying an Environmental
Impact Report (Environmental Assessment No. EA-1011), approving a General
Plan Amendment (General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01), and adopting the
5
5
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018; 4) Introduce an Ordinance amending the
Zoning Map to reflect the boundary changes of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
(Zone Change No. ZC 13-01) and amending the El Segundo Municipal Code to
delete and/or revise provisions related to the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan (Zone
Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01); 5) Schedule second reading and adoption of
the Ordinance for September 4, 2018; 6) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
2. Consideration and possible action regarding City Council approval of
Environmental Assessment No. EA-1198 and Zone Text Amendment No.
ZTA 17-06 to establish a parking in-lieu fee program in the Smoky Hollow
area and adopt a parking in-lieu fee. (Applicant: City of EI Segundo)
Address: Citywide
(Fiscal Impact: None with this action)
Recommendation — 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Take testimony and other
evidence as presented; 3) Introduce an Ordinance approving Environmental
Assessment No. EA-1198 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-06 amending
the El Segundo Municipal Code to establish a parking in-lieu fee program for the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area; 4) Schedule second reading and adoption of
the Ordinance for September 4, 2018; 5) Adopt a Resolution establishing a
parking in-lieu fee and procedures for payment of such a fee; 6) Alternatively,
discuss and take other action related to this item.
3. Consideration and possible action to amend various sections of the EI
Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) Title 15 (Zoning Code) to: (1) update and
introduce new definitions related to measuring building height, (2)
establish new zoning code standards for measuring the maximum height of
buildings, and (3) allow the Director to approve an adjustment to the
maximum building height by up to 5 feet, pursuant to ESMC Chapter 15-24.
Adopting this Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review
under CEQA Guidelines § 15303 as a Class 3 (new construction or
conversion of small structures), § 15304 as a Class 4 (minor alteration to
land), and does not constitute a "project" that requires environmental
review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the
proposed zone text amendment establishes new definitions and provisions
for measuring building height. The proposed Ordinance constitutes an
action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the
environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
(Applicant: City of EI Segundo).
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Introduce an Ordinance (Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA
17-08) regarding amendments to various sections of the Zoning Code; 2)
Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for September 4, 2018;
3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
6
6
4. Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment
No. EA-1228, Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 18-03 to add Chapter 30 to
Title 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code to require a
discretionary Site Plan Review Permit for specified types of development.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Take testimony and other
evidence as presented; 3) Introduce an ordinance approving Environmental
Assessment EA-1228 and amend the EI Segundo Municipal Code to relate to
discretionary Site Plan Review (ZTA 18-03); 4) Schedule second reading and
adoption of the Ordinance for September 4, 2018; 5) Alternatively, discuss and
take other action related to this item.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. Consideration and possible action to introduce Ordinance No. 1567 to
prohibit gatherings where underage drinking or illegal drug use occurs.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Introduce Ordinance No. 1567; 2) Schedule second
reading of Ordinance No. 1567, for September 4, 2018; 3) Approve Resolution
No. , or provide direction; 4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
6. Consideration and possible action to announce the appointment to the Arts
and Culture Advisory Committee.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Recommendation — 1) Announce the appointees; 2) Alternatively, discuss and
take other action related to this item.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a call for
discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of
business.
7. Warrant Numbers 3022268 through 3022451 and 9000494 through 9000532
on Register No. 21 in the total amount of $826,135.56 and Wire Transfers
from 7/30/18 through 8/12/18 in the total amount of $3,585,445.01.
Recommendation — Approve Warrant Demand Register and authorize staff to
release. Ratify Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due
to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and/or adjustments; and
wire transfers.
7
7
8. Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of July 17, 2018, Special City Council
Joint with the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) Minutes
of July 18, 2018 and Regular City Council Minutes of August 7, 2018.
Recommendation — 1) Approval
9. Consideration and possible action to accept as complete the Recreation
Park Picnic Shelter, Project No. PW 16-15.
(Fiscal Impact: $90,448.00)
Recommendation — 1) Accept the work as complete; 2) Authorize the City Clerk
to file a Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office; 3) Alternatively,
discuss and take other action related to this item.
10.Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to a)
increase the Planning and Building Safety Department budgets for
professional/technical services by $120,000, and b) increase the contract
amounts of the following consultants: J Lee Engineering, Inc. (Building
Safety) and Michael Baker International (Planning), which are necessitated
by an unexpected high volume of plan checks and building permits. The
additional funding 1 is proposed to come from revenue generated by plan
check and permit fees, which are projected to be approximately $600,000
over the budgeted estimate by the end of the fiscal year.
(Fiscal Impact: $120,000.00)
Recommendation — 1) Authorize the City Manager to increase the Planning and
Building Safety Department budgets for professional/technical services by
$120,000 to cover anticipated contract services related to a higher than expected
volume of plan checks; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to
this item.
11.Consideration and possible action authorize a budget appropriation of
$8,500 related to an ongoing contract for professional services with MIG,
Inc. for additional environmental services as part of the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan Update Project and, authorize the City Manager to execute an
amendment to the existing agreement with MIG, Inc.
(Fiscal Impact: $8,500.00)
Recommendation — 1) Approve a budget appropriation of $8,500 and transfer
from the General Plan Maintenance Fund (GPMF) to provide additional
environmental services related to the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update
Project; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing
agreement with MIG, Inc.; 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related
to this item.
F. NEW BUSINESS
8
8
F. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER
G. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY
H. REPORTS — CITY CLERK
J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Pimentel —
Council Member Nicol —
Council Member Brann —
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk —
Mayor Boyles —
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to Citv Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have receive value of$50 or more to communicate
to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so
identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of$250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to
take action on any item not on the ag@nda. The Council will respond to comments after Public
Communications is closed.
MEMORIALS —
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act
(Government Code Section §54960, et seg.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property
Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or
discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with
the City's Labor Negotiators.
9
9
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED:
DATE: . b g
TIME:
NAME:
10
10
PRESENTATION
Chief Donovan introducing Firefighter Matthew Goodenough
11
tortamatt" on Citp of (9I *egunbo, California
WHEREAS, On June 23,2013 at 5:36 p.m.a wildfire was started by a lightning strikes near Yarnell,Arizona
a town of 700 residents about eighty miles northwest of Phoenix and the Granit Mountain
Hotshots from Prescott,Arizona were dispatched to fight the fire. On June 30,2013 the fire
pushed from 300 acres to over 2,000 acres driven by strong winds, high temperatures and
erratic fire behavior trapping 19 of the 20 Granit Mountain Hotshots who were caught in a
burnover and succumbed to their injuries,making it one of the most deadly brush fires in US
history
WHEREAS, One of the Granit Mountain Hotshots killed in the line of duty was Kevin Woyjeck,a 22 year
old from Seal Beach, California. Kevin was the son of Los Angeles County Fire Captain Joe
Woyjeck who's family stated a non-profit organization to carry on the legacy of Kevin by
helping young men and Women participate in fire career related explorer programs.
WHEREAS, On June 23, 2018 El Segundo Firefighter Jose Zambrano initiated a memorial run starting in
Bellflower, California and running 370 miles over six days, arriving at the site of the Yarnell
burnover on Saturday,June 30, 2018. The memorial run helped to raise funds for the Kevin
Woyjeck Explorers for life Association
WHEREAS, Firefighter Zambrano ran the entire 370 miles in full turnout gear,wearing his fire helmet,air
tank and carrying an American flag. He averaged over 50 miles each day and ran most of the
route by himself, picking up supporters are various spots throughout the route. The route
consisted of long stretches along desert roads within the Joshua Tree National Park where
temperatures exceeded 105 degrees.
NOW,THEREFORE, the Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of El Segundo,California,do
hereby recognize Firefighter Jose Zambrano for his incredible efforts,dedication, endurance,
physical and mental toughness and most importantly compassion towards the 19 Granite
Mountain Hotshots killed in the line of duty.
FL SEG��I
� J
Y
T
•INCRRCRRATEA 19177
Jfayor Drew Boyles
�Alayor Pro Tem Carol Pimtuk Council J1 ember Don Brann
Councif9dember Chris Pimentel CouncifJlemberScot .Tlicol
12
PRESENTATION
Chief Whalen will introduce the EI Segundo Police Department Cadets;
Michael Drohan, Nicole Reppucci, Anthony Gomez, Tanner Griffin,
Ahmed Faraz, Tommy Tran, Jonathan Pena, Joseline Heredia and
Brandon Mendoza.
13
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA-1011, General
Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone Change No. ZC 13-01, and Zone Text Amendment No.
ZTA 13-01 for the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan update project. (Applicant: City of El Segundo)
Address: Smoky Hollow
Fiscal Impact: None with this action
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Take testimony and other evidence as presented;
3. Adopt a Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report (Environmental
Assessment No. EA 1011), approving a General Plan Amendment (General Plan
Amendment No. GPA 13-01), and adopting the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018;
4. Introduce an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map to reflect the boundary changes of the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan(Zone Change No. ZC 13-01) and amending the El Segundo
Municipal Code to delete and/or revise provisions related to the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan(Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01);
5. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for September 4, 2018; and/or
6. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance No.
2. Proposed Resolution No.
a. Final Environmental Impact Report, including technical studies
b. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
c. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
d. General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
e. General Plan Land Use Designation Descriptions
f. General Plan Land Use Plan Existing Trends Buildout
g. General Plan Land Use Plan Excerpt
h. Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018
i. Specific Plan Boundary Changes
3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 28, 2018 (without attachments)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2837
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
14
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: Champion Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability
Objective: The City will implement a comprehensive economic development strategy
to ensure the City encourages a vibrant business climate that is accessible,
user-friendly and welcoming to all residents and visitors.
ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manageu! " [
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Planning & Building Safety Directo
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
INTRODUCTION
This amendment replaces the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan in its entirety with a new
specific plan that will promote a more dynamic creative office environment, physical
improvements to private and public property, and innovative mobility solutions, while preserving
the essential character of the City's Smoky Hollow neighborhood. The following discretionary
actions are required:
• A general plan amendment to reflect changes to the regulations and boundaries of the new
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan;
• Adoption of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018;
• A zone change to reflect changes to the boundaries of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and
other zoning districts;
• A zone text amendment to remove the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan chapter,its zoning
districts and overlays from Title 15 (Zoning Code)of the El Segundo Municipal Code(ESMC);
and
• An environmental assessment and certification of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR).
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan was adopted 25 years ago and set goals and policies that reflected
a desire to transform Smoky Hollow from an old fashioned, gritty and run down industrial district
to a modern, clean and orderly industrial park. The specific plan included standards that promoted
on-site parking, landscaping, and encouraged the demolition of old brick buildings in favor of new
tilt-up and block structures. The plan also discouraged office uses and encouraged lot
consolidation. Fortunately, much of Smoky Hollow was not demolished because over the past
decade or so, the type of development envisioned by the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan has fallen
out of fashion. Old buildings are now sought for refurbishment and even new buildings are being
built to resemble the gritty look of old Smoky Hollow structures.
The nature of how Smoky Hollow is used and occupied is also trending away from industrial and
warehouse uses toward creative offices and flexible space. The existing specific plan is hopelessly
outdated to handle these shifts, and in many cases stands in the way of changes that can clearly be
seen as positive improvements.Additionally. The existing specific plan is very rigid in its approval
processes and does not provide the City flexibility to adapt to changes in the real estate
marketplace, let alone adapt to technological shifts in society that impact on land use patterns.
2
15
In response to these trends, the City initiated a comprehensive update for the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan. This effort involved extensive research and a robust public engagement program
led by City staff and a consultant team. The products of this effort were a new Specific Plan for
Smoky Hollow and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating the potential impacts of
implementing the proposed Specific Plan.
On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to evaluate the proposed
Specific Plan and EIR. After receiving public testimony and discussing the project, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2837 recommending that the City Council approve proposed
Specific Plan and related discretionary actions.
1. The Snecifie Plan document
Summary
The revised Specific Plan contains five chapters that are summarized below. The complete
Specific Plan is attached as Exhibit No. 2(h).
Chapter 1: Introduction + Vision. The vision and guiding principles aim to attract creative
businesses to Smoky Hollow, improve the infrastructure, provide parking and mobility solutions,
and give the district an attractive and distinctive image.
Chapter 2:Private Realm Strategies.This chapter contains the rules that regulate private properties,
including the uses, development standards, and design guidelines.
Chapter 3: Public realm strategies. This chapter contains strategies and guidelines for public
infrastructure that will improve the physical appearance of streets and sidewalks, improve options
for mobility (walking, biking, using transit), and provide parking solutions.
Chapter 4: Specific Plan Process + Administration. This chapter describes how new projects
within the Specific Plan area will be reviewed and approved, how existing nonconforming uses
and buildings will be treated, and how the Specific Plan may be interpreted and/or amended.
Chapter 5: Implementation+Financing. This chapter identifies strategies to implement the vision,
regulations,infrastructure and plans identified in chapters 1-4. It lists specific actions and provides
timeframes,primary responsibilities, approximate costs, and potential funding sources.
Private Realm
Uses. The Specific Plan permits a mix of uses that promote more vibrant commercial activity and
walkability. Examples of changes to the permitted uses in Smoky Hollow include:
• Removal of general office size cap. The current code restricts these uses to a maximum of
15,000 square feet per site, which inhibits the development or conversion of medium to large
buildings for office purposes. Removing this limitation is consistent with the Specific Plan's
guiding principles, and with recent market trends.
• Conditional use permit requirement for full service and fast-food restaurants. Restaurants are
encouraged to maintain an appropriate mix of uses in the plan area, however, they will be
reviewed individually to address potential impacts, such as traffic, parking and noise.
3
16
• Outdoor dining for restaurants permitted without a use permit to promote a more walkable
environment, which is a guiding principle of the Specific Plan.
• Conditional use permit requirement for public assembly uses. Currently, these uses are not
permitted in Smoky Hollow. However, staff believes that these uses are in demand, and that
they complement other permitted uses in Smoky Hollow and the surrounding area.
Develoument Standards. Table No. 1 below compares the current development standards in the
ESMC and the revised specific plan. Generally, development standards in the revised plan have
been relaxed compared to current regulations.
Table No. 1 —Development Standards Comparison
Standard Current Zone Revised Snec_ific Plan Zone
SB MM SH-West SH-East
Building height 35 35*
Setbacks
Front 3' 5'-10' 0'
Side 0' 0' 0'
Street Side 3'-6' min. 4'-8' min. 5' max. on Franklin
Rear 0' 0' 0'
Alley 5' S' 10'
Floor area ratio(FAR) 0.6 0.6 .75* 1.0*
Parking ratio
1/300 - Office 1/400 - all uses
1/500 - Industrial
1/1000 - Warehouse
1/75 - Restaurant
Landscaping 3% of lot 7% of lot 3% - lots up to 22,400 s.f. and
10% - lots 22,400 s.f. or greater
*Exceptions to height,FAR,and other development standard limits may be granted in exchange for a community benefit.
Exceptions to standards. The Specific Plan allows exceptions to the permitted height limit, the
FAR, and other development standards subject to approval of a Community Benefits Plan by the
Planning Commission or City Council. A Community Benefits Plan may include public benefits,
such as a publicly accessible open space area during business hours, publicly accessible parking,
or dedication of land for sidewalk widening or other public improvements. This innovative
approach provides flexibility to stimulate private property investment while helping the City
accomplish some of the public goals for Smoky Hollow,which are discussed below and in Chapter
3 of the Specific Plan.
Parking. The Specific Plan proposes a single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet for
new buildings or additions irrespective of the use. This is a departure from the current approach
4
17
where parking ratios are based on the various uses within a building. However, it is similar to the
approach in the Downtown Specific Plan area where uses are permitted to change without the
provision of additional parking. Staff believes that this approach is advantageous for the following
reasons:
• Conversions to office uses are easier. The Specific Plan requires existing buildings to comply
with the new parking ratio if they change occupancy per the Building Code. The current code
ratio for office uses is 1 space per 300 net square feet, whereas the new ratio in the Specific
Plan is 1 space per 400 gross square feet. So, an existing warehouse or manufacturing use that
converts into office would require less additional parking, which may make such a
transformation feasible at that location.
• Once an existing industrial building is converted into office, and for all new buildings and
additions, the single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet would allow uses to
change without providing additional parking. Parking requirements are the main regulatory
inhibitor preventing creative businesses from moving to Smoky Hollow. Therefore, this new
approach would lift a barrier to businesses' entry and expansion.
■ The proposed single parking ratio improves the permitting process for new buildings and
additions. First, using the gross, instead of the net floor area simplifies parking calculations,
and second, using a single parking ratio eliminates confusion when dealing with multiple-use
buildings. As a result, design and review of plans will be simpler and faster.
Loading. The Specific Plan proposes to require loading spaces only for buildings 50,000 gross
square feet or larger. Currently, the ESMC requires at least a 12' x 25' loading space for most
buildings, which has proven onerous for property owners wishing to convert existing buildings
and construct additions or new buildings. Most lots in Smoky Hollow are small and narrow and
providing a dedicated loading space on-site is very challenging. In addition, loading spaces are
typically used for a limited period of time that does not always coincide with regular business
hours. Recognizing these facts, the City has in the last few years considered and approved
adjustment applications to allow the shared use of parking spaces and loading spaces on properties.
Furthermore, many businesses in Smoky Hollow rely primarily on deliveries that involve small
trucks and vans. Those deliveries almost exclusively occur at the front of the property along the
street curb and are completed within a few minutes. Therefore, most small businesses never use
loading areas located at the rear of their properties. In response to these trends and to remove a
significant barrier to investment on smaller properties, staff proposes requiring loading spaces only
for larger buildings.
Public realm
In conjunction with the private property regulations, the Specific Plan identifies goals and actions
for improving the public realm, including streets, sidewalks, landscaping,parking, and mobility in
Smoky Hollow. Some of the major goals and improvements are discussed below.
Street parking. Parking was among the most important issues identified during the public outreach
process. Based on the possibility of up to 517,000 square feet of additional building space
anticipated in Smoky Hollow, approximately 1,300 additional parking spaces will be needed by
5
18
2040. The Specific Plan proposes additional street parking to help address this demand. Along El
Segundo Boulevard, the plan identifies improvements that will provide parallel parking on the
north side of the street (westbound) without reducing the number of vehicle travel lanes in either
direction. This will result in approximately 74 additional parking spaces along El Segundo
Boulevard.
In addition to El Segundo Boulevard,the Specific Plan proposes to convert up to 11 streets running
north-south into one-way streets and provide angled parking on one side or the other. This will
add approximately 85 additional parking spaces collectively. Currently, those streets have
approximately 310 parallel spaces and this proposal will increase the number to 395. Overall,
approximately 159 additional street parking spaces can be provided with these improvements. The
remaining parking demand can be met through parking in public or private surface lots and parking
structures, as well as on private property when new construction requires additional parking
spaces.
Streetscape improvements. The Specific Plan proposes to supplement the parking improvements
with streetscape improvements. The streetscape improvements include curb extensions (bulb-
outs) with landscaping at street intersections, decorative cross-walks, and tree planters between
parking spaces. Other streetscape improvements may include sidewalk widening, street parklets,
and decorative paving treatments on selected streets. The purpose of these improvements is to
make streets more walkable and transform Franklin Avenue into the central focus of the district.
Mobilitv. In addition to improving the physical appearance and walkability of the district, the
Specific Plan aims to improve bicycle transportation and access to transit. In the long run,Franklin
Avenue is envisioned as a safe, slow-moving street that accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, and
drivers equally. Furthermore, the Specific Plan proposes the re-striping of Grand Avenue to
accommodate a shared bicycle and vehicle travel lane in each direction. This would be
accomplished by widening the right lane to 13 feet, which will make space for cyclists during off-
peak hours when the right lane is used for parking. This improvement will be completed without
reducing the number of vehicle lanes in either direction.
Specific Plan Process and Administration
This chapter streamlines the review process for new developments and additions, permits
exceptions to development standards when necessary and appropriate, and allows for the
continuation of existing nonconforming uses and buildings.
Ministerial Review. The Specific Plan allows most projects to proceed with only ministerial level
review. Under the existing regulations, a discretionary site plan review process is required for all
projects in Smoky Hollow. The site plan review process is expensive and time consuming because
it is discretionary in nature and applicants cannot be assured of the outcome. That uncertainty,
combined with the high cost, often discourages property owners that might otherwise invest more
in their properties. A ministerial permitting process for most projects, on the other hand, would
be faster, less expensive, and offer more certainty to applicants.
6
19
Administrative Adiiistrnents. The Specific Plan authorizes the Director to process minor
deviations of up to 10% from numeric standards, except building height and FAR, following an
existing streamlined process in the ESMC.
Communitv Benefits Plans. As mentioned previously, the Specific Plan allows deviations from
the building height,FAR and other standards above the level requiring administrative adjustments,
subject to approval of a Community Benefits Plan. The Planning Commission will review most
of these exceptions. The City Council will review those requests involving FAR over 1.5 or those
involving three or more exceptions that also include height or FAR. The community benefits plan
strategy will provide additional flexibility in new development design and incentivize owners to
invest in Smoky Hollow. At the same time,the community benefit requirement will assist the City
in meeting its long-term goals for the area, such as streetscape improvements,public open spaces,
and improved mobility.
Implementation and Financing
As mentioned previously, Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan identifies how to implement the vision,
regulations,infrastructure and strategies identified in the first four chapters. It lists specific actions
and priorities, primary responsibilities and partners, approximate costs, and potential funding
sources. Establishment of a Parking In-Lieu Fee is an example of an implementation action. The
parking in-lieu fee allows property owners and developers to pay a fee instead of providing
required parking on-site. This provides much needed flexibility to property owners, particularly
of small lots. At the same time, the revenue from the parking in-lieu fee will help fund public
parking and related street improvements.
2. Discretionary Permits
General plan amendment
A general plan amendment is necessary to: a) update the purpose of the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan in the land use element; b)update the description of the City's northwest quadrant in the land
use plan; c)update the Specific Plan area and City build-out projections;and d)update the General
Plan land use map to reflect the revised boundaries of the Specific Plan and land use designations
around it. These changes will ensure that the Specific Plan and the General Plan are consistent
with each other.
7
20
Figure No. 1 —Boundary Changes
a i
i r
� r
c
1 g
O.. ,t s
rnfr n
Cunene Sp—fi,PI.,Bounde,y (Biglnd P.—I,
Po,o dPl,n 11—duy Added Parcel,
Brmnud Vnrrl,
Zone Change
A zone change is necessary to reflect the revised boundaries of the Specific Plan (See Figure No.
1 above). Certain properties outside the existing Specific Plan and currently zoned Public
Facilities (P-F) and Parking (P) will be incorporated into the new Specific Plan and maintain the
same zoning designations. In addition, certain properties within the existing Specific Plan and
zoned Medium Density Residential(MDR)will be removed from the new Specific Plan and zoned
Multi-Family Residential (R-3). The R-3 zone has the same development standards as the MDR
zone, so the conforming status of the affected residential properties will not change. The reason
for removing the residential properties from the Specific Plan is that its character and vision is
primarily office and light industrial in nature. In addition, those properties are developed with
multi-family residential uses and are not anticipated to change during the Specific Plan's time
horizon. The properties zoned P-F and P will be incorporated into the Specific Plan, because they
have a greater chance of being developed over the long term in a manner consistent with the uses
envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finally, these zone changes will ensure that the Zoning
designations for the subject properties are consistent with their General Plan land use designations.
Figures 2 and 3 show the existing and proposed zoning designations for the Specific Plan and the
properties immediately surrounding the Specific Plan area.
8
21
t1IIFigure 2—Existing Zoning
A•/ 1R it R-1{ft1R.S�R.1 R,2 R-1 R•1 I R1 R� [ R1 R.1 I 1 P-F k.S R•1 Rol
nw ire -� L !-r�nN.axx�—i 1
R3 i iR•2�Rpt I R•1 R•I$R-1�Rs � R�^� R-1 -� R'I yt R-1 R-Y I Wi
I x R.i
R.2 R12 RA R•I R•t R 5 R4 161 1
i - I
Mp
R S SIR I.
t f A•� r
� CO
- ' Se as ss fib' as as W $a 5s t Ss SD; se sa 3 se
_..�..'
Current Smoky Hollow dill
Specific Plan Boundary 3
f Small Business(SB)
- Medlum Manufacturing(MM)
Public Facilitles(P-F)
Parking(P)
0 500 7.000
Feet
Figure 3—Proposed Zoning
1 I FF RI RI R i, As R7 R7 F[ I Rt R1 94 j R•1 R•I PF kRsi Rs Rol
7. LQ;Rpt IA-1 R-1 Rt i.1 ks R3 R•1 R.ta R1 RS R1 RIt
7
.r f Ra
mm s R-t R t � Y R•t I R.I I S
RQ ,4,21 R•1. R-11 _ R•i G K't =� - Nil
M � P�
R3 ;R4 _ M .
l
--I
Ax l
t I.Rsrc-_.r.�snwl
.v vnV ,111.11
t
Proposed Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan Boundary
Smoky Hollow West(SHW)
- Srnoky Hollow East(SHE)
Public Facilities(P-F)
- Parting(P) `
0 WO 100 Ir{yTJt
Feet
9
22
Zone Text Amendment
A zone text amendment is necessary to amend or delete municipal code provisions regarding the
existing Specific Plan, its zones and overlay districts, and other provisions. These provisions will
no longer be needed in the municipal code, as all of the corresponding regulations and standards
will be incorporated directly into the new Specific Plan document.
Findings
General Plan and Zone Chance. There are no required findings for a General Plan Amendment.
However,an amendment must be internally consistent with the rest of the General Plan. In drafting
the Specific Plan, staff took care to ensure that the Specific Plan vision and regulations are
consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. In addition, in areas where the
Specific Plan is inconsistent with the existing General Plan, the project incorporates amendments
to the General Plan to ensure the two documents are consistent with each other. The proposed
Zone Changes are necessary to ensure that the zoning designations of properties affected by this
project are consistent with their General plan land use designations.
Zone Text Amendment. ESMC Section 15-1-1 (Purpose, Title) states that Title 15 is the primary
tool for implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the El Segundo General Plan.
Accordingly, the City Council must find that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent
with those goals, objectives, and policies. Planning staff believes there is substantial evidence in
the record to support the findings required for the City Council to approve the proposed
amendment.
Pursuant to ESMC Title 15, Chapter 26 (Amendments), in order to approve the proposed
amendments,the City Council must find that the amendments are necessary to carry out the general
purpose of ESMC Title 15. The purpose of this Title(ESMC §15-1-1)is to serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare and to provide economic and social advantages resulting from an
orderly planned use of land resources. Planning staff believes there is substantial evidence in the
record to support the findings required for the City Council to approve the proposed amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The draft Specific Plan establishes new land use, transportation, infrastructure, economic
development, and urban design strategies that will provide opportunities for businesses to thrive
in a creative, innovative, and dynamic environment. Solutions related to parking and
transportation, along with streamlined processes and development standards will facilitate
conversions of existing buildings and development of new buildings for creative office,
commercial, and clean industrial uses. It is projected that an additional 517,000 square feet of new
building space may be added to Smoky Hollow through the year 2040. Staff prepared an
Environmental Impact Report to evaluate the environment impacts of the project. Based on its
findings, the project is anticipated to have significant unavoidable impacts in the areas of
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic. The impacts in these three areas are summarized
below.
10
23
Significant Impacts
Greenhouse gas emissions(GHG). As discussed in the EIR,Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and
Executive Order 5-03-05 set State goals for GHG emissions reductions of 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Based on these goals, GHG emissions
in Smoky Hollow should be 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040,which is the anticipated build-
out year. The analysis in the EIR anticipates substantial reductions in the amount of GHG
emissions in Smoky Hollow by 2040, however, those reductions will be not meet the State goals.
As a result, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant
and unavoidable impact with regard to GHG emissions.
Noise. As part of the EIR analysis, noise measurements were taken at six locations within the
Specific Plan area to establish the baseline ambient noise levels in the area. Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan will result in short- and long-term changes to the ambient noise
environment in the planning area. The short-term changes would result from intermittent
construction activities as existing buildings are improved and new buildings erected. Long term
changes will result from changes in land uses and from changes in traffic volumes. The analysis
in the EIR anticipates that the increased traffic volumes will result in significant unavoidable
impact with respect to the exterior noise levels for commercial and industrial uses. The permitted
level is 75 dBA and the EIR estimates those levels to be up to 75.4 dBA in two areas along Pacific
Coast Highway.
Traffic. The traffic analysis in the EIR evaluated the potential traffic impacts of the anticipated
development over the next 20 years on 15 street intersections in and around the Specific Plan. The
analysis concluded that in combination with ambient growth in traffic volumes, the proposed
Specific Plan would result in significant impacts by the year 2040 at two of the intersections
studied: Pacific Coast Highway/Grand Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway/El Segundo Boulevard.
The traffic analysis proposes mitigation measures to reduce the impact levels at these intersections.
With the incorporation of mitigation measures the impact levels would be reduced, however, the
impact level at the Pacific Coast Highway/El Segundo Boulevard intersection would still be
considered significant and unavoidable based on the Los Angeles County's Congestion
Management Program(CMP)thresholds. That impact would be significant and unavoidable both
in the AM and PM peak traffic periods.
Public Comments on the DEIR
Staff received public comments on the following issue areas. The comments and the responses to
those comments are summarized below. The complete comments and responses are incorporated
into the Final EIR
1. Cultural and tribal cultural resources. A Native American tribe requested consultation with
staff and the addition of mitigation measures to protect potential paleontological and
archaeological resources in the Specific Plan area. Staff consulted with representatives of this
tribe and the EIR incorporates mitigation measures to protect cultural resources.
2. Air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) recommended
clarifications and changes to the air quality analysis in the draft EIR. In addition, SCAQMD
recommended additional mitigation measures to reduce the project's air quality impacts. Staff
11
24
revised the air quality analysis to address SCAQMD comments, but did not incorporated
additional mitigation measures.
3. Hazards and hazardous materials. The Department of Conservation notified staff that 18 oil
and gas wells under its jurisdiction are located within the Specific Plan area and requested that
it be contacted in the event that any wells are discovered or damaged during construction.
Staff added a mitigation measure to the EIR to reflect the request.
4. Transportation and traffic. The Department of Transportation requested that additional
analysis be performed to evaluate potential impacts at on-ramps, off-ramps, and roads leading
to the 105 freeway. In response, staff conducted additional analysis which identified
significant traffic volume impacts at three locations. The locations are: Pacific Coast Highway
and Imperial Highway, Nash Street and Imperial Highway, and Parkview Drive North and
Atwood Way. A mitigation measure was added to the EIR to reduce these impacts at those
intersections, however, even with mitigation the traffic volume impacts are still considered
significant and unavoidable.
Re-circulation of the EIR for public comment
Pursuant to CEQA, Section 15088.5 (Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification), a lead agency
is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public
notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. Pursuant to this CEQA
requirement and the additional traffic impacts and mitigation measures,staff recirculated the traffic
section of the EIR for public comment and resent it to the State clearinghouse and the agencies
notified previously regarding the draft EIR. The updated traffic section was made available for
public review for a 46-day period, beginning on June 22 and ending on August 6. No additional
substantive comments were received. However, the non-substantive comments received and the
responses to those comments are incorporated into the Final EIR.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Due to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified above, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted by the City Council for this project. In adopting a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, Staff believes that the following finding can be made:
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore the adverse environmental effects are
considered acceptable.
As discussed in the draft resolution, staff believes that to the extent the impact would remain
significant,this impact is acceptable and outweighed by social, economic and other benefits of the
project. The EIR, its appendices, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached
to this report as Exhibits No. 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c).
12
25
Next Steps
The impact of adopting the new specific plan will be immediate in some respects and slower in
others. Several larger-scale developments are currently being designed and planned around the
new specific plan regulations. So the first result may be that these projects will be seeking
entitlements from the City to develop. The changes proposed to development standards alone may
unlock a noticeable increase in development within Smoky Hollow.
The streamlined approval processes of the new specific plan will also help to stimulate growth and
transformation of the built environment. The new approach to flexibility in the development
standards that allows the City to negotiate public benefits for increased height or FAR will result
in new public amenities provided by private developers. These may include, among other things,
public parking, publicly accessible parklets, bicycle docking facilities, and public art. These sort
of changes will be conspicuous and contribute to Smoky Hollow's place identity.
On the side of public realm, streetscape improvements will follow private development because
they are mostly linked to the funding that is associated with the in-lieu parking program. As
development projects pay into the fund, it will pay for street improvements. It is envisioned that
the projects will proceed piecemeal as funding allows rather than all at once.El Segundo Boulevard
improvements are a good place to start since the initial changes involve only restriping and curb
painting, but even this simple change will result in over 70 new parking spaces.
The changes brought on by the new specific plan will be realized over several years and decades,
but the accumulation of changes will become noticeable within the first year and, hopefully,pick
up steam after that.
13
26
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 13-01 AND ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 13-01 AMENDING EL SEGUNDO
MUNICIPAL CODE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
UPDATE OF THE SMOKY HOLLOW SPECIFIC PLAN.
The City Council of the city of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 1, 2014, the City initiated an Environmental Assessment No.
EA 1011, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone Change No. ZC
13-01, and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01 for the comprehensive
update of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan;
B. 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");
C. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;
D. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning
Commission by city staff; and, adopted Resolution No. 2837 recommending
that the City Council approve the proposed Specific Plan;
E. On August 21, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing and considered
the information provided by City staff and public testimony regarding this
Ordinance; and
F. This Ordinance and its findings are made based upon the entire
administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the
City Council at its August 21, 2018, hearing including the totality of evidence
in the administrative record.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update (hereinafter, the "Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan" or "Specific Plan") covers approximately 94.3 acres and will
replace the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan which covers
approximately 93.55 acres. The Specific Plan is located in the northwest
Page 1 of 10
27
quadrant of the City, generally bounded by Standard Street to the west, EI
Segundo Boulevard to the south, Pacific Coast Highway to the east and
Grand Avenue to the north (Exhibit A— Specific Plan Boundary Changes);
B. The project removes a 7.44-acre area north of Grand Avenue from the
existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and changes its General Plan Land
Use designation to Multi-Family Residential (Exhibit B — General Plan Land
Use Map Amendments) and its zoning designation to Multi-Family
Residential (R-3) (Exhibit C — Zoning Map Amendments);
C. The project incorporates three areas immediately abutting the existing
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, which are approximately 8.19 acres in size,
into the Specific Plan, change their General Plan Land Use designations
from Parking and Public Facilities to Smoky Hollow Specific Plan (Exhibit B
— General Plan Land Use Map Amendments), and zoning designations to
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan — Parking (P) and Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
— Public Facilities (P-F) (Exhibit C — Zoning Map Amendments);
D. The zone text amendments to the EI Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC)
change or delete municipal code provisions regarding the existing Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan, its zones and overlay districts, and other provisions.
These amendments are necessary to ensure that the ESMC is consistent
with the General Plan.
E. The zone text amendments are necessary and ensure that the ESMC is
consistent with the updated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
F. The zone text amendments enable the adoption of the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan Update, and with it, the adoption of new regulations for private
properties to:
1. Allow more office uses in the plan area;
2. Increase the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) from .6 currently, to .75 in
the west and 1.0 in the east portion of the plan;
3. Replace the existing parking requirements that are based on the type of
use with a single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet of
building area; and
4. Allow deviations from development standards, subject to approval of a
community benefits plan.
Page 2 of 10
28
SECTION 3: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section
65860, the Zone Change and ESMC amendments proposed by the zone text amendment
are consistent with the EI Segundo General Plan as follows:
A. As set forth in Section 2, the zone change ensures that the zoning map
designations of properties affected by the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
Update project are consistent with their General Plan Land Use
designations.
B. The zone text amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan and will not obstruct their attainment. The zone text
amendment eliminates zoning designations that are inconsistent with the
amended General Plan and updated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and will
establish new zoning designations that are consistent with the General Plan
Land Use designations and the updated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
C. The zone text amendment eliminates ESMC regulations regarding
permitted uses, development standards, and design guidelines that are
inconsistent with the regulations in the updated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
and with the General Plan Land Use Designation description for the updated
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
D. The zone text amendment eliminates ESMC regulations regarding
nonconforming buildings and uses that are inconsistent with the regulations
in the updated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
E. The ordinance amends the ESMC to add and to delete permissible use
categories in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area in a manner consistent
with the updated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. These amendments are
consistent with the General Plan and the updated Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan.
1. The ordinance is consistent with Land Use Element Goal LU4 (Provision
of a Stable Tax Base for EI Segundo) and Objective LU4-3 in that it
provides for new office and research and development uses in Smoky
Hollow. The ordinance does so by eliminating an existing cap on the
floor area of office uses on individual building sites and eliminating a
prohibition on public assembly uses.
2. The ordinance is consistent with Objective LU4-4 to provide areas where
development has the flexibility to mix uses, in an effort to provide
synergistic relationships which have the potential to maximize economic
benefit, reduce traffic impacts, and encourage pedestrian environments,
in that it eliminates a prohibition on public assembly uses in the plan
area, and public assembly uses can operate synergistically with other
permitted uses.
Page 3 of 10
29
3. The ordinance is consistent with Goal LU5 to attract clean and beneficial
industrial uses in that it deletes noxious uses, such as automobile
service uses, freight forwarding, and service stations.
4. The ordinance is also consistent with Objective LU5-6 to encourage a
mix of office and light industrial uses in industrial areas, because it
permits additional office, along with research and development, and light
industrial uses in Smoky Hollow.
SECTION 4: Zone Change Findings.
A. Based on the factual findings of this Resolution, the Zone Change is
necessary to carry out the proposed project. The General Plan Amendment
changes the land use classification of the Specific Plan area to Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan and certain properties north of Grand Avenue to Multi-
Family Residential as identified in Exhibit B (General Plan Land Use Map
Amendments). Therefore, the Zone Change is necessary to maintain
consistency with the proposed General Plan land use designations.
B. The purpose of ESMC Title 15 (Zoning Code) and adopted specific plans is
to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the EI Segundo General
Plan. The zone change is necessary to implement the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan and is consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives and
policies discussed in Section 3 of this resolution.
C. The Zone Change will not adversely affect surrounding properties, in that
the Specific Plan area is anticipated to transition to more office uses, which
tend to have less impacts with regard to noise, odors, hazardous materials,
and other impacts associated primarily with industrial uses.
D. The Zone Change promotes the public health, safety and general welfare
and serves the goals and purposes of the Zoning Code, in that the Zone
Change, the Specific Plan vision and standards are consistent with General
Plan goals, objectives, and policies as detailed in Section 3. The Specific
Plan vision and guiding principles will benefit the surrounding area and
community overall by generating new employment and tax revenues;
providing new public infrastructure, including additional public parking,
publicly available open space, street trees and other streetscape
improvements, bicycle improvements; and creating connections to all
modes of travel. In addition, the development standards and design
guidelines in the Specific Plan serve the public health, safety, and general
welfare and provide economic and social advantages resulting from an
orderly use of land resources.
Page 4 of 10
30
SECTION 5: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Sections 2 and 3, the zone text
amendment is consistent with and necessary to carry out the purpose of the ESMC as
follows:
A. The zone text amendment is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning
Code, which is to serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and
to provide the economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly
planned use of land resources.
B. The zone text amendment is necessary to facilitate the development
process and ensure the orderly development of buildings and the location
of uses in the City. The intent of the zone text amendment is to update the
vision, permitted uses and development standards in the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan area, which will encourage, facilitate, and expedite the
development process and provide economic and social benefits resulting
from the orderly planned use of land resources. The zone text amendment
will not adversely affect properties surrounding the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan area.
C. The zone text amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties,
in that it will enable the adoption of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. One
of the Specific Plan goals is to transition to more office uses in the area,
which tend to have less impacts with regard to noise, odors, hazardous
materials, and other impacts associated primarily with existing industrial
uses.
D. The zone text amendment promotes the public health, safety and general
welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the Zoning Code, in that it
enables the adoption of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
vision and standards are consistent with General Plan goals, objectives,
and policies as detailed in Section 3. The Specific Plan vision and guiding
principles will benefit the surrounding area and community overall by
generating new employment and tax revenues; providing new public
infrastructure, including additional public parking, publicly available open
space, street trees and other streetscape improvements, bicycle
improvements; and creating connections to all modes of travel. In addition,
the development standards and design guidelines in the Specific Plan will
serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and provide economic
and social advantages resulting from an orderly use of land resources.
SECTION 6: Environmental Assessment. Resolution No. certified a Final
Environmental Impact Report and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations
(SOC) for this Project. The Environmental Impact Report was prepared in accordance
with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This Ordinance incorporates by reference the
environmental findings and analysis set forth in Resolution No.
Page 5 of 10
31
SECTION 7: ESMC Section 15-3-1 (Designation of Zone Names) is amended to read as
follows:
15-3-1 : DESIGNATION OF ZONE NAMES:
In order to classify, regulate, restrict and segregate the uses of lands and buildings, to
regulate and restrict the height and bulk of buildings, to regulate the area of yards and
other open spaces about buildings, and to regulate the density of population, the
classes of use zones are by this title established, to be known as follows:
R-1 Single-family residential zone
R-2 Two-family residential zone
R-3 Multi-family residential zone
C-RS Downtown commercial zone
C-2 Neighborhood commercial zone
C-3 General commercial zone
CO Corporate office zone
MU-N Urban mixed use north zone
MU-S Urban mixed use south zone
C-4 I Commercial center zone
M-1 Light industrial zone
M-2---] Heavy industrial zone
Smsll baoimss--zone-
MM- Modium man ufaotuhng-z-Gne-
MDR Modiurn charity .,aoidontial Wine—
GAG- Grans svenuo oQmrnero�s4_K^no
MMO ± Multimedia overlay district
O-S I Open space zone
P Automobile parking zone
P-F Public facilities zone
Page 6 of 10
32
SECTION 8: ESMC Section 15-3-2(A)(1) regarding Specific Plan Zones is
amended to read as follows:
1. Smoky Hollow Specific Plan: There are four (4) classes of use zones intended to
be used within the boundaries of the Smoky Hollow specific plan. These zones
include:
!3B Shall bucinaDo _-�oaeSH-W - Smokv Hollow West Zoning District
MM--Modiurn manufcoturing-zGneSH-E - Smkv Hollow East Zoninq District
MDR Med Lvrn do wity rvaidontial- r ePF - Public Facilitv Zoninai District
GAO--jGFaPA-Avenuo aammoroiol zaneP - Parking Zoning District
SECTION 9: ESMC Chapter 15-6, Article C (Small Business (SB) Zone) and ESMC
Chapter 15-6, Article D (Medium Manufacturing (MM) Zone) are deleted in their entirety.
SECTION 10: ESMC Chapter 15-7, Article A (Medium Density (MDR) Residential Zone)
and ESMC Chapter 15-7, Article B (Grand Avenue Commercial (GAC) Zone) are deleted
in their entirety and ESMC Chapter 15-7, Article C (Multimedia Overlay (MMO) District) is
renumbered as ESMC Chapter 15-7, Article A.
SECTION 11: ESMC Chapter 15-11 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan) is deleted in its
entirety.
SECTION 12: ESMC Section 15-15-5(K) (Tandem Spaces Permitted) is hereby
amended to read as follows:
K. Tandem Spaces Permitted: All tandem parking spaces, where allowed, must be
clearly outlined on the surface of the parking facility.
TANDEM SPACES PERMITTED
Percentage Of
Tetal
Percentage Required
Of Tetal Spaces
Required In Smoky Maximum
Use Spaces Hollow Depth
Single-family and two- 100 n/a 2 spaces'
family dwellings
Multiple-family Prohibited Prohibited n/a n/a
residential
Retail uses and services Prohibited 30 __F2 spaces
Page 7 of 10
33
Industrial uses3 20 85 2 spaces
Offices 20 85 2 spaces
Restaurants Prohibited 10 2 spaces
Notes:
1. Tandem spaces for single- and two-family dwellings must be assigned to the same
unit.
2. Tandem parking is permitted for multiple-family residential developments involving
density bonuses, pursuant to Government Code section 65915.
3. 44dsAcoo manufooturing, worohflus�Rr, cnd rosearch and doveloprront u00C.
The Director may approve tandem parking and/or administrative adjustments to the
tandem parking standards as provided in chapter 24, "Adjustments", of this title, subject
to conditions. The conditions may include recording of a covenant agreement, requiring
a parking attendant, requiring valet service, and other operational conditions. The
Director may also approve tandem parking in excess of the above limits for permitted
temporary uses and/or special events.
SECTION 13: ESMC Section 15-21-7 (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Restrictions) is
deleted and Sections 15-21-8 (Restrictions for the Heavy Industrial (M-2) Zone) and 15-
21-9 (Nonconforming Signs) are re-numbered as 15-21-7 and 15-21-8 respectively.
SECTION 14: The current Zoning Map is amended to reflect the updated Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan boundaries, the zoning district designations within the Specific Plan, and
the new zoning designations of properties immediately north of the Specific Plan. The
corresponding changes to the Zoning Map are set forth in attached Exhibit C (Zoning Map
Amendments), which is incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.
SECTION 15: The City Council adopts and approves the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
2018 as set forth in attached Exhibit D (Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018).
SECTION 16: EXHIBITS. There are three exhibits to this ordinance, each of which is
incorporated herein by this reference. They are as follows:
Exhibit A: Specific Plan Boundary Changes
Exhibit B: General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit C: Zoning Map Amendments
Exhibit D: Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018
SECTION 17: CONSTRUCTION. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the
provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a
manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
Page 8 of 10
34
SECTION 13: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the ESMC does not affect
any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition
of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such
repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting
violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 19: VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS CODE SECTIONS. If this entire Ordinance or
its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or
amendment of the ESMC or other city ordinance by this Ordinance will be rendered void
and cause such previous ESMC provision or other the city ordinance to remain in full
force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 20- SEVERABILITY. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 21- The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original
ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and,
within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause a
summary thereof to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
Page 9 of 10
35
SECTION 22: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO }
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting
held on the day of 2018, and 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 _day of 2018, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
Page 10 of 10
36
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
EA-1011, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 13-01, AND A
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE SMOKY HOLLOW SPECIFIC
PLAN
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On October 1, 2014, the City initiated an Environmental Assessment No.
EA 1011, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone Change No. ZC
13-01, and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01 for the comprehensive
update of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan;
B. 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");
C. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15161;
D. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including, information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff;
and, adopted Resolution No. 2837 recommending that the City Council
approve the proposed project;
E. On August 21, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to receive public
testimony and other evidence regarding the project including information
provided to the Council by City Staff;
F. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence
presented to the City Council at its August 21, 2018, hearing including the
totality of the evidence in the administrative record.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update (hereinafter, the "Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan" or "Specific Plan" or "project") covers approximately 94.3
acres and supersedes the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan which
covers approximately 93.55 acres. The Specific Plan is located in the
northwest quadrant of the City, generally bounded by Standard Street to the
west, EI Segundo Boulevard to the south, Pacific Coast Highway to the east
and Grand Avenue and Holly Avenue to the north (Exhibit I — Specific Plan
Boundary Changes);
37
B. The project removes a 7.44-acres area north of Grand Avenue from the
existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area and change its General Plan Land
Use designation to Multi-Family Residential (Exhibit D — General Plan Land
Use Map Amendments) and its zoning designation to Multi-Family
Residential (R-3);
C. The project incorporates three areas immediately abutting the existing
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area, which are approximately 8.19 acres in
size, into the Specific Plan area, change their General Plan Land Use
designations from Parking and Public Facilities to Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan (Exhibit D — General Plan Land Use Map Amendments), and zoning
designations to Smoky Hollow Specific Plan — Parking (P) and Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan — Public Facilities (P-F);
D. The project amends the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan General Plan Land
Use Designation description to reflect a change in focus toward creative
office uses and increased densities in the Specific Plan (Exhibit E—General
Plan Land Use Designation Descriptions);
E. The project amends the description of the City's northwest quadrant in the
General Plan Land Use Element Land Use plan (Exhibit G — General Plan
Land Use Plan Excerpt);
F. The project amends the General Plan Land Use Element Build-out
projections (Exhibit F — General Plan Land Use Plan Existing Trends
Buildout);
G. The project will amend the EI Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) to change
or delete the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan chapter, its zones and overlay
districts, and other provisions;
H. The Specific Plan (Exhibit H — Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018) changes
the regulations for private properties to:
1. Allow more office uses in the plan area;
2. Increase the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) from .6 currently, to .75 in
the west and 1.0 in the east portion of the plan;
3. Replace the existing parking requirements that are based on the type of
use with a single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet of
building area; and
4. Allow deviations from development standards, subject to approval of a
community benefits plan.
1. The Specific Plan will result in public improvements, including:
2
38
1. Converting 11 north-south streets within the plan area to one-way
streets and adding angled parking, which will generate approximately 85
additional on-street parking spaces;
2. Restriping EI Segundo Boulevard without reducing the number of
vehicle travel lanes to add a parking lane on the north side of the street,
which will generate approximately 74 new on-street parking spaces;
3. Building curb extensions at street intersections, decorative crosswalks
and street trees within the plan area; and
4. Making bicycle related improvements along Franklin Avenue and
Grand Avenue, including pavement markings and signage to allow
cyclists to share vehicle travel lanes.
SECTION 3: General Plan Consistency Findings. The City Council finds that the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan pursuant to the analysis
below:
General Plan goals, objectives, Consistency analysis
policies and programs
Land Use designation The permitted uses in the amended specific
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan: plan are consistent with this designation
This designation is intended to permit a
range of incubator businesses, small and
medium size industrial uses, research and
development, and creative office uses.
The designation also permits public
facilities, parking facilities, and limited
restaurant and retail uses.
Land Use Element One of the Specific Plan guiding principles
Objective LU2-2: is to preserve Smoky Hollow's Mid-Century
To encourage the preservation of historical Industrial Feel. The development standards
and cultural sites and monuments and design guidelines in the Specific Plan
are consistent with that principle in that they
encourage the preservation of existing
buildings and character of Smoky Hollow
Goal LU4 (Provision of a Stable Tax Base The Specific Plan lifts an existing cap on the
for EI Segundo): floor area of office uses on individual
To provide for new office and research and building sites and continues to permit
development uses in Smoky Hollow research and development uses
Goal LU5(Attraction of clean and beneficial The Specific Plan contains guidelines,
industrial uses) and Objective LU5-3: standards and strategies to improve
To encourage the rehabilitation of existing aesthetic and functional deficiencies in such
substandard blighted industrial areas as areas as landscaping, off-street parking,
through the combined efforts of private and and loading areas
public sectors
3
39
Objective LU5-6: The Specific Plan permits office, research
To encourage a mix of office and light and development, and light industrial uses in
industrial uses in industrial areas Smoky Hollow
Goal LU7 (Provision of Quality The Specific Plan contains strategies and
Infrastructure) and Objective LU7-1: specific actions to provide and finance
To provide the highest and most efficient public infrastructure. The proposed
level of public services and public infrastructure includes, streetscape
infrastructure financially possible improvements along most streets in the plan
area, additional on-street parking and
possible off-street parking structures,
additional bicycle facilities, and additional
open space. Some of the implementation
and financing actions include completing a
detailed Engineering Study to determine the
costs of major infrastructure project,
completing a revenue projections study,
securing grant funding, and establishing
funding mechanisms such as a Business
Improvement District (BID) or a Parking
Benefit District (PBD)
Economic Development Element The Specific Plan permits more creative
Objective ED1-2: office uses, limited restaurants and
to center diversification efforts on targeted accessory retail uses, which promotes the
industries that meet the City's criteria for diversification of the City's retail and
job creation, growth potential,fiscal impact, commercial base
and fit with local resources
Objective ED2-1: The City plans to invest in infrastructure,
To strengthen partnerships between local such as on-street parking, streetscape
government, the residential community, improvements, landscaping, bicycle
and EI Segundo's business community facilities,which encourage more commercial
and industrial development near the City's
residential core
Circulation Element The Specific Plan includes improvements
Objective C2-1: such as sidewalk widening, street trees, and
To support and encourage walking as a traffic calming measures to encourage and
safe and convenient travel mode within the make walking safe within Smoky Hollow
Citv's circulation system
Objective C2-2: The Specific Plan provides for shared
To provide a bikeway system throughout bicycle lanes on Grand Avenue and a bike
the City to support and encourage the use friendly street on Franklin Avenue that will
of the bicycle as a safe and convenient improve cyclist safety and provide links to
travel mode within the City's circulation the east part of EI Segundo and the Green
system Line rail stations
Goal C3 and Objective C3-1: The City prepared an Environmental Impact
To ensure that potential circulation system Report (EIR) evaluating the potential traffic
impacts are considered when the City's impacts of the proposed land use changes
decision makers and staff are evaluating and incorporating appropriate mitigation
land use changes measures to reduce potentially significant
impacts
4
40
Objective C3-2: The Specific Plan's parking requirements
To ensure the consideration of the impacts take into account the potential parking
of land use decisions on the City's parking demand from anticipated development in
situation the plan area. In addition, the plan contains
strategies to provide more public parking
and to encourage the use of alternatives
modes of travel to and from the plan area
Housing Element The Specific Plan will continue to permit
Goal No. 3 and Program No. 5: caretaker units as accessory uses at a ratio
Provision of adequate sites of one unit per legal building site or business
establishment, whichever is larger
Open Space Element The Specific Plan contains minimum open
Goal OS1: space requirements for all development on
To provide and maintain high quality open private property and incentives for
space and recreational facilities that meet exceeding the minimum requirements and
the needs of the existing and future providing publicly accessible open space
residents and employees within the City of
EI Sequndo
Conservation Element The Specific Plan contains strategies and
Goal CN 5: planned improvements to increase the
To develop programs to protect, enhance, landscaping and street trees throughout the
and increase the amount and quality of the plan area
urban landscape to maximize aesthetic and
environmental benefits
Air Quality Element The Specific Plan contains strategies to
Goal No. AQ4: encourage the development of high quality
To promote non-motorized transportation pedestrian and bicycle facilities to link the
entire plan area internally, and connect to
the Downtown and other key locations in the
City
Goal No. AQ9: The Specific Plan contains strategies to
To reduce the length of vehicle trips establish a shuttle bus system to transport
employees and EI Segundo residents
between the east and west sides of the City
Noise Element All new construction projects in the plan
Goal N1: area shall be required to meet the City's
To provide a noise-safe environment and noise and vibration standards
Objective No. N1-2 to ensure that City
residents are not exposed to stationary
noise levels in excess of EI Segundo's
Noise Ordinance standards
SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The City Council makes the following
environmental findings based on the whole of the administrative record:
A. The City completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this
project. A noticed Public Scoping meeting was held on April 21, 2017
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15083. A Notice of Preparation of the DEIR
was circulated for public review from March 30, 2017 to May 1, 2017
5
41
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082. A Notice of Completion for the DEIR
was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research on March 8, 2018
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15085. The public comment and review
period for the DEIR was open between March 8, 2018 and April 23, 2018 in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15087. In response to comments
received during the public review period, staff conducted additional
analysis. The analysis found additional significant transportation and traffic
impacts. As a result, the DEIR Transportation and Traffic section was
revised and recirculated for public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15088.5. The second public comment and review period for the DEIR was
open between June 22, 2018 and August 6, 2018;
B. The Final EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference,
was presented to the City Council and each Council member independently
reviewed and considered the FEIR and its appendices prior to reaching a
decision on the Project. Furthermore, each Council member reviewed and
considered the testimony and other additional evidence presented at or
prior to the public hearing on August 21, 2018;
C. The Final EIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential
environmental impacts of the project and is in compliance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR was prepared under the City's direction
and reflects its independent judgment and good faith analysis of the
potential environmental impacts and includes substantive and thorough
responses to comments received during the public review period;
D. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and Section 15093 of
the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council has weighed the benefits of the
amended Smoky Hollow Specific Plan against the unavoidable,
unmitigatable adverse impacts associated therewith and determines that
the adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan would be the most
desirable and appropriate action.
E. The project will result in the following unavoidable significant adverse
impacts after mitigation:
1. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32,
and Executive Order S-03-05 set State goals for GHG emissions
reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. Based on these goals, GHG emissions in
Smoky Hollow should be 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, which
is the anticipated build-out year. The analysis in the EIR anticipates
substantial reductions in the amount of GHG emissions in Smoky Hollow
by 2040, however, those reductions will not meet the State goals. As a
result, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, the proposed Specific Plan
6
42
will have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to GHG
emissions.
2. Noise. Implementation of the Specific Plan will result in short- and long-
term changes to the ambient noise environment in the planning area.
The short-term changes would result from intermittent construction
activities as existing buildings are improved and new buildings erected
in the area. Long term changes would result from changes in land uses
and from changes in traffic volumes. The analysis in the EIR anticipates
that the increased traffic volumes would result in significant unavoidable
impact with respect to the exterior noise levels for commercial and
industrial uses. The permitted level is 75 dBA and the EIR estimates
those levels to be up to 75.4 dBA in two areas along Sepulveda
Boulevard.
3. Traffic. The traffic analysis in the EIR evaluated the potential traffic
impacts of the anticipated development over the next 20 years on 15
street intersections in and around the Specific Plan. The analysis
concluded that in combination with ambient growth in traffic volumes,
the Specific Plan will result in significant impacts by the year 2040 at two
of the intersections studied: Pacific Coast Highway/Grand Avenue and
Pacific Coast Highway/EI Segundo Boulevard. The traffic analysis
proposes mitigation measures to reduce the impact levels at these
intersections. With the incorporation of mitigation measures the impact
levels would be reduced, however, the impact level at the Pacific Coast
Highway/EI Segundo Boulevard intersection would still be considered
significant and unavoidable based on the Los Angeles County's
Congestion Management Program (CMP) thresholds. That impact
would be significant and unavoidable both in the AM and PM peak traffic
periods.
4. Additional Traffic Analysis. In response to comments received during
the initial public review and comment period, additional traffic analysis
was performed that identified significant impacts at three additional
intersections: a) Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Highway, b) Nash
Street and Imperial Highway, and c) Parkview Drive North and Atwood
Way. A mitigation measure has been added to the EIR to reduce
impacts to those intersections. However, the impacts will remain
significant and unavoidable.
F. The City Council weighed and considered the project's benefits against its
significant and unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the
project's benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts and,
therefore, that those impacts are acceptable in light of the project's benefits.
The City Council finds that each of the following benefits is an overriding
7
43
consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of
the proposed project notwithstanding the project's significant and
unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
transportation and traffic. The project will provide several public benefits,
including the following:
1. Foster economic development through policies that stimulate and
encourage the development of new and creative uses consistent with
current trends that have proven successful in many communities across
southern California.
2. Stimulate business retention, job creation, and a broadening tax
base.
3. Promote healthy and active lifestyles through design regulations and
transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian and bike safety
access to the Smoky Hollow area.
4. Provides a comprehensive update to the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan, last adopted in 1986, to reflect the community's values and vision for
this area of the City. The Plan includes creative new policy directives that
will guide development and redevelopment over the next several years and
revitalize an underused area of the City with great potential.
5. Promotes consistency with regional growth strategies, such as the
SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy, by increasing density within the Plan area.
G. The project represents a balance between several competing objectives in
the City of EI Segundo. After balancing the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the City Council
determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified
may be considered acceptable due to the specific considerations listed
above which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts that
will be caused by implementation of the project.
H. Based on the foregoing, and on the evidence in the record as a whole, the
City Council hereby finds that:
1. All potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the
project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and
2. The remaining significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas, noise,
and transportation and traffic impacts are acceptable due to the factors
described above.
8
44
I. Based on the foregoing, on the findings and conclusions set forth in Exhibit
C (Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations), and on
the evidence in the administrative record as a whole, the City Council
adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approves the project
notwithstanding its significant, unavoidable impacts.
SECTION 5: Approvals.
A. The City Council hereby certifies a Final Environmental Impact Report for
Environmental Assessment No. 1011 as set forth in Exhibit A;
B. The City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) set forth in attached Exhibit B;
C. The City Council adopts findings of fact and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations incorporating the facts set forth in Section 6 of this resolution
and attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
D. The City Council adopts and approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA
13-01 as set forth in attached Exhibits D through G; and
SECTION 6: Exhibits. There are nine exhibits to this Resolution, each of which is
incorporated herein by this reference. They are as follows:
Exhibit A: Final Environmental Impact Report
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit C: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit D: General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
Exhibit E: General Plan Land Use Designation Descriptions
Exhibit F: General Plan Land Use Plan Existing Trends Buildout
Exhibit G: General Plan Land Use Plan Excerpt
Exhibit H: Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018
Exhibit I: Specific Plan Boundary Changes
SECTION 7: 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 8: 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
9
45
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.
SECT]ON 9= 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.
10
46
SECTION 10: This Resolution will take effect immediately and remain effective until
superseded by a subsequent resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed, approved and adopted by said City Council at a
regular meeting held on the day of , 2018, approved and signed by
the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT.
ABSTAIN.
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARK D. HENSLEY, City Attorney
David King, Assistant City Attorney
11
47
Attachments A —
The following Supporting Documents for Item #1 — Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan Update Project can be found on the City's Website,
https://www.elsegundo.org/civicax/filebank/blobdioad.aspx?BlobID=19615
a) Final Environmental Impact Report, including technical studies
b) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
c) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
d) General Plan Land Use Map Amendments
e) General Plan Land Use Designation Descriptions
f) General Plan Land Use Plan Existing Trends Buildout
g) General Plan Land Use Plan Excerpt
h) Smoky Hollow Specific Plan 2018
i) Specific Plan Boundary Changes
A hard copy of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan is also available upon request
in the City Clerk's Office. You can contact our office at 310-524-2306.
48
EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 28,2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding recommending City Council approval of
Environmental Assessment No. EA-1011, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone
Change No. ZC 13-01,and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01 for the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan (SHSP) update project.
(Applicant: City of El Segundo)
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission open the public hearing and take public testimony on the proposed project, close the
public hearing and consider the evidence, and adopt Resolution No. 2837 recommending that the
City Council approve Environmental Assessment No. EA-1011, General Plan Amendment No.
GPA 13-01,Zone Change No.ZC 13-01,and Zone Text Amendment No.ZTA 13-01 for the SHSP
update project.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2837
2. Revised Draft EIR, including technical studies and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP).
3. Draft Ordinance
4. Draft Specific Plan
5. Existing zoning map
{. Proposed Specific Plan zoning map
7. Summary of comments from the community workshop on April 19, 2018.
ORIGINATED BY: Paul Samaras, Principal Planner
4
REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
APPROVED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety ll
w
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project would replace the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan in its entirety and
require the following discretionary actions:
* Adoption of a general plan amendment to reflect changes to the General Plan Land Use
Element including incorporation of the new Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
■ Adoption of a zone change to reflect changes to the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and other
zoning districts' boundaries
■ Adoption of a zone text amendment to remove the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, its
zoning districts and overlays from "Title 15 (Zoning Code) of the El Segundo Municipal Code
(SSMC).
■ Approval of an environmental assessment and certification of an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
1
49
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Backparound
Smoky Hollow is a transitional, predominantly light industrial district that was developed about
50 years ago. It was intended originally as light industrial district serving the aerospace and
refinery businesses in the area. In response to shrinking manufacturing demand, declined
investment, and parking issues, the City adopted the SHSP in 1986. The intent of the Plan was to
1) preserve the existing uses, 2) provide opportunities for both small business and medium-sized
manufacturing uses,3)provide a transition from the high-density uses on the east side of Sepulveda
Boulevard to the lower density commercial and residential uses to the west,and 4)to resolve issues
related to parking, circulation, and development standards.
In the last 5-10 years, there has been regional growth in creative, technology, and new media
companies, which has led to increased demand for small to medium size office space in Smoky
Hollow. In response to this trend, the City initiated a comprehensive update for the SHSP. On
August 5, 2014, the City Council awarded a contract to MIG, Inc., a planning consulting firm, to
lead the effort to update the SHSP. After an extensive public outreach effort and several
community meetings, the draft Specific Plan and associated EIR were made available for public
review from March 8, 2018 to April 23, 2018, and are now being presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
Proiect Site and Vicinitv
The existing Specific Plan area is 93.55 acres and located in the northwest quadrant of the City,
generally bounded by Standard Street to the west, El Segundo Boulevard to the south, Pacific
Coast Highway to the east and Grand Avenue to the north (see Exhibit 5).
The Specific Plan is surrounded by the Downtown Specific Plan to the west, the Chevron refinery
to the south, the PCH corridor and corporate office area to the east, and predominantly residential
uses to the north.
Public Particit)ation
The draft Specific Plan was prepared after an extensive public outreach process. During the initial
fact-gathering and research process, staff and the consultant team conducted stakeholder
interviews in the form of six focus group meetings. In these meetings, the staff and consultant
team sought input from Planning Commissioners, architects, developers, real estate brokers,
business representatives, and property owners. Through these interviews, key land use and
development needs, opportunities, and issues were discussed. Following the interviews, the
consultant team summarized the key themes in a presentation to the Economic Development
Advisory Council (EDAC) and obtained its feedback.
In March 2016, staff held a City-wide workshop where the community commented on Smoky
Hollow's existing conditions and provided feedback regarding future land uses, design, parking
and mobility. The community workshop was an open house format and was attended by
approximately 80 community members.
2
50
Based upon the inforination and ideas provided by the community and stakeholders as a
foundation, the City developed a number of land use and mobility alternatives for community
discussion. In November 2016, the City hosted its second community workshop to discuss this
series of potential concepts for the district. Over 40 residents, business owners, and property
owners attended and contributed to a thoughtful and spirited discussion. The workshop's aim was
to discuss improving the district's walkability, increasing parking, modifying existing
development standards to respond to market trends, and enhancing district identity. Participants
responded to questions through an interactive polling exercise and all comments were graphically
recorded during the discussion. The interactive workshop was also posted as an online survey to
be completed by participants who were not able to attend the workshop. Six additional participants
utilized the web-based survey.
Following the second workshop, the City met with EDAC to review community input and receive
feedback on potential plan concepts.Utilizing the input from the community meetings,stakeholder
interviews and feedback from EDAC, a draft specific plan was developed that provides parking
and mobility solutions, improves public infrastructure, preserves the unique character of Smoky
Hollow and promotes a vibrant and innovative employment district.
The draft Specific Plan was released on March 8,2018,and the City conducted its third community
workshop in April 2018 to introduce the community to the draft Specific Plan. The workshop
format was an open-house style and involved a short presentation of the Specific Plan's vision,
development regulations, and implementation strategies followed by free-form discussion where
staff answered questions and received comments about the draft Specific Plan. More than 110
community members attended the event the majority of whom expressed support for the plan and
provided valuable feedback. Some of the comments addressed the following topics: a)support for
a mix of complementary uses, b) residential uses, c)concern regarding parking demand, d)traffic
safety and visibility, e) alternatives modes of travel, such as walking and cycling, f) landscaping
requirements and maintenance, and g) overall district aesthetics. Staff concluded from the
feedback received at this last workshop that the draft Specific Plan is consistent with the
community's values and interests. A summary of the comments received at the event is attached
as Exhibit No. 7.
ANALYSIS
The discussion below contains a brief summary of the five chapters in the Specific Plan, followed
by a description of the major provisions and innovations in each of hose chapters. Staff explains
the reasons for those provisions and how they relate to the Specific Plan vision. The discussion
then describes the discretionary permits required to adopt the Specific Plan. The analysis
concludes with a summary of the environmental assessment of the proposed Specific Plan.
3
51
The Specific Plan document
The draft Specific Plan contains five chapters that are briefly summarized below. After the
summary follows adescription of the major provisions in the plan:
Chapter 1: Introduction + Vision. The vision and guiding principles aim to attract creative
businesses to Smoky Hollow, improve the infrastructure, provide parking and mobility
solutions, and give the district an attractive and distinctive image.
Chapter 2: Private Realm Strategies.The second chapter of the Specific Plan contains the rules
that regulate private properties, including the uses, development standards, and design
guidelines.
Chapter 3: Public realm strategies. The third chapter contains strategies and guidelines for
improvements to public infrastructure that will improve the physical appearance of streets and
sidewalks, improve options for mobility (walking, biking, using transit), and provide parking
solutions.
Chapter 4: Specific Plan Process + Administration. The fourth chapter describes how new
projects within the Specific Plan area will be reviewed and approved, how existing
nonconforming uses and buildings will be addressed, and how the Specific Plan may be
interpreted and/or amended.
Chapter 5: Implementation + Financing. The fifth chapter identifies how to implement the
vision,regulations,infrastructure and plans identified in the first four chapters. It lists specific
actions and provides a priority timeframe, primary responsibilities and partners,approximate
costs, and potential funding sources.
Maior provisions—Private Realm,
Uses. The Specific Plan permits a synergistic mix of creative uses that promote more vibrant
commercial activity and walkability. The list below includes examples of changes to the way uses
are regulated in Smoky Hollow:
The Specific Plan removes a cap on the size of general office uses. The current code restricts
these uses to a maximum of 15,000 square feet per site, which inhibits the development or
conversion of medium to large size buildings for office purposes. Removing this limitation is
consistent with the Specific Plan's guiding principles, and with recent market trends and
forecasts.
The Specific Plan will require conditional use permits for full service and fast-food restaurants.
Although restaurants are encouraged to maintain a synergistic mix of uses in the plan area,
restaurants will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure impacts, such as traffic,parking
and noise are addressed, and to ensure that restaurants in Smoky Hollow do not impact
downtown restaurants.
Allows outdoor dining for restaurants without a use permit,because outdoor dining promotes
a more walkable enviromnent, which is one of the guiding principles of the Specific Plan.
Allows public assembly uses with a conditional use permit. Public assembly uses are not
currently permitted in Smoky Hollow. However, staff believes that a) there is a demand for
such uses, and b) public assembly uses complement other permitted uses in Smoky Hollow
and the surrounding area.
4
52
Development Standards. Table No. 1 below provides a comparison of the development standards
under the current ESMC regulations and the proposed Specific Plan. Generally, development
standards in the proposed Specific Plan have been relaxed compared to the current SSMC
regulations.
Table No. 1 —Development Standard Comparison
Standard Current ESMC Draft Specific Plan
SB MM SH-West SH-East
Building height 35 35*
Setbacks
Front 3' 5'-10' 0'
Side 0' 05 01
Street Side 3'-6' min. 4'-8' min. 5' max. on Franklin
Rear 0' 0' 07
Alley 5' 5' 10'
Floor area ratio(FAR) 0.6 0.6 .75* 1.0*
Parking ratio _
1/300 - Office 1/400 - all uses
1/500 - Industrial
1/1000 - Warehouse
1/75 - Restaurant
Landscaping 3% of lot 7% of lot 3% - lots up to 22,400 s.f. and
10% - lots 22,400 s.f. or greater
*)exceptions to height,FAR,and other development standard limits may be granted in exchange for a community benefit.
Exceptions to standards. The Specific Plan allows developments to exceed the permitted height
limit by up to 15 feet, the FAR, and other development standards subject to approval of a
Community Benefits Plan by the Planning Commission or City Council. A Community Benefits
Plan may include public benefits,such as provision of a publicly accessible open space area during
business hours, provision of publicly accessible parking, or dedication of land to allow for
sidewalk widening or other public improvements. This is an innovative approach to regulating
development, which provides the flexibility needed for private property owners to invest in their
properties,while providing a means for the City to accomplish some of the public goals for Smoky
Hollow. The City's goals for the public realm are discussed below in this staff report and in
Chapter 3 of the draft Specific Plan(Exhibit No. 4)
5
53
Parking. The Specific Plan proposes a single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet for
new buildings or additions to buildings irrespective of the use. This is a departure fiom the
approach in the ESMC off-street parking regulations where parking ratios are based on the use of
a building. However, it is similar to the approach in the Downtown Specific Plan area where uses
are permitted to change without the provision of additional parking. Staff believes that this
approach is advantageous for the following reasons:
1. Conversions to office uses are easier. The Specific Plan requires existing buildings to comply
with the new parking ratio if they change occupancy (per the Building Code). The current
code ratio required for office uses is 1 space per 300 net square feet, whereas the proposed
ratio in the Specific Plan is 1 space per 400 gross square feet. So, an existing warehouse or
manufacturing use that converts into office would provide less additional parking.
2. Once an existing industrial building is converted into office, and for all new buildings and
additions,the single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet would provide flexibility
for uses to change without providing additional parking. Parking requirements are the main
regulatory factor inhibiting the market trend of creative office businesses moving to Smoky
Hollow. Therefore,this new approach would lift a regulatory barrier to businesses' entry and
expansion in Smoky Hollow.
3. The proposed single parking ratio would improve the efficiency of the permitting process for
new buildings and additions. First, using the gross, instead of the net floor area simplifies
parking calculations. Second, using a single parking ratio eliminates certain confusion when
dealing with mixed-use buildings. As a result,design and review of plans will be much simpler
and much faster.
Loading. The Specific Plan proposes to require loading spaces only for buildings 50,000 gross
square feet or larger. Currently, the ESMC requires at least a 12' x 25' loading space for most
buildings, which has proven onerous for property owners wishing to convert existing buildings
and construct additions or new buildings on their property. Most lots in Smoky Hollow are small
and narrow and providing a dedicated loading space on-site is very challenging. In addition,
loading spaces are typically used only for a limited period of time,which doesn't always coincide
with regular business hours. Recognizing these facts, staff has in the last few years considered
and approved adjustment applications to allow the shared use of parking spaces and loading spaces
on properties and has in some cases restricted the loading hours to nonbusiness hours.
Furthermore, many businesses in Smoky Hollow rely primarily on deliveries that involve small
UPS and FedEx trucks. Those deliveries typically occur at the front of the property along the street
and are completed within a few minutes. Therefore, in practice those small businesses don't need
and rarely make use of loading areas required at the rear of their properties. In response to these
trends and to remove a significant barrier to investment on smaller properties, staff proposes
requiring loading spaces only for larger buildings.
Public realm
In conjunction with the private property regulations, the Specific Plan identifies goals and actions
for improving the public realm, including streets, sidewalks, landscaping,parking, and mobility in
Smoky Hollow. Some of the major goals and improvements are discussed below.
6
54
On-street parking. Parking demand was the most important issue identified during the public
outreach process and based on the additional 517,000 square feet of building space anticipated in
the Specific Plan, approximately 1,300 additional parking spaces will be required by 2040. The
Specific Plan proposes to provide on-street parking to help address the demand for more parking.
Along El Segundo Boulevard, the Specific Plan identifies improvements that would provide
parallel parking on the north side of the street(westbound)without reducing the number of vehicle
travel lanes. This would be accomplished by restriping and narrowing the existing vehicle travel
lanes, resulting in approximately 74 parking spaces along El Segundo Boulevard.
In addition to re-striping El Segundo Boulevard, the Specific Plan proposes to convert 11 streets
running north-south into one-way streets and provide angled parking on one side. This
improvement would add approximately 85 additional parking spaces on those streets. Currently,
those streets have approximately 310 parallel spaces and he proposed improvements would
increase the number to 395. Overall, approximately 159 additional on-street parking spaces can
be provided with these improvements.
The additional parking demand can be further met through off-street parking in public or private
surface lots and parking structures, which are permitted in the Parking zone by right and in the
other Specific Plan zones subject to an administrative use pern-lit (AUP).
Streetscape improvements. The Specific Plan proposes to supplement the re-striping on El
Segundo Boulevard and the north-south streets with Streetscape improvements on the same streets
and Franklin Avenue. The streetscape improvements include curb extensions (bulb-outs) with
landscaping at street intersections, decorative cross-walks, and tree planters between parking
spaces. Other streetscape improvements may include sidewalk widening, street parklets, and
decorative paving treatments on selected streets. The purpose of these improvements is to improve
the walkability of all streets in Smoky Hollow and make Franklin Avenue the central focus of the
district.
Mobility. In addition to improving the physical appearance and walkability of the district, the
Specific Plan aims to improve bicycle transportation and access to transit. In the long run,Franklin
Avenue is envisioned as a safe, slow-moving street that accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, and
drivers equally. Furthermore, the Specific proposes re-striping Grand Avenue to accommodate a
shared bicycle and vehicle travel lane in each direction. This would be accomplished by widening
the right lane to 13 feet,which would make space for cyclists during off-peak hours when the right
lane is used for parking. This improvement will be completed without reducing the number of
vehicle lanes in either direction.
Specific Plan Process and Administration
This chapter streamlines the review process for new developments and additions to buildings,
permits exceptions to development standards when necessary and appropriate, and allows for the
7
55
continuation of existing nonconforming uses and buildings. Some of the major improvements and
innovations in the processes and administration of the Specific Plan are described below.
Ministerial Review. The Specific Plan would allow many projects to proceed with only ministerial
level review. Under the existing regulations, a discretionary site plan review process is required
in Smoky Hollow. The site plan review process is expensive and time consuming. And,because
it is discretionary in nature, applicants cannot be assured of any particular outcome. That
uncertainty,combined with the high cost,often discourages property owners that might otherwise
be willing to invest in improvements. A ministerial pennitting process, on the other hand, is
quicker, far less expensive, and offers a valuable level of certainty to applicants.
Administrative Adjustments. The Specific Plan would authorize the Director to process minor
deviations of up to 10% from numeric standards, except building height and FAR, following an
existing streamlined process in ESMC Chapter 15-24.
Community Benefits Plans. As mentioned previously, the Specific Plan would allow deviations
from the building height, FAR and other standards above the level requiring administrative
adjustments,subject to approval of a Community Benefits Plan. The Planning Commission would
review and approve most for exceptions. The City Council would review requests involving a)
FAR over 1.5 or b) three or more exceptions that also include height or FAR. The community
benefits plan strategy will provide additional flexibility in new development design and incentivize
owners to invest in Smoky Hollow. At the same time, the community benefit requirement will
assist the City in meeting its long-term goals for the area, such as improved building design,
streetscape improvements, public open spaces, and improved mobility.
Implementation and Financing
As mentioned previously, Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan identifies how to implement the vision,
regulations,infrastructure and strategies identified in the first four chapters. It lists specific actions
and priorities, primary responsibilities and partners, approximate costs, and potential funding
sources. Establishment of a Parking In-Lieu Fee is an illustrative example of an implementation
action. The parking in-lieu fee allows property owners and developers to pay a fee instead of
providing required parking on-site. This provides much needed flexibility,particularly on smaller
lots,to construct new buildings or additions, and change building occupancies. At the same time,
the revenue from the parking in-lieu fee will help fund public parking and related street
improvements. Other implementation actions are described in the draft Specific Plan.
Discretionary Permits
General plan amendment. A general plan amendment is necessary to a)update the Smoky Hollow
land use designation description to reflect the purpose of the new Specific Plan, b) update the
description of the City's northwest quadrant in the land use plan, c) update the Specific Plan area
and City build-out projections, and d) update the General Plan land use map to reflect the revised
boundaries of the Specific Plan and land use designations around the Specific Plan. These changes
8
56
will ensure that the Specific Plan and the General Plan are consistent with each other. These
general plan amendments are described in detail in the attached draft resolution(Exhibit No. 1).
Figure No. I —Boundary Changes
� x
x
� s
e
a
:J1►�77i1tt^
_0-—.1 P....6
Zone Chance
A zone change is necessary to reflect the revised boundaries of the Specific Plan. Certain
properties outside the existing Specific Plan and currently zoned Public Facilities (P-F) and
Parking (P) will be incorporated into the new Specific Plan and maintain the same zoning
designations. In addition, certain properties within the existing Specific Plan and zoned Medium
Density Residential (MDR)will be removed from the new Specific Plan and zoned Multi-Family
Residential (R-3). The R-3 zone has the same development standards as the MDR zone, so the
conforming status of the affected residential properties will not be affected by this change. The
reason for removing the residential properties from the Specific Plan is that the plan character and
vision is primarily office and light industrial in nature. In addition, those properties have been
developed with multi-family residential uses and are not anticipated to change during the Specific
Plan's time horizon. The properties zoned P-F and P will be incorporated into the Specific Plan,
because they have a greater chance of being developed over the long term in a manner consistent
with the office and industrial uses envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finally, these zone changes
will ensure that the Zoning designations for the subject properties are consistent with their General
Plan land use designations. Figures 2 and 3 show the existing and proposed zoning designations
for the Specific Plan and the properties immediately surrounding the Specific Plan area.
9
57
Figure 2 —Existing Zoning
' 'w..•• I7
1 1R1 PI 'R.1%1 4Z R1 �—Rt �I RI e• R, a. I Pi R] N.� �A
f 'e¢` R.! R-1 sl�R•1 R f:Pig IIu"a IiW r• •4 r, 15., I i P-1 4.-
p: 11.1
1
S
ML
•s _ r ,t
[ J
IMP
Int. __T+vl , co
yIN
1.
G H N� H N fa a1 ill 54 Yi r 11
is Is SC 61.!•LD pN !:.:
•,,,,,, GuireM Smoky MoAow
8"0 Plan Boundary ?
r
�� Emell Bualnesa(SBI � __ �
® kedk"Maoufacluring(MM)
Pubhc Fadlties(P-F)
_ Parklrlp(P) ` J
e tsoo rAGo � 1
Fed I
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
City of El Segundo Current Extent and Zoning Dintrlcia
10
58
Fi Fgure 3—Proposed Zoning
■ PF R.1 • .t .1 t.l R. Aq !R.1 i •- I� R.1 R-1 41 R.1 F! '• .'' II
-
qsl x RI nl
j IR
cr _,r—- u 1
r.
as alai 41 !R1 11.1 it ` RI RI RI
R-1
Y i
f
1�I{i.ery
W.&-4
��' - ■r •ra�yr
�r.R1 i11M1fY PJj; r,y s.h•('' Y IInY p.%1 WIY:Yry FMaL.7N 1 I
.-- ..–..–..r.ir..-..–.•r• M.r� _ _ _ wV..• CMV .1�rw–.w.rr -
-,— Perynzrl.;'Zv-Hu low
SRur.+lic Hint Hou rlaary
SRuky Hollow Wed(SHW) 4
Smoky Hollow East(SHE)
hbec FaclFlles tp-F) a`f
-
Pana no IPI 1
o Soo I,ox
Feel
Smoky Hulloes spedfle Pine
City o�undo nt of El B P�oposml Exteand 7.oning Dixttiete
Tone Text Amendment
A zone text amendment is necessary to amend or delete municipal code provisions regarding the
existing Specific Plan, its zones and overlay districts, and other provisions. These provisions
would no longer be needed in the municipal code, as all of the corresponding regulations and
standards will be incorporated directly into the new Specific Plan. Table No. 2 summarizes the
ESMC amendments.
Table No. 2—ESMC amendments
ESMC Chanter/Section Su_ biect Amended/Deleted
Chapter 15-3 Zones and uses Amended
Chapter 15-6, Articles B Small Business (SB) and Medium Deleted
and C Manufacturing(MM)zones
Chapter 15- 7, Articles A Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Deleted
and B Grand Avenue Commercial (GAC)overlays
Chapter 15-11 Smoky Hollow,Specific Plan Deleted
Section 15-15-5(K) Parking standards:Tandem spaces Amended
Section 15-21-7 Nonconforming Buildings and uses; Smoky Deleted
Hollow Specific Plan Restrictions
11
59
The above amendments are described more precisely in the draft Ordinance (Exhibit No. 3).
Findinas
General Plan and Zone Change. There are no required findings for a General Plan Amendment.
However,an amendment must be internally consistent with the rest of the General Plan. In drafting
the Specific Plan, staff took care to ensure that the Specific Plan vision and regulations are
consistent with the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. In addition, in areas where the
Specific Plan is inconsistent with the existing General Plan, the project incorporates amendments
to the General Plan to ensure the two documents are consistent with each other. The proposed
Zone Changes are necessary to ensure that the zoning designations of properties affected by this
project are consistent with their General plan land use designations.
Zone Text Amendment. ESMC Section 15-1-1 (Purpose, Title) states that Title 15 is the primary
tool for implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the El Segundo General Plan.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is
consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies. Planning staff believes there is substantial
evidence in the record to support the findings required for the Planning Commission to recommend
City Council approval of the proposed amendment. The findings are discussed in the proposed
resolution.
Pursuant to ESMC Title 15, Chapter 26 (Amendments), in order to recommend City Council
approval of the proposed amendments,the Planning Commission must find that the amendments
are necessary to carry out the general purpose of ESMC Title 15. The purpose of this Title(ESMC
§15-1-1) is to serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide economic and
social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources. Planning staff believes
there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings required for the Planning
Commission to recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment. The findings are
discussed in the proposed resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The draft Specific Plan establishes new land use, transportation, infrastructure, economic
development, and urban design strategies that will provide opportunities for businesses to thrive
in a creative, innovative, and dynamic environment. Solutions related to parking and
transportation, along with streamlined processes and development standards will facilitate
conversions of existing buildings and development of new buildings for creative office,
commercial,and clean industrial uses. It is projected that an additional 517,000 square feet of new
building space may be added to Smoky Hollow through the year 2040. Staff prepared an
Environmental Impact Report(EIR)to evaluate the environment impacts of the project. Based on
its findings, the project is anticipated to have significant unavoidable impacts in the following
areas: a) greenhouse gas emissions, b) noise, and c) traffic. The impacts in these three areas are
summarized below. A more detailed analysis can be found in the EIR and individual technical
studies in those areas.
12
60
Sianificant Imnacts
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). As discussed in the EIR,Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32,and
Executive Order 5-03-05 set State goals for GHG emissions reductions of 40 percent below 1990
levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Based on these goals, GHG emissions
in Smoky Hollow should be 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040,which is the anticipated build-
out year. The analysis in the EIR anticipates substantial reductions in the amount of GHG
emissions in Smoky Hollow by 2040, however,those reductions will be not meet the State goals.
As a result, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, the proposed Specific Plan will have a significant
and unavoidable impact with regard to GHG emissions.
Noise. As part of the EIR analysis, noise measurements were taken at six locations within the
Specific Plan area to establish the baseline ambient noise levels in the area. Implementation of the
proposed Specific Plan would result in short- and long-tern changes to the ambient noise
environment in the planning area. The short-term changes would result from intermittent
construction activities as existing buildings are improved and new buildings erected in the area.
Long term changes would result from changes in land uses and from changes in traffic volumes.
The analysis in the EIR anticipates that the increased traffic volumes would result in significant
unavoidable impact with respect to the exterior noise levels for commercial and industrial uses.
The permitted level is 75 dBA and the EIR estimates those levels to be up to 75.4 dBA in two
areas along Sepulveda Boulevard.
Traffic. The traffic analysis in the EIR evaluated the potential traffic impacts of the anticipated
development over the next 20 years on 15 street intersections in and around the Specific Plan. The
analysis concluded that in combination with ambient growth in traffic volumes, the proposed
Specific Plan would result in significant impacts by the year 2040 at two of the intersections
studied: Sepulveda Boulevard/Grand Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard.
The traffic analysis proposes mitigation measures to reduce the impact levels at these intersections.
With the incorporation of mitigation measures the impact levels would be reduced, however, the
impact level at the Sepulveda Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard intersection would still be
considered significant and unavoidable based on the Los Angeles County's Congestion
Management Program (CMP) thresholds. That impact would be significant and unavoidable both
in the AM and PM peak traffic periods.
Public Comments on the DEIR
Staff received public comments on the following issue areas. The comments and the responses to
those comments are summarized below. The complete comments and responses are incorporated
into the EIR(Exhibit No. 2)
1. Cultural and tribal cultural resources. A native American tribe requested consultation with
staff and addition of mitigation measures to protect potential paleontological and
archaeological resources in the Specific Plan area. Staff consulted with representatives of
this tribe and the EIR has incorporated mitigation measures to protect potential resources.
2. Air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)recommended
clarifications and changes to the air quality analysis in the draft EIR. In addition,
SCAQMD recommended additional mitigation measures to reduce the project's air quality
13
61
impacts. Staff has revised the air quality analysis to address SCAQMD comments,but has
not incorporated additional mitigation measures.
3. Hazards and hazardous materials. The Department of Conservation notified staff that 18
oil and gas wells under its jurisdiction are located within the Specific Plan are and requested
that it be contacted in the event that any wells are discovered or damaged during
construction activities in the areas. Staff has added a mitigation measure to the Hazards
and Hazardous Materials chapter in the EIR to reflect the request.
4. Transportation and traffic. The Department of Transportation requested that additional
analysis be performed to evaluate potential impacts on on-ramps, off-ramps, and roads
leading to the 105 freeway. In response,staff has conducted additional analysis which has
identified significant impacts at three additional locations. The locations are: a) Sepulveda
Boulevard and Imperial Highway, b)Nash Street and Imperial Highway, and c) Parkview
Drive North and Atwood Way. A mitigation measure has been added to the EIR to reduce
impacts to those intersections. However, the impacts would still be considered significant
and unavoidable.
Re-circulation of the EIR for r)ublic comment.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 15088.5 (Recirculation of an EIR Prior to Certification), a lead agency
is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public
notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. Pursuant to this CEQA
requirement and the additional traffic impacts and mitigation measure,staff has released the traffic
section of the EIR for public comment and recirculated it to OPR, the State clearinghouse and the
agencies notified previously regarding the draft EIR. The updated traffic section will be available
for public review for a 46-day period, beginning on June 225 and ending on August 6`h.
Due to the significant and unavoidable impacts identified above, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC) must be adopted (ultimately by the City Council for this project). In
adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Staff believes that the following finding can
be made:
1. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects;therefore the adverse environmental effects are
considered acceptable.
As discussed in the draft resolution, staff believes that to the extent the impact would remain
significant, this impact is acceptable and outweighed by social,economic and other benefits of the
project. The EIR, its appendices, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(MMRP) are
attached to this report as Exhibit 2.
14
62
RESOLUTION NO. 2837
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-1011, GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 13-01, ZONE CHANGE NO. 13-01, AND
ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 13-01 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
UPDATE OF THE SMOKY HOLLOW SPECIFIC PLAN
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. On October 1, 2014, the City initiated an Environmental Assessment No.
EA 1011, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone Change No. ZC
13-01, and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01 for the comprehensive
update of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan;
B. 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");
C. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15161;
D. The Planning and Building Safety Department completed its review and
scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning
Commission for June 28, 2018;
E. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including, information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff;
and, adopted Resolution No. 2837 recommending that the City Council
approve the proposed project;
F. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence
presented to the Commission at its June 28, 2018, hearing including the
staff report submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department and
the totality of the evidence in the administrative record.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. The proposed Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update (hereinafter, the "Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan" or "Specific Plan") covers approximately 94.3 acres
and will replace the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan which covers
approximately 93.55 acres. The proposed Specific Plan is located in the
northwest quadrant of the City, generally bounded by Standard Street to the
63
west, EI Segundo Boulevard to the south, Pacific Coast Highway to the east
and Grand Avenue to the north (see Exhibit F);
B. The proposed project will remove a 7.44-acre area north of Grand Avenue
from the existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and change its General Plan
Land Use designation to Multi-Family Residential (Exhibit G) and its zoning
designation to Multi-Family Residential (R-3) (Exhibit H);
C. The proposed project will incorporate three areas immediately abutting the
existing Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, which are approximately 8.19 acres
in size, into the proposed Specific Plan, change their General Plan Land
Use designations from Parking and Public Facilities to Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan (Exhibit G), and zoning designations to Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan — Parking (P) and Smoky Hollow Specific Plan — Public Facilities (P-F)
(Exhibit H);
D. The proposed project will amend the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan General
Plan Land Use Designation description to reflect a change in focus toward
creative office uses and increased densities in the proposed Specific Plan
(Exhibit C);
E. The proposed project will amend the description of the City's northwest
quadrant in the General Plan Land Use Element Land Use plan (Exhibit D);
F. The proposed project will amend the General Plan Land Use Element Build-
out projections (Exhibit E);
G. The proposed project will amend the EI Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC)
to amend or delete municipal code provisions regarding the existing Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan, its zones and overlay districts, and other provisions
(Exhibit B);
H. The proposed Specific Plan (Exhibit 1) will change the regulations for private
properties to:
1. Allow more office uses in the plan area;
2. Increase the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) from .6 currently, to .75 in
the west and 1.0 in the east portion of the plan;
3. Replace the existing parking requirements that are based on the type of
use with a single parking ratio of 1 space per 400 gross square feet of
building area; and
4. Allow deviations from development standards, subject to approval of a
community benefits plan.
I. The proposed Specific Plan will result in public improvements, including:
2
64
1. Converting 11 north-south streets within the plan area to one-way
streets and adding angled parking, which will generate approximately 85
additional on-street parking spaces;
2. Restriping EI Segundo Boulevard without reducing the number of
vehicle travel lanes to add a parking lane on the north side of the street,
which will generate approximately 74 new on-street parking spaces;
3. Building curb extensions at street intersections, decorative crosswalks
and street trees within the plan area; and
4. Making bicycle related improvements along Franklin Avenue and
Grand Avenue, including pavement markings and signage to allow
cyclists to share vehicle travel lanes.
SECTION 3: General Plan Consistency Findings. The Planning Commission finds that
the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, The
consistency of the General Plan with the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan is analyzed below:
General Plan goals, objectives, Consistency analysis
policies and programs
A Land Use designation The permitted uses in the proposed specific
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan: plan are consistent with this designation
This designation is intended to permit a
range of incubator businesses, small and
medium size industrial uses, research and
development, and creative office uses.
The designation also permits public
facilities, parking facilities, and limited
restaurant and retail uses.
B Land Use Element One of the Specific Plan guiding principles
Objective LU2-2: is to preserve Smoky Hollow's Mid-Century
To encourage the preservation of historical Industrial Feel. The development standards
and cultural sites and monuments and design guidelines in the Specific Plan
are consistent with that principle in that they
encourage the preservation of existing
buildings and character of Smoky Hollow
C Goal LU4 (Provision of a Stable Tax Base The Specific Plan lifts an existing cap on the
for EI Segundo): floor area of office uses on individual
To provide for new office and research and building sites and continues to permit
development uses in Smoky Hollow research and development uses
D Goal LU5(Attraction of clean and beneficial The Specific Plan contains guidelines,
industrial uses) and Objective LU5-3: standards and strategies to improve
To encourage the rehabilitation of existing aesthetic and functional deficiencies in such
substandard blighted industrial areas as areas as landscaping, off-street parking,
through the combined efforts of private and and loading areas
public sectors
3
65
E Objective LU5-6: The Specific Plan permits office, research
To encourage a mix of office and light and development,and light industrial uses in
industrial uses in industrial areas Smoky Hollow
F Goal LU7 (Provision of Quality The Specific Plan contains strategies and
Infrastructure) and Objective LU7-1: specific actions to provide and finance
To provide the highest and most efficient public infrastructure. The proposed
level of public services and public infrastructure includes, streetscape
infrastructure financially possible improvements along most streets in the plan
area, additional on-street parking and
possible off-street parking structures,
additional bicycle facilities, and additional
open space. Some of the implementation
and financing actions include completing a
detailed Engineering Study to determine the
costs of major infrastructure project,
completing a revenue projections study,
securing grant funding, and establishing
funding mechanisms such as a Business
Improvement District (BID) or a Parking
Benefit District(PBD)
G Economic Development Element The Specific Plan permits more creative
Objective ED1-2: office uses, limited restaurants and
to center diversification efforts on targeted accessory retail uses, which promotes the
industries that meet the City's criteria for diversification of the City's retail and
job creation, growth potential,fiscal impact, commercial base
and fit with local resources
H Objective ED2-1: The City plans to invest in infrastructure,
To strengthen partnerships between local such as on-street parking, streetscape
government, the residential community, improvements, landscaping, bicycle
and EI Segundo's business community facilities,which encourage more commercial
and industrial development near the City's
residential core
Circulation Element The Specific Plan includes improvements
Objective C2-1: such as sidewalk widening, street trees, and
To support and encourage walking as a traffic calming measures to encourage and
safe and convenient travel mode within the make walking safe within Smoky Hollow
City's circulation sv_stem
Objective C2-2: The Specific Plan provides for shared
To provide a bikeway system throughout bicycle lanes on Grand Avenue and a bike
the City to support and encourage the use friendly street on Franklin Avenue that will
of the bicycle as a safe and convenient improve cyclist safety and provide links to
travel mode within the City's circulation the east part of EI Segundo and the Green
system Line rail stations
K Goal C3 and Objective C3-1: The City prepared an Environmental Impact
To ensure that potential circulation system Report (EIR) evaluating the potential traffic
impacts are considered when the City's impacts of the proposed land use changes
decision makers and staff are evaluating and incorporating appropriate mitigation
land use changes measures to reduce potentially significant
impacts
4
66
L Objective C3-2: The Specific Plan's parking requirements
To ensure the consideration of the impacts take into account the potential parking
of land use decisions on the City's parking demand from anticipated development in
situation the plan area. In addition, the plan contains
strategies to provide more public parking
and to encourage the use of alternatives
modes of travel to and from the plan area
M Housing Element The Specific Plan will continue to permit
Goal No. 3 and Program No. 5: caretaker units as accessory uses at a ratio
Provision of adequate sites of one unit per legal building site or business
establishment, whichever is larger
N Open Space Element The Specific Plan contains minimum open
Goal OS1: space requirements for all development on
To provide arid maintain high quality open Private property and incentives for
exceeding the minimum requirements and
space and recreational facilities that meet
the needs of the existing and future Providing publicly accessible open space
residents and employees within the City of
EI Segundo
0 Conservation Element The Specific Plan contains strategies and
Goal CN 5: planned improvements to increase the
To develop programs to protect, enhance, landscaping and street trees throughout the
and increase the amount and quality of the plan area
urban landscape to maximize aesthetic and
environmental benefits
P Air Quality Element The Specific Plan contains strategies to
Goal No. AQ4: encourage the development of high quality
To promote non-motorized transportation pedestrian and bicycle facilities to link the
entire plan area internally, and connect to
the Downtown and other key locations in the
City
Q Goal No. AQ9: The Specific Plan contains strategies to
To reduce the length of vehicle trips establish a shuttle bus system to transport
employees and EI Segundo residents
between the east and west sides of the City
R Noise Element All new construction projects in the plan
Goal N1: area shall be required to meet the City's
To provide a noise-safe environment and noise and vibration standards
Objective No. N1-2 to ensure that City
residents are not exposed to stationary
noise levels in excess of EI Segundo's
Noise Ordinance standards
SECTION 4: Zone Change Findings.
A. Based on the factual findings of this Resolution, the proposed Zone Change
is necessary to carry out the proposed project. The proposed General Plan
Amendment would change the land use classification of the proposed
Specific Plan area to Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and certain properties
north of Grand Avenue to Multi-Family Residential as identified in Exhibit G.
5
67
Therefore, the proposed Zone Change is necessary to maintain consistency
with the proposed General Plan land use designations.
B. The purpose of ESMC Title 15 (Zoning Code) and adopted specific plans is
to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the EI Segundo General
Plan. The zone change is necessary to implement the proposed Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan and is consistent with the General Plan goals,
objectives and policies discussed in Section 3 of this resolution.
C. The proposed Zone Change will not adversely affect surrounding
properties, in that the Specific Plan area is anticipated to transition to more
office uses, which tend to have less impacts with regard to noise, odors,
hazardous materials, and other impacts associated primarily with industrial
uses.
D. The proposed Zone Change promotes the public health, safety and general
welfare and serves the goals and purposes of the Zoning Code, in that the
Zone Change, the Specific Plan vision and standards are consistent with
General Plan goals, objectives, and policies as detailed in Section 3. The
Specific Plan vision and guiding principles will benefit the surrounding area
and community overall by generating new employment and tax revenues;
providing new public infrastructure, including additional public parking,
publicly available open space, street trees and other streetscape
improvements, bicycle improvements; and creating connections to all
modes of travel. In addition, the development standards and design
guidelines in the Specific Plan will serve the public health, safety, and
general welfare and provide economic and social advantages resulting from
an orderly use of land resources.
SECTION 5: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, together with the
evidence in the administrative record as a whole, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
A. As detailed in Section 3, the proposed Zone Text Amendment ("ZTA") is
consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and
will not obstruct their attainment.
B. The ZTA is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Code, which is to
serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the
economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of
land resources.
C. The ZTA is necessary to facilitate the development process and ensure the
orderly development of buildings and the location of uses in the City. The
6
68
intent of the ZTA is to update the vision, permitted uses and development
standards in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area, which will encourage,
facilitate, and expedite the development process and provide economic and
social benefits resulting from the orderly planned use of land resources.
The ZTA will not adversely affect properties surrounding the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan area.
SECTION 6: Environmental Assessment. The Planning Commission makes the
following environmental findings based on the whole of the administrative record:
A. The City completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this
project. A noticed Public Scoping meeting was held on April 21, 2017
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15083. A Notice of Preparation of the DEIR
was circulated for public review from March 30, 2017 to May 1, 2017
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15082. A Notice of Completion for the DEIR
was filed with the State Office of Planning and Research on March 8, 2018
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15085. The public comment and review
period for the DEIR was open between March 8, 2018 and April 23, 2018 in
compliance with CEQA Guidelines §15087. In response to comments
received during the public review period, staff conducted additional
analysis. The analysis found additional significant transportation and traffic
impacts. As a result, the DEIR Transportation and Traffic section was
revised and recirculated for public review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15088.5. The second public comment and review period for the DEIR was
open between June 22, 2018 and August 6, 2018;
B. The revised DEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by
reference, was presented to the Planning Commission and each
commissioner has independently reviewed and considered the DEIR and
its appendices prior to making a recommendation on the Project.
Furthermore, each commissioner has reviewed and considered the
testimony and other additional evidence presented at or prior to the public
hearing on June 28, 2018;
C. The DEIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential
environmental impacts of the project and is in compliance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR was prepared under the City's direction and
reflects its independent judgment and good faith analysis of the potential
environmental impacts and includes substantive and thorough responses
to comments received during the public review period;
D. In response to comments from the public and other public agencies, some
other minor changes have been made to the Draft EIR, which is attached
as Exhibit A. In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Commission finds as
follows:
7
69
1. Factual corrections and minor changes have been set forth as
clarifications and modifications to the Draft EIR;
2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR are not
substantial changes in the Draft EIR that would deprive the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental
effect of the project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a
feasible project alternative;
3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR will not
result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the
severity of the previously identified significant effects disclosed in the Draft
EIR;
4. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR do not
involve mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different
from those analyzed in the Draft EIR that would substantially reduce one or
more significant effect on the environment; and
5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the Draft EIR do not
render the Draft EIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded.
Therefore, none of the conditions set forth in CEQA requiring recirculation
of a Draft EIR have been met. Incorporation of the factual corrections and
minor changes to the Draft EIR into the Final EIR does not require the EIR
to be recirculated for public comment.
E. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(b) and Section 15093 of
the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission has weighed the benefits
of the proposed Smoky Hollow Specific Plan against the unavoidable,
unmitigatable adverse impacts associated therewith and has determined
that the adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan would be the most
desirable and appropriate action.
F. The project would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse
impacts after mitigation:
1. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32,
and Executive Order S-03-05 set State goals for GHG emissions
reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent
below 1990 levels by 2050. Based on these goals, GHG emissions in
Smoky Hollow should be 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, which
is the anticipated build-out year. The analysis in the EIR anticipates
8
70
substantial reductions in the amount of GHG emissions in Smoky Hollow
by 2040, however, those reductions will not meet the State goals. As a
result, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, the proposed Specific Plan
will have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to GHG
emissions.
2. Noise. Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would result in
short- and long-term changes to the ambient noise environment in the
planning area. The short-term changes would result from intermittent
construction activities as existing buildings are improved and new
buildings erected in the area. Long term changes would result from
changes in land uses and from changes in traffic volumes. The analysis
in the EIR anticipates that the increased traffic volumes would result in
significant unavoidable impact with respect to the exterior noise levels
for commercial and industrial uses. The permitted level is 75 dBA and
the EIR estimates those levels to be up to 75.4 dBA in two areas along
Sepulveda Boulevard.
3. Traffic. The traffic analysis in the EIR evaluated the potential traffic
impacts of the anticipated development over the next 20 years on 15
street intersections in and around the Specific Plan. The analysis
concluded that in combination with ambient growth in traffic volumes,
the proposed Specific Plan would result in significant impacts by the year
2040 at two of the intersections studied: Sepulveda Boulevard/Grand
Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard/EI Segundo Boulevard. The traffic
analysis proposes mitigation measures to reduce the impact levels at
these intersections. With the incorporation of mitigation measures the
impact levels would be reduced, however, the impact level at the
Sepulveda Boulevard/EI Segundo Boulevard intersection would still be
considered significant and unavoidable based on the Los Angeles
County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) thresholds. That
impact would be significant and unavoidable both in the AM and PM
peak traffic periods.
4. Additional Traffic Analysis. In response to comments received during
the public review and comment period, additional traffic analysis was
performed that identified significant impacts at three additional
intersections: a) Sepulveda Boulevard and Imperial Highway, b) Nash
Street and Imperial Highway, and c) Parkview Drive North and Atwood
Way. A mitigation measure has been added to the EIR to reduce
impacts to those intersections. However, the impacts would still be
considered significant and unavoidable.
G. The Planning Commission has weighed and considered the project's
benefits against its significant and unavoidable impacts. The Planning
9
71
Commission finds that the proposed project's benefits outweigh the
significant and unavoidable impacts and, therefore, that those impacts are
acceptable in light of the proposed project's benefits. The Planning
Commission finds that each of the following benefits is an overriding
consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of
the proposed project notwithstanding the proposed project's significant and
unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and
transportation and traffic. The proposed project would provide several
public benefits, including, without limitation, the following:
1. Foster economic development through policies that stimulate and
encourage the development of new and creative uses consistent with
current trends that have proven successful in many communities across
southern California.
2. Stimulate business retention, job creation, and a broadening tax
base.
3. Promote healthy and active lifestyles through design regulations and
transportation improvements that enhance pedestrian and bike safety
access to the Smoky Hollow area.
4. Provides a comprehensive update to the Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan, last adopted in 1986, to reflect the community's values and vision for
this area of the City. The Plan includes creative new policy directives that
will guide development and redevelopment over the next several years and
revitalize an underused area of the City with great potential.
5. Promotes consistency with regional growth strategies, such as the
SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable
Communities Strategy, by increasing density within the Plan area.
H. The proposed project represents a balance between several competing
objectives in the City of EI Segundo. After balancing the specific economic,
legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the
Planning Commission has determined that the unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts identified may be considered acceptable due to the
specific considerations listed above which outweigh the unavoidable,
adverse environmental impacts that will be caused by implementation of the
project.
1, Based on the foregoing, and on the evidence in the record as a whole, the
Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. All potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from the
10
72
project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible, and
2. The remaining significant and unavoidable greenhouse gas, noise,
and transportation and traffic impacts are acceptable due to the factors
described above.
J. Based on the foregoing, and on the evidence in the administrative record
as a whole, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the project
notwithstanding its significant, unavoidable impacts.
SECTION 7: Recommendations.
A. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify a Final
Environmental Impact Report for Environmental Assessment No. 1011 as
set forth in Exhibit A; adopt findings of fact and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations incorporating the facts set forth in Section 6 of this
resolution; and approve General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13-01, Zone
Change No. ZC 13-01, and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 13-01; and
B. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
Ordinance attached as Exhibit"B"which would implement the Zone Change
and Zone Text Amendment.
SECTION 8: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
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 Planning
Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial
evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 9: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in
evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
SECTION 10: This Resolution will remain effective unless and until superseded by a
subsequent resolution.
11
73
SECTION 11: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day yooff J 2018.
bran Bald o, Chait
City—of EI Segundo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Sa Lee, Secret y r
Baldino - Aye
Newman - Aye
Hoeschler - Aye
Wingate - Aye
Keldorf - Aye
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
David King, Assist ity Attorney
12
74
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding City Council approval of Environmental Assessment
No. EA-1198 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-06 to establish a parking in-lieu fee
program in the Smoky Hollow area and adopt a parking in-lieu fee.
(Applicant: City of El Segundo).
Address: Citywide
(Fiscal Impact: None with this action)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Take testimony and other evidence as presented;
3. Introduce an Ordinance approving Environmental Assessment No. EA-1198 and Zone
Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-06 amending the El Segundo Municipal Code to establish
a parking in-lieu fee program for the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area;
4. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for September 4, 2018;
5. Adopt a Resolution establishing a parking in-lieu fee and procedures for payment of such
a fee; and/or
6. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance No.
2. Draft Resolution No.
3. Draft Smoky Hollow parking in-lieu area map
4. Parking design study by KOA, dated September 20, 2016
5. Parking in-lieu fee study by TNDG, dated October 21, 2016
6. On-street parking construction cost estimates by KOA, dated June 12, 2018
7. Smoky Hollow street improvements map
8. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated June 14, 2018 (without attachments)
9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2827
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: Champion Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability
ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager(
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Planning & Building afety Director
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter,City Manager
75
INTRODUCTION
The proposed zone text amendment will accomplish the following: 1) It will amend El Segundo
Municipal Code (ESMC) Chapter 15-15 (Off-street parking and loading) to allow the payment of
parking in-lieu fees for the purpose of meeting the parking requirements for individual properties;
2) create a new ESMC Chapter 15-27B to establish a process for paying in-lieu fees, and 3)
establish an area encompassing the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan where payment of in-lieu fees
would be applicable. In addition, this report contains analysis and a recommendation on setting
the specific in-lieu fee level and possible payment plans.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In 2014, the City Council initiated a comprehensive update of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan.
During the public engagement process for the new specific plan, parking was identified as one of
the primary problems in need of solutions. As a result, staff engaged in a parallel effort to study
and implement a parking in-lieu fee program, as one potential solution to this problem.
Parking in-lieu fee definition and purpose
A parking in-lieu fee allows a property owner or developer to pay a fee rather than provide parking
spaces to meet the minimum parking requirements for development of their property. The funds
raised are typically used to build public parking spaces. Several cities have adopted parking in-
lieu fees to shift the burden of required parking away from a potential development site without
removing the responsibility for ensuring adequate parking in the vicinity. In-lieu parking programs
free up redevelopment potential that can otherwise be hampered by the strict application of on-site
parking requirements.
Downtown in-lieu fee and other cities'programs
In 2003, the City implemented parking in-lieu fees in the Downtown Specific Plan area. The
current parking in-lieu fee in the Downtown is $17,500 per space. To date, six property owners
have taken advantage of the Downtown parking in-lieu fee program. Four paid an upfront lump
sum, one is paying on a monthly basis for a period of 20 years, and one is paying the fee for
temporary outdoor dining as needed each year. One more business owner is in the process of
entering into an agreement with the City.
Parking in-lieu fee programs have been adopted in many cities and vary widely in the fee levels,
methods of payment, and other aspects of their programs. A more detailed discussion and analysis
of other cities' programs can be found in Exhibit No. 7 to this report (Planning Commission report
dated June 14, 2018).
Fee determination
An in-lieu fee is based on the City's cost of providing public parking. To determine the proposed
in-lieu fee, staff considered the potential demand and supply for parking and the cost of providing
public parking in Smoky Hollow:
Potential demand. Based on the draft Specific Plan regulations on private development and the
development projections over the plan's time horizon, the total area of all buildings in Smoky
Hollow by 2040 is anticipated to be 2.97million square feet. This is about 517,000 additional
2
76
square feet compared to the current area of all buildings in Smoky Hollow. Further,this additional
area will demand an additional 1,293 parking spaces based on the proposed parking requirement
of one space per 400 gross square feet of building area.
Potential supply. To determine the potential parking supply, KOA Corporation, a Planning and
Engineering consulting firm, studied street improvements designed to provide additional street
parking as contemplated in the draft Specific Plan. The improvements include reconfiguring 11
north-south streets into one-way streets, striping angled parking on one side of these streets
(Exhibit No. 6), and reconfiguring El Segundo Boulevard by slightly narrowing the existing four
travel lanes to add a parking lane on the north side. Today,the north-south streets are two-way and
have parallel parking on both sides to accommodate approximately 310 total parking spaces. The
KOA analysis estimates the proposed reconfiguration can produce up to 85 additional parking
spaces throughout the specific plan area.El Segundo Boulevard has no parking today and the KOA
analysis estimates that adding a parking lane can produce up to 74 new parking spaces.
If the City were to construct enough additional public parking to meet 100 percent of the potential
demand,it would have to construct approximately 159 on-street spaces and 1,134 spaces in parking
structures. However, this assumes no additional required parking would be provided on private
property, which is not realistic. The role of the in-lieu fee is to facilitate private development, but
not to assume the full responsibility of providing parking. As a result, for the purposes of the
parking in-lieu fee program,the potential public parking supply is limited to 159 on-street parking
spaces.
Potential cast of additional on-street parking. According to KOA's study, the estimated cost of
providing 159 additional street parking spaces as described above is approximately $4.4 million
overall, or about$27,700 per space(See Exhibit No. 6). These estimates include both construction
and maintenance costs over a 20-year period. For the purpose of this program, Staff also studied
the potential cost of providing parking in public structures. However, the cost of doing so was
estimated at $81,000 per space, which was determined to be too costly and risky to undertake
(Exhibit No. 5 —TNDG parking in-lieu fee study). As such, Staff recommends a parking in-lieu
fee of$28,000 per street parking space,which includes a small fee for the purpose of administering
the program.
Payment timing options
In-lieu fee programs require payments to fund the cost of providing public parking. In order to
quickly accumulate funds for public parking,full upfront payment of the in-lieu fee would be ideal.
However, in order to make the upfront cost lower and ensure the fee is affordable to all property
owners, Staff recommends two options for payment of the fee:
1) 100 percent of the fee "upfront" (i.e., before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy or
provides formal approval of a project that does not require a Certificate of Occupancy), or;
2) 50 percent of the fee upfront and up to 10 annual payments for the rest.
The larger upfront payment ensures that as new development takes place, the City secures more
revenue and can provide the street parking sooner to serve the area. Furthermore, if the City
provides street parking sooner,the new parking may act as a catalyst for more investment in Smoky
Hollow. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Staff recommends requiring payment of the full in-lieu
fee upfront when an applicant proposes using the in-lieu fee for more than 50 percent of the
3
77
required parking spaces. In other words, if a property owner desires to pay in-lieu fee for more
than 50 percent of the required parking spaces, the only payment option available to that property
owner would be 100 percent of the fee upfront.
Proposed parking in-lieu fee area
Staff proposes a parking in-lieu fee area that incorporates the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and
certain commercially zoned properties adjacent to Smoky Hollow and Downtown. The entire area
is depicted in Figure No. 1 below.
Figure No. 1
Pronosed narkinLy in-lieu fee area
:I
Legend
1 Program Area
Smoky Hollow West f
] Smoky Hollow East x
Downtown Commercial
Parking
M3 Public Facilities
222 Kansas Specific Plan
Neighborhood Commercial
tSoo 0 500 1000 1500 ft
N
The additional properties are located along Grand Avenue between Standard Street and Sheldon
Street and are zoned Commercial Downtown (C-RS) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-2),
which permit an FAR of 1.0 and 0.5 respectively. All the parcels are currently developed with
commercial and some with residential uses, although two of the larger CR-S properties are
develop at an FAR of .26 (Chase Bank) and .41 (Rite Aid). The CR-S zoned properties are
approximately 3.15 acres and the C-2 zoned properties are approximately 3.43 acres for a total
area of 6.58 acres. This area is substantially smaller than the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area
of 95.5 acres.
Staff recommends including these areas in the parking in-lieu fee area for the following reasons:
a) These properties are immediately adjacent to the Downtown Specific Plan and the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan, two areas that will have parking in-lieu fees in place. As a result,
these properties will be at a disadvantage when it comes to opportunities to
improve/expand primarily due to parking constraints. The properties in the CR-S zone in
particular cannot be developed near the permitted FAR, because of the parking
requirements. Offering the in-lieu fee option there will give them the same opportunity
4
78
as the Downtown and Smoky Hollow areas where the FAR limits will be about the same.
b) The draft Specific Plan anticipates development of additional street parking in the Smoky
Hollow area on Standard, Eucalyptus, and Sheldon Street. The commercial properties
mentioned above will benefit from this additional parking. Therefore, it is fair to include
them in the proposed parking in-lieu fee area, so they can contribute toward the
development of public parking.
c) The parking in-lieu fee option may allow property owners in this area to improve and/or
develop their properties, which has benefits for the City in terms of economic activity
and tax revenue.
General Plan and Zoning Consistency
Consistency with the El Seeundo General Plan. ESMC Section 15-1-1 (Purpose, Title) states that
Title 15 is the primary tool for implementation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the El
Segundo General Plan. Accordingly, the Planning Commission found that the Zone Text
Amendment is consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies.
Consistency with the El Segundo Municipal Code. Pursuant to ESMC Title 15, Chapter 26
(Amendments), in order to recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendments, the
Planning Commission found that the amendments are necessary to carry out the general purpose
of ESMC Title 15. The purpose of this Title (ESMC Section 15-1-1) is to serve the public health,
safety, and general welfare and to provide economic and social advantages resulting from an
orderly planned use of land resources.
Environmental assessment
The zone text amendment and proposed fee is exempt from further environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code§§ 21000, et seq.,
"CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.). Further,
the adoption of the zone text amendment and fee is also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it is for general policies and procedure-making. It
does not authorize any new development entitlements, but simply establishes policies and
procedures for meeting the City's off-street parking regulations. Any proposed project that will
utilize the changes set forth in this Resolution will be subject to CEQA review as part of the
entitlement review of the project. The proposed zone text amendment and fee will not adversely
impact the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
Conclusion and Recommendation.
The parking in-lieu fee program will provide a solution to two important parking related
constraints in Smoky Hollow—limited parking supply and the difficulty in improving properties
while at the same time meeting the City's parking requirements. Accordingly, Staff recommends
the City Council introduce the ordinance which would amend the ESMC to:
a) allow the payment of parking in-lieu fees for the purpose of meeting the ESMC off-
street parking requirements;
b) designate a parking in-lieu fee area encompassing the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
and certain adjacent, commercially zoned, properties; and
c) allow for alternative timing of payment to be established by City Council resolution.
5
79
In addition, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution establishing a
parking in-lieu fee of$28,000 per parking space and allowing a property owner to pay the in-lieu
fees with a payment plan.
6
80
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO.
EA-1198 AND AMENDING TITLE 1S OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ESTABLISH A PARKING IN-LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR THE
SMOKY HOLLOW SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(Zone Text Amendment ZTA 17-06)
The City Council of the city of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The Council finds and declares as follows:
A. Under the California Constitution, the City of EI Segundo has broad
authority, under its general police power, to regulate the development and
use of real property within its jurisdiction to promote the public welfare (Cal.
Const. art. XI, § 7);
B. As part of its police power, the City may adopt development fees of general
applicability, provided that the fee bears a reasonable relationship to the
impacts of the development project (Cal. Building Industry Assoc. v. City of
San Jose (2015) 61 CalAth 453; Gov. Code § 66001);
C. On July 13, 2017, the City initiated the process to amend the EI Segundo
Municipal Code (ESMC) to create a parking in-lieu fee program for the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area. The program's intent is to allow the
payment of a fee as an alternative method of meeting the City's parking
requirements for private development, to encourage such development
within the plan area;
D. The City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.,
"CEQA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of
Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines");
E. On June 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff;
and, continued the public hearing to its June 28, 2018 meeting;
F. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission completed the public hearing
regarding the application and adopted Resolution No. 2827 recommending
that the City Council approve the proposed project;
G. On August 21, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing and considered
the information provided by City staff and public testimony regarding this
ordinance; and
Page 1 of 8
81
H. This ordinance and its findings are made based upon the entire
administrative record including testimony and evidence presented to the
City Council at its August 21, 2018, hearing and the staff report.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section
65860, the ESMC amendments in this ordinance are consistent with the EI Segundo
General Plan as follows:
A. This ordinance is consistent with Objective LU1-3 of the General Plan Land
Use Element in that it permits the continued operation and orderly
conversion of existing uses, by providing an alternative method of meeting
the City's parking requirements.
B. This ordinance is consistent with Objective LU4-3 of the General Plan in
that it facilitates development of new office and research and development
(R&D) uses. The ordinance does so by allowing the conversion of older
warehouses to office and R&D uses without having to provide additional
parking spaces onsite.
C. This ordinance is consistent with Goal LU7 to provide the highest quality
public facilities, service, and public infrastructure possible to the community.
The parking in-lieu fee program will provide funding for public parking for
the Smoky Hollow area of the City.
D. This ordinance is consistent with Goal ED2 of the Economic Development
Element to provide a supportive and economically profitable environment
as the foundation of a strong local business community. This ordinance
does so by investing in shared parking infrastructure which encourages
commercial and industrial development.
E. This ordinance is consistent with Objective C3-2 of the Circulation Element
in that it considers the impacts of land use decisions on the City's parking
situation. The parking in-lieu fee program will help ensure adequate shared
parking is provided for new development in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
area. This ordinance takes into consideration the anticipated amount of
new development in the draft Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, which is
approximately 517,000 square feet. This ordinance also takes into account
and will help address the shortage of parking in the Specific Plan area
currently, which is estimated to be approximately 2,200 spaces.
F. Considering all of its aspects, this ordinance furthers the objectives and
policies of the general plan and will not obstruct their attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), this ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out the purpose
of the ESMC as follows:
Page 2 of 8
82
A. This ordinance is consistent with the purpose of the ESMC, which is to serve
the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the economic
and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land
resources.
B. This ordinance is necessary to facilitate the development process and
ensure the orderly development of buildings and the location of uses in the
City. The intent of this ordinance is to establish a parking in-lieu fee program
allowing the payment of a fee in order for new development to meet the
City's off-street parking requirements, and to develop shared public parking
facilities to meet the parking demand for private development. This program
will facilitate and expedite the development process and provide economic
and social benefits resulting from the orderly planned use of land resources.
SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The zone text amendment and proposed fee
is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines
(14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it is for general policies
and procedure-making. It does not authorize any new development entitlements, but
simply establishes policies and procedures for allowing the previously approved project
to be constructed. Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this
Resolution will be subject to CEQA review as part of the entitlement review of the project.
The zone text amendment and fee will not adversely impact the environment and is
therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SECTION 5: ESMC Section 15-15-6 (Required Parking Spaces), Subsection D (Parking
of Licensed Recreation Vehicles and Habitable Vehicles) is deleted and replaced as
follows:
e--Parkin- Of !iocnced-Roorootion&V VC iealeo /'r.`1 Habitable Vehicloo:
'r- „Og of any mo�ila iomn rn or othor ],, itablc -.,,Qhielo
outt;e6c of an outi-rori-_,%ad mabiic home park cr 153onc-3d rmoation34 vohico pxkiRg
facility io Ire,ohibito� ox"pt thet cuoh \�ahicloc m/ay !� perked on any public
per)' or right 0-ymy /jubjoot to cony Q-pplioablo parking rcerietianc of}h` nde,
GF4eA-any dv, okpO reeidonti7,l fat 23 leong at th-c vohiolo, if parhod in a fr,3nt l&-rd,
+s paFkod en c nonpo owc o,ureocc pad alogwOo to tho -carte
Vie-
2. A habitabic •lahiolo pr\herd an pcivc4c. Pfef" may !33 e:row,_iod for Mcid3ntial
p v�-vca Lcr no Icngvr thin tavanty t%Nv (72) h"re (wt6do of wn c►03rked
moloila home perk} within any thirt), (10) 47j. par,`--. Nc hx bitc.bIT vehiolc mey bo
ocaup%od_ for oomrnu ois� p6:r,-oarro ei=pt ox oth "WiSe PFOVidtA by thin aod,�T
D. Parkinq in-lieu fees.
Notwithstandinq any provision of this Code to the contrary, the Citv
Council may designate certain areas within the Citv where, in lieu of
r)rovidina the number of on-site parkinq spaces required by this,
Page 3 of 8
83
chapter or applicable specific plan, such requirement may be
satisfied by pavina a parking in-lieu fee in an amount set by City
Council resolution. Designated parkina in-lieu fee areas and the
process for pavment of parking in-lieu fees are described in Chapter
15-27B of this code.
SECTION 6: ESMC Chapter 15-15 is amended to add a new section (Section 15-15-8,
Parking of Licensed Recreation Vehicles and Habitable Vehicles) as follows:
15-15-8 Parking of Licensed Recreational Vehicles and Habitable
Vehicles:
1. Parkinq of anv mobile home, camper, house trailer or other
habitable vehicle outside of an authorized mobile home park or
licensed recreational vehicle parkinq facility is prohibited except
that such vehicles may be parked on anv public propertv or riqht
of wav subject to anv applicable parking restrictions of this code,
or on anv developed residential lot as lonq as the vehicle, if parked
in a front vard, is parked on a nonporous surface pad adequate to
accommodate the parked vehicle.
2. A habitable vehicle parked on Private property may be occupied
for residential purposes for no lonaer than 72 hours (outside of an
authorized mobile home park) within anv 30 day period. No
habitable vehicle may be occupied for commercial purposes
except as otherwise provided by this code.
SECTION 7: A new ESMC Chapter 15-29 is added to read as follows:
CHAPTER 29
PARKING IN-LIEU FEES
15-29-1: PURPOSE
This chapter establishes fees in lieu of Providing on-site parkinq
spaces within designated parkinq in-lieu fee areas.
15-29-2: PARKING IN-LIEU FEE AREAS.
Anv property owner of a property located within the area enclosed bv_
a bold dashed line on the parkinq in-lieu fee area map may pav
parkinq in-lieu fees as established by the City Council, in lieu of
providing required on-site parkinq spaces as outlined in Section 15-
15-6 of this code or applicable Specific Plans.
Parkinq in-lieu fee area
Page 4 of 8 84
Parking In-Lieu Fee Area
I --------------
I
Legend
I Program Area
L J Smoky Hollow West
F7 Smoky Hollow East
Downtown Commercial
Parking
M Public Facilities
222 Kansas Specific Plan
M Neighborhood Commercial
500 0 500 1000 1500 ft
N
15-29-3: PAYMENT.
A. Timing of payment.
The parking in-lieu fee must be paid before the Citv issues a
Certificate of Occupancv for the project or formally approves the
proiect when such proiect does not require a Certificate of
Occupancv. In addition, the parking in-lieu fee may be paid over a
period of time, as approved by City Council resolution.
B. Use of funds.
Funds collected by the Citv from such payments must be deposited
in a separate fund and may not be commingled with anv other Citv
fund. Monies from the in-lieu fund may only be used for acquiring,
developing and maintaining additional on-street and off-street
parkinq and parkinq facilities within or adiacent to the area where
they are collected. Funds paid to the City for in-lieu parkinq are non-
refundable.
C. Written agreement/contract required.
Page 5 of 8
85
Notwithstandinq any other provision of this Chapter, payment of the
parking in-lieu fee must be provided by means of a written contract
with the City. The contract must meet reauirements identified by City.
Council resolution and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
15-29-4. NO VESTED RIGHTS.
Payment of a parkinq in-lieu fee does not provide or vest any
property owner with a specia[ right, privilege or interest of anv kind in
any parking facility that may result from the pavment of the fee. The
City retains sole discretion to decide when and how the fees will be
spent in accordance with this chapter. The City retains sale discretion
to determine where and when it will build parking. and the City is
under no obligation to, and makes no such representation that it will,
build parking in a location near the fee paver's property or that is
advantaqeous to the fee payer.
15-27B-5 DIRECTOR APPROVAL REQUIRED.
Requests to pay parking in-lieu fees for more than 50% of the
required parking spaces for a property or protect as outlined in
Section 15-15-6 of this code or applicable Specific Plans must be
approved by the Director at his or her discretion. The Director must
consider potential impacts to the surrounding area when deciding
whether to approve such a request. The Director's decision may be
appealed to the Plannina Commission pursuant to Section 15-25-2
of this Code.
SECTION 8: CONSTRUCTION. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the
provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a
manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.
SECTION 9: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the ESMC does not affect
any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition
of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such
repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting
violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 10: VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS CODE SECTIONS. If this entire
Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any
repeal or amendment of the ESMC or other city ordinance by this Ordinance will be
rendered void and cause such previous ESMC provision or other the city ordinance to
remain in full force and effect for all purposes.
SECTION 11: SEVERABILITY. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity
Page 6 of 8 86
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 12, The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original
ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and,
within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause a summary
thereof to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
SECTION 13: This Ordinance will go into effect and be in full force and effect on the
thirty-first day after its passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this .day of 12018,
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the day of , 2018, and 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 day of 2018, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
Page 7 of 8
87
Page 8 of 8
88
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO ESTABLISHING A PARKING IN-LIEU FEE AND
PROCEDURES FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH FEE
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council does hereby finds and declares that:
A. On July 13, 2017, the City initiated the process to amend the EI Segundo
Municipal Code (ESMC) to create a parking in-lieu fee program for the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area. The program intent is to allow the
payment of a fee as an alternative method of meeting the City's parking
requirements for private development and to provide additional shared public
parking on-street and off-street in public parking structures;
B. The proposed parking in-lieu fee program will generate funds to pay for
construction of additional shared public parking spaces on-street or off-street
in parking facilities to meet the parking demand of new private development;
C. A report prepared by KOA Corporation, dated September 20, 2016, studied
the feasibility of providing additional street parking in Smoky Hollow. The
report is attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated into this Resolution by
reference;
D. A further study prepared by KOA Corporation, dated June 12, 2018,
estimated the cost of providing up to 159 additional street parking spaces
and determined that cost to be $27,642.64 per space. The estimated costs
are attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated into this Resolution by reference;
E. 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);
F. The City Council of the City of EI Segundo held a duly noticed public hearing
on August 21, 2018, to review and consider the staff report prepared for the
project, receive public testimony, and review all correspondence received on
the project; and,
G. This Resolution, and its findings, are made, in part, based upon the evidence
presented to the City Council at its August 21, 2018 public hearing including,
the staff report submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department.
89
SECTION 2: Parking In-lieu Fee Amount. The amount of parking in-lieu fee for the
Parking In-lieu Fee Area established in ESMC Chapter 15-27B is $28,000 per parking
space.
SECTION 3: Timing of Payment. Except as provided in paragraph C, the property owner
may choose at the owner's discretion between the following two options:
A. Parking in-lieu fee must be paid in full before the City issues a Certificate of
Occupancy or provides formal approval of a project that does not require a
Certificate of Occupancy.
B. Alternatively, a property owner may pay a down payment of at least 50% of the full
amount before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy or provides formal
approval of a project that does not require a Certificate of Occupancy, provided the
property owner enters into a written repayment agreement with the City to pay the
remaining amount. The remaining balance must be paid over a period of time not
to exceed 10 years from the date the City issues a Final Certificate of Occupancy,
with annual payments of at least $1,400 per parking space. The property owner
must execute and record: (i) a promissory note in favor of the City; (ii) a deed of
trust in favor of the City to secure the promissory note; (iii) a covenant against the
real property; and (iv) any other document required by the City Manager, upon
recommendation by the City Attorney.
C. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when a property owner proposes to pay an in-lieu
fee for more than 50% of the required parking for the property, then the in-lieu fee
amount must be paid in full before the City issues a Certificate of Occupancy or
provides formal approval of a project that does not require a Certificate of
Occupancy.
SECTION 4: Authorization. The City Manager or designee is authorized to take any
actions necessary to effectuate this resolution, including but not limited to, promulgation
of administrative policies and procedures.
SECTION 5: Environmental Assessment. The proposed zone text amendment and
establishment of the in-lieu fee program is exempt from further environmental review under
the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.)
because it is for general policies and procedure-making. It does not authorize any new
development entitlements, but simply establishes policies and procedures for allowing the
previously approved project to be constructed. Any proposed project that will utilize the
changes set forth in this Resolution will be subject to CEQA review as part of the
entitlement review of the project. The proposed zone text amendment and fee will not
adversely impact the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SECTION 6: Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
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
2 90
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.
3 91
SECTION 10: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become
effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO }
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and
signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said
Council held on the day of 2018, and the same was so passed and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT-
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
4 92
EXHIBIT NO. 3
PROPOSED PARKING IN-LIEU FEE AREA
z � —
I. �
I I
I
I
ILn w
L 6' a I I
Lo
iCD
Ln
�1
LnCD
I I
f Pw-PWmsw
r
L
8
93
RESOLUTION NO. _EXHIBIT A
PARKING DESIGN STUDY BY KOA CORPORATION
FKOA CORPORATION 1100 Corporate Center Dr.,Suite 201
,(' Monterey Park,CA 91754
PLANNING 8 ENGINEERING
t: 323-260-4703 f: 323-260-4705
www.koacorporation.corn
"T"ECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: September 20, 2016— DRAFT
To: Genevieve Sharrow—MIG, Inc.
From: Brian A. Marchetti, AICP
Subject Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo
KOA Project JB41072
This document provides a summary of the conceptual parking design exercises conducted by KOA as part the
overall traffic and parking analysis and design efforts for the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan in the City of EI Segundo.
KOA provided engineering design services to the Specific Plan team, to find feasible methods to add public parking
through potential roadway and on-street parking reconfigurations and through potential new off-street centralized
parking structures.
During the early stages of the conceptual design process, it was determined that the use of one-way traffic flow
on minor north-south roadways (leaving larger collector and arterial roadways to operate with traditional two-
way traffic flow) could be applied with diagonal parking configurations on one side of the street to increase on-
street parking capacity. It was also determined that back-in or reverse parking would be beneficial to the Specific
Plan area, in that it provides drivers exiting parking spaces a better view of bicyclists and vehicles in the roadway.
A reconfiguration of EI Segundo Boulevard was considered, to provide on-street parking along the north curb of
that roadway. This reconfiguration was considered for the overall extents between Standard Street on the west
and Kansas Street on the east.
The total estimated on-street increase in parking supply for north-south roadways was 85 spaces, and for EI
Segundo Boulevard was 101 spaces. In addition, KOA reviewed two potential locations, located at the northeast
and northwest corners of the Maryland Street/Franklin Avenue intersection, to assess potential off-street parking
spaces that could be provided. These locations could support parking structures with 548 spaces and 363 spaces,
respectively.
" .gn Efforts and Findings
On-Street SuDaly Increases— North-South Roadways
Within the Specific Plan area, conceptual designs were created for north-south roadways to provide both one-
way traffic flow and diagonal back-in on-street parking spaces. Locations of driveways were considered, but with
potential land use changes within the Specific Plan area, it was assumed that approximately 15 percent of the
driveways might be closed due to site redevelopment and reconfigurations of access that focused more on rear-
LOS ANGELES ONTARIO ORANGE SAN DIEGO
94
KOA CORPORATION
-` PLANNING & ENGINEERING
alley access. The one-way flow configuration for a northbound or southbound pattern on each analyzed segment
was optimized based on the best increase in parking supply due to driveway locations on the west curb and the
east curb. A concept for Arena Street was completed, but it was determined that no net increase in parking
would result—this roadway was therefore excluded from the analysis.
Table I provides a summary of the estimated on-street parking capacity increases that could result if such
reconfigurations were implemented within the Specific Plan area. The total estimated parking supply increase is
85 spaces, which is a total supply increase of 26 percent over existing general parallel space configurations.
The conceptual designs for these roadways are provided in Attachment A.
TABLE I — ESTIMATED PARKING SUPPLY INCREASES ON NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAYS,
WITH POTENTIAL RECONFIGURATIONS
Existing Parallel Potential Diagonal Increase in Parking Percentage Increase
Segment Location Parking Capacity Parking Capacity Spaces in Parking
Standard Street 22 23 1 5%
Eucalyptus Street 27 36 9 33%
Sheldon Street 16 20 4 25%
Penn Street 19 23 4 21%
Sierra Street 18 22 4 22%
Lomita Street 22 24 2 9%
Maryland Street 25 31 6 24%
Center St (north) 26 36 10 39%
Center St (south) 17 24 7 41%
Nevada St (north) 23 28 5 22%
Nevada St (south) 21 32 11 52%
Oregon St (north) 20 26 6 30%
Oregon St(south) 26 34 8 31%
California Street 28 36 8 29%
TOTALS 310 395 85 27%
On-Street SuDDIV increases— El Sezundo Boulevard
The four-lane roadway of EI Segundo Boulevard would be restriped within specific extents in the Specific Plan area
under this concept to provide two travel lanes, a center two-way left-turn lane, and a north-curb permitted
parallel parking area. The concept of this reconfiguration was not considered for areas outside of these extents, in
order to not affect intersection capacity at the Main Street/EI Segundo Boulevard intersection and to also not
affect intersection capacity at the Illinois Street/EI Segundo Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard/EI Segundo
Boulevard intersections.
This potential roadway configuration with added permitted parking would add 101 parking spaces to the area
supply.
Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo Page 2
Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41072
September 20,2016—DRAFT
95
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
The example conceptual design for one segment of this roadway is provided in Attachment B.
Roadway Network Circulation Pattern
With the potential reconfigurations of the north-south roadways within the Specific Plan area, and the
optimization of the related parking supply increases based on the best configuration at each location, using either
northbound or southbound traffic flow, the one-way traffic flow will not necessarily alternate for each subsequent
roadway.
However, an analysis of the total traffic flow pattern indicated that there would not be a repeat of the same traffic
flow direction for more than two consecutive north-south roadways. Reconfigured roadway designs would need
to be in compliance with one-way and do-not-enter signage requirements.
The one-way roadway flow pattern for these north-south roadways is illustrated on the figure within Attachment
C.
Off-Street SuDDIY Increases,
Two potential parking structure locations were examined by KOA, for potential parking supplies that could be
provided within the potentially available footprints. The parking structure height, used to determine the potential
number of parking levels that could be provided, was assumed not to exceed 35 to 40 feet. Bottom floor height
was considered to be 10 feet, with each upper level at nine feet and a two-foot allowance for slab and equipment
on each level. A four-story structure under these assumptions would potentially be approximately 34 feet in
height, although tops of elevator shafts and lighting standards would be higher. Also with sloped parking levels,
the height could be higher as well at one end of the structure.
The potential parking structure locations were determined by the project team to be potentially located on either
side of Maryland Street, directly north of Franklin Street. For the northeasterly potential site, an oil derrick exists
within the northern portion of the site, and therefore a surface lot with proper spacing from that element was
provided. A parking structure was conceptually designed for the south side of that parcel.
The conceptual design exercise indicated that the northeast site could potentially provide 548 spaces, and the
northwest site could potentially provide 363 spaces. These numbers have not been adjusted for existing private
parking spaces on these parcels that would be provided, likely through covenants, to continue to provide those
off-street supplies within the parking structures.
The northeast site does not appear to have any existing parking. There is an existing oil derrick on the site,
however. A 50-foot buffer is provided around the derrick where no structures would be constructed. Surface
parking would be located within the buffer area. On the northwest site, estimated parking spaces total 130, for a
net gain of 233 spaces with the structure.
The conceptual design for the two potential alternate parking structure locations are provided in Attachment D.
Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo Page 3
Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41072
September 20, 2016—DRAFT
96
KOA. CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEEkir..
ATTACHMENT A
CONCEPTUAL PARKING DESIGNS, NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAYS
Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo Attachments
Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41072
September 20,2016—DRAFT
97
3nN3AV NIINNVW
� I
I II
! � I
I p I
Q V ICl
W I _
c I I
W
I I cc
N c d
f A I .or --H W
I—& — W
�
� I I �I�cyAA� W lL
.W.. Z d
CD zo
Cj
j 0 W s a
IIC o01>1 so _ WN
W W,
m
9 W V a�
o I I z I W m�
I 1 1 O I J ON
ra r O I V J i
124
IX
Of
ill I
Z
a
V -
i:
ty II
II
' I z
mrN
m••
.... z am
�o
U W meq
� ear
o8tln3lnoe oaNn93s 13 z
pZ amm
3 �=v
98
IAl AC I AC I PI
I
3nN3AV NIIANV2U
ii CD
05
� I
r�
p I
Q1
w l I
W �
^�
b I o
W
r I q N O s
cc
z
O z
n (Q tubci
_ ..., z a
a W �J
V =J
_ t
cc c
UJ 0
IN
Z o W CO)
ui
o ! co y o
v ! � z
a
Y
C
co
� II
U
W f
I ! N I 0
1 r
N m
r n
F^wN4y_7 jun
W Oi
OZ.
s E
Ut_Z d�rq
LU
. �yN
oaVA3lnos oaNno3S 13 z �a
OI
Z �N
Q �v
A w O
Lv^•Ja ���
� I
T 3nN3AV I NIINNVNg „T—
I I
1
I '
I
W
W a i
�u O
~ n
to
C7 =
Z19
I oYc
to
=4
IU
I a x W
J Wca sa
.j a Q d s
�p > _ 0�
Ul m
_ I
2w.to
W n V W
Iz I I m W/� n co
I C N O
a J be
N
FL
I
Z
0
W I p
V) M 4�
N
� l o
� o
m�N
L N n
Z m�ELL
UW
12
U' a N
Kozo
gmN
Z dm
(IaVA3lnoe 0aNnE)3s 13 3 m
wo
ff
--———— —'rill
I � I
3nN3AV I I NIlNNV8A
n
I I�
� M
" I MO
Jii W
114 � ` II
Z
� o
IM OK uJi
_ d W =J Ix cc
J
_ � IZ O CO
LU ~ CC
LU>cc
W
W
c W
o m N a
J =
U
l H
z II 11 II
w
CL
III ;
11 I I
II I o
— � �■ � — — � NNO
d�N
W _ELL
OZ BELL
-U' coo
U W �3 N
aaVn31no9 0oNn93s 13 - 'g N
OU
Z 12 N
Z cm
2i z
�1
{{
Ix1J. o. AI
3nN3AV� I NINNVW
� I II
rN'li � I
i N
II I
I '
H
W
W
N '
1 o
, II J W
it toLn
I y c a
.4 F I 11 i QWY
p¢
z IL
� I w �
CO) Z ss
4 'J< Ix VN 6 d
'p ; = O N�
IC
W F
En I W I I /• JUW
W
to
o Ij � I m ymo
V a
.4-r zg
s
u d
� V N
O.
N �
w 3
W
'I
ISI
I'I
N
z
N m
r w o
Uceo
W m�'I
0-. U ar m
aavn3lnoa OaNno3S 13 E
102
3nN3AV NnNNVa3
f u
I II
I
I
w
N
W
� U
co
z
cc
, Q y oW
d m =�
II y � Zai
I I I ' I II I ' Z
w H >�
I .v
O W
Z cd
y o
NO
I I I V a J Y
� I V N
11 VII
I '
I
I —
I O o
n
N m
J O Z m^N
OZ m Eo LL
Z �m�
U W m°v
. . ................ 12
Z �aw
oaVA3lnos 0oNn93s 13 O z0.
V y M
0.
r3
ILI FV I AV Iil
J l
- - -
3nN3AV NII)INVW
u I v
IN
V
l i M �YI
I N
cv I
N I
W
W
cn
I � N
II N I I J W
W
Z
a
W
CL m z�
J / a d�
W 0 Oma
�$ WW-
LU — °` V ¢v
m y
C ma
Io
Il II � I V J c
a 00
� � I
II I
I r7
II � t O
Nn1 l�D
1
0. � o
UZ
W
Z n
08VA31nos 0aNn93s 13 O z civ M
0
a .-ter
104
p9
3nN3AV I I NIINNVW
N
w I
� I
I I I
W
I 3
I �
N I O
I j W
CO) O a
` 1 a=
I Z
0 Luke
(c) a i
iczp6
aI a J
J I I 1>1
c
ca
O Ws
Js I I W ` wC*
I I a o 1 OC r W W
I ~_zLU cc
co
Ln
cLi
i
z
I
z
I
0�N
Y�W
UW
U' oaN
z edm
p z
aaVA3Inoe 0aNn93S 13 3 ��
5
3nN3AV ONVaO
I
cn
I � �
p
I , j O
A CC LU
Nr
Z6
f
CL Q J�W W v =�
I II a v O Z <<
to 6
W o O06.
I W a W = Wa
�+ I Z V a v
I Ai <
vyma
co
fD
W
U
I
I
W
� A64 W o�
D
U W
z
z
_T.
3nNaAV NI-IMNVHARt a o
` Aa 6
3nN3AV I ONV80
I I
I • �
I � I
II
II
w
w a roc s _
1 � I
J co
tu
I e s
o W a
� � o
Z
I to
m_ I A Iu m Y
H� > _ co,
Lu
11 WICU
z W
I
m Cc
A
I II
o I
w °f
Z I OG II
I
n
of
d
I N I
O
P r
—�—_ — — — — gig%
Z N�N
y.
•�•— — — I Ire /il II� n� �� �aN
Z m
I
3nN3AV -ISI m '•0- Nll>INVN3 a
W7
I I
� I
� I k
3nN3AV I NIlNNV2l3
I N I
I
a
W
W to _
N I ^ I I
`I a W
xv zuc (A Q N
z
=
1 f acc
f a m °:
n l i J W �<
I 4P I I J� I V 6 6
Ln _ p Q ��
N
,t I W z ';�, >cc
CL c. W
ra W o
z I Wada
° N m=
I J
II I I 3
O
W
z
N
I
I II
I
O
N m�
Z �ry
IM., m..
O o.E l
c
�o
— - - _ - - �f UW dam%
• ---- ---�•
Zz
� N
k R g 9 O �a m
3 U`v
� 0
jIL
a8VA3lnoe oaNnD3s 13 E
108
t�
I
3nN3AV I ONtl21�
� I � I
II in I
N 11 I
III n O
I acoLU
ICIC
I �e Lo o
II MM W
W W =J
MIAp o
as 2 Ic-
w cavuj
y m
Ll
w
Q s
in
6
z Il I
W
II
II
IIL
�
Z m
z a
OZ
a -mF,
aLIVA3llld8�� ° NIINNV8.4
R k I
k �
3nN3AV I I NIINNV83
cc
� I � I
II � E
II °'
I ~ 6
Z
to
o s
I� J
d • F =J
co
II � E a w w 0
W Wm
a .h I � Do
�
Lr) I
WOW
,n W ` m y m
N Iii V J z
V s
ILI
II II �
I
II
W ro
c
II I =�y"
07 O.o LL
C' M
O
W �Un
U Z �
2 12 S
z
O Z U 0 m
Z o d
ONVn3lnoe 0aNnD3s 13
n
X ',Y
I
3nN3AV ONV80
I_
I nI
I �I
II
I II
w
w ....
En I I I \I I 3
to
I � O
CY =
I O WY
~ a� Ot
�... `6
J
W
0. m z5,
1 I w < s.4
a �
Z
�
a I m On.
I I I h
m
> z N
N
� cc /1 y�jW
N I w
n II I I U a
n
I v so
a
W-
I n II
IIM I
N
I I � 0
N m O
� ?rn
Z coLL
C7 to 0
VZ r
3nN3AV NIIANV8A �j a
i
I # It
as
111
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
ATTACHMENT B -
CONCEPTUAL PARKING DESIGN, EL SEGUNDO BLVD. EXAMPLE
Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo Page 5
Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41072
September 20,2016—DRAFT
112
-� II
i �133t{15 I� II N003NO
i I
I , II
O
I Z W
I mYi J
II II Zip {(�
I II s
II I it S 6 f V
a O
1 �1
I
133dl Il VOVA3N
w t
m
O N
O
N N
m N
I//►r,,-/If,� id
W ��LL
0 Z
U' cg^
U W
m q
b
Z p 0
ea N
O Z m N
ZILO$m
O O tl
1'F3—
KOA CORPORATION
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
ONE-WAY ROADWAY FLOW PATTERN
Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo Page 6
Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41072
September 20,2016—DRAFT
114
OAIi VOIAIA415
IS YNVIONI - - -- - - i
AS SiQNllll 15 SfQN}lll I ,
IS N019NINSW
I
$ .� 1s SY�NVY► -
n a
x
is VINHOdIIV.7 LS VIN " i
1S No Dauo 1 1
IS VOYA3N 1S r A7N a 1
II
145Q]
i
w w
'<
at
UO AIOIVONAI .0 w W
Oe
12 I x
` o
1S
13NYIA1JVW �
Zif WINVO I-
C IS VVU315 — f
-TI
if NNId is NNIdLU
1 !
LU if MOOI3HS is NOOIIHS 1
N
is YNlw �7@f
iA1Y�
J cc CMF
CL
-"�"Iu snid;►Ir"�ii3
o =
Lf Wll'F►11u ,
L�
al .�
cu
1=_
�„ - ---
W in V1
O if NIYPI
V M f
115
KOA CORPORATION
s PLANNING & ENGINEERING
ATTACHMENT D
CONCEPTUAL PARKING DESIGNS, PARKING STRUCTURES
Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, EI Segundo Page 7
Prepared for MIG, Inc. JB41072
September 20,2016—DRAFT
116
TrI�TT�l-�—rl-n�l�l� a
O
���� CJU
� 19at � � l I �� rI �
a
i
I Tn FF
10
7—LI_LLLLLIP.u_LI_I_LLL� m o
x � N
1S ONV-LkHVN a
O d
<N a
I l l—I—Tl�i�l^I M-I—I—I—n a m 0
K LL
YY � dJJ
.8Z
0-
O U O O a L Z r
a
� Wdpp
VI Nww U i
az 9
�awa= �LL
�. n �ai$udiga VEL
YW�B{UQ� 00
�/
a N Z d Y d r cc N/
_ `I
Z :
W yw¢wp f•IX
W
�_11I�LLu_I I_I_f_I_I_I.1_l R�o m=W 30
X 3 5d
1S ONV-MNVN a ~m W
da
U)
x
$ T.SZ
wo wo
.sz I t I I m< O
'4J FS=
N~ a0
m�
r
Wz
�m
W oW
N Z N O d
` '�J"n"L Ou_u_� z Uag
1S ONVUZiVPI
117
is oweu 1 of
� f i I r� rrl-r�-��rrrrrrrrrl-I ,0 1
11 N
E �
,n z 1
8 N
0CC
is aNvuWA >0.,ot
a
J Q
JZ
as
�-rrrrrrrrrrf�I-rrrrrrrrrr I �� a
oz V4
I T N I Z:3
I 1 i � Q mat
4 gas a;l
I-1--1-rf- :si
`s zw
I Iz
H � ury
8 Zd Y W 'Q
CC
JU
d 18H Z
9 (000
j uZ V
II { Yi/�/
S S cc,w
. . . a3
x
t-
x
0
is aavuavw Z
VHv Piv Hif,KIH� i f 1 Y rf f I
I _ I
z
N N O
SZ I sN z $!3
I
I
Z
118
RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT B
ON-STREET PARKING CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES BY KOA CORPORATION
El Segundo Smoky Hollow-On-Street Parking Improvement Costs Breakdown by Scenario KRA
DISTRICT WIDE STRIPED PARIONG
SEGMENT
Alt 1$ 871,440001$ 168,500 00 1$ 250,500001$ 304,500001$ 349,000001 It 1,080,500001$ 1,951,940.00
Costs per Space: S 12,27635
Number of Spaces: 159
PER ROADWAY-STRIPED PARKING WITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
_j 1SEGMENT J
1 $ 151,00000 S 3,50000 $ 21,50000 L 25.50000 S 29,000.00 $ 79,500.00 $ 230,500,000 WA
0.0
2 S 105,000.00 $ 6,500 $ 22,50000 S 26,SOQ00 S 30,500.00 $ 86,000.00 $ 191,00000 8 S 23,87500
3 S 128,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 23,00000 $ 27,00000 $ 31,000.00 $ 86,000.00 $ 214,000.00 2 S 107,OOQ00
4 S 125,000.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 22,500,00 $ 26,500.00 S 30,500.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 210,000.00 6 $ 35,00(100
5 1 131,000.00 S 4,500.00 $ 24,000,00' $ 28,00000 $ 32,00000 $ 88,500.00 $ 219,500.00 5 $ 43,90Q00
6 5 160,00000 $ 5,500.00 $ 23,500.00 It 27,500.00 $ 31,50000 $ 88,006L00 $ 248,000.00 11 $ 22,54545
7 S 121,00000 $ 5;000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 31,000.00 S 86,000.00 $ 207,000.00 6 S 34,500.00
8 8 124,00000 $ 6,000.00 $ 23,500.00 $ 27,50x00 $ 31,50000 $ 88,500.00 $ 212,50000 ! 8 $ 26,562.50
9 S 124.000,00 $ 4,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 26,500.00 1 30,000.00 S 83,500,00 1 207,500-00 I 4 S 51,87500
I 10 S 135.000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 22,500,00 $ 25,500.00 S 70,500.00 S 205,500.00 4 S 51,37500
11 $ 1321000.00 3 3,500.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 27,000.00 S 3L000.00 S 84,500.00 $ 216,50000 4 $ 54,125,00
12 $ 139,000.00 It 3,500.00 $ 23,50400 $ 26,000.00 It 32,000.00 S 87,OOQ00 $ 226,000.00 7 S 32,28571
13 $ 118,000,00 It 6,50000 $ 23,500.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 31,500.00 S 89,00400 $ 207,000.00 10 $ 20,700,00
14 $ 149,000.00 1 6,000,00 $ 24,000.00 $ 28,500,00 $ 32,500.00 S 91,000,00 $ 240,000.00 9 $ 26,666667
15 $ 139,00400 1 9,500.00 $ 29,50000 $ 34,50000 $ 39,500.00 S 113,000,00 $ 252,000.00 1 $ 252,000.00
16 $ 34,44400 S 8,500.00 $ 9,50000 $ 11,50Q00 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,50000 $ 76,940.00 0 3 S 25,64667
1 17 $ 37,800.00 $ 9,500.00 S 11,000.00 S 13,000,00 $ 14,SOO,00 $ 48,00000 $ 85,800.00 0 6 S 14,300.00
18 $ 37,80400 $ 9,500.00 S 11,000.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 14,50000 $ 48,000.00 $ 85,800.00 q 6 $ 14,30Q00�
19 $ 35,560.00 S 8,500.00 It 9,500.00 $ 11,50000 $ 13,00000 $ 42,500.00 $ 78,060.00 0 3 E 26,02400
20 $ 37,80400 It 9,500.00 $ 11,00000 $ 13,000.00 $ 14,50000 $ 48,00000 $ 85,800.00 0 6 $ 14,30600
21 S 36,680.00 $ 9,000.00 S 10,500.DD S 12,000,00 S 14,00000 $ 45,500,00 S 82,180.00 0 6 S 13,69667
22 $ 34,440,00 $ 7,500.00 S 9,000.00 S 10,500.00 $ 12,000,00 $ 39,000,00 S 73,44000 0 3 $ 24,48000
23 $ 36,680,00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 82,180.00 01 6 S 13,69667
24 $ 32,200,00 $ 6,500.00 S 8,000600 $ 91000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 66,200.00 01 6 $ 11,033.33
25 $ 32,200.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 34,000,00 $ 66,200.00 01 6 $ 11,03333
26 $ 33,320.00 $ 7,000.00 S 8,50000 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,500.00 S 37,000.00 $ 70,320.00 01 6 It 1.72000
27 $ 36,680.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,50000 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 82,180.00 01 6 $ 13,69667
28 $ 37,800.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 9,500,00 S 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,5Oa00 $ 80,300.00 01 5 S 16,06600
29 $ 42,28400 $ 10,00Q00� $ 11,500,00 $ 13,SDQDO $ 15,500.00 $ 50,50aOO $ 92,780-00 01 6 $ 15,46333
$ 4,395,180.00 85
Costs per Space: S 27,64264
Number of Spaces: 159
PER ROADWAY-STRIPED PARIONG ONLY
1 1 SEGMENT - - �1 S 64,280.00 $ 9,00000 S 14,50000 $ 17,00000 $ 19,50000 $ 60,00000 S 124.28000 0 N/A
2 $ 57,560.00 $ 9,50000 S 15,000,00 $ 17,50000 $ 20,000.00 $ 62,00000 S 119,56000 e $ 14,945001
3 S 62,04400 $ 10,000.00 S 15,500,00 S 18,50000 $ 21,000.00 It 65,00000 S 127,040.00 2 $ 63,52000
4 S 64,280.00 $ 10,50000 $ 16,500.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 22,000.00 S 68,500.00 $ 132,780.00 6 S 22,13600
5 .$ 66,520.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 20,000,00 $ 23,000.00 $ 70,500,00 $ 137,02000 5 S 27AO400
6 $ 65,40400 $ 10,000.00 S 1Sy500.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 68,500.00 $ 133,900.00 11 1 12.172.73
7 $ 60,92000 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,500.00'5 18,500.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 125,920.00 6 $ 20.98667
B $ 71,00000 S 10,000.00 S 16,500.00 3 19,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 68,500.00 $ 139,500,00 8 3 11.437.50
9 $ 62,040.00 $ 91500.00 $ 15,00x00 $ 17,500.00'S 20,000.00 $ 62,00400 $ 124,040.00 4 S 31,01Q00
10 S 63,160.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 12,000.00 S 14,000.00 $ 16,50Q00 $ 49,00400 $ 112,160.00 4 S 28,04x00
11 $ 65,400.00 $ 11,000.00, S 16,50000 $ 19,500.00 $ 1150,00 $ 60,50400 $ 125,900.00 4 S 3147500
12 $ 64,28Q00 $ 10,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 19,00400 $ 21,50000 $ 66,500.00 $ 130,780.00 7 $ 18,68286
13 S 58,660.00 $ 11,00000 $ 17,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 22,500,00 $ 70,50000 $ 129,180.00 10 $ 12,91800
14 $ 62,51200 $ 10,50600 $ 17,000.00 $ 20,000.00 S 22,500.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 132,51200 9 S 14,72356
15 $ 62,040.00 $ 10,000.00 S 15,500-00 .$ 18,000.00 $ 21,00000 S 64,50000 $ 126,54x00 1 S 126,54Q00
16 $ 34,440.00 S 8,500,00 $ 9,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 1 42,50000 $ 76,940.00 3 $ 25,646,67
17 S 37,800.00 S 9,500.00 $ 11,00600 $ 13,000.00 $ 14,50000 % 48,00000 S 85,80000 6 S 14,30Q00
18 $ 37,800.00 S 9,500,00 $ 11,00000 $ 13,000.00 $ 14,500,00 $ 46,000,00 $ 85,800.00 6 S 14,30000
19 $ 35,560.00 $ 8500,00 $ 9,50000 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,00000 % 42,500,00 $ 78,060,00 3 S 26,020.00
20 S 37,800.00 S 9,500,00 S 11,00400 $ 13,00000 $ 14,500.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 65,800,00 16 $ 14,300.00
k 21 $ 36,68x00 $ 9,000,00 S 10,50000 $ 12,00000 $ 14,000.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 82,180,00 6 S 13,69667
22 $ 34,440,00 $ 7,500,00 S 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 39,000.00 S 73,440,00 3 S 24,480.00
23 $ 36,680.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,000,00 :S 45,500.00 $ 82,180.00 6 S 13,696,67`
24 $ 32,20000 $ 6,500.00 S 8000.00 S 9,000,00 $ 10,50000 $ 34,000.00 $ 66,200.00 6 S 11,033,331]
25 $ 32,200.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 S 34,00000 $ 66,200.00 6 3 11,03333
26 S 33,320.00 $ 7,00000' $ 8,50x00 $ 10,00a00 S 11,500.00 S 37,000.00 $ 70,320.00 6 S 11,72Q00
27 $ 36,680.00 $ 9,000,00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 S 14,00a00 $ 45,500.00 $ B2,18a00 6 $ 13,69667
` 28 $ 37,800.00 $ 8,50600 $ 9,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 S 42,500.00 $ 80,300.00 5 $ 16,060.00
29 S 42,28606 $ 10,00000 S 11,500,00 $ 13,50x00 $ 15,500.00 $ 50,500,00 $ 92,78000 6 S 15,46333
S 3,029,29200 159
Costs per Space: $ 19,05215
Number of Spaces: 159
J:\2017\JB71264 EISeg Smoky Hollow PkgCosts Study\Docs\EISeg PerSpace Costs v2
Main 119 6/12/2018
EXHIBIT NO. 5
PARKING IN-LIEU FEE STUDY BY TNDG
OMEN
SUMMARY REPORT: SMOKY HOLLOW
DEMAND/PRIDING FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING
Prepared for:
City of EI Segundo, California
October 21, 2016
SUBMITTED BY:
T H E N A T E L S O N D A L E G R O U P I N C
24835 LA PALMA AVE SUITE I • YORBA LINDA , CA 92887
O : 714.692 .9596 • F : 714 .692.9597 • www. natelsondale .com
120
Introduction............................................... ... .......................................................................................1
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................1
Futureparking demand ................................................................................................................................2
Additions to existing parking supply.........................................................................................................5
Costof parking..............................................................................................................................................5
Othercities' programs and charges..............................................................................................................7
Review of other cities' parking programs.................................................................................................7
Effectson building rents...........................................................................................................................8
Alternative models for accommodating building owners/developers' added parking needs.................9
Future conditions that could materially affect the need for parking...........................................................9
Autonomous vehicles and implications for parking—....................................... .......................................9
Alternative transportation...................................................................................................................... 10
Custom transport,which may be linked to customized affordable housing..........................................10
Alternative travel modes such as bicycles and supporting infrastructure .............................................11
Considering the risks of investing in parking.............................................................................................. 11
PhotoCredits: .............................................................................................................................................11
121
Introductio,
In conjunction with a current planning study for Smoky Hollow,The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG)
reviewed a previous study, by RSG, addressing various aspects of the economics of parking in the area.'
The intent of TNDG's review was to update development conditions in this dynamic market area and
consider the potential for decreasing the cost of in-lieu parking fees that the City might apply to new
projects, including those with increasing intensity of commercial use. For this assignment TNDG also
referred to the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update:Background Report prepared by MIG and others,
along with other material supplied by MIG,and a draft memorandum on parking prepared by KOA
Corporation.2
K,%w%_udve Summary
Future parking demand.There are two components that primarily drive the demand for increased
parking spaces for employment-generating uses:
1. Conversion of existing space from less to more employment-intensive uses
2. Redevelopment of properties in a manner that adds to the square footage
Based on four alternative future development patterns prepared by MIG,total parking required at
buildout could range from 5,875 to 10,812 units.The study prepared by RSG stated that City staff had
estimated that there were approximately 1,950 on-site parking spaces in Smoky Hollow (as of October
2013). If this number is accurate (and neither TNDG nor MIG have independently confirmed this figure),
the net required parking under the MIG alternatives would range from approximately 3,900 to 8,900.
Based on both recent development activity in the City and emerging trends in office and creative space
markets throughout the Los Angeles area,demand for property in Smoky Hollow, and consequently the
need for new parking, could remain strong for the foreseeable future.
Additions to the supply of parking spaces.The KOA parking analysis identified means by which on-
street parking spaces could be expanded based on the reconfiguration of angled parking along one-way
streets running both North and South, as well as the addition of a parking lane along El Segundo
Boulevard. KOA identified the potential for an additional 186 on-street parking spaces, based on these
roadway reconfigurations.
If development proceeds at the average rate for 2007 to 2015,these 186 additional spaces identified by
KOA would forestall the need to generate additional parking for approximately 3 years. If development
proceeds at 2013 levels,the additional street parking would supply demand for less than one year.
1 October 31,2013 memo to the City of EI Segundo from RSG,Subject: Draft Smoky Hollow Parking Opportunities.
Z KOA Corporation, Draft Technical Memorandum:Overview of Conceptual Parking Design Efforts—Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan, EI Segundo.Sept.20,2016.
1
122
These estimates assume that the additional on-street parking would be appropriately located for
expanding businesses.
Cost of parking spaces.TNDG reviewed current land price and property lease rates data, construction
estimates prepared by RSG, operational cost data for parking garages, and parking space lease rates to
analyze the cost of providing parking.TNDG's analysis shows that an upfront cash payment of$37,090
per space,or an annual payment of$2,277 per space,would fully compensate the City for building
and operating a garage space, based on a 30-year amortization period, provided that revenues for the
space are obtainable as estimated. At the end of the 30-year period,factors such as building
depreciation,operating costs, and available rents would need to be reviewed to reassess appropriate
ongoing costs for any particular space.
TNDG also reviewed the effects of incurring these parking costs on building rents,and found that rents
for industrial properties in EI Segundo are such that increased rents available with more intensive uses,
such as office space, would more than make up for the cost of providing the required parking at the
estimated cost levels.
Other considerations.TNDG reviewed literature related to alternative models for accommodating
building owners'/developers' added parking needs,and future conditions that could materially affect
the need for parking,such as autonomous vehicles and various alternative modes of transportation.
TNDG recommends that these alternatives be considered in the light of rapidly developing trends in
transportation and lifestyles, as a way of mitigating the risk of oversupplying parking in the future.
Future parking demand
Focusing solely on employment-generating uses,two components primarily drive the demand for
increased parking spaces:
1. Conversion of existing space from less to more employment-intensive uses
2. Redevelopment of properties in a manner that adds to the square footage
Both of these components can be in effect on any one property.
The City,working with MIG, is exploring multiple development scenarios for the Smoky Hollow district.
Concept A focuses on the inherent economic value and benefit in refining an image associated with
adaptive reuse of existing buildings.To that end, no changes to allowable FAR are proposed.The result
is that no new building square footage beyond what is currently permitted would be built, but the
ongoing shift in uses to more office-oriented uses as the majority use would be allowed.Concept B
removes the FAR limit throughout the district. Existing building height limits would apply.Concept C
combines elements of both Concept A and Concept B. FARs would be removed on the east side of the
district(in the existing Medium Manufacturing zone),and would remain at 0.6 on the west side (Small
Business Zone).Concept D increases the FAR throughout the district,from the existing 0.6 to 1.0.
2
123
Incorporating projections of building area associated with each concept and supplied by MIG,Table 1
explores the parking-demand implications of theoretical patterns of development under which building
area and parking demand could increase.
Table 1 shows the four concepts, Concepts A, B,C,and D, noting the total square footage resulting from
these development patterns. Parking ratios are then applied to land use categories to obtain the total
number of accumulated parking spaces that would be required based upon the land use allocation and
overall development activity within the four conceptual development scenarios.The following parking
ratios have been applied to this analysis:
• General Office, new-1 Space per 350 Square Feet of Building Area
• Industrial, new-1 Space per 500 Square Feet of Building Area
• Retail, new-1 space per 300 Square Feet of Building Area
The study prepared by RSG stated that City staff had estimated that there were approximately 1,950 on-
site parking spaces in Smoky Hollow(as of October 2013).This number(which neither TNDG nor M IG
have independently confirmed) is applied to the parking demand total to derive an estimate of net new
parking required under each Concept.
These numbers reflect estimates of new parking demand based on MIG's projected changes in land use.
They are not intended to address any existing parking deficiencies,for which we do not have sufficient
data.
TABLE 1:PARKING REQUIRED UNDER MIG ALTERNATIVE BUILD-OUT CONCEPTS 77::YY
Office 1,085,625 3,005,460 2,659,089 2,387,610
Industrial 1,348,461 839,730 851,994 767,042
Commercial 22,855 163,885 142,103 127,541
TOTAL 2,456,942 4,009,075 3,653,186 3,282,193
Required Parking
Total Parking Required L (Building SF/ Concept A WConcept B Concept C Concept D
460aft- Parking Space)'
Office 350 3,102 8,587 7,597 6,822
Industrial 500 2,697 1,679 1,704 1,534
Commercial 300 76 546 474 425
TOTAL 5,875 10,812 9,775 8,781
Assumed Existing Supply 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950
Net New Parking Required 3,925 8,862 7,825 6,831
1. Parking ratios reflect a blended rate based on the City of EI Segundo's current(2016)requirements.
The table shows that demand for new parking could range from 3,925 to 8,862 net new spaces,for the
three different concepts.There are reasons to believe that the demand for property in Smoky Hollow
could remain strong for the foreseeable future.Table 2 summarizes development activity for Smoky
Hollow since 2007,from data provided by the City of EI Segundo. According to the table, 198,070 square
3
124
feet(SF) of projects were built, or converted from (mostly) industrial space to office or creative use,
from 2007 through 2015,or an average of 22,008 SF per year. However,41%of this activity occurred in
2013 (81,963 SF),so a 20-year period of development at that rate would equate to 1.64 million SF, and a
requirement for an estimated 4,684 parking spaces (using a weighted average square foot per parking
space figure based on the historic mix of new creative and office space from the table). If development
occurred at the average rate for the 2007-2015 period, an additional 1,258 parking spaces would be
required over 20 years.
TABLE 2.SUMMARY OF RECENT SMOKY HOLLOW PROJECT ACTIVITY
REM
350
Sum of years 2007-2015 73,428 100,620 24,022 198,070
Avg. per year 2007-2015 22,008 63
Peak year(2013)figures 81,963 234
Peak year x 20 years 1,639,260 4,684
Average of 2007-2015 x 20 years 440,156 1,258
Another trend complicates the challenge of estimating future demand for creative space in Smoky
Hollow.According to CBRE, preferences are changing for the types of space desired by office tenants, in
which "creative" space is becoming increasingly desired by many office users, not just those in
traditional creative industries. A 2016 report by CBRE, Los Angeles Creative Space,stated that, "in the
next five years,creative space will be synonymous with office space."This observation is relevant to
Smoky Hollow in at least two ways:
1. Office space in the Los Angeles area (and for the most part throughout the country as well) has
been in a state of excess supply and relatively low rents for many years. If existing traditional
office space cannot be reconfigured to what tenants perceive as "creative space," it could
remain unused,which means that current excess capacity in office space may remain
unabsorbed, and consequently exert little influence on the office market.
2. This preference shift for creative space, especially within a market area as large as Los Angeles,
has the potential to greatly accelerate demand for property in Smoky Hollow that possesses the
characteristics for adaptation to unique work environments.
Of course, demand for space within any particular geographic area can be tempered by increasing land
prices that tend to occur along with evidence of increasing desirability.
4
125
Additions to existing parking supply
The KOA parking analysis identified two means by which on-street parking spaces could be expanded:
1. A gain of 85 parking spaces from reconfigured angled parking and one-way streets running
North and South.
2. Again of 101 parking spaces by adding a parking lane to EI Segundo Boulevard.
If development proceeds at the average rate for 2007 to 2015,these 186 additional spaces would
forestall the need to generate additional parking for approximately 3 years. If development proceeds at
2013 levels,the additional street parking would supply demand for less than one year.These estimates
assume that the additional on-street parking would be appropriately located for expanding businesses.
cost of parking
The cost of parking spaces is affected by land cost, surface or structure development costs, and long-
term maintenance costs, and the extent to which such costs can be offset by collecting rental fees for
use of the spaces.The RSG study demonstrated that unit costs for a surface parking lot in EI Segundo are
higher than the cost for structured parking,which is a result of land costs being greater than the cost to,
in effect, "build" additional land by means of a parking structure.
For this report,TNDG reviewed current land price and property lease rates data, construction estimates
prepared by RSG, operational cost data for parking garages, and parking space lease rates.The results of
this review are shown below:
Land prices.Obtaining information about commercial land sales in EI Segundo and the
surrounding region is particularly challenging because of the limited supply of vacant land,
which means that many property transactions involve property with some improvements, even
though the buyer's intent is to secure the land underneath.TNDG compiled what we believe to
be usable data on 11 property listings and three recent sales in the El Segundo area,only three
of which (one listing and two sales) are actually in EI Segundo. Weighted average land prices for
EI Segundo and communities in the surrounding area (including Redondo Beach,Culver City,
Redondo Beach, Playa Del Ray,Venice,Westchester and Torrance)were$231 and$331 per
square foot, respectively. Based on these figures, land prices in EI Segundo were approximately
70%of those of the surrounding communities from which land price information was obtained.
Because of the general scarcity of data,and the limitations of the scope of work for this project,
these figures should be understood to be useful for providing general guidance, but fall well
short of true appraisal-level figures. For purposes of this analysis,the figure of$250 per square
foot was used as part of the estimate of developing a parking garage, up from $119.79 in the
RSG study.
• Property lease rates.TNDG compiled lease rate information for 19 properties in EI Segundo and
eight properties in the surrounding area, including Venice, Marina del Rey,and Mar Vista.
According to these figures,the weighted average leasing rate in EI Segundo was$4.00 per
5
126
square foot, higher than the weighted average figure of$3.53 in the surrounding communities.
Again,these figures should be recognized as guidelines only,given the variations in lease terms
that make direct comparisons of properties challenging. In general, research into both land
prices and leasing rates for property in EI Segundo suggest that market conditions in the
community are changing relatively rapidly.
• Construction cost estimates. Construction cost estimates were left unchanged from the RSG
report(except for the land cost portion as described above), along with estimates of financing
variables except that long-term inflation is assumed to be 2.0%.
• Annual operation and maintenance costs for parking structures. Based on a review of figures in
the RSG study and additional investigations,the figure of$725 per space is used in our analyses.
• Parking space lease rates. Based on limited data, primarily from studies elsewhere in the Los
Angeles Metro area,the rate applied for analysis purposes is$185 per space per month.
Considerations applied in the analysis of parking space costs are summarized below:
• The cost that a property owner or developer would be charged for a parking garage space would
fully cover property and development costs along with operation and maintenance costs for 30
years,and be reduced by revenues obtainable for that space over 30 years. Parking revenues
would reflect a vacancy rate of 15%. (Note that from the standpoint of the analysis it does not
matter whether the City or the developer/owner collects the rent from the parking space.)
Y Assuming that the municipality develops the parking garage, an owner/developer would
theoretically have two options to participate in the project:
1. On an upfront cash basis,an owner/developer would pay an amount to cover the actual
cost of property and development, plus an amount that annuitizes the long-term
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, less the present value of the stream of
revenues from the parking space (at a discount rate equal to the city's assumed cost of
borrowing).
2. If the owner/developer pays an annual assessment for the parking garage in lieu of
upfront cash,that amount would be based on the conditions applicable to option one
above,except that the land and development cost(as discounted to reflect the stream
of revenues)would be subject to financing charges on the same basis that the city
borrowed money to build the project.
• An owner/developer buying into the parking garage project subsequent to its initial
development would have to cover any financing costs up to that point in time.
The cost model is summarized on Table 3.The table shows that an upfront cash payment of$37,090 per
space,or an annual payment of$2,277 per space,would fully compensate the City for a garage space,
with a loan amortizing over 30 years, provided that the following conditions are met:
6
127
• Property acquisition, project development costs, and 30-year 0&M costs do not exceed the
amounts assumed in the model.
• Revenues for the space are obtainable over the 30-year term, at levels at least as high as shown
in the model.
TABLE 3. ESTIMATES OF PARKING SPACE COSTS AND OWNER/DEVELOPER BUY-IN
Term of project/loan 30 Years
Loan interest rate 4.5%
Long-term inflation 2.0%
Annuity deposit earning rate 2.5%
`Aboveground parking garage
Acquisition and development cost per space $61,090
Annual maintenance cost/space $725.001
Amount required to annuitize the annual maintenance Cost (with cost inflation) $19,740
Total gross buy-in price, no deduction for space rent proceeds $80,831
Monthly parking space rent $185.00
Space occupancy rate 85%
Annual gross proceeds from space leasing $1,887
Present Value of annual proceeds from space leasing, net of O&M cost deductions $24,0011
Cash-up-front buy-in for owner/developer(deducting net proceeds) $37,090
Annual payment, if cash amount financed $2,277
Source:TNDG; see text.
Other cities' programs and charges
Review of other cities' parking programs
A survey of recent studies and interviews with city staff provided the findings shown on Table 4, with
respect to a selected group of cities included in the RSG study:
TABLE 4.OTHER CITIES' PARKING PROGRAMS(UPDATED USING SELECTED CITIES FROM PREVIOUS PARKING STUDY)
Change of
ConstructionProgram New
ProgramUse Annual - •
Type • -
Fee A. ..
Mountain View In-Lieu $48,0001 2016
West Hollywood Credit N/A $397.51' 2016(Adjusted)
Glendale In-Lieu $25,768.815 $644.383 2016(Adjusted)
Source:TNDG
1.Fee was just increased this year to$48,000 by City Council based on staff response.
2.There is an application fee of$650 and the annual fee paid each year is adjusted using the CPI index.The current annual fee
is$397.51.
3.Fee is based on FY 16-17 Fee Schedule approved by City Council.
7
128
Notes on Mountain View program:
• In-lieu fees collected by Planning at the development entitlement phase are intended to cover
the cost of construction (net new spaces). Operations and maintenance are covered by a parking
district fee that is collected from property owners on an annual basis.
• In-Lieu Parking fees for new construction were updated this year.The one-time fee is now
$48,000 per required parking space. Note that no spaces are "obtained," as all the parking is
public for everybody. In addition,the Precise Plan allows a 50%discount on the fee when tenant
spaces are changing use (i.e., no new construction).
Effects on building rents
Using the assumptions applied in the preceding tables (along with those shown in Table 5),Table 5
shows that the cost to produce required parking spaces (the table figures show a per-space analysis)
would be equivalent to$0.54 per square foot in space rent per month for the office space and $0.38 per
square foot for an industrial use (for purposes of this analysis assumed to be a small-scale research and
development(R&D) activity). A review of rents for existing, low-intensity industrial properties (for
example manufacturing and warehousing uses) in EI Segundo indicates they are most likely to be under
$2.00 per square foot per month.The market rate for office properties is approximately$4.00 per
square foot per month,and while we do not have sufficient data to estimate rents for industrial space
under more-intensive uses such as R&D,and the range of actual use and rents could vary considerably
within this category,we are using a figure of$3.00 per square foot for this analysis.
TABLE 5.COST AND BUILDING RENTAL COST IMPACTS OF PARKING PAYMENT
- - • -. -
Analysis Conditions •ffice Industrial
One parking space represents square feet(SF)of building area @: 350 500
Annual net parking cost/SF of building $6.51 $4.55
Assumed building rental net income factor, @: 90% 90%
Per SF building annual rental amount to cover net ann. parking cost $7.23 $5.06
Per SF building monthly rental amount to cover net ann. parking cost $0.54 $0.38
Assumed monthly base rent/SF for low-intensity industrial use $2.00 $2.00
Monthly achievable space rents/SF in Smoky Hollow,with adequate
parking for uses listed,= $4.00 $3.00
Difference between "starting" rents&full market rents under new use $2.00 $1.00
` Difference between "starting" monthly rents and full market rents under
new use, after parking costs: $1.46 $0.62
Rent differential on annual basis: $17.49 $7.45
Capitalized value of rent difference(ignoring operational cost factors)at
a discount rate of 7%,which represents the dollars/SF available to $250 $106
upgrade space or profit from value enhancement
Source:TNDG,
8
129
Using the above assumptions, an owner/developer converting or building space for office or some form
of intensified industrial use would,after paying for parking(assuming the monthly payment approach),
still realize a substantial value enhancement, as shown in the table bottom line. We estimate that a
building owner could invest up to$250 per square foot for office uses and up to$106 per square foot
for new industrial uses and fully justify this investment on the basis of the increased rent potential. Since
these value enhancements ($250/square foot for office and $106/square foot for industrial)would likely
exceed construction costs for these types of building upgrades,TNDG believes that potential parking
fees established in this analysis would not impact the financial feasibility of the targeted land uses,
Alternative models for accommodating building owners/developers' added
parking needs
Some alternatives to traditional approaches to providing parking include the following:
• Valet parking, used extensively in the Los Angeles area, including for example Santa Monica,'
but may not be practical in Smoky Hollow due to costs and the targeted users (employees).
• Shuttles to satellite parking, used in Santa Monica and Culver City.4
• Dedicated land for parking in exchange for higher densities,which would tend to require fairly
large properties, but density increases might be more palatable on such properties (which
would also be more practical for mixed-use projects).
• When land supply is highly restricted,stacking systems or automated garages where cars are
mechanically parked.
• City partner in,or coordinate, building parking facilities in locations where shared parking is
practical (or could be made to be,with planning coordination applied to a future project),
thereby spreading the costs among more entities. See following section for an alternative to this
approach.
Future conditions that could materially affect the need for
parking
Autonomous vehicles and implications for parking
This is a topic that by its nature is rife with speculation and a wide range of opinions.To add some
perspective within the limited scope of this assignment,TNDG has extracted a few observations from
selected authorities on this topic.A spokesperson at Walker Parking Consultants, a leading parking
garage programming and design firm, laid out a number of considerations that could apply to parking in
'CDM Smith,Venice In-Lieu Fee Report, part of the Westside Mobility Plan.2012.
4 Ibid.
9
130
the age of autonomous vehicles.The types of topics addressed in this article include (among other
topics):5
The potential for decreased need for parking close to travelers'destinations.
Should parking structures be designed for future conversion to other uses?
With no living occupants, how can parking garage design requirements be altered?
• The time to consider these and other questions about the implications of autonomous parking is
now.
In the publication,Self-driving cars:The next revolution (undated, apparently 2012), KPMG, in
cooperation with The Center for Automotive Research (CAR), based in Ann Arbor, Michigan,takes the
position that the benefits of autonomous vehicles are so great that economic expediency will force the
relatively rapid adoption of this technology.The implications for parking really depend on a number of
factors but, as one example,the convenience of autonomous vehicles that can be "summoned at will"
could eclipse the desire to own, and hence park, one's own vehicle. In short,effects on parking demand
could be profound.
Alternative transportation
According to a fact sheet for the Westside Mobility Plan,this Plan is a City of Los Angeles study"to
create a transportation blueprint for the Westside that will offer strategies for multiple transportation
choices, north-south rail connections,and parking solutions over the next 25 years."The study area for
this plan extends roughly from Westwood to LAX, incorporating Brentwood, Century City, and West Los
Angeles, along with the area west of 1-405 south of West LA. Certain elements of this Plan are
substantially complete.To the extent the Plan provides solutions to the matters that it is addressing,the
study area could be made more attractive,which on the one hand could make it more competitive to EI
Segundo; but on the other hand the increased attractiveness of the region could generate spillover
activity in EI Segundo.
Custom transport, which may be linked to customized affordable housing
Some firms have sought to accommodate their workforce by providing transportation to work from
neighborhoods or residential developments where workers are likely to locate. While this concept is
generally associated with large firms, it could also be applied by consortiums of smaller firms.To the
extent residential choices for workers are constrained, by high costs or other limitations,firms can also
generate or otherwise support creation of such housing,which then becomes a contributing factor in
the feasibility of providing worker transit.
5 Blog post by Mike Robertson, PE. httD://www.walkeroarkine,com/autonomous-vehicles-oarking.Accessed
August 19,2016.
10
131
Alternative travel modes such as bicycles and supporting infrastructure
Data on bicycling commuters are difficult to obtain. However,there are indications that use of bicycles
by Millennials has increased along with their reduced interest in automobile ownership and operation. If
the Westside Mobility Plan (see above) increases the potential for bicycle travel in the general region,
this could increase the likelihood of bicycle commuting in EI Segundo.
Considering the risks of investing in parking
Creating a parking garage for the future demand of public parking could include the design
consideration of reusable/adaptive space as part of the space planning and programming of this
structure.As traditionally designed and built, parking garages tend to be special-purpose structures, not
readily adaptable to other uses.An example of overcoming this limitation is documented in an article in
the Urban Land Institute Publication Urban Land.6 In the Long Island city of Rockville Centre,a design
competition resulted in the design and construction of a parking garage intended to accommodate other
uses. Features of the building include a 20-foot ceiling height on the grade level(a height sufficient to
accommodate public events when parking spaces are not needed, and also truck deliveries) and 11-foot
ceilings on upper floors, instead of the usual 8-foot heights of traditional garages. Structural bays are set
at 30 feet,which works for both parking and office space.The article notes that this type of project
makes the most economic sense when it is placed where shared parking is practical because of the mix
of uses served by the garage.
Photo Credits:
"Beach Cities, Los Angeles County,California" by Ken Lund—Own work. Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 via
Flickr.com—f)ttr)s://www.flickr.coin/ohotos/kenlund/20968327943/
6 Will Macht."Flexible Parking Structures as Civic Catalysts," Urban Land Magazine. November 24,2014.
11
132
El Segundo Smoky Hollow-On-Street Parking Improvement Costs Breakdown by Scenario K*A
DISTRICT WIDE STRIPED PARIONG n
SEGMENT
All 415 871,440.001$ 168,500 00 1$ 258,50-47-T�$ 304,500.00• 4,000,00 'S 1,080,500,001$ 1,951,940,001
Costs per Space: S 12,276.35
Number of Spaces: 159
PER ROADWAY-STRIPED PARRING WITH STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1 SEGMENT
1 $ 151,00000 $ 3,500.00 21,50000 $ 25,500,00 $ 29.000.00 $ 79,500.00 S 230,500.00 0 N/A
2 S 105,000.00 S 6,500.00 $ 22,50000 S 26,500.00 $ 30,500.00 $ 86,000,00 $ 191,000,00 1 8 S 23,87500
3 $ 128,000.00 $ 5,000,00 $ 23,000.00 $ 27,000.00 S 31,000,00 $ 86,000.00 $ 214,000.00 j 2 $ 107,000,00
4 $ 125,000.00 S 5,50000 $ 22,500.00 $ 26,500.00 S 30,500.00 $ 85,000.00 $ 210,000.00 6 $ 35,00(100
5 $ 131,000.00 S 4,500.00 $ 24,000.00 $ 28,OOQ00 $ 32,000.00 $ 88,500.00 S 219,500.00 5 $ 43,900.00
6 $ 160,000.00 $ 5,500.00 S 23,500.00 S 27,500.00 $ 31,500,00 $ 88,000,00 $ 248,000.00 11 $ 22,545.45
7 S 121,000.00 S 5,00000 1 23,001,00 1 27,000.00 $ 31,000,00 S 86,000.00 $ 207,000.00 6 1 34,S0Q00
8 S 124,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 23,500.00 $ 27,500A0' $ 31,500.00 $ 88,500,00 $ 212,500.00 8 $ 26,562.50
9 $ 124,001,00 $ 4,500.00 $ 22,500.00 S 26,500.00 $ 30,000.00 S 83,500.00 $ 207,500.00 4 $ 51,875.00
i 10 $ 135,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 25,500,00 $ 70,500,00 $ 205,50Q00 4 $ 51,375,00
1 11 $ 132,00400 S 3,500,00 S 23,000,00 $ 27,000.00 $ 31,000.00 $ 84,500,00 $ 216,50000 4 $ 54,125,00
[ 12 $ 139,000,00 S 3,500.00 $ 23,500,00 S 28,000.00 S 32,000.00 $ 87,000.00 $ 226,000.00 7 $ 32,285.71
13 $ 118,000,00 $ 6,500.00 $ 23,500.00 $ 27,500.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 89,000.00 $ 207,000.00 10 $ 20,70400
14 $ 149,000.00 S 6,000,00 .$ 24,00400 $ 28,500.00 $ 32,500.00 $ 91,000.00 $ 240,000.00 j 9 $ 26,66467+
15 $ 139,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 29,500.00 $ 34,500.00 S 39,500.00 $ 113,000.00 S 252,00000 1 $ 252,00400
16 $ 34440.00 $ 8,500.00 .$ 9500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,500.00 $ 76,940.00 01 3 S 25,646,67
17 $ 37,800.00 $ 9,SOQ00 $ 11,000.00 $ 13,00000 $ 14500.00 $ 48,000.00 $ 85,800.00 01 6 $ 14,30(100
18 $ 37,80400 $ 9,50Q00 S 11,000.00 $ 13,000.00 S 14,500.00 S 48,000.00 $ 85,800.00 01 6 $ 14,30400
19 S 35,56(100 $ 8,50400' S 9,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,50Q00 $ _78,06400 01 3 $ 26,020.00
20 $ 37,800.00 S 9,50400 S 11,000.00 $ 13,00400 $ 14,500,00 $ 48,00400 $ 85,800.00 Ol 6 $ 14,30400
21 $ 36,680.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000,00 $ 14,000,00 $ 45,50400 S 82,180.00 01 6 $ 13,694,67
22 S 34,44400 $ 7,500.00 $ 9,00400 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 39,000.00 $ 73,440,00 91 3 $ 24,480.00
23 $ 36,68400 $ 9,00000 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 S 14,000.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 82,180.00 91 6 $ 13,696,67
24 $ 32,20400 $ 6,S00.00 $ 8,000,00 $ 9,000,00 $ 10,500.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 66,200.00 0 6 $ 11,033,33
1 25 $ 32,200.00 S 6,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 34,000.00 $ 66,200.00 01 6 $ 11,033.33
26 $ 33,32400 $ 7,000.00 $ 8,500.00 S 10,000.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 37,000,00 $ 70,320,00 01 6 $ 11,720.00
27 $ 36,680,00 $ 9,000,00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 45,500.00 $ 82,180.00 Ol 6 $ 13.696,67
28 $ 37,800.00 S 8,500.00 $ 9,500,00 $ 11,500.00 S 13,000,00 $ 42,50400 $ 80,300.00 Q1 5 $ 16,060.00
29 $ 42,280.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,50000 $ 15,500.00 $ 50,500.00 S 92,780.00 01 6 $ 15,463.33
S 4,395,18400 85
Costs per Space: S 27,64264
Number of Spaces: 159
PER ROADWAY-STRIPED PARRING ONLY
SEGMENT
1 $ 64,280.00 $ 9,00000 S 14,500,00 $ 17,000.00 $ 1950000 1 60,000.00 S 124,280.00 0 N/A
2 $ 57,560.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 20,00000 $ 62,000.00 $ 119,560.00 8 $ 14,945.00
3 $ 62,040.00 $ 10,00400 S 15,500.00 S 18,500.00 $ 21,000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 127,040.00 l 2 $ 63,520.00
4 $ 64,280.00 $ 10,500,00 $ 16,50Q00 $ 19,500.00 S 22,000.00 $ 68,500.00 S 132,780.00 6 $ 22,130.00
5 S 66,52Q00 S 10,500.00 S 17,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 70,500.00 $ 137,020.00 5 $ 27,404.00
6 $ 65,400.00 $ 10,000,00 $ 16,500,00 $ 19,500.00 S 22,500.00 $ 68,500.00 $ 133,900.00 11 $ 12,172731
7 1 60,920.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,50000 $ 18,500,00 $ 21,000.00 1 65,00400 1 1254920.00 6 $ 20.98167
` 8 $ 71,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 16,500,00 $ 19,500.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 68,500.00 $ 139,500.00 8 $ 17,437,50
1L 9 $ 62,040.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 17,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 62,000.00 S 124,04400 4 S 31,010.00
10 $ 63,160.00 $ 6,500.00 S 12,00400 .$ 14,00(100 $ 16,500..00 $ 49,000.00 $ 112,160.00 4 S 28,040.00
11 $ 65,400.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 16,500.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 60,500.00 $ 125,90400 l 4 $ 31,475.00
12 $ 64,280.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 19,000.00 S 21,500.00 $ 66.500.00 $ 130,78400 7 $ 18,682,86
13 S 58,680.00 $ 11,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 70,500.00 $ 129,180.00 10 $ 12.91B.00
14 $ 62,512,00 $ 10,500.00 S 17,000.00 S 20,000.00 $ 22,500.00 $ 70,000.00 $ 132,512.00 9 $ 14,723,561
0.0
15 $ 62,040.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 18,000 $ 21,000.00 $ 64,S0Q00 $ 126,540.00 f 1 $ 126,540.00
16 $ 34,440.00 $ 8,500.00 $ 9,500,00 $ 11,50400 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,500.00 $ 76,940.00 3 $ 25,646,67
17 $ 37,800.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 11,000,00, $ 13,000.00 $ 14,500.00 S 48,000.00 $ 85,800.00 6 $ 14,300.00
18 $ 37,800.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 11,000,00 $ 13,000.00 $ 14,500.00 $ 48,00400 $ 85,800.00 l 6 S 14.300.00
19 .$ 35,560.00 S 8,500.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,500,00 $ 78,06400 3 $ 26,020.00
20 E 37,800.00 $ 9,500-00 S 11,000.00 S 13,000.00 S 14,500.00 $ 48,000.00 S 85,800.00 6 $ 14,300.00
1 21 4 36,680.00 S 9,00400 S 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 45,500.00 S 82,180.00 6 $ 13,69&67
22 S 34,440.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 9,000.00 S 10,500.00 S 12,00400 $ 39,000.00 $ 73,44000 1 3 $ 24,480.00
23 E 36,680.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000,00 $ 14,00(100 E 45,500.00 $ 82,180.00 6 S 13,696.671
24 $ 32,200.00 $ 6,50400 $ 8,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500,00 $ 34,000.00 S 66,200.00 6 $ 11,033.33
25 $ 32,200.00 1 6,500.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 9,000,00 S 14500.00 S 34,000.00 S 66,200.00 I 6 $ 11,03133
26 $ 33,320.00 S 7,000,00 $ 8,500.00 $ 10,000.00 S 11,500.00 $ 37,000.00 $ 70,320.00 6 $ 11,720.00
27 $ 36,68400 $ 9,000.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 12,000.00 S 14,000.00 S 45.50Q00 $ 82,18400 6 S 13,696,67
28 1 37,80.0,00 $ 8,500,00 S 9,50400 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,000.00 $ 42,500.00 $ 80,30400 1 5 S 16,060,00
29 $ 42,280.00 .$ 10,000.00 $ 11,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 15,500.00 $ 50,500,00 $ 92,780.00 I. 6 S 15,463.33
$ 3,029,29200 159
Costs per Space: $ 19,052.15
Number of Spaces: 159
1:\2017\1B71264 EISeg Smoky Hollow PkgCosts Study\Docs\EISeg PerSpace Costs Q 133
Main 6/12/2018
EXHIBIT NO.7
SMOKY HOLLOWS REE IMPROVEMENTS MAP
op
« -
§
§
■
§o ■ _ �
7 ■, ���
)
/ E ^ �\ .t � ■
K� m
. §
\
A
¢
n $ e§ [
% $ -
�. � . .
ƒ
134
F
H
I � a
t ,r
I ✓ P
Z
m24
Z
i
nn
A fir; i o z
0
m D yy
�D
n
m �
� I z
n
o a
n
3 �
O A �
{
S
O
r
r ■
O
v b
m �
n Q.
n q'
n �
� I m
r Q
D �
Z �
V �
V N
b
(0
ti
■
135
O , I N
°z p
_ m �
0
f
� a
g
n � m
m p�
i r
n '
n
r
D .p
o iL a4 $ A
3 j
R
. z
m
z
136
EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 14,2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding recommending City Council approval of
Environmental Assessment No. EA-1198 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-06 to establish
a parking in-lieu fee program in Smoky Hollow and adopt a parking in-lieu fee.
(Applicant: City of El Segundo).
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission open the public hearing and take public testimony on the proposed project, close the
public hearing and consider the evidence, and adopt Resolution No. 2827 recommending that the
City Council approve Environmental Assessment No. EA-1198 and Zone Text Amendment No.
ZTA 17-06 to: establish a Parking in-lieu fee program for Smoky Hollow.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2827
2. Draft Ordinance
3. Proposed Smoky Hollow Specific Plan map
4. Downtown parking in-lieu applicants chart
5. Parking design study by KOA, dated September 20, 2016
6. Parking in-lieu fee study by TNDG, dated October 21, 2016
7. On-street parking construction cost estimates by KOA, dated June 5, 2018
8. Smoky Hollow street improvements map
9. Proposed Smoky Hollow parking in-lieu area map
ORIGINATED BY: Paul Samaras,Principal Planner
REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
APPROVED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety
The proposed zone text amendment would 1)amend El Segundo Municipal Code(ESMC)Chapter
15-15 (Off-street parking and loading)to allow the payment of parking in-lieu fees for the purpose
of meeting the parking requirements for a property, 2) create a new ESMC Chapter I5-29 to
establish a process for paying in-lieu fees, and 3) establish an area encompassing the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan where payment of in-lieu fees would be applicable. In addition, this report
contains analysis and a recommendation on setting the specific in-lieu fee level and payment
method.
BACKGROUND
Smoky Hollow is a predominantly light industrial district that was developed about 50 years ago,
intended primarily to serve the aerospace and refinery businesses. In response to shrinking
manufacturing demand, declining investments, and parking issues, the City adopted the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan(SHSP) in 1986. The intent of the Plan was to: 1)preserve the existing uses;
1
137
2)provide opportunities for both small business and medium-sized manufacturing uses;3)provide
a transition from the high-density uses on the east side of Sepulveda Boulevard to the lower density
commercial and residential uses on the west; and, 4) resolve issues related to parking, circulation,
and development standards.
Within the last 10 years there has been regional growth in creative, technology, and new media
companies, and the City experienced an increased demand for small to medium size office space
in Smoky Hollow. In response, the City initiated a comprehensive update of the SHSP, and on
August 5, 2014, the City Council awarded a contract to MIG, Inc. to lead the SHSP update effort.
As of the preparation of this report, a draft Specific Plan document and an associated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been prepared and are tentatively scheduled for
consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in the coming months.
One of the major goals associated with the new Specific Plan is to develop parking solutions for
the district. The draft Specific Plan identifies several short-term and long term solutions to
parking. In the short term,the Specific Plan intends to simplify the on-site parking development
standards and provide additional on-street parking. The City already prohibited overnight on-
street parking and restricts curbside parking for recreational and oversized vehicles. In the long
term, the plan intends to support development of shared and public parking facilities and establish
a parking permit district and/or a parking management program to better manage public parking.
Staff is bringing this item to the Planning Commission for its review and consideration at this time
to put a potential parking solution in place before an updated Specific Plan is adopted. Staff
believes that this is advantageous, because (1) there is a parking problem today that an in-lieu fee
program can begin to address, and (2) an in-lieu fee program can act as a catalyst for development
in conjunction with the updated Specific Plan and its new regulations.
ANALYSIS
1. Parldne in-lieu fee definition and purpose
A parking in-lieu fee allows a property owner or developer to pay a fee rather than provide parking
spaces to meet the minimum parking requirements for development of their property. The funds
raised are typically used to build public parking spaces. Several cities have adopted parking'in-
lieu fees to shift the burden of required parking away from a potential development site without
removing the responsibility for ensuring adequate parking in the vicinity. In-lieu parking programs
free up redevelopment potential that can otherwise be hampered by the strict application of on-site
parking requirements.
2. Description of existing in-lieu fee nrae'rams
Downtown In-Lieu Fee
The City of El Segundo has implemented parking in-lieu fees before as an approach to parking
management in the Downtown Specific Plan. In November 2003,the City Council established the
Downtown parking in-lieu program (Resolution No. 4338). The program was based on a study
performed by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. (RSG). The study calculated the cost of providing
spaces in the parking structure at the corner of Grand Avenue and Richmond Street, and
determined that cost to be $37,693 per parking space. In addition, the study considered the pro-
2
138
forma cost for a private developer to acquire vacant land and build parking for a development
project. That cost was estimated to be $18,915 per stall. The pro-forma also considered rental
rates in the area and concluded that an in-lieu fee of$10,000 would be more feasible financially
for private property owners and developers and would allow for development in Downtown. The
City Council adopted an initial in-lieu parking fee of$17,500 per space in order to recover more
of the cost of the Riclunond Street parking structure while maintaining the fee at an affordable
level. The City Council amended the program in June 2009 to accommodate development by
allowing payments over a 20-year period.
To-date six property owners have taken advantage of the Downtown parking in-lieu fee program.
Four paid the in-lieu fee upfront (lump sum), one is paying on a monthly basis for a period of 20
years, and one is paying the fee for temporary outdoor dining as needed each year. One more
business owner is in the process of entering into an agreement with the City. A chart of parking
in-lieu applicants is attached to this report (Exhibit No. 4).
Other Cities' Programs
Other cities have adopted parking in-lieu fee programs with different fee levels,payment methods
and uses for in-lieu fee revenues. The following table includes examples of other cities' programs.
Table 1
Parkine In-lieu Fee Proerams in Other Cities
City Fee Payment
Hermosa Beach $28,900 Lump sum
Huntington Beach $26,383 Annual payments
Glendale $26,309 Lump sum
Beverly Hills $21,422 - $35,704 Lump sum, annual payments, or lease
Palo Alto $58,423 Lump sum
Mountain View New construction—$48,000 Lump sum
Use conversion—$24,000
San Clemente $13,467 Down payment+ installments
The fee levels in the above table vary primarily due to the differences in property acquisition and
construction costs at the times and locations where the fees were implemented.
3
139
Snecial Cases.
The City of Beverly Hills allows the payment of in-lieu fees for retail, food, and service uses only
and it has three separate parking districts with different fee rates. In addition, food and service
uses pay a discounted rate. Generally,the intent of the program is to encourage uses that promote
a more pedestrian friendly and retail environment (Beverly Hills City Code Title 10, Chapter 3,
Article 33).
The City of Mountain View discounts the rate by 50% for conversions of retail space into
restaurant or office, in order to promote those uses. In addition, Mountain View limits the
maximum percentage of required parking that can be met by paying in-lieu fees.
The City of Pasadena pursued a different approach by first investing in public structures in the Old
Pasadena area and subsequently establishing a parking credit program. This program allows
property owners to pay a fee for parking credits in a public parking structure which count toward
meeting the parking requirements in the Pasadena's Zoning Code. Program participants do not
pay for rights to specific parking spaces in a public parking structure and have to pay the same
user fees as the general public for parking there. In addition,the parking credit fee is not based on
the cost of constructing public parking. Instead, it is based on market demand for the parking
credits and the available supply of parking and it is updated periodically.
3. Determination of in-lieu fee level
An in-lieu fee is based on the City's cost to a city of providing public parking. To determine the
proposed in-lieu fee, staff considered the following criteria which are discussed in detail below:
a) The potential parking demand and supply
b) The cost of providing public parking in structures
c) The cost of providing public parking on-street
a) The potential parking demand and supply
The City engaged the Nadelson Dale Group (TNDG) to study the potential parking demand
and cost/feasibility of constructing a public parking structures in Smoky Hollow.
Potential Demand
With regard to the potential parking demand,the TNDG study(Exhibit 6) estimated the future
demand assuming that existing light industrial space will convert to more employment-
intensive uses, and redevelopment of some properties will result in additional square footage.
The tables below reflect the existing and the draft specific plan build-out potential and parking
requirements.
4
140
Table 2
Smokv Hollow Proiected Build-Out
Land Use Existing Draft Specific Difference
(s.f.) Plan(s.f.) (s.f.)
Office 440,809 2,059,144 +1,618,335
Industrial 1,901,602 777,900 -1,123,702
Commercial 113,505 135,966 +22,461
TOTAL 2,455,916 2,973,010 +517,094
Table 3
Smoky Hollow Parkin,2 Reouirement
Land Use Current Rate Proposed Rate Currently Draft
(sf/space) (sf/space) Required Specific Plan
Office 350 400 1,259 5,148
Industrial 500 400 3,803 1,945
Commercial 300 400 378 340
TOTAL 5,440 7,433
Table 4
Smokv Hollow Parking Sunnly
Existing Draft
Spaces Specific Plan
Existing off-street parking supply 1,950 1,950
Existing street parking supply 310 310
TOTAL supply 2,260 2,260
Shortfall(required less existing) 3,180 5,173
Based on the TNDG study, full build-out is projected to occur by year 2040, resulting in
2,973,010 total square feet of all buildings, and a net parking requirement of 5,173 spaces.
This reflects the parking required for the total area of all buildings minus the private property
and on-street parking currently provided. Putting aside existing buildings and parking, and
based solely on an additional 517,094 square feet of new development,the additional required
parking would be 1,293 spaces. The build-out estimate in the draft Specific Plan is a realistic
estimate of the potential amount of development in the Plan area and does not assume that
every building will be expanded or redeveloped to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR).
5
141
Potential SuDnly
KOA Corporation, a Planning and Engineering consulting firm, studied potential designs for
two parking structures and for City street reconfigurations to provide more public parking
(Exhibit No. 5).
Structure Parking. The draft Smoky Hollow Specific Plan designates two properties as Parking
zones,located at the northeast and northwest corners of Franklin Avenue and Maryland Street
(See Exhibit No. 3). If the SHSP is approved, parking lots or structures would be allowed on
these properties by right, and allowed elsewhere in the specific plan with approval of an
administrative use permit (AUP). KOA analyzed these two properties in particular and
determined that each property can accommodate a 2 to 3-level parking structure that would
provide up to a combined 911 parking spaces. One of these properties is currently a parking
lot containing 130 parking spaces, so the net new parking spaces on these specific properties
would be 781. It should be noted that these two sites are privately owned and they were
selected solely for the purpose of determining the potential feasibility of adding structured
parking in the area, not as the ultimate sites of City-owned public parking facilities.
Street Parking.The KOA parking study and the draft specific plan studied street improvements
designed to provide additional street parking. The improvements include: 1) reconfiguring 11
north-south streets into one-way streets and striping angled parking on one side (Exhibit No.
6), and; 2) reconfiguring El Segundo Boulevard by slightly narrowing the existing four travel
lanes to add a parking lane on the north side. Today, the north-south streets are two-way and
have parallel parking on both sides to accommodate approximately 310 total parking spaces.
The KOA analysis estimates the proposed reconfiguration can produce up to 85 additional
parking spaces through the specific plan area. El Segundo Boulevard has no parking today
and the KOA analysis estimates that adding a parking lane can produce up to 74 new parking
spaces 1.
Thus, the parking supply could be increased by 940 spaces, including 781 spaces in two
potential parking structure sites and 159 spaces on streets. The 940 potential public parking
spaces could meet over 70 percent of the potential demand of 1,293 spaces based on the
Specific Plan build-out projections.
b) The cost of providing public parking in structures
The TNDG study also looked at the potential costs of developing parking structures. The main
factors considered in the study were:
• property acquisition costs,
• development costs,
• operation and maintenance for 30 years, and
• revenue from parking fees at public structures.
1 The parking design study by KOA,dated September 20,2016 estimated that approximately 101 parking spaces could be added
along El Segundo Boulevard. That estimate was updated in KOA's more recent on-street parking construction cost estimate,dated
June 2018(Exhibit 5). The most recent effort involved a more detailed design,which resulted in a more precise estimate of 74
parking spaces.
6
142
Taking the above factors into account, TNDG calculated the cost of a parking structure—and
possible in-lieu fee—at $80,831 per parking space, or an annual payment of$4,962 over 30
years. This amount does not take into consideration any fees that the City could charge users
of a public structure. However, the TNDG study determined that an in-lieu fee level this high
would be cost prohibitive for property owners or developers and it recommended against
charging this amount, Alternatively, accounting for parking structure revenues, the study
concluded that the upfront parking in-lieu fee would be $37,090 per space or an annual
payment of $2,277 per space for 30 years. TNDG concluded that this price per space,
particularly the annual payment option,would not significantly impact the financial feasibility
of the targeted land uses.
Due to the costs involved, construction of public parking structures is considered a long term
goal (10-20 years), while construction of on-street parking is considered a short-term goal of
0-5 years. Furthermore, construction estimates for parking structures that may be built 10 or
more years in the future may not be as accurate as estimates for short term projects. Some
additional concerns about the long term parking structure option are discussed later in this
report.
c) The cost of providing public parking on-street
According to the KOA study, the estimated cost of providing 159 additional street parking
spaces as contemplated in the draft SHSP is approximately $3.3 million overall, or about
$20,700 per space (See Exhibit No. 7). This cost is substantially lower than the cost to build
spaces in parking structures because there are no property acquisition costs and street parking
can be accomplished with little more than new signs, striping, and minor curb and sidewalk
construction.
The parking costs per space for all three options are summarized in Table 5 below,
Table 5
Parking Cost Estimates
Cost/fee Public Structure Public Structure Public Street
(per space) (free) (user fees) Parking
Full amount $81K $37K $21K
Annual fee $5K' $2.3K' $700
' Assumes a 4.5%financing cost
Recommended in-lieu fee level
Table 2 and the discussion on future parking demand indicate that approximately 1,293
additional parking spaces will be required in the Specific Plan area at full build out. If the City
were to construct enough additional public parking to meet 100 percent of that demand, it
would have to construct approximately 159 on-street spaces and 1,134 spaces in parking
structures. However,this assumes no additional required parking would be provided on private
property, which is not realistic. The role of the in-lieu fee is to facilitate private development,
but not to assume the full responsibility of providing parking. As mentioned previously, the
7
143
cost of building parking structures is substantially higher than the cost of building on-street
parking. In addition, it is harder to estimate the actual cost of parking structures 10 or more
years in the future. Furthermore,recent technological and mobility trends,such as autonomous
driving, riding sharing services, bike-sharing, etc. make it harder to predict the future demand
for parking with certainty. As a result, committing to construct public parking structures in
the Smoky Hollow area could entail the risk of higher construction costs, lower parking
demand, and underutilized public parking structures. Therefore, staff proposes focusing on
the construction of on-street parking and related improvements initially, setting a fee level of
approximately $20,700, and evaluating the in-lieu fee program and parking demand in a few
years when approximately 159 in-lieu spaces have been"sold."
4. Payment method recommendation
The in-lieu fee program requires payments to fund the cost of providing public parking. Table 1
illustrated the various payment methods used in several other cities, which include paying the full
amount upfront; making monthly or annual payments, and a combination of the two. Each
payment method has advantages and disadvantages, which are briefly presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6
Pavinent Options
Advantages Disadvantages
Upfront • Simple administration • High upfront cost
•Easy to budget in development costs • Easy enforcement
• Rapid accumulation of funds
• Simple ownership changes
Installments • Low upfi•ont cost for developer. •Very complicated and costly to administer.
(10-30 years) • Reliable revenue stream. •Very difficult to enforce.
• Slow revenue stream. -
•Complicates ownership changes.
Hybrid • Moderate upfront cost. • Very complicated and costly to administer.
• Moderate payments and contract period. •Very difficult to enforce.
•Moderate revenue stream.
•Complicates ownership changes.
In order to quickly accumulate funds for public parking, full upfront payment of the in-lieu fee
would be ideal. However, in order to make the upfront cost lower and ensure the fee is more
affordable to property owners, staff's recommendation includes an annual payment option.
Therefore, staff recommends two methods of payment: 1) payment of the full in-lieu fee upfront,
and; 2)payment of 50 percent of the in-lieu fee upfront and not more than 10 annual payments to
recover the rest of the fee. The larger upfront payment ensures that as new development takes
place, the City secures more revenue and can provide the street parking sooner to serve the area.
Additionally, if the City provides street parking sooner, the new parking will act as a catalyst for
more investment in Smoky Hollow. At the same time, the hybrid payment option will make the
program affordable for more property owners. Those owners taking advantage of the annual
payment option would be subject to a small fee to the cover administrative costs of a payment plan,
In addition to the two payment methods, staff recommends requiring payment of the full in-lieu
fee upfront when an applicant proposes using the in-lieu fee for more than 50 percent of the
required parking spaces. This requirement is discussed further in the following section.
s
144
5. Additional Considerations
a) Overall limits on the number of in-lieu spaces.
There is an important reason to limit the overall number of parking spaces for which an in-lieu
fee should be accepted. The City cannot charge a fee that is higher than the cost of providing
the associated service (constructing and ongoing maintenance of public parking). If it costs
the City $3.3 million to provide and maintain 159 parking spaces, it cannot continue to collect
parking in-lieu fees above that amount.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City regularly review the number of in-lieu spaces"sold"
and the revenue generated, evaluate the overall program effectiveness, and determine when to
make changes to the program.
b) Limits on individual projects and properties.
As mentioned above, there is an overall limit on the number of additional parking spaces the
City can provide and, consequently, the number of in-lieu spaces that can be "sold." For
reasons of fairness and making the program available to all property owners,staff recommends
regulating the number/percentage of required parking spaces for which individual
projects/property owners can pay in-lieu fees. Some cities, such as Mountain View,have opted
to impose specific limits to regulate the demand for parking in-lieu fees. Several of those
options are described below, followed by staff's recommendation:
• A maximum number, such as no more than 20 spaces per building site.
• A maximum percentage, such as no more than 20 percent of the required parking spaces.
• A graduated scale based on the size of the building site. (e.g.: 20 percent of the required
parking for sites up to 11,200 square feet and 10 percent for larger sites).
• Increasing the fee amount based on the number of in-lieu spaces requested. (e.g.: a fee of
$24,500 per space(discounted cost) for up to 10 spaces and a fee of$29,809 per space(full
cost) for more than 10 spaces, etc.).
Staff believes that setting a specific number or percentage limit may unintentionally restrain
development and/or improvements in Smoky Hollow, which is not consistent with the draft
Specific Plan goal to facilitate development. Instead, staff recommends two non-prescriptive
ways to regulate the demand for the in-lieu fee program. The first is a more market-based
approach of allowing the payment of in-lieu fees for up to 100%of the required parking spaces
for a property,while requiring payment of the frill fee upfront when paying for more than 50%.
This will regulate the demand for the in-lieu fee in a less prescriptive way, giving property
owners the flexibility to pay for up to 100% of the required spaces, and at the same time
generate more in-lieu fee revenue to fund construction of public parking sooner. Staff believes
that this market-based approach will not discourage owners of small lots from improving their
properties. The second way is to require a discretionary process before allowing payment of
in-lieu fees for more than 50% of the required spaces. A discretionary process at the Director
level would help ensure that there are not significant detrimental impacts to other properties in
9
145
the immediate area. One potential detrimental impact would be a severe shortage of parking
resulting from a large development that provides no off-street parking. Discretionary review
by the Director would help staff evaluate the availability of parking in the area, the timing of
construction of additional on-street public parking, and other such factors prior to allowing
payment of in-lieu fees for large numbers of spaces.
If the full upfront payment is too high for certain property owners, or the Director denies a
request for payment of in-lieu fees, property owners would still have viable options. They
could snake an initial 50%down payment and annual installments for up to 50%of the required
parking spaces and provide the remainder on their site or off-site through a parking covenant
agreement. Most small property owners would still be able to develop or improve their
property up to the maximum allowable FAR as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1
Sample small Iot site elan
140'
10' = 10'setback
if
6 : HC
40'! ;
t. 5 fi
i
i
i._. ._... ._._ .... ._._ ._.... ........
Figure 1 shows a typical small lot in the west portion of Smoky Hollow developed at the
maximum FAR of.75 as proposed in the draft Specific Plan. The lot is 5,600 square feet and
developed with a 4,200 square-foot, 2-story office building. Based on the draft Specific Plan,
the building would have to provide a total of 11 parking spaces. In the figure above, the lot
can provide six code-complying parking spaces onsite. The property owner could then pay in-
lieu fees (including the annual payment option) for another five parking spaces, which is 45%
of the required parking. This figure shows that it is feasible to develop a small lot at the
maximum FAR, provide at least 50% of the parking onsite, and pay an in-lieu fee for the rest,
c) Legal implications of reducing cost of spaces
Because an in-lieu fee is intended to cover the City's cost of building parking spaces, if the City
were to decide to reduce the cost of such a space, then that decision would likely trigger other
legal issues, such as prevailing wage requirements and environmental analysis. Such issues
would need to be evaluated if the Planning Commission or the City Council desire to set an in-
lieu fee that is less than the City's cost to provide the on-street spaces.
10
146
6. Proposed narking in-Iieu fee area
Staff proposes a parking in-lieu fee area that incorporates the proposed Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan and certain commercially zoned properties adjacent to Smoky Hollow and Downtown, The
entire area is depicted in Figure No. 2 below.
Figure No. 2
Proposed varkina in-lieu fee area
Wr
J.
4
IMP
LTIN N I
= I
Legend �1 .
1 Program Area
®Smoky Hollow West
®Smoky Hollow East t'
[] Downtown Commercial
® Parking
G
E79 Public Facilities E
222 Kansas Specific Plan
Neighborhood Commercial
T500 0 Soo 1000 1500 ft
N
The additional properties are located along Grand Avenue between Standard Street and Sheldon
Street and are zoned Conunercial Downtown(C-RS) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-2),which
permit an FAR of 1.0 and 0.5 respectively. All the parcels are currently developed with
commercial and some with residential uses, although two of the larger CR-S properties are
developed at .26 (Chase Bank) and Al (Rite Aid) FAR. The CR-S zoned properties are
approximately 3.15 acres and the C-2 zoned properties are approximately 3.43 acres for a total
area of 6.58 acres. This is area substantially smaller than the proposed Smoky Hollow Specific
Plan area of 95.5 acres.
Staff recommends including these areas in the parking in-lieu fee area for the following reasons:
a) These properties are immediately adjacent to the Downtown Specific Plan and the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan, two areas that will have parking in-lieu fees in place. As a result,
these properties will be at a disadvantage when it comes to opportunities to improve/expand
primarily due to parking constraints. The properties in the CR-S zone in particular, are
unable to develop near the permitted FAR, because of the parking requirements. So,
11
147
offering the in-lieu fee there would give them the same opportunity as the Downtown and
Smoky Hollow areas where the FAR limits will be about the same.
b) The draft Specific Plan anticipates development of additional street parking in the Smoky
Hollow area on streets such as Standard, Eucalyptus, and Sheldon. The commercial
properties mentioned above will benefit from this additional parking. Therefore, it would
be fair to include them in the proposed parking in-lieu fee area, so they can contribute
toward the development of public parking.
c) These properties would contribute additional in-lieu fee revenue to fund more shared public
parking in the area sooner.
d) The parking in-lieu fee option may allow property owners in this area to improve and/or
develop their properties, which has benefits for the City in terms of economic activity and
tax revenue.
7. General Plan and Zoning Consistenev
Consistency with the El Segundo General Plan
ESMC Section 15-1-1 (Purpose, Title) states that Title 15 is the primary tool for implementation
of the goals, objectives, and policies of the El Segundo General Plan. Accordingly, the Planning
Commission must find that the proposed Zone Text Amendment is consistent with those goals,
objectives, and policies. Planning staff believes there is substantial evidence in the record to
support the findings required for the Planning Commission to recommend City Council approval
of the proposed amendment. The findings are discussed in the proposed resolution.
Consistency with the El Segundo Municipal Code.
Pursuant to ESMC Title 15, Chapter 26 (Amendments), in order to recommend City Council
approval of the proposed amendments, the Planning Commission must find that the amendments
are necessary to carry out the general purpose of ESMC Title 15. The purpose of this Title(ESMC
Section 15-1-1) is to serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide economic
and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources. Planning staff
believes there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings required for the Planning
Commission to recommend City Council approval of the proposed amendment. The findings are
discussed in the proposed resolution.
8. Environmental assessment
The proposed zone text amendment and proposed fee is exempt from further environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.)
because it establishes rules and procedures for operation of existing facilities; minor temporary
use of land; minor alterations in land use; new construction of small structures; and minor
structures accessory to existing commercial facilities. The proposed zone text amendment and fee,
therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301;
15303; 15304(e); 15305; and 15311. Further, the adoption of the proposed zone text amendment
12
148
and fee is also exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3)
because it is for general policies and procedure-making. It does not authorize any new
development entitlements, but simply establishes policies and procedures for meeting the City's
off-street parking regulations. Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this
Resolution will be subject to CEQA review as part of the entitlement review of the project. The
proposed zone text amendment and fee will not adversely impact the environment and is therefore
exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
9. Conclusion and Reconiniendation.
The discussion is this report covers two major parking-related constraints in the Smoky Hollow
area and the proposed parking in-lieu fee program offers an effective solution. Those constraints
are the limited parking supply and the difficulty in improving properties while at the same time
meeting the City's parking requirements.
1) The limited supply of parking.
Over the next 3-5 years, staff anticipates an increased demand for parking in the area. The
proposed in-lieu fee will fund approximately 160 new street parking spaces in the near term to
help address that demand. The potential demand for parking and construction costs for parking
structures in the long term are less certain. Therefore, focusing on street parking in the short
term is the more prudent approach and limits risk while providing immediate benefit to the
community. In addition, the City can evaluate the in-lieu fee program after a few years and
adapt it depending on the actual parking needs and circumstances at that time.
2) The difficulty in meeting the City's parking requirements.
Today,property owners can meet parking requirements in several ways. They can provide the
required parking spaces on-site, provide the required parking spaces off-site through a
covenant agreement, or request a reduction in the number of required spaces by up to 10
percent. The proposed in-lieu fee program will provide an additional option to meet the City's
parking requirements to complement the existing options. Staff believes that, in conjunction
with the draft Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, the proposed parking in-lieu fee program will
provide: a) an affordable option for meeting the City's parking requirements, b) efficient,
shared public parking, and c) an incentive for new businesses and new development in Smoky
Hollow and adjoining areas.
Accordingly, Staff recommends an amendment to the ESMC to:
• allow the payment of parking in-lieu fees for the purpose of meeting the ESMC off-
street parking requirements
• designate a parking in-lieu fee area encompassing the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan and
certain adjacent, commercially zoned,properties
• allow for alternative methods of payment including payment in full upfront or a 50%
payment upfront and up to 10 annual payments
In addition, staff recommends that the City Council establish a parking in-lieu fee of$20,700 per
parking space.
13
149
RESOLUTION NO. 2827
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-1198 AND ZONE
TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 17-06 TO ESTABLISH A PARKING IN-
LIEU FEE PROGRAM FOR THE SMOKY HOLLOW SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. On July 13, 2017, the City initiated the process to amend the EI Segundo
Municipal Code (ESMC) to create a parking in-lieu fee program for the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area. The program intent is to allow the
payment of a fee as an alternative method of meeting the City's parking
requirements for private development and to provide additional shared
public parking on-street and off-street in public parking structures;
B. The proposed parking in-lieu fee program will generate funds to pay for
construction of additional public parking spaces to address the parking
demand of new private development;
C. The proposed parking in-lieu fee ordinance will establish a parking district
in the Smoky Hollow area and adjacent commercially zoned properties
where the parking in-lieu fee program would apply;
D. On June 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including information provided to the Planning Commission by city staff,
and;
E. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence
presented to the Commission at its June 14, 2018, hearing.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section
65860, the ESMC amendments proposed by the ordinance are consistent with the EI
Segundo General Plan as follows:
A. The proposed ordinance is consistent with General Plan Objective LU1-3 in
that it will permit for the continued operation and orderly conversion of
existing uses, by providing an alternative method of meeting the City's
parking requirements.
B. The ordinance is consistent with General Plan Objective LU4-3 in that it will
facilitate development of new office and research and development (R&D)
uses. The ordinance will do so by allowing the conversion of older
warehouses to office and R&D uses without having to provide additional
parking spaces onsite.
150
C. The ordinance is consistent with Goal LU7 to provide the highest quality
public facilities, service, and public infrastructure possible to the community.
The parking in-lieu fee program will provide funding for public parking for
the Smoky Hollow area of the City.
D. The ordinance is consistent with Goal ED2 of the Economic Development
Element to provide a supportive and economically profitable environment
as the foundation of a strong local business community. The ordinance will
do so by investing in shared vehicle parking infrastructure which
encourages commercial and industrial development.
E. The ordinance is consistent with Objective C3-2 of the Circulation Element
in that it considers the impacts of land use decisions on the City's parking
situation. The parking in-lieu fee program will ensure adequate shared
parking is provided for new development in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
area. The ordinance takes into consideration the anticipated amount of new
development in the draft specific plan, which is approximately 517,000
square feet. The ordinance also takes into account, and will help address,
the shortage of parking in the area currently, which is estimated to be
approximately 2,200 spaces.
F. Considering all of its aspects, the proposed ordinance will further the
objectives and policies of the general plan and will not obstruct their
attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
(Amendments), the proposed ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out the
purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with the purpose of the ESMC, which is to serve
the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the economic
and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land
resources.
B. The ordinance is necessary to facilitate the development process and
ensure the orderly development of buildings and the location of uses in the
City. The intent of the ordinance is to establish a parking in-lieu fee program
allowing the payment of a fee in order for new development to meet the
City's off-street parking requirements, and to develop shared public parking
facilities to meetthe parking demand for private development. This program
will facilitate and expedite the development process and provide economic
and social benefits resulting from the orderly planned use of land resources.
SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The proposed zone text amendment and
proposed fee is exempt from further environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA")
2
151
and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because it
establishes rules and procedures for operation of existing facilities; minor temporary use
of land; minor alterations in land use; new construction of small structures; and minor
structures accessory to existing commercial facilities. The proposed zone text
amendment and fee, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under
CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301; 15303; 15304(e); 15305; and 15311. Further, the adoption
of the proposed zone text amendment and fee is also exempt from review under CEQA
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because it is for general policies and
procedure-making. It does not authorize any new development entitlements, but simply
establishes policies and procedures for allowing the previously-approved project to be
constructed. Any proposed project that will utilize the changes set forth in this Resolution
will be subject to CEQA review as part of the entitlement review of the project. The
proposed zone text amendment and fee will not adversely impact the environment and is
therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SECTION 5: Recommendations. The Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the proposed ordinance attached as Exhibit A which would implement the
Zone Text Amendment and establish a parking in-lieu fee program in the Smoky Hollow
Specific Plan area.
SECTION 6: Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
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 Planning
Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial
evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 7: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in
evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 9: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
3
152
SECTION 10: This Resolution may be appealed within 10 calendar days after its
adoption. All appeals must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within this time
period. Failure to file a timely written appeal will constitute a waiver of any right of appeal.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of ne 2018.
7
RyaBai o, Chair
City o 1 Segundo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Sam Lee, Se et ry
Baldino - Aye
Newman - Aye
Hoeschler - Aye
Wingate Aye
Keldorf Aye
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By: �/
David King, Assi an ity Attorney
4
153
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2017
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business—Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to amend various sections of the El Segundo Municipal Code
(ESMC) Title 15 (Zoning Code)to: (1)update and introduce new definitions related to measuring
building height, (2) establish new zoning code standards for measuring the maximum height of
buildings, and(3) allow the Director to approve an adjustment to the maximum building height by
up to 5 feet,pursuant to ESMC Chapter 15-24.
Adopting this Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA
Guidelines § 15303 as a Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures), § 15304 as
a Class 4 (minor alteration to land), and does not constitute a"project"that requires environmental
review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the proposed zone text
amendment establishes new definitions and provisions for measuring building height. The
proposed Ordinance constitutes an action that does not have the potential to cause significant
effects on the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA. (Fiscal Impact:
None) (Applicant: City of El Segundo).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Introduce an Ordinance (Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-08) regarding
amendments to various sections of the Zoning Code;
2. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for September 4, 2018;
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance (strike-out/underline version)
2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated June 28, 2018
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2840
FISCAL IMPACT:None.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 1(a). Provide unparalleled service to internal and external customers
Objective: City services are convenient, efficient and user-friendly for all residents,
businesses, and visitors
Activity: Amend zoning code in response to emerging issues discovered by staff
and customers
PREPARED BY: Maria Baldenegro, Assistant Planner
REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
Sam Lee, Planning and Buildin Safety Director
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager,
154
INTRODUCTION:
On October 9, 2017, the City initiated the proposed zone text amendment to amend various
sections of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) to: (1) update and introduce new definitions
related to measuring building height, (2) establish new zoning code standards for measuring the
maximum height of buildings,and(3)allow the Director to approve an adjustment to the maximum
building height by up to 5 feet, pursuant to ESMC Chapter 15-24.
This item was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on June 14, 2018.
However, staff requested to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting date on
June 28, 2018.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The Zoning Code was last updated in a comprehensive manner in 1993, and the City Council last
considered an interpretation which established policies for measuring the height of buildings and
grade in 1998.
Staff has often received requests throughout the years for assistance in determining where the
"natural grade" existed on sloping lots before it was cleared, cut, filled or developed. Multiple
"grade" terms are currently included in the Code but are often confusing to the public. Requests
for minor exceptions to building height for the purpose of adding insulation or equipment
screening on the roof are very common. Residents and business owners who seek to improve and
expand buildings located on sloping lots also require exceptions due to the peculiar way building
height is measured. The current development standards do not facilitate new development on
sloping lots and penalize the removal of dirt when lowering the grade, even when that dirt is
deposited elsewhere on the site (balanced cut and fill), which is standard practice in grading.
Building Height is currently defined as:
The vertical distance measured from all points of the highest point of a flat roof, the
deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height between the plate and the ridge of
gable, pitched, or hip roofs to grade directly below. The ridge of a gable, pitched, or
hipped roof may extend a maximum of six feet (6) above the maximum height limit
permitted in the zone in which the building is located.
This definition has several problems. It is unclear what "from all points of the highest point" is
intended to mean. It is interpreted to mean the highest vertical points of the building measured at
all horizontal points of the same building. In other words, every square inch of the building is
subject to the height limit at that point. Although this sounds reasonable, it is almost impossible to
build a significant structure on a sloped lot using this method.
The problem lies with our desire to live and work on level surfaces. To make a level surface on a
hill requires the floor to be built above the natural slope by means of retaining walls or pillars,the
floor to be cut into the slope, or a combination of the two.Under the current definition, any portion
of dead space below the lowest floor that is built above the ground is counted toward building
height. Also, since"grade"is defined as the lower of the original ground level or a finished ground
surface, any portion of a building that is underground is also counted toward building height.
The proposed zone text amendment introduces a new method of measuring buildings which
contain sloped roofs. The current regulations measure building height from the Existing Natural
155
Grade to the midpoint of a sloped roof and allows 6 additional feet to the top peak of the ridge
beam. The proposed provisions introduces Building Height be measured from a horizontal Grade
Plane,representing the average elevation between the highest and lowest point of the natural grade,
to the highest point of a sloped roof. A much simpler method in measuring Building Height. The
proposed method of measuring Building Height is in line with what other City's with hillside
districts are adopting for their codes.
--------------•w ---- - --------- ---------
--- --
bA
x
High Point
r
Grade Differential
Grade Plane
Low Point
On a flat lot, the Grade Plane will effectively be the natural ground level. However, the proposed
provisions will allow a Sloped Lot a sensible combination of cut and fill to create workable floor
area,providing more flexibility for developing or adding new buildings without compromising the
established zoning height limits. The provisions will allow Sloped Lots, a minor increase in height
defined as a Grade Differential. The provisions will allow a maximum Grade Differential of 6 feet
in Residential zones and 8 feet in non-residential zones. This minor increase in height will provide
the flexibility needed to develop Sloping Lots in the City when the slope is greater than 20%.
Planning Commission consideration
On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the proposed
ordinance. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt
Resolution No. 2840 recommending approval of the ordinance as presented.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental
Quality Act(California Public Resources Code §§ 21000,et seq., "CEQA")and CEQA Guidelines
(14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it involves minor revisions and
clarifications to existing zoning regulations related to building height. The proposed zone text
amendment is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15303
as a Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and § 15304 as a Class 4(minor
alteration to land). Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance does not constitute a "project" that
requires environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the
proposed zone text amendment establishes new definitions and policies for measuring building
156
height. The proposed Ordinance constitutes an action that does not have the potential to cause
significant effects on the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning staff recommends that the Council:
1. Introduce an Ordinance (Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-08) regarding
amendments to various sections of the Zoning Code;
2. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for September 4,2018;
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
157
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE EL
SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE (ESMC) IN TITLE 15 TO
REDEFINE HOW BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED, AND TO
ALLOW THE DIRECTOR TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE
ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT.
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On October 9, 2017, staff initiated an application for Environmental
Assessment No. EA-1210 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-08 to
amend the City's regulations affecting building height;
B. The City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., CEQA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California
Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., CEQA Guidelines).
C. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed
amendment, including information provided by City staff and public
testimony;
D. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2840
recommending the City Council approve Environmental Assessment No.
EA-1210 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-08;
E. On August 21, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing, considered the
Planning Commission's recommendation, and information provided by City
staff and public testimony regarding this Ordinance; and
F. The Ordinance and its findings are made based upon the administrative
record including, without limitation, testimony and evidence presented to the
City Council at its August 21, 2018, hearing, and the staff report submitted
by the Planning and Building Safety Department.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section
65860, the ESMC amendments proposed by the Ordinance are consistent with the EI
Segundo General Plan as follows:
A. The proposed zone text amendment is in conformity with the Land Use
Element goals, objectives and policies. Specifically, the zone text
amendment is consistent with Land Use Element Goal LU3 and Objectives
158
LU3-1 and LU3-2 in that the amendment will facilitate the construction,
remodel, and expansion of residential land uses in the City;
B. The proposed amendments are also consistent with Land Use Element
Goal LU4, Objective LU4-1, Policy LU4-1.2, in that they will promote the
maintenance of commercial buildings to meet environmental regulations;
C. The proposed amendments are consistent with Land Use Element Goal
LU4, Objective LU4-2, and Policy LU4-2.1, in that they will help revitalize
and upgrade commercial areas in the City. The proposed amendments will
accomplish this by providing clarity concerning building height regulations;
D. The proposed amendments are consistent with Economic Development
Element Goal ED1, Objective ED1-1, and Policy ED1-1.1, in that it will help
to development and maintain businesses for its residents throughout the
City.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-26
and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the proposed zone text amendment is
consistent with and necessary to carry out the general purpose of ESMC Title 15 because
it serves the public health, safety, and general welfare and provides the economic and
social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources.
SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. This Ordinance is exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code
of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it involves minor revisions and clarifications
to existing zoning regulations related to building height. The proposed zone text
amendment is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §
15303 as a Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and § 15304 as
a Class 4 (minor alteration to land). Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance does not
constitute a "project" that requires environmental review in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the proposed zone text amendment establishes new
definitions and policies for measuring building height. The proposed Ordinance
constitutes an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the
environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SECTION 5: The following definitions are amended or added to ESMC Section 15-1-6
(Title; Interpretation; Definitions: Definitions) as follows (StFikethr,,u is language to be
deleted, and underlined is language to be added):
BASEMENT: Any floor level below the first story in a building that is more than four fee
(4'} 4 feet below "rras'C" Grade for more than fifty -nt- 50%) 50 percent of the total
perimeter, or is more than eight foot (8') 8 feet below "grade" at any point.
2
159
BUILDING HEIGHT OR STRUCTURE HEIGHT: is the vertical distance measured from
the Grade Plane to the hiqhest point of the roof or parapet. See features listed in ESMC
Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht. all pointe of tho highoct point of-a4lat
mo"t- e--desk-line of a rnaricrwrd roof or to the aver height between4ho pls�o and tho
edge of gaffe:p+t�#ed;e F efs to grade Orootly havlc�w-T-ae4idga of a S-able, pitGhecl,
of-l4ipped4eef may ^J/t^r�vz'a-n""'zanimiir f--ef�i�� for, (G')-abevv thla araa*P�eq
pormittod in the hone in whioh tho bu). ng io looatc-d.
Top of Shed Roof Aop of Gable Roof
Top of Flat Roof
A
V r r
Grade Plane
Top of Barn Roof
A
Top of Saw-tooth Roof Top of Mansard Roof
r r
Grade Plane
FLAT ROOF: A roof surface which slopes 10 oercent or less.
GRADE: The elevation of the surface of the ground of a property�re4.6
e;finichad, wWGhever is lower n elevatkm.
GRADE DIFFERENTIAL: The difference in qround elevation between the Grade Plane
and the lowest point of the Finished Grade adiacent to the exterior walls of the building.
A Grade Differential is exempt when measuring the height of a building or structure. Anv
portion below the Grade Plane which exceeds the maximum permitted Grade Differential
for the zoninq district is included in calculating the vertical heiqht of the buildinq. See
Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to building height.
GRADE, EXISTING: The surface of the qround or pavement at a stated location as it
exists prior to disturbance in preparation for a proiect at the site.
GRADE, FINISHED: The elevation after the land is cleared, #1vat-Ml a)tiot when-all cut,
filled, graded, or aouvsictcd-with construction improvements are completed, including but
not limited to, pathways, pavements, hardscape or landscaping are complete.
GRADE, PREEXISTING NATURAL: The ground elevation of a promiWc which existed
prior to excavation, cut, fill, or landscaping improvements the original oonctruotion of tho
b w 0 ld ing-er- strusfu-re. Reference to-grade-an-adjacent proportica may bo utiIizod to ciao lot
3
160
in estaMcliing pree)(is#Rg grade--when tho pr000ncc of ocig grade isnod-madi'"drat
on the o�ubjoot pr^4se.,. The Director may assist in establishing the existinq Natural
Grade. based on the surroundina undisturbed Existinq Grade on other portions of the site,
or based on adiacent properties to the site, or the level of the finished sidewalk.
GRADE PLANE: is a horizontal reference plane representing the averaqe elevation
between the hiahest and lowest point of the Natural Grade orior to excavation, fill or
construction, measured immediatelv below or adiacent to the exterior perimeter walls of
a buildinq or structure.
Top
y A
bA
ZS
High Point
Grade Differential _ --
Finished Grade Grade Plane
dfi Natural Grade
Fill Low Point
HIGH POINT OF NATURAL GRADE: is the highest point of the Natural Grade adiacent,
to the exterior walls of a buildina, planned or built, where it is situated on a sloping lot.
LOW POINT OF NATURAL GRADE: is the lowest point of the Natural Grade adiacent to
the exterior walls of a buildina, planned or built, where it is situated on a slooinq lot.
SEGMENTED GRADE PLANE: is multiple horizontal Grade Planes adiacent to different
portions of the exterior walls of a sinqle buildinq. Seamented Grade Planes are used for
measurincr the heiqht of structures on sites with significant a Natural Grade slope.
4
161
Segment 1
on
Segment 2 x
� r
..
x
Segment 1 High Point
Segment 1 Grade Plane
-------- ---- ------------
Grade Differential Segment 1 Low Point&
Finished Grade Segment 2 High Point
Segment 2 Grade Plane
Natural Grade
Fill Segment 2 Low Point
TOP OF BUILDING: is the highest point of a pitched roof or the parapet on a buildinq..
SECTION 6: ESMC Section 15-2-3 (General Provisions: Exceptions to Building Height)
is amended as follows:
15-2-3: EXCEPTIONS TO BUILDING HEIGHT:
Penthouses or roof structures for the housing of elevators, stairways, solar panels and
related equipment. or mechanical er and similar equipment required to operate and
maintain a building, fire escapes, €.ry cr perapet-walls, open-work guardrails, skylights,
clock towers, church steeples and other similar architectural elements, flagpoles,
chimneys, smokestacks, radio antennas, television mauto, rc0.cr and other similar
structures may be erected above the height limits prescribed in this title. Light standards
or other liaht fixtures may be mounted on the roof of a parking structure and must be.
designed to control glare. Non-permanent accessories, such as furniture, barbeques, or
umbrellas placed on a roof deck may be erected up to a maximum eight facto (9, 8 feet
above the height limits prescribed in this title. No such penthouse, structure or accessory
is allowed for the purpose of providing additional floor space. Any such structures in
residential zones shall be for noncommercial purposes only.
An increase in the maximum allowable Building Height, up to 5 feet. may be granted by
the Director. subject to the approval of an Adiustment pursuant to Chapter 15-24-
SECTION 7: ESMC Chapter 15-4, Article A (Single Family Residential (R-1) Zone),
Section 6 (Site Development Standards for Lots Wider than Twenty Five Feet),
Subsection B (Height) is amended as follows:
5
162
B. Height: Th"-6ght of SII ku��t not exxseed twonty-six rye; (2V) anO two42)
stories.
HeightShalI bo m--\aoar--\d from the fir g do or natssral gr&,do Ajaoont to thru toil"g
cr otrwcture, vf#iGhevor io lower
1. The height of all buildings or structures with a pitched roof must not exceed 32 feet
and two stories. Buildinqs or structures with a Flat Roof must not exceed 26 feet and
two stories.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 6 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential is included in measuring the maximum
Buildinq Heiqht. On sloped lots. a Segmented Grade Plane may be applied to different
vortions of a building.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Building Heiqht.
Average of
Highest Gable
2V max 26.`Max
Accesso Dwelling Unit -
Stru
SECTION 8: ESMC Chapter 15-4, Article A (Single-Family residential (R-1) Zone),
Section 6-1 (Site Development Standards for Lots Twenty Five Feet or Less), Subsection
B (Height) is amended as follows:
B. Height: Tho height cf all Ltiildingo must n^+ exGeed twenty 6ix400t (35+) and txv942-)
otorioo. Tho ho;ght of othor buildingo cnd dcfach„ d aGreigzary otr&,oturoe, inolsAing
&AOtaohod gsrs-rs, mcy nigt oxozod fourteeP-foot (1 fl.
�'e�,:Il bo M=3S.1r301 from the oh grodo or natural grad❑ sdjcoont to the buil d4 g
or str�-�cr-a-v"^fture, whiahover io lower-
1. The heiqht of all buildings or structures with a pitched roof must not exceed 32 feet
and two stories. Buildings or structures with a Flat Roof must not exceed 26 feet and
two stories.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 6 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical heiaht
W which exceeds the maximum Gracie Differential is included in measurina the maximum
6
163
Buildina Heiaht. On sloped lots. a Segmented Grade Plane may be applied to different
portions of a building.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Height.
Average of
Highest Gable
Acce Owelliftq Unit
S1 Cture
SECTION 9: ESMC Chapter 15-4, Article B (Two-Family Residential Zone (R-2)), Section
6 (Site Development Standards), Subsection B (Height) is amended as follows:
B. Height: TF'L-4cight of ell-dwelling io ohali not 3rcced twenty aix fit (26') &nd tiva
sto-ries.The hetight of all oth3r buildings and detaGhd c000000ry otruotu-reo, inoluding
detaGhe garages, all ns� cK3oed-f8ldrtcan l,,3t (1 T).
1. The heiqht of all buildings or structures with a pitched roof shall not exceed 32 feet
and two stories. Buildinas or structures with a Flat Roof must not exceed 26 feet and
two stories.
2. A maximum Graefe Differential of 6 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical height
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum Buildinq Height. On sloped lots, a Seamented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildinq Height.
Average of
Highest Gable
Aoav ow+l wng Unit '
Sly re
SECTION 10: ESMC Chapter 15-4, Article C (Multi-Family Residential (R-3) Zone),
Section 5 (Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
7
164
C. Height: The-height of ull buildings and ctrl infix frac 11 n�X cNxoc�a��enty-s}x4ee#-j�6-1(-
1. The heiqht of all buildings or structures with a pitched roof shall not exceed 32 feet
and two stories. Buildinqs or structures with a Flat Roof must not exceed 26 feet and
two stories.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 6 feet is oermitted on slopinq lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum Buildina Heiqht. On sloped lots, a Seamented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a buiidina.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht.
x
bA
2nd Floor
1st Floor Natural Grade
Basement-level Parking
Average of
Highest Gable
x
..... .. ........
r�
Building
SECTION 11: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article A (Downtown Commercial (C-RS) Zone),
Section 7 (Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height:
8
165
1. Buildings and structures shall not exceed the height of forty fivfoot (16') 45 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum Building Heiqht. On sloped lots, a Seqmented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Building Heiqht.
L
SECTION 12: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article B (Neighborhood Commercial (C-2) Zone),
Section 7 (Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height:
1. Buildings and structures shall not exceed a height of twer ty4ght fol ('L') 28 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on slopinq lots. The vertical height
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum Buildina Heiqht. On sloped lots. a Segmented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
3. See ESMC 15-2-3 for excel)tions to Buildina Heiaht.
i
N
SECTION 13: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article C (General Commercial (C-3) Zone), Section
7 (Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height:
9
166
1. East of Sepulveda Boulevard: No building or structure shall exceed two hundred foot
(240� 200 feet.
2. West of Sepulveda Boulevard: No building or structure shall exceed forty five foo+
(454 45 foet.
3. If the subject property abuts residentially zoned property, no building or structure
shall exceed forty foot (1.0)40 feet.
4. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measuring the
maximum Buildinq Heiqht. On sloped lots, a Seqmented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
5. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Building Height.
* i
�j j
� l
,nrrq, ., :w' g
a m
w N
C7 O
West of Sepulveda Boulevard East of Sepulveda Boulevard
SECTION 14: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article D (Corporate Office (CO) Zone), Section 7
(Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height:
1. East of Sepulveda Boulevard: No building or structure shall exceed two hundred fee
(2-00') 200 feet.
2. West of Sepulveda Boulevard: No building or structure shall exceed f ivc fc1 (IC)
45 feet.
3. If the subject property abuts residentially zoned property, no building or structure shall
exceed forty raot (10') 40 feet.
4.A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical height
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measuring the
maximum Buildinq Heiqht. On sloped lots, a Seqmented Grade Plane may be applied to
different portions of a building.
10
167
5. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Building Heiaht.
I
¢f
1 14 e4
Cq
N
CC
West of Sepulveda Boulevard East of Sepulveda Boulevard
SECTION 15: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article E (Urban Mixed Use North (MU-N) Zone),
Section 7 (Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height: 9w--kings a-nd rfruoturea shell rrf oynnad-a-hoight of one--4a+idrcd :.c,,�2nly
fide foot (175')
1. Buildinqs and structures shall not exceed a height of 175 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on slopina lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measuring the
maximum Buildina Height. On sloped lots. a Seamented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildinq Heiaht.
E
k 1 I
I
11
168
SECTION 16: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article F (Urban Mixed Use South (MU-S) Zone),
Section 8 (Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
15-5F-8: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
C. Height:43LAdiag&-aR� 3tr,U1Dt :rrr ohall not mwood c Wght of ore-Wndred-seve-nty
five feet (175')
1. Buildinas and structures shall not exceed a height of 175 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measuring the
maximum buildina heiaht. On sloped lots, a Segmented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a buildina.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht.
II .r
i
I
r
n
f
SECTION 17: ESMC Chapter 15-5, Article G (Commercial Center (C-4) Zone), Section 6
(Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height:
1. No building or structure may exceed si)tty fivc foot (SPF) 65 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is oermitted on slapina lots. The vertical heiaht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum building heiaht. On sloped lots, a Seamented Grade Plane may be applied to
different noitions of a buildina.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht.
12
169
6 LC)
110
SECTION 18: ESMC Chapter 15-6, Article A (Light Industrial (M-1) Zone), Section 7 (Site
Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height: Puddfng�., and-structuar-e-,-shall not exceed-a-height of two4Rmdr3d ft>ot (300').
1. Buildinqs and structures shall not exceed a height of 200 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical height
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurinq the
maximum Building Heiqht. On sloped lots. a Segmented Grade Plane may be applied to
different portions of a huildinca.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildinq Heiaht.
1I{311
000
'1 j •�.
1
SECTION 19: ESMC Chapter 15-6, Article B (Heavy Industrial (M-2) Zone), Section 7
(Site Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height: &aildingc and otruoturoa ohali n^t.�eod a h,3ight of two hufAmr' bot
R04
1, Buildinas and structures shall not exceed a heiqht of 200 feet.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on slopinq lots. The vertical heiqht
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum Buildinq Heiqht. On sloped lots. a Seqmented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
13
170
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht.
Ilk .uN_
i
SECTION 20: ESMC Chapter 15-8 (Open Space (O-S) Zone), Section 5 (Site
Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height: e-jildingc snd otruoture-& l not s)ma. -hninh+ of+,.,;enty aix font
1. Buildinas and structures with a pitched roof shall not exceed a heiaht of 32 feet.
Buildings and structures with a Flat Roof shall not exceed 26 feet
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted in sloping lots, measurinq from
the Grade Plane to the lowest Finished Grade immediatelv adiacent to the exterior
walls of the building. The vertical height which exceeds the maximum Grade
Differential limit is included in measurinq the maximum Building Heiaht. On sloped
lots, a Seamented Grade Plane may be applied to different portions of a buildina.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht.
SECTION 21: ESMC Chapter 15-9 (Automobile Parking (P) Zone), Section 5 (Site
Development Standards), Subsection C (Height) is amended as follows:
C. Height: Mdinga and ctruotiroo o�h2ll not o)(000d a-hoight of4we#y oi)c foot (25'),
1. Buildinas and structures with a pitched roof shall not exceed a height of 32 feet.
Buildinas and structures with a Flat Roof shall not exceed 26 feet
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted in sloping lots, measurinq from
the Grade Plane to the lowest Finished Grade immediatelv adiacent to the exterior
walls of the buildina. The vertical heiaht which exceeds the maximum Grade
Differential limit is included in measurinq the maximum Buildina Heiaht. On sloped
lots. a Seamented Grade Plane may be applied to different portions of a building.
14
171
3. See Section 15-2-3 for exceptions to Buildina Heiaht.
SECTION 22: ESMC Chapter 15-10 (Public Facilities (P-F) Zone), Section 5 (Site
Development Standards), Subsection B (Height) is amended as follows:
B. Height: Tho pornriasibie-height limit ahall bac height of--II Wines w-hich
abut the--ply.
1. The permissible heiaht limit shall be the average height of all zones which abut
the property.
2. A maximum Grade Differential of 8 feet is permitted on sloping lots. The vertical height
which exceeds the maximum Grade Differential limit is included in measurina the
maximum Buildinq Heiqht. On sloped lots, a Seqmented Grade Plane may be applied
to different portions of a building.
3. See Section 15-2-3 for excer)tions to Buildina Height.
SECTION 23: ESMC Chapter 15-24 (Adjustments), Section 1 (Granting) is amended by
adding the following:
I. Buildinq Heiqht to exceed the maximum allowable heiaht by not more than 5 feet.
SECTION 24: CONSTRUCTION. This ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the
provisions of this ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a
manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this ordinance.
SECTION 25: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the EI Segundo Municipal
Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude
prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this ordinance's
effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining
action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 26: VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS CODE SECTIONS. If this entire ordinance or its
application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or
amendment of the ESMC or other city ordinance by this ordinance will be rendered void
15
172
and cause such previous ESMC provision or other ordinance to remain in full force and
effect for all purposes.
SECTION 27: SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 28: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original ordinances;
make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15
days after the passage and adoption of this ordinance, cause it to be published or posted
in accordance with California law.
16
173
SECTION 29: This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty-first day following its
passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of September, 2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
TEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the 21st day of August, 2018, and 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, 2018, and the same was so
passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
17
174
EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: June 28, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to amend various sections of the El Segundo Municipal Code
(ESMC) Title 15 (Zoning Code)to: (1)update and introduce new definitions related to measuring
building height, (2) establish new zoning code standards for measuring the maximum height of
buildings,and(3)allow the Director to approve an adjustment to the maximum building height by
up to 5 feet, pursuant to ESMC Chapter 15-24.
Adopting this Ordinance is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA
Guidelines § 15303 as a Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures), § 15304 as
a Class 4(minor alteration to land),and does not constitute a"project"that requires environmental
review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the proposed zone text
amendment establishes new definitions and provisions for measuring building height. The
proposed Ordinance constitutes an action that does not have the potential to cause significant
effects on the environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.(Applicant: City
of El Segundo).
RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: It is recommended that the
Planning Commission open the public hearing and take public testimony on the proposed
ordinance; close the public hearing and consider the evidence; and adopt Resolution No. 2840.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2840
2. Proposed Draft Ordinance
ORIGINATED BY: Maria Baldenegro,Assistant Planner
REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager fOV17
APPROVED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety6�.,l
I. INTRODUCTION
On October 9,2017,the City initiated the proposed zone text amendment to amend various
sections of the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) to: (1) update and introduce new
definitions related to measuring building height, (2) establish new zoning code standards
for measuring the maximum height of buildings, and (3) allow the Director to approve an
adjustment to the maximum building height by up to 5 feet,pursuant to ESMC Chapter 15-
24.
This item was originally scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on June 14,
2018. However, staff requested to continue the item to the next Planning Commission
meeting date on June 28, 2018.
1
175
II. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background and Discussion
The Zoning Code was last updated in a comprehensive manner in 1993, and the City
Council last considered an interpretation which established policies for measuring the
height of buildings and grade in 1998.
Staff has often received requests throughout the years for assistance in determining where
the "natural grade" existed on sloping lots before it was cleared, cut, filled or developed.
Multiple "grade" terms are currently included in the Code but are often confusing to the
public. Requests for minor exceptions to building height for the purpose of adding
insulation or equipment screening on the roof are very common. Residents and business
owners who seek to improve and expand buildings located on sloping lots also require
exceptions due to the peculiar way building height is measured. The current development
standards do not facilitate new development on sloping lots and penalize the removal of
dirt when lowering the grade, even when that dirt is deposited elsewhere on the site
(balanced cut and fill), which is standard practice in grading.
Building Height is currently defined as:
The vertical distance measured from all points of the highest point of a flat
roof, the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height between the
plate and the ridge of gable, pitched, or hip roofs to grade directly below.
The ridge of a gable,pitched, or hipped roof may extend a maximum of six
feet(6) above the maximum height limit permitted in the zone in which the
building is located.
This definition has several problems. It is unclear what "from all points of the highest
point" is intended to mean. It is interpreted to mean the highest vertical points of the
building measured at all horizontal points of the same building. In other words, every
square inch of the building is subject to the height limit at that point. Although this sounds
reasonable,it is almost impossible to build a significant structure on a sloped lot using this
method.
The problem lies with our desire to live and work on level surfaces.To make a level surface
on a hill requires the floor to be built above the natural slope by means of retaining walls
or pillars,the floor to be cut into the slope, or a combination of the two. Under the current
definition, any portion of dead space below the lowest floor that is built above the ground
is counted toward building height.Also,since"grade"is defined as the lower of the original
ground level or a finished ground surface, any portion of a building that is underground is
also counted toward building height.
The proposed zone text amendment introduces a new method of measuring buildings which
contain sloped roofs. The current regulations measure building height from the Existing
Natural Grade to the midpoint of a sloped roof and allows 6 additional feet to the top peak
of the ridge beam. The proposed provisions introduces Building Height be measured from
a horizontal Grade Plane, representing the average elevation between the highest and
2
176
lowest point of the natural grade, to the highest point of a sloped roof. A much simpler
method in measuring Building Height.The proposed method of measuring Building Height
is in line with what other City's with hillside districts are adopting for their codes.
'ob
x a
a
Gq High Point
------
Grade Differential
►� Grade Plane
Low Point
On a flat lot, the Grade Plane will effectively be the natural ground level. However, the
proposed provisions will allow a Sloped Lot a sensible combination of cut and fill to create
workable floor area, providing more flexibility for developing or adding new buildings
without compromising the established zoning height limits. The provisions will allow
Sloped Lots,a minor increase in height defined as a Grade Differential.The provisions will
allow a maximum Grade Differential of 6 feet in Residential zones and 8 feet in non-
residential zones. This minor increase in height will provide the flexibility needed to
develop Sloping Lots in the City when the slope is greater than 20%.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act(California Public Resources Code §§21000,et seq.,"CEQA")
and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it
involves minor revisions and clarifications to existing zoning regulations related to
building height. The proposed zone text amendment is categorically exempt from further
CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15303 as a Class 3 (new construction or
conversion of small structures), and § 15304 as a Class 4 (minor alteration to land).
Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance does not constitute a "project" that requires
environmental review in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the
proposed zone text amendment establishes new definitions and policies for measuring
building height. The proposed Ordinance constitutes an action that does not have the
potential to cause significant effects on the environment and is therefore exempt from the
provisions of CEQA.
3
177
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2840
recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
4
178
RESOLUTION NO. 2840
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE EL
SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE (ESMC) IN TITLE 15 TO REDEFINE HOW
BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED, AND TO ALLOW THE DIRECTOR
TO APPROVE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE ALLOWABLE BUILDING
HEIGHT.
(Environmental Assessment No. 1210 and
Zone Text Amendment No. 17-08)
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. On October 9, 2017, the City initiated the process to amend various sections
of ESMC Title 15 (Zoning Code) regulating building height;
B. The City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et
seq., CEQA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California
Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., CEQA Guidelines).
C. On June 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed
amendment. However, staff recommended to continue Environmental
Assessment No. EA-1210 and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 17-08 to the
next meeting date on June 28, 2018;
D. On June 28, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed
amendment, including information provided by City staff and public
testimony;
E. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence
presented to the Commission at its June 28, 2018, hearing including the
staff report submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required under Government Code Section 65860,
the ESMC amendments proposed by the Ordinance are consistent with the EI Segundo
General Plan as follows:
A. The proposed zone text amendment is in conformity with the Land Use
Element goals, objectives and policies. Specifically, the zone text
amendment is consistent with Land Use Element Goal LU3 and Objectives
LU3-1 and LU3-2 in that the amendment will facilitate the construction,
remodel, and expansion of residential land uses in the City;
179
A. The proposed amendments are also consistent with Land Use Element
Goal LU4, Objective LU4-1, Policy LU4-1.2, in that they will promote the
maintenance of commercial buildings to meet environmental regulations;
B. The proposed amendments are consistent with Land Use Element Goal
LU4, Objective LU4-2, and Policy LU4-2.1, in that they will help revitalize
and upgrade commercial areas in the City. The proposed amendments will
accomplish this by providing clarify concerning building height regulations;
C. The proposed amendments are consistent with Economic Development
Element Goal ED1, Objective ED1-1, and Policy ED1-1.1, in that it will help
to development and maintain businesses for its residents throughout the
City.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Section 15-26-
4 and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the proposed zone text amendment is
consistent with and necessary to carry out the general purpose of ESMC Title 15 because
it serves the public health, safety, and general welfare and provides the economic and
social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of land resources.
SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. This Ordinance is exempt from further
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA") and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code
of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.), because it involves minor revisions and clarifications
to existing zoning regulations related to building height. The proposed zone text
amendment is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines §
15303 as a Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures), and § 15304 as
a Class 4 (minor alteration to land). Accordingly, the proposed Ordinance does not
constitute a "project" that requires environmental review in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), because the proposed zone text amendment establishes new
definitions and policies for measuring building height. The proposed Ordinance
constitutes an action that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the
environment and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
SECTION 5: Recommendation. The Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the ordinance in a form substantially similar to the draft attached as Exhibit
A, which is incorporated into this resolution by reference.
SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
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 Planning
Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial
evidence in the record as a whole.
2
180
SECTION 7: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in
evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 9: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10: This Resolution may be appealed within 10 calendar days after its
adoption. All appeals must be in writing and filed with the City Clerk within this time
period. Failure to file a timely written appeal will constitute a waiver of any right of appeal.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of June 2018.
Ryan Baldino, Chair
City of EI Segundo Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Sam Lee, Secretary
Baldino -
Newman -
Wingate -
Hoeschler -
Keldorf -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By:
David King, Assistant City Attorney
3
181
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA-1228, Zone
Text Amendment No. ZTA 18-03 to add Chapter 30 to Title 15 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Municipal Code to require a discretionary Site Plan Review Permit for specified types of
development (Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
2. Take testimony and other evidence as presented;
3. Introduce an ordinance approving Environmental Assessment EA-1228 and amend the El
Segundo Municipal Code to relate to discretionary Site Plan Review(ZTA 18-03);
4. Schedule second reading and adoption of the ordinance for September 4, 2018;
5. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance No.
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2844
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN: N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee,Planning & Building Safety Directo
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND
With the exception of a site plan review requirement in the C-4 Zone, the El Segundo Municipal
Code currently does not require a discretionary land use permit for the development of uses
permitted by right in the City's various zoning districts. A discretionary permit requirement
provides a number of advantages for the City including the following:
• It allows the City to ensure that proposed development is consistent with the overall goals,
policies and objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Code;
• It allows the City to ensure that new development is functionally and visually compatible
with neighboring properties and the area in which it is located;
1 4
182
+ It ensures that the subject development is reviewed in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act(unless otherwise exempt by law), thereby providing the City
with a mechanism to require the mitigation of environmental impacts caused by a project;
• It allows the City to place conditions on new development necessary to ensure the
preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare.
It is in the best interest of the City to subject all significant new development to a site plan
review process that will provide the City with a mechanism to ensure that each developer bears
the cost of mitigating impacts directly caused by their proposed development, and allow the City
to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare.
The following criteria will be used to determine the need for a Site Plan Review:
A. Single-family residential development of more than 10 residential units;
B. Multi-family residential development of more than 10 units;
C. New commercial, institutional or industrial development with a combined gross floor
area of more than 50,000 square feet, not including parking structures;
D. Additions to existing structures if the combined total additions exceeds 50,000 square
feet of gross floor area, not including parking structures;
E. For projects with a mix of residential and commercial, institutional or industrial uses, if
any criteria above applies, the entire project is subject to site plan review.
The Planning Commission will be the hearing body for Site Plan Review applications. The
Commission may approve or approve with conditions a project for which the following finding
can be made:
1 The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the
General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the zoning code;
2 The project is functionally compatible with the area in which it is located;
3 The proposed development will not adversely affect the general welfare of the City.
Site Plan Review approvals will be valid for 2 years, with one year extensions possible. Site Plan
Reviews can also be revoked by the Planning Commission in certain circumstances. As with all
Planning Commission decisions, appeals will be before the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment and,
therefore, is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to 14 Cal.
Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance amends the El Segundo Municipal Code to require a
discretionary land use permit for specified types of development which, in some cases, do not
currently require a discretionary land use permit. The addition of the discretionary permit
requirement will trigger the application of CEQA and allow the City to analyze the potential
environmental consequences of a proposed development project before making a decision on the
merits of an application. The Ordinance does not portend any development or changes to the
physical environment. Following an evaluation of possible adverse impacts, it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the
environment. Rather,the primary purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to provide a mechanism
that will allow the City to require a CEQA evaluation of future development proposals meeting
specified thresholds.
2
183
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 18-03
ADDING CHAPTER 30 TO TITLE 15 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A DISCRETIONARY SITE PLAN
REVIEW PERMIT FOR SPECIFIED TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. With the exception of a site plan review requirement in the C-4 Zone and
in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Area, the EI Segundo Municipal Code
currently does not require a discretionary land use permit for the
development of uses permitted by right in the City's various zoning
districts.
B. A discretionary land use permit requirement provides a number of
advantages for the City including, without limitation, the following:
1. It allows the City to ensure that proposed development is consistent
with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and
Zoning Code;
2. It allows the City to ensure that new development is functionally and
visually compatible with neighboring properties and the area in which
it is located;
3. It ensures that the subject development is reviewed in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (unless otherwise
exempt by law), thereby providing the City with a mechanism to
require the mitigation of environmental impacts caused by a project;
4. It allows the City to place conditions on new development necessary
to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
C. It is in the best interest of the City to subject all significant new
development to a site plan review process that will provide the City with a
mechanism to ensure that each developer bears the cost of mitigating
impacts directly caused by his/her/its proposed development, and allow
the City to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
D. On July 26, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed hearing
on the proposed Ordinance, received and considered a staff report and
1
184
oral and written testimony from the public, and adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2844 recommending that the City Council
adopt the proposed Ordinance as set forth herein.
E. On August 21, 2018, the City Council held a duly-noticed hearing where it
received and considered a staff report, the Planning Commission's
recommendation, and oral and written testimony from the public.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required pursuant to Government Code
section 65860, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the EI Segundo
Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan as follows:
A. This ordinance does not make any changes to zoning or development
standards in the city; rather, it adds a discretionary land use permit
requirement that allows the city to ensure development projects are (1)
consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the General
Plan and the Zoning Code, (2) consistent with the development standards
set forth in the Zoning Code, (3) functionally and visually compatible with
neighboring properties and the area in which they are located, and (4)
conditioned, whenever necessary, to guarantee that the public health,
safety and welfare are maintained.
B. Considering all its aspects, the proposed ordinance will further the
objectives and policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct their
attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-
26 (Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, the City
Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out
the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with the purpose of the ESMC, which is to
serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the
economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of
land resources.
B. The ordinance requires a discretionary land use permit for new
development projects that meet specified thresholds. This discretionary
review will trigger application of the California Environmental Quality Act
(unless the proposed project is otherwise exempt by law) and allow the
city to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a project before
reaching a decision on the merits. When necessary and appropriate, this
will allow the City to impose mitigation measures and conditions on
projects to ensure that the developers bear the burden of mitigating
impacts directly caused by their projects.
2
185
C. The discretionary site plan review contemplated by this ordinance will
provide a mechanism for the city to ensure that proposed developments
are compatible with properties in the area in which they are located.
D. The discretionary site plan review contemplated by this ordinance will
allow the City to place conditions on new development to ensure that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained.
SECTION 4: Chapter 30 is added to Title 15 of the ESMC to read as follows:
Chapter 30
SITE PLAN REVIEW
15-30-1: PURPOSE
15-30-2: APPLICABILITY
15-30-3: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
15-30-4: REVIEW PROCESS
15-30-5: EXPIRATION
15-30-6: REVOCATION
15-30-1: PURPOSE:
A site plan review is a discretionary land use permit that is required for any
proposed project that meets the criteria set forth in section 15-29-2. The purpose
of the site plan review process is to:
A. Ensure that the project is functionally compatible with the area in which it
is located;
B. Allow all city departments the opportunity to review development
proposals and place reasonable conditions to ensure that the public
health, safety and welfare are maintained.
15-30-2: APPLICABILITY:
Except in the C-4 Zone, which has its own site plan review requirements, a site
plan review pursuant to this chapter is required for development that meets any
of the following criteria:
A. Single-family residential development of more than 10 residential units;
B. Multi-family residential development of more than 10 units;
C. New commercial, institutional or industrial development that includes
structures which have a combined gross floor area of more than 50,000
square feet (not including parking structures);
3
186
D. Additions to existing structures if the combined total additions exceed
50,000 square feet of gross floor area, but not including parking
structures;
E. For projects with a mix of residential and commercial, institutional or
industrial uses, if any criteria above applies, the entire project is subject to
site plan review.
15-30-3: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
An application for a site plan review must be made on a form supplied by the
Planning and Building Safety Department, and must be accompanied by the
following:
A. A site plan showing the location of all structures, landscape and
hardscape areas, parking areas, walks, internal circulation, access,
adjacent streets, signs, and fence or wall type and placement;
B. Dimensioned and scaled building elevations for each proposed structure.
The building elevations must show all sides of the building and call out
exterior building materials, window and door types, and roof materials;
C. A radius map showing the project site and all lots lying in whole or in part
within a 300-foot radius of the project site, address labels for the owners of
all properties within the 300-foot radius together with any other individuals
that have requested notice (this information is available from the City), and
a Certified Property Owners List Affidavit;
D. Application fees in the amount established by resolution of the City
Council;
E. Any other pertinent information, exhibits or materials deemed necessary
by the Director or designee. With the exception of the application fee, the
Director may waive or modify any of the application requirements deemed
unnecessary for a particular application.
15-30-4: REVIEW PROCESS:
A. The Director or designee will determine whether the application is
complete. An application is complete when it complies with the
requirements of section 15-30-3. If an application is found to be
incomplete, the applicant will be notified by mail as to why the application
is incomplete and how the application can be made complete.
B. After an application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and an
appropriate determination will be made. While the CEQA process is
underway, the application will be distributed to the appropriate city
4
187
departments, and to professional consultants if necessary, for review,
comment and recommendations regarding appropriate conditions. The
applicant is responsible for the actual and reasonable costs incurred in
preparing the appropriate CEQA document and all associated studies and
reports. The city may require the applicant to deposit funds in a
designated project-related account which the city can draw upon as costs
are incurred.
C. Following the environmental determination, the application will be
scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The
Director or designee will give public notice of the hearing as provided in
Chapter 27 of this Title and consistent with applicable law.
D. The Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a site
plan review if it makes the following findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the zoning
code;
2. The project is functionally compatible with the area in which it is located;
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the general welfare of
the City.
E. If the Planning Commission approves or conditionally approves a site plan
review, the approval will become effective upon expiration of the appeal
period in section 15-25-3. If an appeal is perfected with the prescribed
time period, the Planning Commission's decision shall be stayed pending
final action of the City Council.
F. Appeals. An aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 25 of this
Title.
G. Scope of Hearing on Appeal. Appeals shall be reviewed de novo. The
City Council is not bound by the decision that has been appealed or
limited to the issues raised on appeal.
15-30-5: EXPIRATION AND EXTENSIONS:
A site plan review will lapse and become null and void 2 years following the
effective date of the site plan review approval unless, prior to the expiration date
(a) a building permit is issued and construction is being diligently pursued toward
completion, or (b) a certificate of occupancy is issued for the construction that
was the subject of the application. One-year extensions may be granted by the
Director for good cause upon written request of the applicant received prior to
expiration of the site plan review approval, provided there are no changes
5
188
proposed to the previously-approved project. An application for extension
involving any significant change from the original plan or the conditions of
approval, as determined by the Director, shall be subject to all of the provisions
of this Title and shall require a new application. Additional conditions may be
imposed as deemed necessary to ensure that the development plan will be in
compliance with city standards in effect at the time the extension is granted.
15-30-6: REVOCATION:
A. Grounds for revocation. A site plan review may be revoked for any of the
following reasons:
1. The approval was obtained by fraud;
2. The application included inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete information
and the City finds that accurate and complete information would have
caused additional or different conditions on the site plan review or denial
of the application;
3. The project is being constructed contrary to the approved plans,
conditions of approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or
regulation.
B. If the Director finds that grounds for revocation exist, he or she may
suspend a site plan review pending a hearing before the Planning
Commission, which must be held within 30 days of the suspension. The
hearing before the Planning Commission must be noticed in the manner
required by Chapter 27 of this Title and consistent with applicable law. The
decision of the Planning Commission is subject to appeal to the City
Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 25 of this Title.
SECTION 5. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this
Ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment
and, therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance amends the EI
Segundo Municipal Code to require a discretionary land use permit for specified types
of development which, in some cases, do not currently require a discretionary land use
permit. The addition of the discretionary permit requirement will trigger the application
of CEQA and allow the City to analyze the potential environmental consequences of a
proposed development project before making a decision on the merits of an application.
The Ordinance does not portend any development or changes to the physical
environment. Following an evaluation of possible adverse impacts, it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on
the environment. Rather, the primary purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to provide
a mechanism that will allow the City to require a CEQA evaluation of future
development proposals meeting specified thresholds.
6
189
SECTION G. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated herein. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of
this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that
facilitates the purposes set forth herein.
SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intended that such invalidity
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance, cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original
ordinances, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting,
and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause a summary
thereof to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
7
190
SECTION 9. This Ordinance will go into effect thirty days after its passage and
adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting
held on the day of 2018, and 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 day of 2018, and the
same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
8
191
RESOLUTION NO. 2844
A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-1228 AND ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING
CHAPTER 29 TO TITLE 15 (ZONING REGULATIONS) TO REQUIRE A
DISCRETIONARY SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT FOR SPECIFIED
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT
(Environmental Assessment 1228 and Zone Text Amendment 18-03)
The Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The Planning Commission finds and declares that:
A. With the exception of a site plan review requirement in the C-4 Zone and
in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Area, the EI Segundo Municipal Code
currently does not require a discretionary land use permit for the
development of uses permitted by right in the City's various zoning
districts,
B. A discretionary land use permit requirement provides a number of
advantages for the City including, without limitation, the following:
1. It allows the City to ensure that proposed development is consistent
with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan
and Zoning Code;
2. It allows the City to ensure that new development is functionally
and visually compatible with neighboring properties and the area in
which it is located;
3. It ensures that the subject development is reviewed in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (unless otherwise
exempt by law), thereby providing the City with a mechanism to
require the mitigation of environmental impacts caused by a project;
4. It allows the City to place conditions on new development
necessary to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety
and general welfare.
C. It is in the best interest of the City to subject all significant new
development to a site plan review process that will provide the City with a
mechanism to ensure that each developer bears the cost of mitigating
impacts directly caused by his/her/its proposed development, and allow
the City to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
Page 1
192
D. On July 26, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed hearing
on the proposed Ordinance, received and considered a staff report and
oral and written testimony from the public, and adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2844 recommending that the City Council
adopt the proposed Ordinance as set forth herein.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required pursuant to Government Code
section 65860, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the EI Segundo
Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan as follows:
A. The proposed ordinance does not make any changes to zoning or
development standards in the city; rather, it adds a discretionary land use
permit requirement that will allow the city to ensure development projects
are (1) consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the
General Plan and the Zoning Code, (2) consistent with the development
standards set forth in the Zoning Code, (3) functionally and visually
compatible with neighboring properties and the area in which they are
located, and (4) conditioned, whenever necessary, to guarantee that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained.
B. Considering all its aspects, the proposed ordinance will further the
objectives and policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct their
attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-
26 (Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, the City
Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out
the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with the purpose of the ESMC, which is to
serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the
economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of
land resources.
B. The ordinance would require a discretionary land use permit for
development projects that meet specified thresholds. This discretionary
review will trigger application of the California Environmental Quality Act
(unless the proposed project is otherwise exempt by law) and allow the
city to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a project before
reaching a decision on the merits. When necessary and appropriate, this
will allow the City to impose mitigation measures and conditions on
projects to ensure that the developers bear the burden of mitigating
impacts directly caused by their projects.
C. The discretionary site plan review contemplated by this ordinance will
provide a mechanism for the city to ensure that proposed developments
are compatible with properties in the area in which they are located.
Page 2
193
D. The discretionary site plan review contemplated by this ordinance will
allow the City to place conditions on new development to ensure that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained.
SECTION 4. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this
Ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment
and, therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance amends the EI
Segundo Municipal Code to require a discretionary land use permit for specified types
of development which, in some cases, do not currently require a discretionary land use
permit. The addition of the discretionary permit requirement will trigger the application
of CEQA and allow the City to analyze the potential environmental consequences of a
proposed development project before making a decision on the merits of an application.
The Ordinance does not portend any development or changes to the physical
environment. Following an evaluation of possible adverse impacts, it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on
the environment. Rather, the primary purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to provide
a mechanism that will allow the City to require a CEQA evaluation of future
development proposals meeting specified thresholds.
SECTION 5: Recommendation. For the foregoing reasons and based on the
information and findings included in the Staff Report, Resolutions, Minutes and the
whole of the administrative record, the Planning Commission of the City of EI Segundo
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance set forth in the attached
Exhibit A (Draft Ordinance) of this Resolution, and incorporated into this resolution by
reference.
SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and
determination 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
Planning Commission in all respects; and
SECTION 7: Limitations. The Planning Commission's analysis and evaluation of the
project is based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that
in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the
project will not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate
assumptions.
SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 9: The Commission secretary is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to
any person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10: This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Page 3
194
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2018.
t
Ryan Baldino, Chairperson
City of EI Segundo Planning Commission
A;)cretary
5
Baldino - Absent
Newman - Aye
Wingate - Aye
Hoeschler - Aye
Keldorf - Aye
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
By: 1)1 P
David King, As ist nt City Attorney
Page 4
195
P.C. Resolution No. 2844
Exhibit A
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO APPROVING ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. ZTA 18-03
ADDING CHAPTER 29 TO TITLE 15 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE A DISCRETIONARY SITE PLAN
REVIEW PERMIT FOR SPECIFIED TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. With the exception of a site plan review requirement in the C-4 Zone and
in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Area, the EI Segundo Municipal Code
currently does not require a discretionary land use permit for the
development of uses permitted by right in the City's various zoning
districts.
B. A discretionary land use permit requirement provides a number of
advantages for the City including, without limitation, the following:
1. It allows the City to ensure that proposed development is consistent
with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and
Zoning Code;
2. It allows the City to ensure that new development is functionally and
visually compatible with neighboring properties and the area in which
it is located;
3. It ensures that the subject development is reviewed in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (unless otherwise
exempt by law), thereby providing the City with a mechanism to
require the mitigation of environmental impacts caused by a project;
4. It allows the City to place conditions on new development necessary
to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
C. It is in the best interest of the City to subject all significant new
development to a site plan review process that will provide the City with a
mechanism to ensure that each developer bears the cost of mitigating
impacts directly caused by his/her/its proposed development, and allow
the City to ensure the preservation of the public health, safety and general
welfare.
Page 5
196
D. On July 26, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed hearing
on the proposed Ordinance, received and considered a staff report and
oral and written testimony from the public, and adopted Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2844 recommending that the City Council
adopt the proposed Ordinance as set forth herein.
E. On August 21, 2018, the City Council held a duly-noticed hearing where it
received and considered a staff report, the Planning Commission's
recommendation, and oral and written testimony from the public.
SECTION 2: General Plan Findings. As required pursuant to Government Code
section 65860, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments to the EI Segundo
Municipal Code are consistent with the General Plan as follows:
A. The proposed ordinance does not make any changes to zoning or
development standards in the city; rather, it adds a discretionary land use
permit requirement that will allow the city to ensure development projects
are (1) consistent with the overall goals, policies and objectives of the
General Plan and the Zoning Code, (2) consistent with the development
standards set forth in the Zoning Code, (3) functionally and visually
compatible with neighboring properties and the area in which they are
located, and (4) conditioned, whenever necessary, to guarantee that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained.
B. Considering all its aspects, the proposed ordinance will further the
objectives and policies of the General Plan and will not obstruct their
attainment.
SECTION 3: Zone Text Amendment Findings. In accordance with ESMC Chapter 15-
26 (Amendments), and based on the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2, the City
Council finds that the proposed ordinance is consistent with and necessary to carry out
the purpose of the ESMC as follows:
A. The ordinance is consistent with the purpose of the ESMC, which is to
serve the public health, safety, and general welfare and to provide the
economic and social advantages resulting from an orderly planned use of
land resources.
B. The ordinance would require a discretionary land use permit for
development projects that meet specified thresholds. This discretionary
review will trigger application of the California Environmental Quality Act
(unless the proposed project is otherwise exempt by law) and allow the
city to analyze the potential environmental impacts of a project before
reaching a decision on the merits. When necessary and appropriate, this
will allow the City to impose mitigation measures and conditions on
projects to ensure that the developers bear the burden of mitigating
impacts directly caused by their projects.
Page 6
197
C. The discretionary site plan review contemplated by this ordinance will
provide a mechanism for the city to ensure that proposed developments
are compatible with properties in the area in which they are located.
D. The discretionary site plan review contemplated by this ordinance will
allow the City to place conditions on new development to ensure that the
public health, safety and welfare are maintained.
SECTION 4: Chapter 29 is added to Title 15 of the ESMC to read as follows:
Chapter 29
SITE PLAN REVIEW
15-29-1: PURPOSE
15-29-2: APPLICABILITY
15-29-3: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
15-29-4: REVIEW PROCESS
15-29-5: EXPIRATION
15-29-6: REVOCATION
15-29-1: PURPOSE:
A site plan review is a discretionary land use permit that is required for any
proposed project that meets the criteria set forth in section 15-29-2. The purpose
of the site plan review process is to:
A. Ensure that the project is functionally compatible with the area in which it
is located;
B. Allow all city departments the opportunity to review development
proposals and place reasonable conditions to ensure that the public
health, safety and welfare are maintained.
15-29-2: APPLICABILITY:
Except in the C-4 Zone, which has its own site plan review requirements, a site
plan review pursuant to this chapter is required for development that meets any
of the following criteria:
A. Single-family residential development of more than 10 residential units;
B. Multi-family residential development of more than 10 units;
C. New commercial, institutional or industrial development that includes
structures which have a combined gross floor area of more than 50,000
square feet. but not including varkina structures;
Page 7
198
D. Additions to existing structures if the combined total additions exceeds
50,000 square feet of gross floor area;
R. "sr s`r&,aturoa with 225C yr mero pa*Rg opuvca;
E. For projects with a mix of residential and commercial, institutional or
industrial uses, if any criteria above applies, the entire project is subject to
site plan review.
15-29-3: APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:
An application for a site plan review must be made on a form supplied by the
Planning and Building Safety Department, and must be accompanied by the
following:
A. A site plan showing the location of all structures, landscape and
hardscape areas, parking areas, walks, internal circulation, access,
adjacent streets, signs, and fence or wall type and placement;
B. Dimensioned and scaled building elevations for each proposed structure.
The building elevations must show all sides of the building and call out
exterior building materials, window and door types, and roof materials;
C. A radius map showing the project site and all lots lying in whole or in part
within a 300-foot radius of the project site, address labels for the owners of
all properties within the 300-foot radius together with any other individuals
that have requested notice (this information is available from the City), and
a Certified Property Owners List Affidavit;
D. Application fees in the amount established by resolution of the City
Council;
E. Any other pertinent information, exhibits or materials deemed necessary
by the Director or designee. With the exception of the application fee, the
Director may waive or modify any of the application requirements deemed
unnecessary for a particular application.
15-29-4: REVIEW PROCESS:
A. The Director or designee will determine whether the application is
complete. An application is complete when it complies with the
requirements of section 15-29-3. If an application is found to be
incomplete, the applicant will be notified by mail as to why the application
is incomplete and how the application can be made complete.
B. After an application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and an
appropriate determination will be made. While the CEQA process is
Page 8
199
underway, the application will be distributed to the appropriate city
departments, and to professional consultants if necessary, for review,
comment and recommendations regarding appropriate conditions. The
applicant is responsible for the actual and reasonable costs incurred in
preparing the appropriate CEQA document and all associated studies and
reports. The city may require the applicant to deposit funds in a
designated project-related account which the city can draw upon as costs
are incurred.
C. Following the environmental determination, the application will be
scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The
Director or designee will give public notice of the hearing as provided in
Chapter 27 of this Title and consistent with applicable law.
D. The Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a site
plan review if it makes the following findings:
1. The proposed development is consistent with the goals, policies and
objectives of the general plan, any applicable specific plan, and the zoning
code;
2. The project is functionally compatible with the area in which it is located;
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the general welfare of
the City.
E. If the Planning Commission approves or conditionally approves a site plan
review, the approval will become effective upon expiration of the appeal
period in section 15-25-3. If an appeal is perfected with the prescribed
time period, the Planning Commission's decision shall be stayed pending
final action of the City Council.
F. Appeals. An aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 25 of this
Title.
15-29-5: EXPIRATION AND EXTENSIONS:
A site plan review will lapse and become null and void 2 years following the
effective date of the site plan review approval unless, prior to the expiration date
(a) a building permit is issued and construction is being diligently pursued toward
completion, or(b) a certificate of occupancy is issued for the construction that
was the subject of the application. One-year extensions may be granted by the
Director for good cause upon written request of the applicant received prior to
expiration of the site plan review approval, provided there are no changes
proposed to the previously-approved project. An application for extension
involving any significant change from the original plan or the conditions of
approval, as determined by the Director, shall be subject to all of the provisions
Page 9
200
of this Title and shall require a new application. Additional conditions may be
imposed as deemed necessary to ensure that the development plan will be in
compliance with city standards in effect at the time the extension is granted.
15-29-6: REVOCATION:
A. Grounds for revocation. A site plan review may be revoked for any of the
following reasons:
1. The approval was obtained by fraud;
2. The application included inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete information
and the City finds that accurate and complete information would have
caused additional or different conditions on the site plan review or denial
of the application;
3. The project is being constructed contrary to the approved plans,
conditions of approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or
regulation.
B. If the Director finds that grounds for revocation exist, he or she may
suspend a site plan review pending a hearing before the Planning
Commission, which must be held within 30 days of the suspension. The
hearing before the Planning Commission must be noticed in the manner
required by Chapter 27 of this Title and consistent with applicable law. The
decision of the Planning Commission is subject to appeal to the City
Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 25 of this Title.
SECTION 5. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds that this
Ordinance does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment
and, therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3). The Ordinance amends the EI
Segundo Municipal Code to require a discretionary land use permit for specified types
of development which, in some cases, do not currently require a discretionary land use
permit. The addition of the discretionary permit requirement will trigger the application
of CEQA and allow the City to analyze the potential environmental consequences of a
proposed development project before making a decision on the merits of an application.
The Ordinance does not portend any development or changes to the physical
environment. Following an evaluation of possible adverse impacts, it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance will have a significant effect on
the environment. Rather, the primary purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to provide
a mechanism that will allow the City to require a CEQA evaluation of future
development proposals meeting specified thresholds.
SECTION 6. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated herein. It is the City Council's intent that the provisions of
this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that
facilitates the purposes set forth herein.
Page 10
201
SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intended that such invalidity
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION 8. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
Ordinance, cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original
ordinances, make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting,
and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause a summary
thereof to be published or posted in accordance with California law.
Page 11
202
SECTION 9. This Ordinance will go into effect thirty days after its passage and
adoption.
2018. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
Drew Boyles, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting
held on the day of 2018, and 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 day of 2018, and the
same was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
Page 12
203
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to introduce Ordinance No. 1567 to prohibit gatherings where
underage drinking or illegal drug use occurs. Fiscal impact: None
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1567;
2. Schedule second reading of Ordinance No. 1567, for September 4, 2018;
3. Approve Resolution No. , or provide direction;
4. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Ordinance No. 1567; and
2. Resolution No.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: El Segundo is a safe and prepared city.
Objective: The City has a proactive approach to risk and crime.
PREPARED BY: Bill Whalen, Chief of Police6V---%
Natalie C. Karpeles,Deputy Ci Attorney
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter,City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On June 5, 2018, the City Council introduced the first reading of Ordinance No. 1567 to prohibit
gatherings where underage drinking or illegal drug use occurs. At a special meeting held on June
13, 2018, the City Council considered Ordinance No. 1567 on second reading. Following due
consideration of the Ordinance,the City Council directed staff to engage the community regarding
the specifics of the Social Host Ordinance (SHO).
Pursuant to Council's direction, City staff met with members of the community on June 29, 2018
and July 31, 2018, to review the language of the originally proposed Social Host Ordinance and
discuss any related questions, comments and concerns. The draft Ordinance attached to this staff
report reflects the changes proposed as a result of these community meetings; these changes are
discussed in further detail in Section I, below. Due to these substantive amendments, staff
recommends the City Council introduce the Ordinance for first reading.
5
204
Lastly, violations of the Social Host Ordinance will be subject to administrative fines. At its
meeting on June 5, 2018, the City Council provided staff with direction regarding the appropriate
administrative citations for a violation of the Ordinance. However, the Ordinance has been
modified to include a community service component. Both the fine amounts and any community-
service-equivalent hours must be established by Resolution— a draft of which is presented to the
City Council for adoption or direction.
I. Social Host Liability Ordinance ("Chapter 7-13").
The prohibitions proposed by Chapter 7-13 are expected to deter consumption of alcoholic
beverages and marijuana use by minors by holding persons responsible who encourage, are aware
of or should be aware of this illegal conduct by minors but fail to take reasonable steps to prevent
it. Penalties for a violation of Chapter 7-13 would subject the violator to an administrative citation,
which would obligate the citee to pay civil penalties or complete community service hours
established by City Council resolution.
The concerns raised during the community outreach meetings regarding the Ordinance generally
relate to (1) the ability of the Ordinance to attach culpability to parents/property owners who are
not present at the premises when minors obtain/consume alcohol; and (2) the amount of the fines
imposed.
A. Summary of Changes related to Culpability.
The language of the prior Ordinance created the ability to hold both the property owner (e.g.,
parent)and the minor responsible for a violation of the Social Host Ordinance if the property owner
and minor either: (1) intentionally provided alcohol or marijuana to a minor; (2) knew or
reasonably should have known that minors would be using alcohol/marijuana at the premises; or
(3) were present at the premises during the gathering. Pursuant to the comments and concerns
raised at the community outreach meetings,the new draft ordinance has been amended as follows:
• Explain the only a Responsible Person or Responsible Adult may be held accountable for
a violation of the ordinance, but not both.
o A "Responsible Adult" means a person who is 21 years of age or older who owns,
rents, leases or otherwise has control over the premises where the gathering occurs.
o A"Responsible Person"means either(1)the person in charge of the premises when
the gathering occurs, or (2) the person who organized the gathering.
• A"Responsible Person"will be culpable when:
o Minors are consuming alcoholic beverages or using marijuana and there is a minor
present on the premises who is obviously under the influence of alcohol and/or
marijuana; and/or
o A warning has been issued to the location within the last 12 months regarding
alcohol/marijuana use by minors at the premises.
• A"Responsible Adult" will be culpable when:
o A responsible adult is present at the premises during a gathering where minors are
consuming alcoholic beverages or using marijuana;
o Minors are consuming alcoholic beverages or using marijuana and there is a minor
present on the premises who is obviously under the influence of alcohol and/or
marijuana; and/or
o A warning has been issued to the location within the last 12 months regarding
alcohol/marijuana use by minors at the premises.
205
B. Summary of Changes related to Fines.
The new draft ordinance would:
• Provide that a warning may be issued to a "Responsible Adult" only when, (1) the adult
was not present at the premises during the gathering; and (2) there is no evidence that a
minor is present on the premises who is under the influence of either alcohol or marijuana;
• Explain that violations of Chapter 7-13 will not be subject to the response costs
reimbursement provisions outlined in Sections 1-2A-28, et seq. by deleting former section
7-13-6 ("Response Cost Reimbursement") from the proposed Ordinance; and
• Create a community service component to the Ordinance which would allow responsible
persons and responsible adults to perform community service for the first citation issued
within a one-year period. In order to account for the staff time involved in implementing
community service(i.e., determining program compliance;tracking hours completed;etc.),
the Ordinance provides for the inclusion of administrative costs.) Lastly,the proposed fine
for first-time violation of Chapter 7-13 is $1,000 — in order to account for a community
service program, staff seeks direction from Council regarding the number of hours
equivalent to satisfaction of the monetary fine.
II. Proposed Resolution Regarding Fine Amounts.
With regard to the Ordinance, the attached proposed Resolution No. _ establishes the schedule
of fines for administrative citations when there are violations of Chapter 7-13. The proposed fines
for a violation of Chapter 7-13 are $1,000 for a first offense, $2,000 for a second offense, and
$5,000 for each additional offense within a 12-month period. The schedule represents the City
Council's direction at its June 5, 2018 meeting. Pursuant to the fines allotted, staff recommends
that the community-service equivalent for a $1,000 fine be 75 hours (or 9 eight-hour days);
however, staff requests the Council's direction as to the appropriate community-service equivalent
for the proposed fine. A draft of the Resolution is attached for adoption or direction and is meant
to correspond with the date the Ordinance would go into effect, if enacted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Introduce Ordinance No. 1567;
2. Schedule second reading of Ordinance No. 1567, for September 4, 2018;
3. Approve Resolution No. , or provide direction;
4. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
206
ORDINANCE NO. 1576
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 13 TO TITLE 7 OF
THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE
HOSTING, PERMITTING OR ALLOWING OF
GATHERINGS AT WHICH PERSONS UNDER 21 YEARS
OF AGE ARE CONSUMING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OR
USING MARIJUANA ILLEGALLY
The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings.
A. Minors often obtain or possess marijuana or consume alcoholic beverages
at parties held on private property and under the control of a person who
knows or should know of this conduct but fails to prevent it.
B. Underage use of marijuana or consumption of alcoholic beverages poses
an immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that it
increases alcohol abuse by minors, physical altercations, violent crimes
(including rape and other sexual offenses), accidental injury, neighborhood
vandalism and excessive noise disturbance, all of which may require
intervention by the Police or Fire Departments.
C. The City's municipal code prohibits the consumption or possession of
alcohol in certain public places, including public streets, parking lots, City
parks and the beach, but does not have any rules to address underage
drinking on private property (ESMC §§ 7-6-8, 10-1-4, 10-3-11).
D. State law prohibits the possession of marijuana by a minor under certain
circumstances. (Health & Safety Code §§ 11357, et seq.) State law also
prohibits persons 21 years or older from possessing, processing,
transporting, purchasing, obtaining, or giving away recreational marijuana
to persons 21 years or older under certain circumstances. (Health & Safety
Code §§ 11357, et seq.) There are no rules in state law or the ESMC which
address underage marijuana use on private property (ESMC Chapters 13B
and 4-14).
E. The prohibitions proposed by this ordinance are reasonable and intended
to deter use of marijuana or consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors
by holding responsible those persons who encourage, are aware of or
should be aware of this illegal conduct by minors but fail to take reasonable
steps to prevent it.
SECTION 2: Chapter 13 (Social Host Regulations) is added to Title 7 (Nuisances and
Offenses) of the EI Segundo Municipal Code to read, in its entirety, as follows:
"CHAPTER 13
SOCIAL HOST REGULATIONS
207
7-13-1: PURPOSE:
7-13-2: DEFINITIONS:
7-13-3: GATHERING AT WHICH MINORS USE MARIJUANA OR CONSUME
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROHIBITED:
7-13-4: EXEMPTIONS:
7-13-5: VIOLATION; PENALTY:
7-13-1: PURPOSE:
A. The purpose and intent of this chapter is:
1. To facilitate the enforcement of laws prohibiting the use of marijuana
by minors and the service and consumption of alcoholic beverages
by minors, in an effort to deter, and to promote the reduction of,
underage drinking and drug use;
2. To protect public health, safety and welfare and quiet enjoyment of
property and properties neighboring the location of gatherings at
which minors use marijuana or are served and consume alcoholic
beverages; and
3. To establish a duty of persons 21 years of age or older having control
over any premises, who knowingly host, permit or allow a gathering
at the premises to take reasonable steps to prevent the service and
consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of marijuana by minors.
Reasonable steps include, but are not limited to, controlling the
access to and provision of marijuana and alcoholic beverages to
minors, and monitoring the responsible, safe and lawful conduct of
minors on the premises.
B. This chapter should not be construed as adding any additional authority for
any law enforcement officer or government official to either enter private
property or subject any property or person to search or seizure that does
not otherwise exist independent of the provisions of this chapter.
C. It is not the intent of this chapter to impose strict liability against a parent or
legal guardian whose best intentions and reasonable efforts to prevent the
service and consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of marijuana by
minors at a gathering are circumvented by the actions of any person to
obtain alcoholic beverages or marijuana at the premises or to bring
concealed alcoholic beverages or marijuana to the premises.
7-13-2: DEFINITIONS:
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions
will govern the construction of words and phrases used in this chapter:
208
ALCOHOL: Means ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or spirits of wine, from whatever
source or by whatever process produced.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE: Includes alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer, and every other
liquid or solid containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer, and which contains one-half of one
percent or more of alcohol by volume and which is fit or beverage purposes either alone
or when diluted, mixed, or combined with other substances.
GATHERING: Means a party, gathering, or event where three or more persons have
assembled or are assembling for a social occasion or social activity.
MARIJUANA: Means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not;
the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound,
manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.
MINOR: Means any person under 21 years of age.
PREMISES: Means a home, yard, apartment, condominium, hotel or motel room, or other
dwelling unit, or any commercial, business or industrial site, hall or meeting room, whether
occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, and whether owned, leased, rented or used
with or without compensation.
RESPONSIBLE ADULT: Means a person 21 years of age or older who owns, rents,
leases or otherwise has control of the premises where the gathering occurs.
RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Means:
A. The person in charge of the premises when the gathering occurs; or
B. The person who organized the gathering.
7-13-3: GATHERING AT WHICH MINORS USE MARIJUANA OR CONSUME
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PROHIBITED:
It is unlawful and a public nuisance for either a responsible person or responsible adult to
cause or allow a gathering to take place at the premises whenever the responsible person
or responsible adult knows or reasonably should have known alcoholic, beverages or
marijuana are being unlawfully consumed or used by minors. Liability for a violation of
this section will be imputed to either a responsible person or responsible adult, but not
both.
A. Prima facie evidence that a responsible person had the knowledge, or
should have had the knowledge, necessary to establish a violation of this
chapter include those situations where:
1. Minors are consuming alcoholic beverages or using; marijuana and
there is a minor present on the premises who is obviously under the
influence of alcohol or marijuana; or
2. A warning has been issued to the location within the last 12 months
regarding alcohol or marijuana use by minors at the premises.
209
B. Prima facie evidence that a responsible adult had the knowledge, or should
have had the knowledge, necessary to establish a violation of this chapter
include those situations where:
1. A responsible adult is present at the premises during a gathering
where minors are consuming alcoholic beverages or using
marijuana; or
2. A warning has been issued to the location within the last 12 months
regarding alcohol or marijuana use by minors at the premises.
C. A warning for a violation of this section will only be issued where the
responsible adult was not present at the premises during a gathering where
minors are consuming alcohol or using marijuana and there is no evidence
that a minor is present on the premises who is obviously under the influence
of alcohol or marijuana.
7-13-4: EXEMPTIONS:
This chapter does not apply to:
A. Any California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensee at any
premises licensed and regulated by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control.
B. Conduct involving the use of alcoholic beverages which occurs exclusively
between a minor child and his or her parent or legal guardian, including the
possession or consumption of an alcoholic beverage in connection with a
cultural or religious activity. This exemption does not include any conduct
that would contribute to the delinquency of a minor (a violation of Penal
Code section 272).
C. Conduct which the city is expressly preempted from prohibiting under state
law, specifically, the Medicinal and Adult use Cannabis Regulation and
Safety Act.
D. A responsible person or responsible adult who called 911 and reported that
a minor was in need of medical attention due to alcohol consumption or
marijuana use, was the first person to make the 911 call, and when reporting
that a minor was in need of medical assistance, remained on the scene with
the minor until that medical assistance arrived and cooperated with medical
assistance and law enforcement personnel on the scene.
E. A responsible person or responsible adult who requests immediate
assistance from the police department to remove any person who refuses
to abide by the requesting person's performance of duties imposed by this
chapter, or to terminate the gathering because of the requesting person's
ability to prevent minors from consuming alcoholic beverages or using
marijuana despite having taken reasonable steps to do so, as long as such
request is made before any other person makes a complaint about the
gathering.
210
7-13-5: VIOLATION; PENALTY:
A. The City Council may adopt a resolution establishing a schedule of
administrative fines and community service hours for a violation of this
chapter.
B. In addition to the administrative fines described in this chapter, the
responding law enforcement officer may issue an order requiring the
gathering to be disbanded and may cite and arrest any violators under any
other applicable ordinances and statutes.
C. For any responsible person who is a juvenile, each parent or legal guardian
of the juvenile will be considered a responsible person liable for any fines,
penalties and fees imposed pursuant to this chapter. The parents or
guardians of a juvenile found to have violated this chapter may request to
have that juvenile serve community service as described in subsection (E),
below, and pay City administrative fees, if any, as an alternative penalty to
paying the applicable civil penalty.
D. Nothing in this chapter is deemed to prevent the city from commencing a
civil or criminal proceeding to abate a public nuisance or from pursuing any
other means available under any other statute, ordinance or law (civil or
criminal), to correct conduct regulated by this chapter in addition to or as
alternatives to the procedures set forth herein. This chapter in no way limits
the authority of the police department to make arrests for any criminal
offense arising out of conduct regulated by this chapter.
E. The responsible person or responsible adult may perform community
service and pay City administrative fees, if any, as an alternative to paying
the civil penalty with the prior written consent and approval of the Police
Chief or designee. The Police Chief or designee retains the discretion to
approve the community service requested by the responsible person/adult.
Upon approval of the Police Chief or designee to perform community
service, the responsible person/adult must complete the required hours
within one year of approval and must submit proof of completion to the
Police Chief or designee. Failure to receive approval to perform community
service or failure to complete the required hours of service will result in the
imposition of the applicable civil penalty, which is immediately payable. No
reduction in the penalty is authorized for completion of less than the
required hours of community service unless approved by the City Manager
or designee. Community service will only be approved for the first citation
issued within a one-year period.
F. Violations of this chapter are not subject to the response cost
reimbursement provisions outlined in Sections 1-2A-28, et seq. of this
Code."
211
SECTION 3: Environmental Analysis. Because of the facts set forth in Section 1 , this
Ordinance is categorically exempt from further environmental review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§21000, et seq., "CEQA")
and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq.), because it
consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to existing regulations and procedures.
It does not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards
or findings required thereof. The Ordinance is an action that does not have the potential
to cause significant effects on the environment. Accordingly, this ordinance is exempt
from further environmental review pursuant to 14 Cal. Code Regs. §15168(c)(2).
SECTION 4: CONSTRUCTION. This ordinance must be broadly construed in order to
achieve the purposes stated in this ordinance. It is the City Council's intent that the
provisions of this ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a
manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this ordinance.
SECTION 5: ENFORCEABILITY. Repeal of any provision of the EI Segundo Municipal
Code does not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude
prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this ordinance's
effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining
action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 6: VALIDITY OF PREVIOUS CODE SECTIONS. If this entire ordinance or its
application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal or
amendment of the ESMC or other city ordinance by this ordinance will be rendered void
and cause such previous ESMC provision or other ordinance to remain in full force and
effect for all purposes.
SECTION 7: SEVERABILITY. If any part of this ordinance or its application is deemed
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity
will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this
end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable.
SECTION 8: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this
ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of EI Segundo's book of original ordinances;
make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15
days after the passage and adoption of this ordinance, cause it to be published or posted
in accordance with California law.
SECTION 9: This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty-first day following its
passage and adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2018.
Drew Boyles, Mayor
212
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held
on the day of , 2018, and 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 day of 2018, and the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney
213
RESOLUTION NO. -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ESTABLISHING
THE ADMINSTRATIVE FINES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER
7-13 OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE.
The City Council of the city of EI Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. On July 1, 2003, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1364
("Citation Ordinance") which adds Chapter 2A, entitled
"Administrative Citations" (consisting of §§ 1-2A-10 to 1-2A-270), to
Title 1 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC") and allows the
City enforcement officers to issue administrative citations for ESMC
violations. The Administrative Citation Ordinance allows fine
amounts to be adopted by City Council resolution, pursuant to
Government Code § 53069.4(a)(1).
B. On July 1, 2003, the City Council adopted the fine amounts attached
as Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 4313 as the City's fine schedule for
purposes of imposing fines pursuant to Chapter 2A of Tile 1 of the
ESMC.
C. On August 21, 2018, the City Council introduced Ordinance No.
1567, which adds Chapter 7-13, entitled "Social Host Regulations" to
Title 7 of the ESMC and allows City enforcement officers to issue
administrative citations for a violation of Chapter 7-13.
D_ The City Council finds that such fines are necessary to preserve the
health, safety and welfare of the City by deterring the conduct
proscribed in Chapter 7-13.
SECTION 2: The fine amounts attached as Exhibit A for a violation of Chapter 7-
13 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code are hereby adopted and will take effect on
the effective date of Ordinance No. 1567.
SECTION 3: This Resolution is effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this
Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2018.
- 1 -
214
Drew Boyles,
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of EI Segundo, California, hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the
foregoing Resolution No, was duly passed and adopted by said City
Council, approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City
Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day
of 2018, and the same was so passed and adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Tracy Weaver,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mark D. Hensley,
City Attorney
- 2 -
215
EXHIBIT A
FINE SCHEDULE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS
A. Except as otherwise provided, violations of the ESMC for which
administrative citations are issued will have fines imposed as follows:
1. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first
violation;
2. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second
violation of the same provision within one year;
3. A fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) for each additional
violation of the same provision within one year of the first
violation.
B. Notwithstanding Section A, violations of Chapter 7-12 of the EI
Segundo Municipal Code are subject to an administrative fine in the
following amounts:
1. A fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred ($2,500) for the
first violation;
2. A fine not exceeding five thousand ($5,000) for a second
violation of the same provision within 12 months;
3. A fine not exceeding seven thousand five hundred ($7,500) for
each additional violation of the same provision within 12 months
of the first violation.
C. Notwithstanding Section A, violations of Chapter 7-13 of the EI
Segundo Municipal Code are subject to an administrative fine in the
following amounts:
1. A fine not exceeding one thousand ($1,000) for the first violation
or a total of 75 hours of community service (pursuant to Section
7-13-5 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code);
2. A fine not exceeding two thousand ($2,000) for a second
violation of the same provision within one year;
3. A fine not exceeding five thousand ($5,000) for each additional
violation of the same provision within one year of the first
violation.
- 3 -
216
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21,2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Committee, Commissions and Boards
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to announce the appointment to the Arts and Culture
Advisory Committee. (Fiscal Impact: None)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Announce the appointees; and/or,
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: $None
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s):
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 1 Enhance Customer Service Engagement
Objective: 1(b) The City engages in regular, intentional information gathering
ORIGINATED BY: Mishia Jennings, Executive Assistantj�~
REVIEWED BY: 104V
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Committee/Commission and Number of Appointee(s) Term Expiration
Board Openings
Arts and Culture Advisory Comm One Tyler Leisher Partial Term Expires June 30, 2019
6
217
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND
3022258- 3022451 DATE OF APPROVAL: AS OF AUGUST 21,2016 REGISTER 8 21
9000494- 9000532
GENERAL FUND 409,102.54
104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
106 STATE GAS TAX FUND -
ice ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND -
109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 17,224,77
111 COMM.DEVEL.BLOCK GRANT
112 PROP A'TRANSPORTATION 840.00
114 PROP"C"TRANSPORTATION
115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM -
116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND
117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND 402.95
11e TOA ARTICLE 3-SB 821 BIKEWAY FUND -
119 MTA GRANT -
121 FEMA
120 C O.P.S,FUND
122 L.A.WA.FUND
123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PU3LIC SAFETY
202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 973
301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 98.012.45
302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND -
405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE -
501 WATER UTILITY FUND 8,938.16
502 WASTEWATER FUND 262,572.44
503 GOLF COURSE FUND
601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT -
602 LIABILITY INSURANCE 2,948.17
603 WCRKERS COMP.RESERVEANSURANCE
701 RETIRED EMP.INSURANCE -
702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-DEVELOPER FEES 3,074.54
703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND-OTHER 2.228.70
708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST -
TOThL WARRANTS5 1126�35,%
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
In?ormalion on actual expenditures is available in the Director o{Finance's office in the
City a'.EI Segundo
I certify as to the accuracy of the Demands and the availability of fund for payment thereof.
For Approval:Regular checks held for City council authorization to release
CODES: VOID CHECKS DUE TO ALIGNMENT:
WA
R= Corr outer generated chocks for all non-amergencyrurgency payments for materials,supplies and
services to support of City Operations
VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE: _
For Ratification:
A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR:
B-F= Computer generated Early Release disbursements and/or adjustments approved by the City
Manager. Such as:payments for utility services,pelty cash and employee travel expense NOTES
lflr reimbursements,various refunds,contract employee services consistent with currant contractual
t} agreements,instances whefe prompt payment discounts can Do ob'.ained of late payment penallles
vv can be avoided or when a situation arises that the Cdy Manager approves.
H= Handwritten Eai ry Release dis"sements arlClor adjustments approved by the City Mariner
FINANCE DIRECTORS f CITY MANAGER
N DATE: � `1�
, A1
'-•� �7 D
00
6)
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
7/30/18 THROUGH 8112118
Date Pa ee Description
7/30/2018 IRS 237,713.36 Federal 941 Deposit
7/30/2018 Employment Development 51,062.29 State PIT Withholding
7/30/2018 Employment Development 4,159.24 State SDI payment
7/30/2018 State of CA EFT 1,552.67 EFT Child support payment
7/31/2018 CA infrastructure Bank 431,746.96 Semi Annual Infrastructure payment
7/31/2018 Manufacturers &Traders 509.02 457 payment Vantagepoint
8/2/2018 Employment Development 13.69 State SDI payment-Q2-18 Adj.
8110/2018 West Basin 2,057,470.60 H2O payment
8/1012018 Cal Pers 498,347.51 EFT Health Insurance Payment
8/1012018 Health Comp 192.31 Weekly claims
8/10/2018 Manufacturers &Traders 26,145.42 457 payment Vantagepoint
8/10/2018 Manufacturers&Traders 500.00 IRA payment Vantagepoint
8/10/2018 Nationwide NRS EFT 33,180.23 EFT 457 payment
8/212018 Lane Donovan Golf Ptr 23,739.80 Payroll Transfer
6/18/18-6/30118 Workers Comp Activity 83,739.27 SCRMA checks issued
7/1/18-7131/18 Workers Comp Activity 113,797.09 SCRMA checks issued
7/23/18-7129/18 Liability Trust-Claims 3,479.83 Claim checks issued
7/30/18-8/5/18 Liability Trust- Claims 95.00 Claim checks issued
7/23/18-7/29/18 Retiree Health Insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued
7130/18-815118 Retiree Health Insurance 18,000.72 Health Reimbursment checks issued
3,585,445.01
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 8/10118
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 3,585,446.01
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by:
Deputy City STreasu Il Date
kl
-. l�1 _
Directo Fin y e Date
City M� er Date
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo.
P:1City TreasureAWire TransferslWire Transfers 10-01-17 to 9-30-18 8/10/2018 1/1
219
MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018 — 5:00 PM
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 5:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Mayor Boyles - Present
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk - Present
Council Member Brann - Present
Council Member Pimentel - Present
Council Member Nicol - Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) None
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Mayor Boyles announced that Council would be meeting in closed session pursuant to
the items listed on the Agenda.
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including
the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et seq.) for the purposes of
conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City
Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor
Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code
§54956.9(d)(1): -0- matters
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -1-
matters.
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -1- matters.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -1- matters
Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Manager
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 1
220
APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't. Code § 54957): -0- matter
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov't Code § 54957) -0- matter
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -0-
matters
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -8-
matters
Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Officers Association;
Police Support Services Employees Association; Fire Fighters Association; Supervisory,
Professional Employees Association; City Employee Association; and Executive and
Management/Confidential Employees (unrepresented groups).
Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Greg
Carpenter and Human Resources Director.
Adjourned at 6:50 PM
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17,2018
PAGE NO.2
221
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 7:00 PM
INVOCATION —Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk
PRESENTATIONS
a) Proclamation read by Mayor Boyles, presented to Shawn Green, Recreation and
Parks Superintendent, proclaiming July is "Parks Make Life Better" Month.
b) Presentation by Police Chief Whalen, introduced new Police Officer, Josh
Gilberts.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Boyles - Present
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk - Present
Council Member Brann - Present
Council Member Pimentel - Present
Council Member Nicol - Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total)
Linda Cohen, resident, representing the South Bay Music Association, invited the
community to the "Just for Laughs" concert to be held on Saturday, July 21, 2018 from
4:00 — 6:00 pm in the EI Segundo Performing Arts Theater. Also invited all to send in
their funniest home videos to sbmusic.org, these videos will viewed during the concert.
Wayne Mularz, resident and Rotary President, invited the community to see Mary
Poppins at the 21 st annual Movie in the Park at Chevron Park on Saturday, August 4,
2018, gate opens at 4:00 PM.
Tracey Miller-Zarneke, resident and Environmental Chairperson, commented on items
#C3 and #F12
Barbara Joelson, resident, commented items #B3 and #F12
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS — (Related to Public Communications)
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title
only.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 3
222
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to read
all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda by title only. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING)
1. Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No.
1203, and Zone Text Amendment No. 18-02 to amend certain sections of the EI
Segundo Municipal Code pertaining to outdoor dining, allowed setback
encroachments, and required parking for accessory uses in the Light Industrial
(M-1) zone.
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
proposed zone text amendment is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section
15060(c)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Address:
Light Industrial (M-1) Zone of EI Segundo.
(Fiscal Impact: None with this action.)
Mayor Boyles stated this was the time and place to conduct a public hearing regarding
Environmental Assessment No. 1203, and Zone Text Amendment No. 18-02 to amend
certain sections of the EI Segundo Municipal Code pertaining to outdoor dining, allowed
setback encroachments, and required parking for accessory uses in the Light Industrial
(M-1) zone.
Clerk Weaver stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and that no
written communication had been received in the City Clerk's office.
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Gregg McClain, Planning Manager, gave a presentation and answered Council
questions on the item.
Public comment:
Michael Jones, Sidley Jones Architects, spoke regarding the zone change.
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol to close
the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Council Discussion
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only:
ORDINANCE NO. 1570
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 15-2-7
AND CHAPTER 15-6A TO: REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT THAT OUTDOOR
DINNING AREAS OBTAIN A CUP IN THE M-1 ZONE; REDUCE THE REQUIRED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 4
223
SETBACKS FOR OUTDOOR DINING AREAS IN THE M-1 ZONE; AND, REVISE HOW
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY USES ARE TABULATED IN THE M-1
ZONE.
Council Member Brann introduced Ordinance No. 1570. The second reading and
adoption of the Ordinance is scheduled for August 7, 2018 at the regular meeting of the
City Council.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2. Consideration and possible action to continue the discussion of the Social Host
Liability Ordinance No. 1567.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Bill Whalen, Police Chief, mentioned a community outreach meeting regarding the item
would be held on July 31, 2018 in the Council Chamber.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol, to continue
the discussion on the proposed Ordinance No. 1567 to the August 21, 2018 regular City
Council meeting.
3. Consideration and possible action to (1) determine the scope of services and
schedule for the Residential Solid Waste Collection Request for Proposals, (2)
receive an update on the development of a Proposition 218 ballot to establish a
maximum $20 monthly fee upon eligible residential dwellings for solid waste
collection services, and (3) authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment
to the Franchise Agreement with Republic Services (Consolidated Disposal)
amendment no. 4189A to continue providing services under the current
Agreement on a month-to-month basis for up to six months (through April 30,
2019).
(Fiscal Impact: To Be Determined)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Ken Berkman, Public Works Director, reported on the item and answered Council's
questions.
Council Discussion
Michelle Leonard, SCS Engineers, answered Council's questions.
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol to pursue the
development of a Proposition 218 ballot to establish a maximum monthly fee of $20 for
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 5
224
solid waste collection services, in addition; set CPI (Consumer Price Index) increases
over 5 years. MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE. 4/1 Yes: Boyles Nicol Pimentel
Pirsztuk No: Brann
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel to schedule the
Residential Solid Waste Collection Request for Proposals, with 2 requests from Council;
1) Continue to monitor the impact of 3 and 4 unit buildings and 2) include the Life Line
provision for those in need. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Mayor Boyles to authorize the
City Manager to execute an amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Republic
Services continue providing services under the current Agreement on a month-to-month
basis for up to six months (through April 30, 2018). MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
4. Consideration and possible action to adopt a resolution revising the
Environmental Committee By-Laws.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Tracey Miller-Zarneke, Environmental Committee Chairperson, answered Council's
questions.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to adopt
Resolution No. 5096. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
5. Consideration and possible action to announce the appointments to the Library
Board of Trustees and Economic Development Advisory Council.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Mayor Boyles announced to the Library Board of Trustees David Jonta to a full term
expiring Jun 30, 2021 and Carol Ericson to a partial term expiring June 30, 2019 and to
the Economic Development Advisory Council (EDAC) Lance Giroux, Tim Harris,
Corinne Murat and James McCaulley, all with no term expiration.
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed
unanimously. If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered
individually under the next heading of business.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 6
225
6. Approve Warrant Numbers 3021645 through 3021828 and 9000453 through
9000454 on Register No. 18 in the total amount of $1,163,386.12 and Wire
Transfers from 6/11/18 through 6/24/18 in the total amount of$2,220,135.71 and
Warrant Numbers 3021829 through 3021991 and 9000455 through 9000492 on
Register No. 19 in the total amount of $828,040.65 and Wire Transfers from
6/25/18 through 7/8/18 in the total amount of $1,000,321.75. Ratified Payroll and
Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or agreement;
emergency disbursements and/or adjustments; and wire transfers.
7. Approve Special City Council Minutes of June 13, 2018 (2 sets - Continued
meeting regarding Social Host Ordinance and Strategic Planning Session).
Pulled by Staff- The Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2018 and
Special City Council Minutes of June 25, 2018.
8. Adopt Resolution No. 5097 approving Plans and Specifications for the Water
Main Improvement on Cedar Street and Walnut Avenue, Project No. PW18-10.
(Fiscal Impact: To Be Determined)
9. Adopt Resolution No. 5098 approving Plans and Specifications for the Library
Wi-Fi and Reading Lounge Renovation Project, authorize advertising for bids,
pursuant to EI Segundo Municipal Code 1-7-9C, waive the bidding process and
authorize the City Manager to issue a purchase order with J.K. Miklin Inc. dba
Yamada Enterprises piggybacking on an existing County of San Bernardino FAS
Standard Contract No. 16-153 to purchase furniture in the amount not to
$66,246.05, approve transferring $46,000 from 001-400-6101-4101(Library
Salary Fulltime) to 301-400-8201-8417 (Library Wi-Fi Zone) and authorize the
City Manager or designee to repurpose, sell, or auction the Library's old
furniture/bookshelves that will no longer apply to the project's improvement
Project No. PW 18-04.
(Fiscal Impact: To Be Determined)
10. PULLED BY MAYOR BOYLES
11. PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NICOL
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Brann
approving Consent Agenda items 6, 7 (as amended), 8 and 9. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
PULLED ITEMS:
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 7
226
10. Consideration and possible action to terminate the Residential Sound Insulation
(RSI) Program and authorize the City Manager to take any actions needed to
terminate the program, including but not limited to: 1) terminate existing
agreements and notify applicable residents, 2) eliminate the RSI Manager
position, and 3) direct staff to work with Los Angeles World Airport (LAWA) to
transition to take over the responsibility of treating the remaining applicable
homes.
(Fiscal Impact: $50,000.00)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced and reported on the item.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to approve the
termination of the Residential Sound Insulation (RSI) Program and authorize the City
Manager to take any actions needed to terminate the program, including but not limited
to: 1) terminate existing agreements and notify applicable residents, 2) eliminate the
RSI Manager position, and 3) direct staff to work with Los Angeles World Airport
(LAWA) to transition to take over the responsibility of treating the remaining applicable
homes. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
11. Consideration and possible action to receive and file report on revised Scope of
Work to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) related to
a pending Transit Oriented Development Planning Grant and Metro's responses.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, updated Council on the results.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to receive
and file the report on revised Scope of Work to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transit Authority (Metro). MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Recessed at 8:52 PM
Reconvened at 9:01 PM
Mayor Boyles recused himself due to possible conflict of interest.
F. NEW BUSINESS
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 8
227
12. Consideration and possible action to receive a presentation by both staff and a
representative of the Bird Scooter Company on the impact of the Bird Scooters
(motorized scooters that people pay to ride —they are operated from a standing
position similar to a skateboard with handlebars) within the EI Segundo
Community.
(Fiscal Impact: Unknown)
Bill Whalen, Police Chief, introduced and gave a presentation on the item.
Tim Harter, Senior Manager, Government Relations - Bird, gave a presentation.
Paul Samaras, Principal Planner, reported on the item
Council Discussion
Council consensus to establish a pilot program with Bird (electric scooter rental service)
to include the following requests; liability, parking (designated areas), volume of
scooters and a fiscal element made payable to the City (business partnership).
Insurance should be provided ASAP (within the week) and obtain an encroachment
permit within 30 days and the permit will be revaluated 30 days after the permit is
obtained.
13. Consideration and possible action to adopt a policy for City elected and
appointed officials regarding electronic communications related to City business.
(Fiscal Impact: $5,000.00 initial set-up fee and $5,000.00 annually)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, reported on the item.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Mayor to adopt Boyles Resolution
No. 5091. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — Passed
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY — Passed
I. REPORTS — CITY CLERK — Passed
J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — Not Present
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Pimentel — Thanked all involved in the 4th of July festivities and
thanked the Fire Department for allowing him to sit in on a fire training exercise.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17,2018
PAGE NO. 9
228
Council Member Nicol — Passed
Council Member Brann — Passed
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk — Gave an Aquatics Center update, thanked the Recreation
and Parks department on a great summer concert series, gave an update on Website
RFP and gave an update on The Lakes RFP.
Mayor Boyles — Thanked everyone involved in the 4th of July festivities, attended the
League of Cities training in Monterey, congratulated both the 10U and 12U Little League
All-Star teams, invited the community to the August 24, 2018 Dodger game benefiting
One Legacy, an organization that inspires organ, eye and tissue donations
14. Consideration and possible action to send a letter of support of the South Bay
Cities Council of Governments' (SBCCOG) to Metro for their planned
modifications of the Green Line service.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Mayor Boyles introduced the item.
Council Discussion
Council consensus to send a letter of support of the South Bay Cities Council of
Governments' (SBCCOG).
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total)
Val Smith, resident, in favor of item #C3 and would like recycling required of apartment
buildings.
Blair Fry, resident, commented on item #F12 and the need to create a safe place for
bike and scooter riders.
MEMORIALS — None
ADJOURNMENT at 10:35 PM
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 17, 2018
PAGE NO. 10
229
JOINT MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL
July 18th, 2018 Meeting Minutes
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Al Keahi called to order the Joint Meeting of the EI Segundo City Council and
Economic Development Advisory Council at 4:39PM on Wednesday July 18th, 2018 at
Courtyard Marriot, 2000 E. Mariposa Ave, EI Segundo, CA 90245.
ROLL CALL
The following EI Segundo City Council members were present:
• Mayor Drew Boyles
• Mayor Pro Tem Carol Pirsztuk
• Dr. Don Brann
• Chris Pimentel
• Scot Nicol
The following EI Segundo City Staff were present:
• Greg Carpenter, City Manager
• Barbara Voss, Economic Development Manager
• Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
• David King, Assistant City Attorney
The following Economic Development Advisory Council members were present:
• Al Keahi (Chair) • Gary Horwitz
• Sandy Jacobs ( Vice Chair) Richard Lundquist
Alex Abad Tim Harris
o Spencer Bauer • Lance Giroux
• Lily Craig Jim McCaulley
• Rob Croxall
The following Economic Development Advisory Council members were absent:
■ Van Espahbodi ■ Michael Mothner
• Shar Franklin • Lance Ralls
• Robert Gray • Corinne Murat
• Bob Healey
Approval of Minutes
230
Jim McCaulley motioned to approve the minutes of the June 20th, 2018 meeting. Lily
Craig seconded, unanimous approval.
Public Communication
■ A. Keahi thanked Griselda Amezcua for hosting the EDAC meeting at the
Courtyard Marriot.
• A. Keahi introduced new EDAC members:
• Tim Harris, Senior Vice President of Business Operations of the La Lakers
• Lance Giroux, Vice President of Sales at Dynasty Footwear
• Corinne Murat, Director of Government Affairs at Mattel
• Jim McCaulley, Partner at Ernst and Young
Presentations
Tim Harter, Senior Manager/Government Relations, BIRD
• T. Harter presented an overview on the motorized scooter called BIRD.
■ G. Carpenter stated a BIRD Scooter survey was issued to collect responses on
community member's experiences and concerns.
• A. Keahi questioned the misuse of the BIRD Scooter by underage individuals.
• T. Harter stated BIRD is exploring options to strengthen and prevent the misuse of
BIRD.
• C. Pimentel inquired about the data captured to measure the success of the BIRD
scooter.
• S. Nicol asked if BIRD collects age data on users.
• T. Harter stated the BIRD network user age varies from 18-91 years of age.
Nicholas Biro, Caldwell Land Solutions Representative
• N. Biro presented an overview on the D.R Horton Emerald Homes project in EI
Segundo.
• A. Keahi asked about the town home floor plans at 555. Walnut Avenue.
• N. Biro stated EI Segundo residents have been the most interested in signing up for
Emerald Homes.
• J. McCaulley asked about the timeline of completion for the D.R Horton project.
• T. Harter stated the Emerald Homes project is expected to be fully constructed by
the end of December 2018.
Unfinished Business
• B. Voss presented television media coverage on the street name change from
Sepulveda Boulevard to Pacific Coast Highway.
• A. Keahi announced both the EI Segundo Business website and the Hospitality &
Tourism website is scheduled to launch in August.
• A. Keahi recommended EDAC to assist in the City's marketing and communications plan
by coming up with features and benefits that highlight EI Segundo.
• A. Keahi thanked EDAC for signing the EDAC letter to City Council.
• B. Voss shared that the light pole banners would be replaced in August.
• C. Pirsztuk suggested to add a variety of banner themes throughout the city.
231
• G. Renfro provided a brief review on the EI Segundo Art Walk Event:
° 3,500 in attendance
° Website Visits Day of Art Walk - 2,495
° Website Visits all of June- 8,563
° ESAW Budget- $20,188
• A. Keahi discussed the EDAC Bylaws regarding total membership.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:09 PM.
Megan Covarrubias
Economic Development Intern
232
MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2018 — 5:00 PM
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 5:00 PM
ROLL CALL
Mayor Boyles Present
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk Present
Council Member Brann Present
Council Member Pimentel Present
Council Member Nicol Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) None
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS:
Mayor Boyles announced that Council would be meeting in closed session pursuant to
the items listed on the Agenda.
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including
the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et seq.) for the purposes of
conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City
Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor
Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code
§54956.9(d)(1): -6- matters
1. Achambault v. City of EI Segundo, WCAB Case Nos. 79049(39, 53 and 56)
2. James v. City of EI Segundo, WCAB Case No. ADJ 10523289
3. Turnbull v. City of EI Segundo WCAB and Cal PERS Matter
4. Gerten v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. BC6920208
5. Cooper v. City of El Segundo, LASC Case No. BC634197
6. Houston v. City of El Segundo, Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -1-
matters.
1
233
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -1- matters.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -2- matters
1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Manager
2. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
Title: City Attorney
APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't. Code § 54957): -0- matter
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov't Code § 54957) -0- matter
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0-
matters
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -8-
matters
1. Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Officers
Association; Police Support Services Employees Association; Fire Fighters
Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees Association; City Employee
Association; and Executive and Management/Confidential Employees
(unrepresented groups).
Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Greg
Carpenter and Human Resources Director.
Recessed at 6:50 PM
Adjourned at
2
234
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2018 - 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 7:00 PM
INVOCATION —Wes Harding, The Bridge Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Dr. Don Brann
PRESENTATIONS
a) Introduction by Police Chief Whalen, introducing the City's New Crime Analyst,
Tasha Horn.
b) Presentation by Librarians Julie Todd and Kristina Kora-Beckman highlighting
upcoming community conversations in EI Segundo informing the philosophies
and methods of the Harwood Lab to our residents. The first of 12 community out
reach conversations will take place the week of September 12th, actual date and
time to be determined.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Boyles - Present
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk - Present
Council Member Brann - Present
Council Member Pimentel - Present
Council Member Nicol - Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total)
Jim Latta, resident, commented on item #E8, regarding the Homeless Plan.
Amiel Farnam, Emergency Management Intern, invited the community to the Annual
Preparedness Day on Thursday, September 13, 2018 from 3:00 PM — 7:00 PM in the EI
Segundo Plaza area.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS — (Related to Public Communications)
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title
only.
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol to read all
ordinances and resolutions on the agenda by title only. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
3
235
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING)
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Consideration and possible action related to potential change in policies and
previously approved fees for City Aquatics facilities and programs, including
hourly rental rates, user group selection process, financial assistance program,
admission fee policy and the fee implementation timeline.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Meredith Petit, Recreation and Parks Director, reported on the item.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk accepting
the change to dismiss the drop in fees for the Plunge, but not the Aquatics Center at this
time. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Council Consensus to accept the user group selection process; Proposed Evaluation
Criteria for the Aquatics Center Long-Term Rental Group Request for Proposal, with an
amendment to criteria #2; adding an EI Segundo resident element to this particular
criteria.
Meredith clarified the spectator fee and reported to Council the Aquatics Sub Committee
has asked the Recreation and Parks Commission to establish a financial assistance
program that will benefit all aspects of the Recreation and Parks Department programs,
not just the aquatics programs.
2. Consideration and possible action to receive a presentation regarding traffic and
pedestrian safety for the 1100 and 1200 block of East Acacia and surrounding
neighborhood during the annual holiday lights event, commonly known as Candy
Cane Lane.
(Fiscal Impact: Unknown)
Council Member Nicol excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Bill Whalen, Police Chief, reported on the item and answered Council's questions.
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, answered Council's questions.
Council Discussion
4
236
Council consensus to receive and file report; the Council is in favor of full closure with
direction to locate alternative parking for residents and a possible escort service by EI
Segundo service groups for the residents needing to access their homes.
Council Member Nicol returned to the dais.
3. Consideration and possible action to (1) receive an update regarding efforts to
introduce shared mobility services in EI Segundo; (2) provide direction to staff
regarding the direction of the pilot program, including financial terms; and (3)
introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the EI Segundo Municipal
Code (ESMC) to prohibit riding of motorized scooters, motorized bicycles, and
similar forms of mobility on public sidewalks and to broaden the current
prohibition of riding bicycles and skateboards to sidewalks throughout the City
(not only in business districts, public parks or recreation areas).
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Mayor Boyles excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest.
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item and reported to Council what has
transpired since the last Council meeting this item was discussed.
Mark Hensley, City Attorney, commented on the item regarding what other cities are
doing/not doing about the shared mobility services.
Paul Samaras, Principle Planner, reported on the item and answered Council's
questions.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to
remove all scooters immediately until a proper partnership and plan are in place and
directed staff to continue to work with the shared mobility company's to derive a suitable
plan for the City of EI Segundo. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
Council consensus to shelve the Ordinance, amending the EI Segundo Municipal Code,
prohibiting motorized scooter, bicycles and other forms of mobility from riding on the
sidewalks.
Mayor Boyles returned to the dais.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed
unanimously. If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered
individually under the next heading of business.
5
237
4. Approve Warrant Numbers 3021992 through 3022267 and 9000493 through
9000493 on Register No. 20 in the total amount of $1,749,182.64 and Wire
Transfers from 07/19/18 through 07/29/18 in the total amount of $13,572,263.54.
Ratified Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to
contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and/or adjustments; and wire
transfers.
5. Approve Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2018, Special City
Council Minutes of June 25, 2018 and Special City Council Meeting of July 17,
2018.
6. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1570 regarding Environmental
Assessment No. 1203, and Zone Text Amendment No. 18-02 to amend certain
sections of the EI Segundo Municipal Code pertaining to outdoor dining uses,
allowed setback encroachments, and required parking for accessory uses in the
Light Industrial (M-1) zone.
Address: Light Industrial (M-1) Zone of El Segundo
(Fiscal Impact: None with this action)
7. PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PIMENTEL
8. PULLED BY MAYOR BOYLES
9. PULLED BY MAYOR BOYLES
MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Brann
approving Consent Agenda items 4, 5, and 6. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS
VOICE VOTE. 5/0
PULLED ITEMS:
8. Consideration and possible action to accept a plan, developed by a consultant, to
address homelessness in the City.
(Fiscal Impact: TBD)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Lt. Dan Kim reported on the item.
Abby Arnold, Lois Starr and Jenny Swann, Consultants, gave a presentation on
proposed plan.
Council discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Boyles accepting the plan
addressing homelessness. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
6
238
7. Consideration and possible action to reduce the established facility rental fee for
the EI Segundo High School Cross Country Invitational Meet to be hosted at the
Lakes at EI Segundo Golf Course on September 8, 2018, from $1750 in half to
$875 due to the course and driving range closure occurring only for half-day and
the agreement that concessions will be operated by The Lakes with revenue
generated to offset the reduced facility rental fee.
(Fiscal Impact: $875.00)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item.
Mr. Bolanos, ESHS Cross Country coach, answered Council questions.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel
agreeing to the fee of $875.00 for use of the EI Segundo Golf Course for a Cross
Country Meet. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0
9. Consideration and possible action to receive an informational report on the
quarterly update for the City Council's Strategic Work Plan and the Key
Performance Indicators (KPI's) for the third quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-
2018.
(Fiscal Impact: None)
Greg Carpenter, City Manager, answered Council's questions.
Joe Lillio, Finance Director, answered Council's questions.
Bill Whalen, Police Chief, answered Council's questions.
Council Discussion
MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Council Member Brann, to receive and file
the report regarding the quarterly Strategic Work Plan and the KPI's for the third
quarter.
F. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — Spotlighted a few employees on their recent
willingness to accept tasks for their departments that are outside of their current
duties. Chief Donovan gave an updated report on the current California fires.
G. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY - Passed
H. REPORTS — CITY CLERK— Mentioned Martin and Chapman (sole company for
providing standalone elections service) are going out of business, therefore, the
Clerk's office will bring back to Council in November a Resolution for moving to
the County for the 2020 elections, which they previously voted to move to in
2022.
7
239
I. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER— Not present
J. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Pimentel — Met with Council Member Nicol and Assembly member
Autumn Burke's staff on our City concerns and how they play into her role at the state
and attended the Eighty-eight City summit to discuss homelessness and housing issues
and met with new elected council members from various South Bay Cities.
Council Member Nicol —Thanked all those who attended and planned the "National
Night Out" program.
Council Member Brann — Passed
Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk —Thanked the Police Department for their role in the Homeless
issue and also thanked the department for participating in the Lip Sync Challenge.
Mayor Boyles — Passed
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only— 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total)
Val Smith, resident, commented on the Candy Cane Lane issue and mentioned a
program in Atlanta called the East Atlanta Security Patrol, gave a brief background on
the program and suggested the City try something similar for fighting crime.
MEMORIALS — None
Council returned to Closed Session and adjourned at 10:52 PM.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:57 PM
Tracy Weaver, City Clerk
8
240
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to accept as complete the Recreation Park Picnic Shelter,Project
No. PW 16-15 (Fiscal Impact: $90,448.00)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Accept the work as complete;
2. Authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's
Office; or,
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
FISCAL IMPACT: $65,260
Amount Budgeted: $95,260
Additional Appropriation: No
Account Number(s): 125-400-8202-8326 Los Angeles County Grants ($30,000)
001-400-2601-6281 Emergency Facilities Maintenance
($65,260)
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 4 Develop Quality Infrastructure and Technology
Objective: (a) El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe,
and effective City
Goal: I Enhance Customer Service and Engagement
Objective: 2 City services are convenient, efficient and user-friendly for all
residents, businesses, and visitors
ORIGINATED BY: Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Civil Engineer
REVIEWED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On November 7, 2017, City Council awarded a Public Works contract to NoHo Constructors for
improvements to the Recreation Park Picnic Shelter in the amount of$86,600 and authorized an
additional $8,660 for construction related contingencies.
Construction began on May 15, 2018, and was completed by the contractor on July 18, 2018. A
final inspection of the work has been performed and it was determined that the project was
completed per the plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
The remaining $4,812.00 (unspent contingency) will be disencumbered and returned to the
241
Emergency Facilities Maintenance account. Staff respectfully recommends that City Council
accept the work performed by NoHo Constructors as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file
a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder's Office.
Accounting Summary:
$86,600.00 Cinbad Industry Inc. Contract Amount
+ $3.848.00 Chanize Order (slab crack rep_ airs)
$90,448.00 Total Funds Spent
$95,260.00 Budgeted Amount (Contract+ Contingency)
-$90.448.00 Total Funds Sbent
$4,812.00 Unspent Budgeted Amount Returned to Emergency Facilities
Maintenance Account
Recreation Park Picnic Shelter Before:
r
Recreation Park Picnic Shelter After:
a
242
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
EI Segundo, CA 90245
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name: Recreation Park Picnic Shelter Project
Project No. : PW 16-15 Contract No. 5421
Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 et seq that:
1. The undersigned is an officer of the owner of the interest stated below in the property
hereinafter described.
2. The full name of the owner is: City of EI Segundo
3. The full address of the owner is: City Hall, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA, 90245
4. The nature of the interest of the owner is: Public Facilities
5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the
City Engineer on July 18, 2018. The work done was: Picnic Shelter Improvements
6. On August 21, 2018, City Council of the City of EI Segundo accepted the work of this
contract as being complete and directed the recording of this Notice of Completion in the
Office of the County Recorder.
7. The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: NoHo Constructors
8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of EI
Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows:
Recreation Park picnic shelter improvements in the City of EI Segundo.
9. The street address of said property is: 401 Sheldon Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245
Dated:
Ken Berkman
Public Works Director
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City EI Segundo, the
declarant of the foregoing Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the
contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on 2018 at EI Segundo, California.
Ken Berkman
Public Works Director
243
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to a)increase the Planning
and Building Safety Department budgets for professional/technical services by $120,000,
and b) increase the contract amounts of the following consultants: J Lee Engineering, Inc.
(Building Safety) and Michael Baker International (Planning), which are necessitated by
an unexpected high volume of plan checks and building permits. The additional funding is
proposed to come from revenue generated by plan check and permit fees, which are
projected to be approximately$600,000 over the budgeted estimate by the end of the fiscal
year. (Fiscal Impact: $120,000)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Authorize the City Manager to increase the Planning and Building Safety Department
budgets for professional/technical services by $120,000 to cover anticipated contract
services related to a higher than expected volume of plan checks.
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
FISCAL IMPACT: $120,000
Amount Budgeted: $190,000
Additional Appropriation: 0
Account Number(s): 001-400-2402-6214 and 001-400-2403-6214
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal: 1 a Provide unparalleled service to customers
Goal: 5b The City approaches work in a financially strategic and responsible w
ORIGINATED BY: Lukas Quach, Building Safety Manager/Building Official >Tee
Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Planning and Building Sa ety Director
Joseph Lillio, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
Plan check and permitting revenue is expected to be approximately $600,000 more than budgeted
for the current fiscal year. This is very good news, however, it corresponds to a higher demand for
plan check services that was also not anticipated. The current budget for professional/technical
service will be short approximately$120,000, due mostly to the increased volume of plan checks.
Transferring about 20 percent of the surplus revenue will ensure no reductions in service. The
remaining half million dollars of surplus revenue will flow to the General Fund.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to a) increase the Planning
and Building Safety Department budgets for professional/technical services by $120,000
(additional appropriation will come from salary savings within general fund), which is to come
from excess revenue generated by plan checks and permits in the current fiscal year, in addition,
b) to increase the contract with J Lee Engineering, Inc. by $70,000 and with Michael Baker
International by $50,000. 10
244
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2018
AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to authorize a budget appropriation of$8,500 related to
an ongoing contract for professional services with MIG, Inc. for additional environmental
services as part of the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update Project and, authorize the City
Manager to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with MIG, Inc. (Fiscal
impact $8,500).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve a budget appropriation of $8,500 and transfer from the General Plan
Maintenance Fund (GPMF)to provide additional environmental services related to the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update Project;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing agreement with
MIG, Inc.;
3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. MIG Additional Scope of Services Request
2. Expenditure Status Report for"Trust Funds-Project Deposits Nonrefundable"account
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: $0
Additional Appropriation: $8,500
Account Number(s): Trust Funds-Project Deposits Nonrefundable-708-400-
2404-4206
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goals: 4(a) Physical infrastructure & 5(a) Economic growth and vitality
Objectives: Optimization of city resources & encourage vibrant business climate
ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager
REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Planning and Building Safety Directo
Joseph Lillio, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: Greg Carpenter, City Manager
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The requested appropriation of$8,500 is in addition to the original contract amount of$396,000
that was appropriated in 2014, and first amended in July 2016 extending the Agreement to
September 20, 2018, and amended a second time in June 2018, adding $7,115 for the Smoky
Hollow Specific Plan Update Project. Work is substantially complete on the project through the
efforts of the City's consulting firm, MIG, Inc. However, this requested budget appropriation of
$8,500 will cover unanticipated costs related to the preparation and recirculation of the Project's
revised draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), specifically the Transportation Chapter,
necessitated in response to a CalTrans comment letter.
1 1
245
The term of the existing MIG, Inc., contract ending September 20, 2018,will remain the same,but
the contract amount will be revised to not exceed $411,615.
The project was originally authorized and funded by the General Plan Maintenance Fund(GPMF),
which is a restricted-use revenue fund that is linked to a surcharge on building permits and is not
part of the General Fund. Subsequently, the funds were transferred to an expenditure account
where the funds are reserved. A new purchase order cannot be prepared without this appropriation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the appropriation of$8,500 related to an ongoing
contract for professional services with MIG, Inc. for additional environmental services related to
the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan Update Project.
246
July 24, 2018
537 S. Raymond Ave. City of EI Segundo
Pasadena, CA 91105 Attn: Paul Samaras,Tina Gall, Gregg McClain, and Sam Lee
P (626) 744-9872
Re: Recirculation of Revised Draft EIR Additional Authorization Request
www.migcom.com
Dear All,
CALIFORNIA As Genevieve Sharrow discussed with you on a call on July 18,2018,the following
BERKELEY,
FULLERTON, KENWOOD, Scope of Services summarizes additional work and fees that are above and
MENLO PARK, PASADENA, beyond the original contract. We propose the following additional services to our
RIVERSIDE, original contract, dated October 1, 2014 and amended July 19, 2016 and June 5,
SACRAMENTO AND SAN DIEGO 2018. All other terms in the original contract remain in effect.
COLORADO
DENVER Scope
The following describes new services outside of the original scope:
NEW YORK
PLEASANTVILLE
1. Preparation and Recirculation of the Revised Draft EIR: Prepare materials for
NORTH CAROLINA DEIR recirculation: Draft revised Transportation Chapter of the EIR, draft
RALEIGH introduction and reader's guide for the Recirculated EIR, and compile EIR for
OREGON recirculation. (These additional services were required to respond to the
EUGENE AND PORTLAND comment letter from Caltrans.)
TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO 2 Revise Findings of Fact to include Recirculation information: Prepare a revision
to the draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations to
WASHINGTON include required information pertaining to recirculation and new
SEATTLE findings/conclusions.
3. Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR: Additional responses
to comments may be required for the recirculated DEIR. Since the number and
extent of comments cannot be known, an allowance is included to complete
responses to comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR. MIG will mail responses
directly to commenters at least 10 days prior to the August 21, 2018 City Council
hearing.
Fee
These additional services will be billed on a Time and Materials basis, with a Not to
Exceed Total of$8,500.We will not perform any future work beyond the efforts
described in this additional services letter without written approval from the City.
Schedule
MIG will complete the Recirculated Draft EIR, revised Findings of Fact, and Responses
to Comments on the Recirculated Draft by August 9, 2018.
PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLQCj�
Sincerely,
4aM4, � �S��
Laura Stetson,AICP
Principal
Please sign below to indicate the City's agreement to the terms outlined in this letter as
a revision to the original contract and budget. Please return a copy to MIG for our files.
Sam Lee Date
Director of Planning and Building Safety
PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLN6
trialbal.rpt G/L Trial Balance Report Page: 1
8/9/2018 10:33:50AM
Periods:1 through 15 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
1011/2017 through 913012018
708 TRUST FUNDS-PROJECT DEPOSITS NONREFUNDAB
Beginning
Account Number Balance Debits Credits YTD Debits YTD Credits Balance
Equities
278 Designated General Plan Maintenance
278-0000-1278 Designated General Plan Maintenanc 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
Total Designated General Plan Maintenance 1 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
Total Equities 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
Equities 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
Total TRUST FUNDS-PROJECT DEPOSITS 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
***Fund Not in Balance
N
Page: 1
tr12Ib2I.rpt GIL Trial Balance Report Page:2
8/912018 10:33:50AM
Periods: 1 through 15 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
1011/2017 through 9/3012018
Grand Totals
Beginning
Balance Debits Credits YTD Debits YTD Credits Balance
Total Assets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Liabilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Equities 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
Total Operating 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Expenditures 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Revenues 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total Budgetary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total All Funds 621,473.13 CR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 621,473.13 CR
N
Cn
O
Page:2